morrisond
Posts: 742
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:43 pm

The 330 line rate is being reduced to 3.5 per month is not? Yes that is flying off the shelves...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26050
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:06 pm

VV wrote:
It still does not provide an answer as the efficiency difference between GP7200 and Trent 900 should not be huge, otherwise one of them would have not survived since day one.


At EIS, Engine Alliance claimed the GP7200 offered between 1-2% lower SFC than the Trent 900, which RR denied.

Since EIS, RR has developed three "Enhanced Performance" versions of the Trent 900: EP in 2012, EP2 in 2014 and EP3 in 2016. Across them, RR reduced SFC between 2 and 3 percent from baseline.

EA, on the other hand, focused on improving durability and on-wing time in desert environments as their biggest customers were EK, EY and QR. After EK ordered Trent 900 engines for their 50-frame order, EA announced they were looking into various SFC reductions ranging from 0.5% to 5%, however the costs could exceed USD 1 billion for the most aggressive reduction and EA did not believe a viable business case existed for such. So I do not believe they ever went forward with any of them.

So depending on whom you believe, the Trent 900 is either now on par with the GP7200 or around 1-2% better in SFC.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:32 pm

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
(EK) did not sign for a finalized order. ( probably because the knew about they unfixed shortcomings :-)


So why bother signing an MoU in the first place if you knew the plane had shortcomings and you knew Boeing was not going to address them? Perhaps they really like Boeing's catering and wanted a nice lunch.


An MOU offers the least amount of commitment to purchase. It means almost nothing. The implication is that the potential buyer likes the concept but isn't sold on the product yet, and needs way more convincing. It's obvious the customer isn't really serious...at least for now, and the seller has a long way to go before cashing any checks. At best, it may offer some reserve space in the production line.

That seems to be what happened with EK. For whatever reason, they weren't sold. Why, is pretty much irrelevant.
What the...?
 
wingman
Posts: 3636
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:09 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
An MOU offers the least amount of commitment to purchase. It means almost nothing. The implication is that the potential buyer likes the concept but isn't sold on the product yet, and needs way more convincing. It's obvious the customer isn't really serious...at least for now, and the seller has a long way to go before cashing any checks. At best, it may offer some reserve space in the production line.

That seems to be what happened with EK. For whatever reason, they weren't sold. Why, is pretty much irrelevant.


Well, I'd argue that it's relevant because people are debating the reason the 787-10 MOU is on the block. Some posters are saying it's because the plane isn't meeting performance guarantees through some unknown engine improvements that Boeing may have promised to EK at the time of the MOU while others, myself included, are saying it's more likely a victim of the 380 issue (EK wants to cancel but will throw a tasty morsel Airbus' way in declining to adopt the 787 and replacing that instead with 350s and/or 330s). Some have also said that EY dislikes the 787 and it's not performing well on their routes either. That's a relevant question to resolve, but tough to without direct comments from EK or EY.

Strato2 wrote:
Keep on dreaming. Airbus cannot make A350's and A330's fast enough as it is. Not in a million years will they deliver less Superjumbos than are contracted.

I don't know..many of us suspect EK has walk-away rights on the latest 20+16 order contingent upon agreement with RR to get the engines to EK's desired spec. All this talk of abandoning the 787 and going with 330s and 350s to "ease the pain" sounds more like some portion of the existing 380 backlog for EK order is also in play. To me it all points to EK realizing it needs to pivot quickly to a smaller widebody strategy due to serious competitive pressures. I bet it's not only the 20+16 but also another 20-30 from the current book. That seems a more realistic explanation for swapping in a large order of 330s and 350s. Just need to wait to see what the truth is.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26050
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:13 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
An MOU offers the least amount of commitment to purchase. It means almost nothing. The implication is that the potential buyer likes the concept but isn't sold on the product yet, and needs way more convincing. It's obvious the customer isn't really serious...at least for now, and the seller has a long way to go before cashing any checks. At best, it may offer some reserve space in the production line.


Except MoUs and LoIs don't "mean almost nothing". They may not be legally-binding like a sales contract, but the airline and the OEM both spent money drafting them (as well as spending monies during the discussions leading up the the drafting) so neither party is going to agree to them on a lark.

