My biggest take away on the Airbus dossier is that the European company sees the Boeing 787-9 as the killer app. Rarely, has the first generation iteration of a Boeing jetliner been delivered in great volume.
The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 767-200 and 777-200 did not define their respective programs. With the exception of the 757-200, first generation airliners aren't largely produced.
Take the 767-300ER for example. That aircraft accounts for more than half of the 950+ 767 deliveries during the production run. The 767-200ER runs a distant second with 121 deliveries. The -300ER entered service in 1988, six years after the first 767-200 delivery.
Boeing sold the 787-8 as 2nd/3rd generation mature technology (a la 777-300ER) in a 1st generation package, which explains its sales success. Full technological maturity by EIS, it's a very attractive offer. The reality is that 1st generation technology is still 1st generation and Boeing has already said that the 787-9 will be the biggest recipient of Boeing's 787 lessons learnt.
With Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier all forecasting an up-gauge in the overall size of aircraft, the 787-9 with more seats, will likely be the beneficiary of this trend for Boeing. The 900 orders booked currently split largely for the 787-8, though customers contractually have the option to switch variants.
I'm willing to bet that the 787 orderbook balance will dash to the nine.
The 727-100, 737-100, 747-100, 767-200 and 777-200 did not define their respective programs. With the exception of the 757-200, first generation airliners aren't largely produced.
Take the 767-300ER for example. That aircraft accounts for more than half of the 950+ 767 deliveries during the production run. The 767-200ER runs a distant second with 121 deliveries. The -300ER entered service in 1988, six years after the first 767-200 delivery.
Boeing sold the 787-8 as 2nd/3rd generation mature technology (a la 777-300ER) in a 1st generation package, which explains its sales success. Full technological maturity by EIS, it's a very attractive offer. The reality is that 1st generation technology is still 1st generation and Boeing has already said that the 787-9 will be the biggest recipient of Boeing's 787 lessons learnt.
With Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier all forecasting an up-gauge in the overall size of aircraft, the 787-9 with more seats, will likely be the beneficiary of this trend for Boeing. The 900 orders booked currently split largely for the 787-8, though customers contractually have the option to switch variants.
I'm willing to bet that the 787 orderbook balance will dash to the nine.
on December 4, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply
Jon,
The 787-8 does not have any direct competitor, so it will continue to sell well because many routes require an airplane of this size.
The 787-9 will obviously be more efficient on per passenger basis than its direct competitor because -9 is a stretch.
So, you are right to say that -9's sales will be as good as -8's.
on December 5, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply
To me, this is a part of Airbus' risk management study for its upcoming A350.
on December 5, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply
"The 787-8 does not have any direct competitor, so it will continue to sell well because many routes require an airplane of this size."
The A330-200 can now be considerered a direct competitor to the 787-8, which btw, is an alltogether different animal than when it was launched in April 2004. Apart from having had a significant increase in OEW and considerably less range as originally specified, the aircraft is simply not available to new customers for the best part of the next decade. Partly therefore, by default, the 787-8 cannot "compete" with the A330-200 until the latter part of the decade.
on December 5, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply
Maybe customers will convert -8s to -9s in large numbers, but I doubt it for two reasons: First, Boeing did a lot of research before sizing the -8. Over and over again airlines told Boeing they wanted a 250 seater in 3 classes with long range, and to my knowledge that has not changed because at least as of now very few airlines have converted to -9s.
Second, as we all know, the -8 was designed to destroy the hot-selling 330-200 for which Boeing had no competitor, and still has no competitor thanks to its industry-leading botch up of the 787 program. Thus, AB is offering the -200 as an interim replacement for the -8 and it is selling well. This "interim" seems to be growing by the hour, as the WSJ reports this morning that first 787 delivery will now be no earlier than mid-2010. Thus AB is justified in considering increasing the -200s MTOW and adding GenX type engines to increase its range and make it more competitive that the -8. A bird in the hand, etc. If AB does this, they will be offering as a -8 compeititor an airplane very much like their first iteration of the A350, with all the attendant irony.
