Airbus 350

[BigDUSA 71]

FARNBOROUGH, England (AFP) - The European aircraft maker Airbus has unveiled a revamped version of its long-haul A350 passenger jet, promising a wider, more fuel-efficient plane to lure customers unhappy with its initial design.

 

The new jet is also intended to compete more effectively against Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and 777 long-haul planes, but its development costs are set to double to 10.0 billion dollars (7.9 billion euros), Airbus' parent company EADS said at the weekend.

 

Airbus' new boss Christian Streiff, speaking at the Farnborough International Airshow in southern England, said he would seek shareholder approval in October to begin production of the mid-sized A350 XWB (Extra Wide Body), which will carry between 270-350 passengers.

 

The original design had seating capacity of 250-300.

 

"XWB is for extra wide body, for extra comfort, for extra efficiency, and for always going the extra mile for our customer," Streiff said at the airshow, a traditional battleground between aerospace firms competing for orders.

 

He added that Airbus was on course to deliver the A350 XWB in mid-2012.

 

"I intend to seek approval of both our shareholders (EADS and BAE Systems) for a launch in the early days of October," the Airbus chairman said.

 

The new A350 will make greater use of composites materials, resulting in a lighter plane that consumes less jet fuel, the company said.

 

The original A350 had won 100 firm orders, against roughly 360 orders for the 787.

 

Airbus Chief Operating Officer John Leahy conceded that Airbus might lose "one or two" of the 14 customers that placed the firm orders and 82 additional commitments. All orders are to be renegotiated.

 

Rolls-Royce said meanwhile that it planned to revise its engine design for the A350 in light of the changes.

 

The British aerospace giant said it has concluded a preliminary agreement to supply a new, unnamed next-generation Trent engine for the mid-sized aircraft.

 

The engine will replace the Trent 1700 engine that Rolls-Royce had been developing up till now.

 

Airbus has faced a torrid time in recent months, in part owing to production problems with its A380 superjumbo jet.

 

Those problems led to a management shake-up at Airbus and its parent company EADS -- including the resignation of two top directors and the appointment of Streiff.

 

EADS also lost billions of euros (dollars) from its stock market value.

 

 

I wonder who will fund the R & D cost? Will it be the EU taxpayer?

 

EU taxpayer Airbus

Edited July 17, 2006 by BigDUSA

[Samsonite 181]

Instead of coming out fighting with a good offense Airbus offered not much more than a promise.

A new plane with a wider body in 3 versions.

No specifics. Just a promise.

And contruction won't even be approved until October.....let me look at my calendar...Gee this is July....right???

Throw in their reputation for not being able to deliver on time or to meet specs and this is really going to be exciting.

By the time they get into actual production the Boeing 787 will be airborne and delivered to the first customers. It will, for whatever reasons, be 6 years before you see this plane in the sky and that leaves a product gap so wide that a fleet of A380s could fly through it and you know Boeing isn't going to let This opportunity fly by.

That brings up a question. WHY? Why, with computer aided design and computer aided machinery, does it take so long to build a new airliner? The original 747 went from paper to roll out (plane rolled out of the hanger for people to see) in 16 or 18 months.

[The Mook 105]

The specs on the A350 look good. However, I think it might be a stretch to expect clients and shareholders to get excited for an extra 18 inches of width on the "wide body" when the first deliverey date is 6 years away (2012...WTF?). The 787 Dreamliner by Boeing seems to offer very close to same thing with a much more reasonable delivery time. If Boeing delivers their initial orders on time, and customer satisfaction is high, they appear to be very tough to beat. I think 1st delivery (787) is in 2008.

[Samsonite 181]

Yes, Boeing started minor assembly of a section of the 787 two weeks ago and the major assemby and first flight will be in 2007 with the first delivery in 2008.

[stevoman 2]

Strange posting this one,I suspect Big Dusa just shitstirring again and attempting to elecit sympathy for the 2nd class airplane maker (Boeing) which has been steadily losing ground to a far SUPERIOR planemaker for many years.