Therefore, I don't see Emirates entering into an MoU or LoI for an airplane that they did not feel was fit for requirements, doubly-so when Boeing told them they were not going to make changes to the 787-10 to make it a better fit for operations out of Dubai. They either would have chosen the A350 or just pushed back the decision until they had more data on both frames to refine their models. So that they did sign an MoU is indication to me that the 787-10 met enough of the requirements they wanted to make it worth spending the money to sign an MoU. Heck, Bjorn Fehrm wrote a detailed article on Leeham.net outlining why the 787-10 was a better fit than the A350-900 for the "eight-hour missions" Tim Clark said the model would be used on when he announced the MoU. And EK has the ability to swap between the 787-10 and 787-9 to allow them to start new long-haul services with less capacity.

This is why I do not believe it is "performance issues" that is driving EK's thought-processes, but a review of their overall future fleet strategy.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:23 pm

Strato2 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
To me this discussion is about the other A380's currently contracted for - and Airbus is looking to wrap up production in as cost efficient and timely manner as possible. In my opinion; A330's and A350's are likely being offered more as compensation than anything for Airbus wishing an change in the current contract with EK. Airbus is not likely to make much money on those; but, may make money on follow-up orders.


Keep on dreaming. Airbus cannot make A350's and A330's fast enough as it is. Not in a million years will they deliver less Superjumbos than are contracted.


The depth of delusion on this is staggering when Airbus just cut the A330’s rate from 50 to 40 which is down from 100 just a couple years ago and a projected 100 or more A330neos they publicly stated they would deliver a year once the program got spun up.

We should know more on the A350 on the 15th after airbus presumably announces delivery targets. But so far no one has publicly committed to going to rate 13 from rate 10.

Your statement is possibly true on the A350. It’s not remotely true on the A330.

Now I agree with you Airbus won’t want to just walk on the A380. That’s $1.5-2 billion in revenue they won’t have. Along with a billion to $5 billion it won’t get that it was expecting from the A330neo depending on your starting point.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:54 pm

Stitch wrote:
I don't see Emirates entering into an MoU or LoI for an airplane that they did not feel was fit for requirements


EK do have a history of signing up for aircraft which they later deemed unfit for their requirements, many times...at least with Airbus.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 16733
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:51 am

Erebus wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I don't see Emirates entering into an MoU or LoI for an airplane that they did not feel was fit for requirements


EK do have a history of signing up for aircraft which they later deemed unfit for their requirements, many times...at least with Airbus.

EK does have quite the history:
A346 (firm, cancelled on performance)
A333, mou
A350 LoI on prior concept (less range)
A388 36 (20+16) has been on and off too many times

So now a 787-10 order might or might not be changed.
You know nothing John Snow.
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:36 am

Stitch wrote:
VV wrote:
It still does not provide an answer as the efficiency difference between GP7200 and Trent 900 should not be huge, otherwise one of them would have not survived since day one.


At EIS, Engine Alliance claimed the GP7200 offered between 1-2% lower SFC than the Trent 900, which RR denied.

Since EIS, RR has developed three "Enhanced Performance" versions of the Trent 900: EP in 2012, EP2 in 2014 and EP3 in 2016. Across them, RR reduced SFC between 2 and 3 percent from baseline.

EA, on the other hand, focused on improving durability and on-wing time in desert environments as their biggest customers were EK, EY and QR. After EK ordered Trent 900 engines for their 50-frame order, EA announced they were looking into various SFC reductions ranging from 0.5% to 5%, however the costs could exceed USD 1 billion for the most aggressive reduction and EA did not believe a viable business case existed for such. So I do not believe they ever went forward with any of them.

So depending on whom you believe, the Trent 900 is either now on par with the GP7200 or around 1-2% better in SFC.


Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view.
It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8230
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:54 am

VV wrote:
Stitch wrote:
VV wrote:
It still does not provide an answer as the efficiency difference between GP7200 and Trent 900 should not be huge, otherwise one of them would have not survived since day one.


At EIS, Engine Alliance claimed the GP7200 offered between 1-2% lower SFC than the Trent 900, which RR denied.