This is not to say that the -9 will not be very successful without -8 conversions (assuming it can actually fly). It will succeed well on its own.
I also agree that the -9 will be "killer app" of the A350, which I and others have always thought was badly misconceived for the following reasons:
1. The biggest and most profitable wide body market is from about 220 to 380 passengers in the 3 classes.
2. To compete within that entire market airframers need at least two different planes, generally divided around the 300 seat mark.
3. AB thought they had covered the upper 320-380 seat part of the market with the A340-500 and -600, which were new in many respects, inclujding the wings and engines. However, by the time Boeing put the 787 on offer, AB knew that they would be failures and that they did not have the money to build new replacements for them. They only had the money for one new plane for the entire the 220-380 seat market.
3. Put another way, the failures of the 340-500 and -600 meant that AB was faced with a Hobson's choice: Build a new plane which competed directly with the 787 in the lucrative 220-300 seat portion of the market but abandon the 320-380 seat part to Boeing, or build a larger plane for the upper part of the market while abandoning the lower part. With A350, AB split the baby, placing it in the middle of the market (280-340 seats), and thus in my view dooming it because:
A. Boeing now controls going forward the lower and upper ends of the market. This means that most airlines which need 220 and 300 seat planes will likely buy both the 787-8 and -9 from Boeing, so long as the -9 has substantial commonality with the -8. This is why getting the -9 right is so important for Boeing because it will kill the 350-800 and perhaps the -900 also if it works. To get the -9 "right," Boeing must get as much performance as it can out of the design without making it so different from the the -8 as to destroy the commonality advantage; ie as much perforance as possible from a simple stretch. I think that the reason the -9 has been delayed (apart from the overall Big Botch) is that Boeing does not know yet where that line is because it does not know the final performance of the 350-800 and -900 or what its 787 design is capable of..
B. Similarly, Boeing can dominate the 320-380 seat part of the market with an improved 777 followed by its replacement in the early 2020s because any customer wanting planes in the upper end of the market will buy Boeing because it alone competes in the upper part, so long the commonality is good.
C. Thus, the question is where will the line be between the 787-9 and 777-200 and its replacement? This will depend on how much performance Boeing can put into the 787-9, so we will not know what the performance of the enhanced 777-200ER/LR and its replacement will be until we know the -9's performance. But regardless of what that capability turns out to be, those Boeing planes will almost certainly be designed to be better than the 350-900 and -1000, in addition to their having commonality with the enhanced 777-300ER and its eventual replacement.
4. Thus, to me the only remaining question is will Boeing's Big Botch of the 787, and the attendant delays and huge expenses delay the enhancement of the 777 and its replacement. The only way the 350 can survive is if any such delays result in AB's having substantial time in the middle of the next decade to build a big customer base for the 350.
on December 5, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply
Maybe customers will convert -8s to -9s in large numbers, but I doubt it for two reasons: First, Boeing did a lot of research before sizing the -8. Over and over again airlines told Boeing they wanted a 250 seater in 3 classes with long range, and to my knowledge that has not changed because at least as of now very few airlines have converted to -9s.
Second, as we all know, the -8 was designed to destroy the hot-selling 330-200 for which Boeing had no competitor, and still has no competitor thanks to its industry-leading Big Botch of the 787 program. Thus, AB is offering the -200 as an interim replacement for the -8 and it is selling well. This "interim" seems to be growing by the hour, as the WSJ reports this morning that first 787 delivery will now be no earlier than mid-2010. Thus AB is justified in considering increasing the -200s MTOW and adding GenX type engines to increase its range and make it more competitive that the -8. A bird in the hand, etc. If AB does this, they will be offering as a -8 compeititor an airplane very much like their first iteration of the A350, with all the attendant irony.