Also interesting is that the replies to his rant up to now have been from 3 American members who surprise surprise are also critical of European Airbus Ind and oh so full of praise for boring old Boeing.

[wacmedia 277]

If Boeing delivers their initial orders on time, and customer satisfaction is high

 

Hi,

 

If if's and but's were candy and nut's. Few of these launches go smoothly and the American company will have delays as well, though our American friends will be loathe to admit it. We Europeans have had sophisticated technology for centuries when buffalo roamed the plains.

[Samsonite 181]

Strange posting this one,I suspect Big Dusa just shitstirring again and attempting to elecit sympathy for the 2nd class airplane maker (Boeing) which has been steadily losing ground to a far SUPERIOR planemaker for many years.

Also interesting is that the replies to his rant up to now have been from 3 American members who surprise surprise are also critical of European Airbus Ind and oh so full of praise for boring old Boeing.

Funny!

You haven't been reading the newspapers for the last month have you?

[bob2005 0]

17th July 2006:

 

Boeing admitted its flagship 787 Dreamliner had been hit by glitches.

 

"We're a little over where we want to be at this time on weight, but ahead of where we were on previous programmes, so we're really focused on weight-efficient structure right now," Boeing chief Alan Mulally said.

 

"Some partners are a little behind on the schedule but we're working with them on recovery plans to catch up," he added.

[wacmedia 277]

Few of these launches go smoothly and the American company will have delays as well, though our American friends will be loathe to admit it.

 

bob2005 Posted on Jul 18 2006, 06:33 PM

17th July 2006:

 

Boeing admitted its flagship 787 Dreamliner had been hit by glitches.

 

"We're a little over where we want to be at this time on weight, but ahead of where we were on previous programmes, so we're really focused on weight-efficient structure right now," Boeing chief Alan Mulally said.

 

"Some partners are a little behind on the schedule but we're working with them on recovery plans to catch up," he added.

 

Hi,

 

Thanks bob2005 for proving me right so quickly.

[BigDUSA 71]

Strange posting this one,I suspect Big Dusa just shitstirring again and attempting to elecit sympathy for the 2nd class airplane maker (Boeing) which has been steadily losing ground to a far SUPERIOR planemaker for many years.

Also interesting is that the replies to his rant up to now have been from 3 American members who surprise surprise are also critical of European Airbus Ind and oh so full of praise for boring old Boeing.

It's easy for a "superior" plane maker to sell airplanes at cost or below when they have the EU taxpayer supporting the company. If they had to sell at a profit they may not be able to sell as many planes.

 

It's true that many problems will surface during the development phase. Airbus had the 380 flying with wings that don't meet specifications. That's a MAJOR FUCK UP and embarrassment to the engineers and the taxpayer whose paying for it all.

[Samsonite 181]

Thanks bob2005 for proving me right so quickly.

Wrong.

Boeing errs on the conservative side of an issue. If one had read the original press on the weight issue they would have found out that while the weight is higher than what Boeing wants it is still within the specs by which it was sold to the airlines. Ditto with the delivery schedules.

Something that canNot be said about Airbus.

For years Airbus' marketing department has been selling airplanes based on hype and promises the engineers and production staff couldn't meet. This finally caught with them in the last month and is the primary source of their current problems.

The airlines have had enough with false promises and late deliveries. It is going to take Airbus Years, if ever, to recover from the "bait and switch" reputation they so richly deserve.

[bob2005 0]

Economist:

 

In 1992, Europe and America agreed that Airbus's launch aid would be limited to one-third of development costs, while indirect aid to Boeing would be capped at 4% of its total revenues. But last year America tore up this bilateral deal and demanded an end to Airbus's launch aid, declaring that the 1992 agreement had required it to be phased out over time.

 

One reason for this new tough stance was that Airbus had started to outsell Boeing and, worse, seemed to be successfully launching the A380 to end the age-old long-haul monopoly of Boeing's 747. Airbus has outspent Boeing both on research and development and on capital investment, making its production perhaps one-quarter more efficient than its rival's.