Since EIS, RR has developed three "Enhanced Performance" versions of the Trent 900: EP in 2012, EP2 in 2014 and EP3 in 2016. Across them, RR reduced SFC between 2 and 3 percent from baseline.

EA, on the other hand, focused on improving durability and on-wing time in desert environments as their biggest customers were EK, EY and QR. After EK ordered Trent 900 engines for their 50-frame order, EA announced they were looking into various SFC reductions ranging from 0.5% to 5%, however the costs could exceed USD 1 billion for the most aggressive reduction and EA did not believe a viable business case existed for such. So I do not believe they ever went forward with any of them.

So depending on whom you believe, the Trent 900 is either now on par with the GP7200 or around 1-2% better in SFC.


Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view.
It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.


Talk was that RR sold an EPX of significant gains to Emirates vs EA.
No idea how big that X was. ( I've seen 4%, probably a misunderstanding on my side? )

contrary to the tenor of the media and a.net discussion the major
point of contention is sub par on wing time for these new deliveries.
( IMU we see another GE Media and AstroTurfing campaign.
Just like we saw in the "AF loses half an EA engine" thread here that turned into an RR bash fest. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:25 am

Stitch wrote:
JoeCanuck wrote:
An MOU offers the least amount of commitment to purchase. It means almost nothing. The implication is that the potential buyer likes the concept but isn't sold on the product yet, and needs way more convincing. It's obvious the customer isn't really serious...at least for now, and the seller has a long way to go before cashing any checks. At best, it may offer some reserve space in the production line.


Except MoUs and LoIs don't "mean almost nothing". They may not be legally-binding like a sales contract, but the airline and the OEM both spent money drafting them (as well as spending monies during the discussions leading up the the drafting) so neither party is going to agree to them on a lark.

Therefore, I don't see Emirates entering into an MoU or LoI for an airplane that they did not feel was fit for requirements, doubly-so when Boeing told them they were not going to make changes to the 787-10 to make it a better fit for operations out of Dubai. They either would have chosen the A350 or just pushed back the decision until they had more data on both frames to refine their models. So that they did sign an MoU is indication to me that the 787-10 met enough of the requirements they wanted to make it worth spending the money to sign an MoU. Heck, Bjorn Fehrm wrote a detailed article on Leeham.net outlining why the 787-10 was a better fit than the A350-900 for the "eight-hour missions" Tim Clark said the model would be used on when he announced the MoU. And EK has the ability to swap between the 787-10 and 787-9 to allow them to start new long-haul services with less capacity.

This is why I do not believe it is "performance issues" that is driving EK's thought-processes, but a review of their overall future fleet strategy.


An MOU is as close to almost nothing as it can get in the airliner transaction business...without actually being nothing. Sure, they had meetings and some sales people earned a bunch of air miles, but it's a long way from any kind of commitment. We don't even know if EK had to put up any money.

When the MOU was set up, EK would have received all of the latest info Boeing had on the project. Since the 789 was already in service, it was a lot of information. So they had the performance specs and the best that could agree on is an MOU...over 3 years ago...and they still didn't pull the trigger.

My point is that why they didn't buy the 787 is irrelevant because it doesn't seem like they were very serious in buying it from the start. The more interesting question to me is 'why did they sign the MOU in the first place, when they obviously weren't crazy about buying the 787?'.

There are all sorts of somewhat plausible guesses. Maybe he just changed his mind. I mean he pulled a U-turn on the 350 the year before. I suspect part of it is that he was starting to see the writing on the wall that the EK juggernaut may be vulnerable to competition and market forces after all...which may explain why he was only willing to sign an MOU with Boeing...but still doesn't explain why he even did that.

One thing I know for sure...Al Baker is an interesting guy.
What the...?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 1:16 pm

Keep the thread on topic or it will be locked. This thread will not turn into an Airbus vs Boeing discussion. Just discuss the topic without the flamebait or personal attacks.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:13 pm

WIederling wrote:
VV wrote:
Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view.
It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.