This is not to say that the -9 will not be very successful without -8 conversions (assuming it can actually fly). It will succeed well on its own.
I also agree that the -9 will be "killer app" of the A350, which I and others have always thought was badly misconceived for the following reasons:
1. The biggest and most profitable wide body market is from about 220 to 380 passengers in the 3 classes.
2. To compete within that entire market airframers need at least two different planes, generally divided around the 300 seat mark.
3. AB thought they had covered the upper 320-380 seat part of the market with the A340-500 and -600, which were new in many respects, inclujding the wings and engines. However, by the time Boeing put the 787 on offer, AB knew that they would be failures and that they did not have the money to build new replacements for them. They only had the money for one new plane for the entire the 220-380 seat market.
3. Put another way, the failures of the 340-500 and -600 meant that AB was faced with a Hobson's choice: Build a new plane which competed directly with the 787 in the lucrative 220-300 seat portion of the market but abandon the 320-380 seat part to Boeing, or build a larger plane for the upper part of the market while abandoning the lower part. With A350, AB split the baby, placing it in the middle of the market (280-340 seats), and thus in my view dooming it because:
A. Boeing now controls going forward the lower and upper ends of the market. This means that most airlines which need 220 and 300 seat planes will likely buy both the 787-8 and -9 from Boeing, so long as the -9 has substantial commonality with the -8. This is why getting the -9 right is so important for Boeing because it will kill the 350-800 and perhaps the -900 also if it works. To get the -9 "right," Boeing must get as much performance as it can out of the design without making it so different from the the -8 as to destroy the commonality advantage; ie as much perforance as possible from a simple stretch. I think that the reason the -9 has been delayed (apart from the overall Big Botch) is that Boeing does not know yet where that line is because it does not know the final performance of the 350-800 and -900 or what its 787 design is capable of..
B. Similarly, Boeing can dominate the 320-380 seat part of the market with an improved 777 followed by its replacement in the early 2020s because any customer wanting planes in the upper end of the market will buy Boeing because it alone competes in the upper part, so long the commonality is good.
C. Thus, the question is where will the line be between the 787-9 and 777-200 and its replacement? This will depend on how much performance Boeing can put into the 787-9, so we will not know what the performance of the enhanced 777-200ER/LR and its replacement will be until we know the -9's performance. But regardless of what that capability turns out to be, those Boeing planes will almost certainly be designed to be better than the 350-900 and -1000, in addition to their having commonality with the enhanced 777-300ER and its eventual replacement.
4. Thus, to me the only remaining question is will Boeing's Big Botch of the 787, and the attendant delays and huge expenses delay the enhancement of the 777 and its replacement. The only way the 350 can survive is if any such delays result in AB's having substantial time in the middle of the next decade to build a big customer base for the 350.
on December 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply
"AB thought they had covered the upper 320-380 seat part of the market with the A340-500 and -600, which were new in many respects, inclujding the wings and engines. However, by the time Boeing put the 787 on offer, AB knew that they would be failures and that they did not have the money to build new replacements for them. They only had the money for one new plane for the entire the 220-380 seat market. "
First, your "220-380" seat market (787-8 (with 2-4-2 in Y) to 777-300ER) is using quite an inflated seat count and doesn't take into account todays industry standard for a three-class arrangement with lie-flat seats in the premium classes. Also, you make the mistake in grouping together all current A & B offerings regardless of range. For example, it's absurd to state that the A340-500 with it's high MTOW and ultra-long-range was Airbus' standard product in the "320 seat market". Like the 777-200LR, it's a niche aircraft, However, the medium range A330-300 has only about 20-30 less seats than the A340-500 in a standard three-class configuration and covers your "290-320 seat-market" nicely. What you can say though, is that currently Airbus has no competative long-range (7500-8000 nm) product available in this "290-320 seat-market". Interestingly, the 777-200ER which covers this "market", is currently not selling very well either and seems to have lost out to the A350-900.
