Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[BigDUSA 71]

He just likes thumping Airbus.....

It seems to grate with him that other nations are capable of producing good aircraft.

 

It doesn't grate on me at all that Airbus is a worthy competitor to Boeing. I just enjoy twisting Tommie's nose.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

It doesn't grate on me at all that Airbus is a worthy competitor to Boeing.

 

Too late to start trying to cover your xenophobia now.

 

 

I just enjoy twisting Tommie's nose.

 

At the expense of making yourself look a total cunt. Sure.

[BigDUSA 71]

Boeing raises aircraft prices more than 5%

 

December 13, 2010|Bloomberg News

 

Boeing Co. is raising aircraft prices by about 5.2%, the first increase in two years, and dropping the short-haul version of the 787 Dreamliner.

 

Higher costs for wages, goods and services are driving the boost, said Jim Proulx, a spokesman at Boeing's commercial headquarters in Seattle. He confirmed the changes made to the price list on Chicago-based Boeing's website Monday as well as the withdrawal of the 787-3 variant

 

"If I were an airline, I'd be reading this as a message that Boeing thinks it can get higher prices because demand is rising and supply is limited, but you'll still have the usual discussion over discounts," said Rob Stallard, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in New York. "Boeing and Airbus deeply discount to airlines, so theoretically they could raise list prices and boost the discounts, and it would all be the same."

 

Boeing and larger rival Airbus are pushing production rates to records to work through a seven-year backlog of orders from carriers seeking to expand and refresh their fleets with more fuel-efficient jets. Demand is recovering this year after dipping in 2009 amid the recession.

 

The 787-3 was designed to carry as many as 330 passengers as far as 3,500 miles, compared with the 787-8's top capacity of 250 people and 9,400-mile range.

 

Boeing shares fell 37 cents to $63.79.

QUOTE

[Samsonite 181]

Just as the 787 doesn't compete with the A380 - but you insist on comparing the two. :

Only in regard to the delays involved in getting them to market. Anything else is usually in reply to your usual fiction and half-truths. Should have kept you on ignore.

 

But, speaking of the the Flying Citroen, it looks like Rolls really screwed the pooch on this one:

 

 

"DATE:14/12/10

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news

A380 flights to Los Angeles unprofitable with Trent 900s: Qantas

By Ghim-Lay Yeo

 

Qantas Airways will not be able to operate any of its Airbus A380s profitably on the Sydney-Los Angeles route if it uses its existing Rolls-Royce Trent 900 powerplants, says the carrier in a statement of claim against the engine manufacturer.

 

The carrier, which filed the claim in the Federal Court of Australia on 2 December, says each A380 would be able to carry only 80 passengers, instead of 450, on the route due to thrust limitations on the engines.

 

Qantas filed the claim almost a month after one of its A380s experienced an uncontained engine failure on 4 November, resulting in an emergency landing at Singapore. The court has granted the carrier an injunction, which allows it to pursue legal action against Rolls-Royce if a commercial settlement is not possible.

 

In its statement, Qantas alleges that it was advised by Rolls-Royce to not use any "mod B" or "mod C" Trent 900 engines if they had been operated more than 75 times at the maximum thrust level of 72,000lb.

 

Rolls-Royce, which recommended measures to "minimise the severity of engine operation", allegedly told the carrier that earlier "mod A" engines should not be utilised at all.

To keep to the thrust limitations, the carrier would have to ensure that its A380 aircraft carries a payload of no more than 30,000 kg if departing Los Angeles International Airport on runway 25L, or 20,000kg if departing the shorter 24L runway.

 

This would make it "uncommercial" for Qantas to operate its Trent 900 powered A380s on the route as "operation at that reduced level involves a reduction in carrying capacity such that typically only 80 passengers will be able to be transported", says the airline.

 

Before the 4 November incident prompted a grounding of Qantas' A380 fleet, a typical A380 flight operating from Los Angeles to Sydney or Melbourne carried up to 450 passengers and freight, it adds.