Talk was that RR sold an EPX of significant gains to Emirates vs EA.
No idea how big that X was. ( I've seen 4%, probably a misunderstanding on my side? )

contrary to the tenor of the media and a.net discussion the major
point of contention is sub par on wing time for these new deliveries.
( IMU we see another GE Media and AstroTurfing campaign.
Just like we saw in the "AF loses half an EA engine" thread here that turned into an RR bash fest. )


If I understand well your statement, Emirates ordered an aircraft that didn't exist (from performance perspective).
Please understand that until now one generation of engine gives about 10% sfc improvement versus the previous one. If the number is 4%, basically it means the development corresponds to a "half-generation" improvement, which is in my opinion a science fiction for an existing engine or the manufacturer needs to invest hundreds of millions dollars or even one billion in the development.

Seriously? It is a very expensive development for one customer.
Is Engine Alliance still in the race or did they quit?
 
User avatar
FrenchPotatoEye
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:39 pm

I don't think the engine Alliance is making new engines.

Weird thought - could Emirates forgoe the 78j and sign for NMA797 instead?
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 pm

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
I don't think the engine Alliance is making new engines.

Weird thought - could Emirates forgoe the 78j and sign for NMA797 instead?


Interesting that Engine Alliance didn't bid.

Emirates and NMA? I don't know, but someone said 787-10's engine is "too small" for Emirates. I guess NMA's engine is even smaller and in addition the maximum range is "only" about 5,000 nm. Perhaps it is more suited for FlyDubai.

But that's another subject because this thread is about Emirates reconsidering its A380 orders.

By the way, Qantas is Emirates partner and QFA decided to drop its outstanding 8 A380 order. Is there a pattern here?
What's next for Qantas? Will they follow Emirates path concerning its fleet planning?
Last edited by VV on Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8230
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:45 pm

VV wrote:
WIederling wrote:
VV wrote:
Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view.
It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.


Talk was that RR sold an EPX of significant gains to Emirates vs EA.
No idea how big that X was. ( I've seen 4%, probably a misunderstanding on my side? )

contrary to the tenor of the media and a.net discussion the major
point of contention is sub par on wing time for these new deliveries.
( IMU we see another GE Media and AstroTurfing campaign.
Just like we saw in the "AF loses half an EA engine" thread here that turned into an RR bash fest. )


If I understand well your statement, Emirates ordered an aircraft that didn't exist (from performance perspective).
Please understand that until now one generation of engine gives about 10% sfc improvement versus the previous one. If the number is 4%, basically it means the development corresponds to a "half-generation" improvement, which is in my opinion a science fiction for an existing engine or the manufacturer needs to invest hundreds of millions dollars or even one billion in the development.

Seriously? It is a very expensive development for one customer.
Is Engine Alliance still in the race or did they quit?


Well, bandied about are:
.5% / a for PIPs existing designs
1% / a for new designs
A380 EIS and thus EIS for the Trent900 was in 2007
no mention of under performing engines. neither RR nor EA afair.

12..13 times .5% is 6..6.5% of "to be expected" potential. Taken up 2..3%
leaves 4.5..3.5% of average effort fruits to harvest.
Though I was surprised about the lump sum gain at the time.
Murphy is an optimist
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
VV wrote:
WIederling wrote:

Talk was that RR sold an EPX of significant gains to Emirates vs EA.
No idea how big that X was. ( I've seen 4%, probably a misunderstanding on my side? )

contrary to the tenor of the media and a.net discussion the major
point of contention is sub par on wing time for these new deliveries.
( IMU we see another GE Media and AstroTurfing campaign.
Just like we saw in the "AF loses half an EA engine" thread here that turned into an RR bash fest. )


If I understand well your statement, Emirates ordered an aircraft that didn't exist (from performance perspective).
Please understand that until now one generation of engine gives about 10% sfc improvement versus the previous one. If the number is 4%, basically it means the development corresponds to a "half-generation" improvement, which is in my opinion a science fiction for an existing engine or the manufacturer needs to invest hundreds of millions dollars or even one billion in the development.

Seriously? It is a very expensive development for one customer.
Is Engine Alliance still in the race or did they quit?


Well, bandied about are:
.5% / a for PIPs existing designs
1% / a for new designs
A380 EIS and thus EIS for the Trent900 was in 2007
no mention of under performing engines. neither RR nor EA afair.