"Thus, the question is where will the line be between the 787-9 and 777-200 and its replacement? This will depend on how much performance Boeing can put into the 787-9, so we will not know what the performance of the enhanced 777-200ER/LR and its replacement will be until we know the -9's performance. But regardless of what that capability turns out to be, those Boeing planes will almost certainly be designed to be better than the 350-900 and -1000, in addition to their having commonality with the enhanced 777-300ER and its eventual replacement"
I'm afraid that your "analysis" amounts to little more than wishful thinking. The A350 series is designed in somewhat the same way as the A32X series (forget the the double shrink A318); one optimised base model (A320 and A359), one smaller shrink model (A319 and A358), one larger stretch model (A321 and A35X) and all there models having different MTOW's, and therefore, a similar range potential. Boeing could have done the same thing with the 787 if they'd optimised the wing for the 787-9 rather than the 787-8. Do note that a 787-10 with a range approaching that of the 787-9 requires a significantly higher MTOW, and unfortunately for Boeing; a larger diameter engine. Incidentally, this is the first time an OEM will be producing a family consisting of three long-range widebodies using the same diameter engine using three different ratings, which of course, is
the way it's done and currently the standard for Airbus' and Boeings's narrowbodies.
The 777-200LR and 777-300ER have about the same MTOW. The 77L is already a niche aircraft and any upgrade will only make it more so. Therefore, the 777-300ER today is essentially a stand-a-lone product. If Boeing should choose to pour more resources into the 77W they won't have the luxury of reaping the harvest to include an entire family of airliners.
As I' ve indicated earlier I'm not sure how the 77W replacement (if any) will look like, are you? If it's a 787-10 or a hypothetical 787-11, it would need a new wing, a new six-wheel main landing-gear bogie which probably would cost at least US$ 5 billion for R&D. Do note that the fuselage and wing structure of the current 77W is designed to support more than 351 metric tonnes at MTOW while on the A35X, only 298.9 metric tonnes need to be supported at MTOW (and 8000 nm range). Also, since the "double bubble," or ovoid fuselage, of the A350 provides for a much more optimised cross-section with much less wasted space in the crown than the 244-inch diameter circular fuselage of the 777, the A350 requires additional less structure and, of course, will induce significantly less drag. Not mentioning that the GE90-115Bs by-pass-ratio is even less than that of the GE90-94Bs, and that the engine is really "maxed out" sizewise, Boeing therfore seems to have a near impossible task upgrading the 777-300ER to a level where it can be competative with the A350-1000.
Also, the 77W/77L is not in the same position v Airbus as the A322 is v Boeing. As mentioned above, the 244-inch diameter circular fuselage of the 777 is no longer as "optimised" for the mission profiles because the fuselage is to large in both the crown and in the areas of an airliner that's "catering" to premium passengers. In comparison, The 222-inch diameter circular fuselage of the A330 wastes little space in the crown and in the areas of a plane set aside for premium passengers. Incorporating the "thinner" fuselage frames of the first versions of the A350, into a significantly upgraded A330 platform, will make the cabin almost as spacious as the upper deck of the A380. Also, while the 777 will obviously induce more fuselage drag than the A350, for obvious reason, the A330 will always induce less fuselage drag than the 787 due to the smaller cross-section. Finally, the A330 is performing as well as it does partly because it's optimised for "medium" range. A long range aircraft, such as the 777-300ER, is far more sensitive to added structural weight, and will for those reasons, and the others mentioned above, never be competative with the A350.
Finally, the 787-9 does not look like a "killer app" vis-a-vis the A358. Both aircraft will have about the same MTOW with the 787-9 having a few more LD-3 positions and space for about 2 more rows of seats in Y-class. However, the A359 will have a 23-25 percent larger wing giving it a substantially higher payload/range capability due to superior aerodynamics (lower L/D ratio etc).