 

Another reason, suspect some Europeans, is that America knew it was already breaking the bilateral deal. Direct financial support had been provided for the production of bits of Boeing's new 787 jet by the states of Washington and Kansas.

 

Under the WTO's Subsidies and Countervailing Measures agreement, subsidies to a specific company or specific industry from a government or other public bodies are not allowed. Airbus's launch aid is surely in breach of this, and America would have a good case before the WTO.

 

Yet the EU too could probably bring a strong case to the WTO. However, this would probably not be just against Boeing, but also against the American firm's Japanese business partners. The new Boeing 787 is being built with the heavy-industry divisions of Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Fuji, in a consortium known as the Japanese Aircraft Development Corporation (JADC). According to an assessment by David Pritchard and Alan MacPherson of the State University of New York, Buffalo, JADC is being offered at least $1.5 billion in soft loans repayable only if the aircraft is a commercial success, like the launch aid enjoyed by Airbus.

 

SEATTLE POST:

 

The governments of the United States and Europe agreed yesterday to stop subsidizing The Boeing Co. and Airbus for the next three months while they try to resolve a decades-old dispute over billions in subsidies to the aircraft makers.

 

A decision to defer pursuing complaints with the World Trade Organization while a settlement is negotiated was in sharp contrast to the campaign rhetoric in October, when President Bush challenged the 25-nation European Union before the world trade body and the EU threatened to retaliate.

 

"We need open warfare on this issue like we need a hole in the head," said EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

 

The decision heads off the immediate threat of a court case after the United States filed a complaint at the WTO on Oct. 6, a month before the presidential election, saying European government loans to Airbus worth $15 billion amount to illegal subsidies under global trade rules.

 

The EU countered, saying Boeing has benefited from unfair support worth as much as $23 billion -- including a multibillion-dollar agreement with the state of Washington.

Edited July 18, 2006 by bob2005

[Samsonite 181]

Bullfeathers. Smoke and mirrors.

Boeing has never gone to the U.S. Government and said, "We need XX Billion Dollars to design and build a new commercial airliner."

[The Mook 105]

Wacmedia:

 

I have no emotional, ancestral or nationalistic interest in Boeing over Airbus. I simply made an observation. This isn't an "us vs. them" issue to me and to many other contributors as well. Why can't we have some constructive criticism on the thread, and not this nationalistic poop? Please stop it. If you have a beef with BigD, settle it outside this thread. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't paint all of us with the same brush.

 

The if's are big, but there really hasn't been any major problem in the construction of the 787. That may or may not happen in the nect 18 months. Delays happen all the time in the manufacture of planes, it's unexpected delays and turning a deaf ear to customer's wishes that has plauged Airbus lately.

 

No company is perfect. Boeing had major issues in the past half decade. They resloved many of them; kudos to them. The vast majority of comments here are about airplane manufacturers; why turn it into a "Europe vs. USA" debate?

 

Mook

[bob2005 0]

why turn it into a "Europe vs. USA" debate?

 

Yes, I didn't post those extracts for some yank-bashing, but to correct the original one-sided BigD remarks. The second extract was from a Seattle based outfit, so...

 

I like the 747 over the Airbuses I've been in.

[wacmedia 277]

themook

 

Posted on Jul 19 2006, 02:41 AM

 

The vast majority of comments here are about airplane manufacturers; why turn it into a "Europe vs. USA" debate?

 

bob2005 Posted on Jul 18 2006, 10:51 PM

 

One reason for this new tough stance was that Airbus had started to outsell Boeing and, worse, seemed to be successfully launching the A380 to end the age-old long-haul monopoly of Boeing's 747. Airbus has outspent Boeing both on research and development and on capital investment, making its production perhaps one-quarter more efficient than its rival's.

 

Hi,

 

I have no real qualms with the American planes, or people, sure they are good as well. The only quibble I have is when American companies complain about state aid(usually when they are getting whipped in the sales field) while being unwilling to acknowledge the various aid they get(defence and aid like Washington State supplied). All these big aerospace companies all over the World, including Japan get State Aid one way or the other as their business has Defence/National Security implications.