12..13 times .5% is 6..6.5% of "to be expected" potential. Taken up 2..3%
leaves 4.5..3.5% of average effort fruits to harvest.
Though I was surprised about the lump sum gain at the time.


Still doesn't address the cost of development compared to the incremental volume.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8273
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:03 pm

One can say that RR used the rosy numbers to get EK to switch from EA in the hope that follow on orders and maybe even a minimal re-engine of EA frames at lease end would allow the recoup of the investment, I'm sure financial analysis could have presented such a case to the RR board, after all, they did get EK to switch engine OEM's.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26050
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:16 pm

VV wrote:
Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view. It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.


EK, ET and QR all sourced Engine Alliance for their A380s so EA focused a fair bit of effort making sure the GP7200 could operate in sandy environments to maximize on-wing time.

Since the only RR-powered A380s operating in sandy environments were Qantas' (for their DXB stopovers), RR focused on SFC improvements. So when EK purchased the Trent 900 for their most recent batch of A380s, they found the on-wing time to be a fair bit lower compared to their GP7200-powered frames per media reports I have read. So EK has been demanding that RR improve their on-wing time as a condition for RR getting the order to power the 20+16 A380s EK committed to last January.


JoeCanuck wrote:
One thing I know for sure...Al Baker is an interesting guy.


Indeed he is, but he's running Qatar, not Emirates. :angel:


VV wrote:
Seriously? It is a very expensive development for one customer. Is Engine Alliance still in the race or did they quit?


I am hazarding a guess RR either has to modify the current Trent 900EP3 to make it more resilient in sandy conditions or they need to develop an EP4 upgrade. And the only two customers who would really benefit are Emirates, of course, and Qantas (who operate the A380 in DXB as a stop-over for their LHR flights) so RR might not be able to pass on those costs to their other customers even though those customers are on TotalCare engine maintenance contracts. So that could mean the financials don't favor the effort.

As for EA, Emirates said they submitted an RFP to both RR and EA for the 2013 order, but I have read that they had internally made a decision to go RR, anyway. So EA might not have offered to respond.


FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
I don't think the engine Alliance is making new engines.


Correct. EK and NH are the only operators still taking delivery of A380s and both have selected RR engines.
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Stitch wrote:
FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
I don't think the engine Alliance is making new engines.


Correct. EK and NH are the only operators still taking delivery of A380s and both have selected RR engines.


It's clear then.

Now we can close the discussion until Emirates announces their decision.

Qantas and Emirates are partners, so I guess there will be a kind of coordinated approach, or maybe not. I don't know.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:53 am

Enders won't pull the plug IMO.
That is a decision the next leadership should take and live with.

EK's issues of securing affordable financing for themselves due to intensifying competition and deteriorating attractiveness of the A380 for financiers is a true challenge.
Perhaps what EK really wants out of the deal is not engine performance but affordable financing, nothing more.

With neighbor EY faltering, EK risks being put in the same basket.

Airbus could take on some risk and offer EK to lease the A380's directly from them. This could make the A380 profitable for Airbus and easier to remarket as well.
Airbus Asset Management does leases even if it's not their main business and they try to avoid competing with other lessors on new aircraft leases.
There is risk but they can for instance work out a strongly depreciating lease rate, so that they can quickly depreciate the production cost and reduce the risk.

Conversion to A350 is unnecessary and the A330neo will do just fine without a big EK order. In fact, quick availability of the A330neo will vanish as a sales argument if an A380 order is converted to this model.

The smart thing is to keep the A380 deals in place, give them a good deal on financing of those contingent to converting their B787-10 order to the A339. 2 birds with one stone.
Last edited by Waterbomber2 on Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2368
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:56 am

Stitch wrote:

I am hazarding a guess RR either has to modify the current Trent 900EP3 to make it more resilient in sandy conditions or they need to develop an EP4 upgrade. And the only two customers who would really benefit are Emirates, of course, and Qantas (who operate the A380 in DXB as a stop-over for their LHR flights) so RR might not be able to pass on those costs to their other customers even though those customers are on TotalCare engine maintenance contracts. So that could mean the financials don't favor the effort.