 

Qantas alleges that Rolls-Royce may have been "misleading or deceptive" in its representations when it proposed its Trent 900 powerplant to the carrier.

 

The airline says that the engine manufacturer had given the representation that "the A380 aircraft operated by Qantas could, if powered by Trent 900 engines, be operated regularly and reliably on Qantas' existing international routes (including the LAX routes) with a profitable payload and without the engines having to be replaced at any point before the end of the projected useful engine life".

 

Qantas says that in Rolls-Royce's engine manuals for the Trent 900, the "mod A" engine was listed as having a life cycle of 2000 flight cycles, and the "mod B" 14,800 flight cycles. The "mod C" variant was believed to have an unlimited life cycle, says the carrier.

 

Alleging that Rolls-Royce was negligent in its duties, the carrier says the engine manufacturer "ought to have known and understood that the most important aspect of the A380 aircraft economics was the payload that the A380 aircraft would be able to carry on the LAX routes".

 

When contacted for comment, a Rolls-Royce spokeswoman says: "We continue to work closely with Qantas on operational and commercial matters but it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."

 

Qantas' spokesman says there is "no timeframe for when Rolls-Royce might provide further advice" regarding flights to Los Angeles. "We are keen to resume LAX flying, but will only do so once we are absolutely confident that it is safe to do so. Further information from Rolls-Royce will obviously be critical to that process," he adds."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...trent-900s.html

 

 

"DATE:14/12/10

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news

Qantas details history of Rolls-Royce Trent 900 variants

By Will Horton

 

Qantas Airways has detailed the history of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 powerplant variants that power its Airbus A380s in the affidavit and claim it filed against the engine manufacturer in Australia's Federal Court.

 

A Trent 900 engine experienced an uncontained engine failure on a Qantas A380 flight on 4 November. The A380 fleet's return to service after a three-week grounding has been dependent on the engine's three different modification standards.

 

After the 4 November incident, Qantas and Rolls-Royce agreed the carrier should not operate any engines with an "A mod" high-pressure (HP)/intermediate pressure (IP) support structure, the affidavit says.

 

Qantas can operate "B mod" and "C mod" engines, the affidavit adds. However, the engines are restricted to performing only 75 72,000lb full thrust take-offs. After that threshold has been reached, the engine requires replacement before being operated at any thrust level.

 

Prior to the incident, seven of 24 Trent 900s on Qantas' six A380 aircraft had the original "A mod" HP/IP support structure. According to Rolls-Royce's engine manual, the life of the "A mod" HP/IP support structure is 2,000 cycles, the affidavit says.

 

The Trent 900 engine that experienced the uncontained failure was an "A mod" powerplant, the affidavit says.

 

In December 2007 Rolls-Royce issued a modification standard, "B mod", for the HP/IP support structure. Prior to the incident Qantas had 16 of these engines. Their life was 14,800 cycles, the affidavit says.

 

Rolls-Royce issued the latest modification standard, "C mod", in April 2009, the affidavit says. Qantas operated at the time of the incident one such engine, which had an unlimited life cycle.

 

The affidavit and claim do not specify what changes were made between the modification standards.

 

Qantas' claim says Rolls-Royce is in breach of thrust specification and payload undertaking agreements.

 

Rolls-Royce wrote to Qantas during the tender process that the "thrust availability guarantee would provide cover against an engine's inability to achieve full take-off thrust whilst on a normal revenue flight, up to 2,000 cycles", the claim says.

 

Rolls-Royce also said a Trent 900-powered A380 could be "operated regularly and reliably on Qantas' existing international routes (including the LAX routes) with a profitable payload and without the engines having to be replaced at any point before the end of the projected useful engine life", the claim says.

 

Last week the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was focusing on "A mod" and "B mod" variants for having a faulty stub pipe that feeds oil to the HP/IP bearing structure. The "C mod" variant was not affected.

 

The ATSB identified a faulty stub pipe with a misalignment causing pipe thinning as the likely cause of the uncontained failure.

 

As a result of the finding, checks were ordered on 45 "A mod" and "B mod" Trent 900 engines, the ATSB has said. Inspections found three engines with a faulty stub pipe, including one on a Qantas A380 imminently due for arrival."

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/...0-variants.html

Edited December 15, 2010 by Samsonite

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Only in regard to the delays involved in getting them to market. Anything else is usually in reply to your usual fiction and half-truths. Should have kept you on ignore.

 

Hey, if you're unable to manage your own account ....

 

 

But, speaking of the the Flying Citroen, it looks like Rolls really screwed the pooch on this one:

 

Didn't BigD post the info a week or more ago as part of one of his regular xenophobic rants?

 

And what's wih the Flying Citroen nonsense? Citroen has nothing to do with Airbus.

Edited December 14, 2010 by CheshireTom

[Samsonite 181]

Didn't BigD post the info a week or more ago as part of one of his regular xenophobic rants?

Part of it, yes, but this is the latest information regarding all 3 versions of the Trent 900 as of today 14 December.

 

it is going to be interesting to see how Singapore Air reacts to all of this as they also use the Rolls Royce engine.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Samsonite

[jacko 8,813]

It doesn't grate on me at all that Airbus is a worthy competitor to Boeing. I just enjoy twisting Tommie's nose.

Carry on men!

[BigDUSA 71]

Hey, if you're unable to manage your own account ....

 

 

 

 

Didn't BigD post the info a week or more ago as part of one of his regular xenophobic rants?

 

And what's wih the Flying Citroen nonsense? Citroen has nothing to do with Airbus.

 

Your damn lucky it's not called the Flying Renault Dauphine.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Your damn lucky it's not called the Flying Renault Dauphine.

 

You've lost me. What has Renault got to do with Airbus?

[BigDUSA 71]

You've lost me. What has Renault got to do with Airbus?

 

You've been "lost" for a long time.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Both Citroen and Renault are highly successful car manufacturers and both have won World Championships in motor-racing...

 

Something Pontiac has never manged!!!

[Samsonite 181]

Both Citroen and Renault are highly successful car manufacturers and both have won World Championships in motor-racing...

 

Something Pontiac has never manged!!!

Sheesh................

Pontiac *was* a division of General Motors. All GM cars in any given size class are basically the same.

They change the grill, dashboard and taillights. and try and convince the public that they are different cars.

Years ago it was reported that it only cost GM a few hundred Dollars more to build a Cadillac vs Chevy,

but they charge twice as much for a Cadillac. A matter of marketing more than anything else. Ford does

the same thing, as did Chrysler back when there was the DeSoto, Plymouth, Dodge, etc.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Samsonite

[TheFiend 1,181]

Sheesh................

Pontiac *was* a division of General Motors. All GM cars in any given size class are basically the same.

They change the grill, dashboard and taillights. and try and convince the public that they are different cars.

Years ago it was reported that it only cost GM a few hundred Dollars more to build a Cadillac vs Chevy,

but they charge twice as much for a Cadillac. A matter of marketing more than anything else. Ford does

the same thing, as did Chrysler back when there was the DeSoto, Plymouth, Dodge, etc.

 

As if I didn't know that already!!!.....

 

Sheeesh!!!!

[joekicker 53]

Sheesh................

Pontiac *was* a division of General Motors. All GM cars in any given size class are basically the same.

They change the grill, dashboard and taillights. and try and convince the public that they are different cars.

Years ago it was reported that it only cost GM a few hundred Dollars more to build a Cadillac vs Chevy,

but they charge twice as much for a Cadillac. A matter of marketing more than anything else. Ford does

the same thing, as did Chrysler back when there was the DeSoto, Plymouth, Dodge, etc.

 

Heh. That's the way Pattaya bars "market" too. All their girls have two arms, too boobs, one pussy, and yet they'll charge more than twice as much for one as the other - even though they have the same DNA!

 

.

[Samsonite 181]

Heh. That's the way Pattaya bars "market" too. All their girls have two arms, too boobs, one pussy, and yet they'll charge more than twice as much for one as the other - even though they have the same DNA.