QF have dropped SYD-DXB-LHR in favour of restarting SYD-SIN-LHR. It was part of the shift that came with the launch of MEL-PER-LHR.
 
redroo
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:00 am

Stitch wrote:
VV wrote:
Okay, let's settle with the assumption that both engines are roughly in the same ballpark from performance point of view. It raises the question about the "performance issues" argument.


EK, ET and QR all sourced Engine Alliance for their A380s so EA focused a fair bit of effort making sure the GP7200 could operate in sandy environments to maximize on-wing time.

Since the only RR-powered A380s operating in sandy environments were Qantas' (for their DXB stopovers), RR focused on SFC improvements. So when EK purchased the Trent 900 for their most recent batch of A380s, they found the on-wing time to be a fair bit lower compared to their GP7200-powered frames per media reports I have read. So EK has been demanding that RR improve their on-wing time as a condition for RR getting the order to power the 20+16 A380s EK committed to last January.


JoeCanuck wrote:
One thing I know for sure...Al Baker is an interesting guy.


Indeed he is, but he's running Qatar, not Emirates. :angel:


VV wrote:
Seriously? It is a very expensive development for one customer. Is Engine Alliance still in the race or did they quit?


I am hazarding a guess RR either has to modify the current Trent 900EP3 to make it more resilient in sandy conditions or they need to develop an EP4 upgrade. And the only two customers who would really benefit are Emirates, of course, and Qantas (who operate the A380 in DXB as a stop-over for their LHR flights) so RR might not be able to pass on those costs to their other customers even though those customers are on TotalCare engine maintenance contracts. So that could mean the financials don't favor the effort.

As for EA, Emirates said they submitted an RFP to both RR and EA for the 2013 order, but I have read that they had internally made a decision to go RR, anyway. So EA might not have offered to respond.


FrenchPotatoEye wrote:
I don't think the engine Alliance is making new engines.


Correct. EK and NH are the only operators still taking delivery of A380s and both have selected RR engines.



From what I’ve been told by contacts at QF the a380s were needing an engine change a week due to the sand issue. That’s a lot of the small QF fleet. Can’t imagine what it’s like for EK with the increased time their a380 spend in Dubai.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 941
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:54 am

redroo wrote:
From what I’ve been told by contacts at QF the a380s were needing an engine change a week due to the sand issue. That’s a lot of the small QF fleet. Can’t imagine what it’s like for EK with the increased time their a380 spend in Dubai.


Staggering... Is Doha sandy too? A350's doing ok there?
 
jagraham
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:52 am

That means a QF A380 engine is averaging 1 month on wing. Which would be horrible.

What about other engines? Other planes? There are a lot of planes flying into and out of DXB. If all engines were experiencing this kind of deterioration, it should be all over a.net. And major aviation publications for that matter. What am I missing?
 
redroo
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:23 am

jagraham wrote:
That means a QF A380 engine is averaging 1 month on wing. Which would be horrible.

What about other engines? Other planes? There are a lot of planes flying into and out of DXB. If all engines were experiencing this kind of deterioration, it should be all over a.net. And major aviation publications for that matter. What am I missing?


It was. And that is one of the reasons why QF have no love for the A380, RR or DXB for that matter. They’re flying back through SIN now so the sand problem has gone.
 
jagraham
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:40 am

redroo wrote:
jagraham wrote:
That means a QF A380 engine is averaging 1 month on wing. Which would be horrible.

What about other engines? Other planes? There are a lot of planes flying into and out of DXB. If all engines were experiencing this kind of deterioration, it should be all over a.net. And major aviation publications for that matter. What am I missing?


It was. And that is one of the reasons why QF have no love for the A380, RR or DXB for that matter. They’re flying back through SIN now so the sand problem has gone.


Thank you for that insight.

But, it can't be that simple. EK has to fly thru DXB. If they experience that kind of degradation across their fleet, and with engine teardowns costing $1 million plus, no way they could be competitive.

What about the other airlines serving DXB?

Also, if Engine Alliance focused on durability, and made a significant improvement in durability with only a small loss in SFC, how could EK possibly consider RR?