Not the greatest analogy, but I see the humor.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Samsonite

[Samsonite 181]

As if I didn't know that already!!!....

Really!? Then why did you compare Pontiac, a division of General Motors to Citroen and Renault? Makers of some of the ugliest cars ever produced, btw.

[Samsonite 181]

And what's wih the Flying Citroen nonsense? Citroen has nothing to do with Airbus.

Well, they are both French and the nose of the a380 looks like a Citroen DS-21, one of the ugliest cars ever made.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Well, they are both French ...

 

Jeez ... another xenophobic idiot.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Really!? Then why did you compare Pontiac, a division of General Motors to Citroen and Renault? Makers of some of the ugliest cars ever produced, btw.

 

What's up? Can't you spot a little dig at BigD?

[Yzi 72]

Well, they are both French and the nose of the a380 looks like a Citroen DS-21, one of the ugliest cars ever made.

I would not call these very beautiful

 

pontiac aztec

 

 

Fiat Fiorino

 

Every car factory makes at least one ugly car model. but some think Citroen D series was not so ugly.

 

The DS advanced achievable standards in automobile ride quality, handling, and braking. Citroën sold nearly 1.5 million D-series during the model's 20-year production run. The DS came in third in the 1999 Car of the Century competition, recognizing the world's most influential auto designs, and was named the most beautiful car of all time by Classic & Sports Car magazine.

[nidnoyham 30]

Back to Aircraft for a mo'

 

Am I the only one to be perplexed about the demise of two of the most innovative aircraft in our time that are no longer flying ?

 

Forty years ago, we had an commercial aircraft that crossed the Atlantic in 3-1/2 hours- now it takes over 6 !

 

We also had a military aircraft that could land and take off on a tennis court, that is to be replaced by one that can't !

 

It is like mobile phones going back to being the size of a briefcase, or PC's of 1GB memory.

 

Strange thing is, both were built in the U.K and Europe. Where are Boeing when you need them to keep up the advancement in aviation ?

 

Could it be the lack of interest of these aircraft in America, due to the U.S's N.I.H ( not invented here ) policy, that caused their demise ?

 

Makes you fink, don't it ?

Edited December 16, 2010 by nidnoyham

[Yzi 72]

Back to Aircraft for a mo'

 

Am I the only one to be perplexed about the demise of two of the most innovative aircraft in our time that are no longer flying ?

 

Forty years ago, we had an commercial aircraft that crossed the Atlantic in 3-1/2 hours- now it takes over 6 !

 

We also had a military aircraft that could land and take off on a tennis court, that is to be replaced by one that can't !

 

It is like mobile phones going back to being the size of a briefcase, or PC's of 1GB memory.

 

Strange thing is, both were built in the U.K and Europe. Where are Boeing when you need them to keep up the advancement in aviation ?

 

Could it be the lack of interest of these aircraft in America, due to the U.S's N.I.H ( not invented here ) policy, that caused their demise ?

 

Makes you fink, don't it ?

 

I think US still uses Harriers, not 100% sure though.

[TheFiend 1,181]

Back to Aircraft for a mo'

 

Am I the only one to be perplexed about the demise of two of the most innovative aircraft in our time that are no longer flying ?

 

Forty years ago, we had an commercial aircraft that crossed the Atlantic in 3-1/2 hours- now it takes over 6 !

 

We also had a military aircraft that could land and take off on a tennis court, that is to be replaced by one that can't !

 

It is like mobile phones going back to being the size of a briefcase, or PC's of 1GB memory.

 

Strange thing is, both were built in the U.K and Europe. Where are Boeing when you need them to keep up the advancement in aviation ?

 

Listening to the Boeing fanboys you would think the 7LATE7 is an advancement in avaition...

[BigDUSA 71]

Back to Aircraft for a mo'

 

Am I the only one to be perplexed about the demise of two of the most innovative aircraft in our time that are no longer flying ?

 

Forty years ago, we had an commercial aircraft that crossed the Atlantic in 3-1/2 hours- now it takes over 6 !

 

We also had a military aircraft that could land and take off on a tennis court, that is to be replaced by one that can't !

 

It is like mobile phones going back to being the size of a briefcase, or PC's of 1GB memory.

 

Strange thing is, both were built in the U.K and Europe. Where are Boeing when you need them to keep up the advancement in aviation ?

 

Could it be the lack of interest of these aircraft in America, due to the U.S's N.I.H ( not invented here ) policy, that caused their demise ?

 

Makes you fink, don't it ?

 

Boeing had a supersonic plane under development. The business decision was made that this type of aircraft would never turn a profit. BTW the US Marines fly the US version of the Harrier.

[BigDUSA 71]

Airbus SAS will miss its 2010 target for A380 deliveries and anticipates further disruptions to its schedule next year as it struggles with the aftermath of a Rolls-Royce Group Plc engine failure.

 

The planemaker will hand over 19 of its double-decker passenger jets in 2010, short of the targeted 20, spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said today. Toulouse, France-based Airbus plans to deliver its 18th A380 as early as tomorrow, to Qantas Airways Ltd., and will meet the year-end deadline on only one of two other jets.

 

Airbus is working to resolve “disruptions and complications” to its A380 production line following the explosion of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on an A380 operated by Qantas last month, Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders told employees in a memo last month.

 

“With the new challenges caused by the Rolls-Royce engine issue, we’re now comfortable to deliver 19 planes this year,” Schaffrath said by phone.

 

Airbus had sought to double last year’s delivery tally of 10 superjumbos. Parent company European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. said last month that 22 had been built and were largely ready to go to customers this year. However, one for Singapore Airlines Ltd. was held up by problems with seating supplied by Koito Industries, and another to an undisclosed airline was awaiting final clearances for financing, it said.

 

Sitting on Cash

 

“The issue is that Airbus is sitting on a big lump of cash with three A380s sitting there and not getting delivered,” said Nick Cunningham, managing director at London-based Agency Partners, an investment advisory company. “Even without engines attached it could be $600 million, $700 million worth of finished goods sitting there in your back lot over the yearend, which is not what you want.”

 

Airbus’s Enders told employees in a memo sent out today that the A380 superjumbo still faces “significant challenges going forward.” Rolls-Royce spokesman Josh Rosenstock today declined to comment on deliveries delayed by the Trent 900.

 

Deliveries of the A380 model, the world’s largest passenger aircraft, began in 2007 with one handoff to Singapore Airlines that was two years late because of cabin-wiring faults. The company has spent at least 18 billion euros ($24 billion) to develop the plane, 50 percent more than originally projected, and faltered in meeting demands for features such as showers, enclosed suites and custom lighting.

 

The planemaker started 2009 with a target of 18 A380 deliveries, only to later pare that target several times to finish the year with 10 handovers. Boeing Co. has also suffered setbacks to the introduction of new jets, including the 787.

 

Customers Waiting

 

Five airlines that already fly A380s -- comprised of Air France-KLM Group, Qantas Airways, Singapore Airlines, Emirates, and Deutsche Lufthansa AG -- are scheduled to get more in 2011. In addition are two new customers, China Southern Airlines Co. and Korean Air Lines Co. Korean Air is expected to take five A380s in 2011.

 

Singapore Airlines’s 12th Airbus SAS A380 was delayed after Koito Industries failed to deliver business-class seats on time. The airline said the delay isn’t affecting current operations and the plane will arrive before the end of March.

 

The A380 can carry 873 passengers, compared with more than 550 on some flights of Chicago-based Boeing Co.’s 747. Like most large planes, the Airbus model is outfitted with fewer seats than the capacity because of space arrangements in premium cabins. The plane has a list price of $346 million, though airlines get discounts for multiple purchases.

 

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Rothman in Paris at aerothman@bloomberg.net

 

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at bkammel@bloomberg.net

QUOTE

 

I like how they use "“With the new challenges caused by the Rolls-Royce engine issue, we’re now comfortable to deliver 19 planes this year,” Schaffrath said by phone". Yeah the mother fuckers are prone to explode.