I accept that the sand problem is real. And significant. But there should be a more airplanes, with more carriers, affected. A whole lot more if the sand issue is not limited to RR.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:01 am

jagraham wrote:
That means a QF A380 engine is averaging 1 month on wing. Which would be horrible.

What about other engines? Other planes? There are a lot of planes flying into and out of DXB. If all engines were experiencing this kind of deterioration, it should be all over a.net. And major aviation publications for that matter. What am I missing?


The sand issues were in 2015 but they havebeen there way before the A380 EIS.
The shop visits were every 800 cycles for EK. For an A380 operating 2 flights per day this means approximately once a year.
This was covered under Total Care, so the only issue was aircraft downtime. Engine changes can be scheduled to coincide with big A-checks, or C-checks, so no biggy there either. The GP's also suffer from the issue as do other aircraft engines, at different extents.
So when selling aircraft engines to an airline based in the desert, you better keep that in mind when you draft the contract...
Perhaps this is the reason why EK is having a hard time getting the deal that they want from either engine manufacturer?
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert and neither engine OEM wants to foot the bill for that.

QF didn't stop the DXB rotation because of sand but market considerations.
 
smartplane
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: EK considering 787 cancellation in favor of 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:08 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
(EK) did not sign for a finalized order. ( probably because the knew about they unfixed shortcomings :-)


So why bother signing an MoU in the first place if you knew the plane had shortcomings and you knew Boeing was not going to address them? Perhaps they really like Boeing's catering and wanted a nice lunch.


An MOU offers the least amount of commitment to purchase. It means almost nothing. The implication is that the potential buyer likes the concept but isn't sold on the product yet, and needs way more convincing. It's obvious the customer isn't really serious...at least for now, and the seller has a long way to go before cashing any checks. At best, it may offer some reserve space in the production line.

That seems to be what happened with EK. For whatever reason, they weren't sold. Why, is pretty much irrelevant.

An MOU is a photo opportunity. Sometimes it leads to more. As useful as the much loved negative pledge of the 70's and 80's.

Next step is a conditional order. Conditional on engines, finance, and a raft of other factors. Often the conditions are so 'flexible', as to be little more than an MoU with a bit more changing hands, and another photo opportunity. For example, one of the commonest conditions is subject to finance. That seems clear enough. If the customer can't raise the finance, the OEM will directly / indirectly fund. But wait, there's more. The condition usually reads subject to finance on terms and conditions acceptable to the customer. If the customer wants to effectively cancel the order, they set an impossible term, like a negative interest rate, and / or repayment terms longer than the predicted aircraft life.

After conditional i's and t's are resolved, then the order becomes unconditional.

But very rarely does an order go completely from MoU to unconditional. For example, a customer negotiating for 50 aircraft might have five tranches each of 10 aircraft. When the first tranche goes unconditional , tranches 2 and 3 might be conditional, and 4 & 5 might be described as options (there is an industry tradition that when tranche 1 goes conditional or unconditional, the remaining MoU tranches are described as options).

Boeing accepted the 787 MoU as a goodwill gesture from EK, which was designed to up the anti in A380 negotiations, and perhaps to appease EK for not using it's muscle to have GE, and in turn EA, submit a meaningful engine proposal.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 16834
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:14 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert


Whereas the other options were? :confused: :lol:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
SQ789
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:51 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:17 am

As I know so far as of today, another fleet changes as 777 A6-EBX is preparing for Azur Air as VQ-BZC with EBF, EBH, EBZ and ECB is closer to retirement soon and the amount of 777 is reducing to 157. Is EK still going to take new planes this year ahead of these 5 77W retirements?

https://aviaforum.ru/threads/flot-a-k-a ... 95/page-12
If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:22 am

scbriml wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert


Whereas the other options were? :confused: :lol:


Investing in and subsidising other industries, such as pharmaceuticals, etc...
The UAE is starting to give up their little aviation experiment after realising that there is no money to be made in it, at least the way they are doing it.
They had hoped to take their petrol dollars and develop real estate in the desert. Now they realise that they are worse off than if they hadn't done anything and had saved up the petrodollars.
The UAE only has two options. Carry on and make their EK/EY operations sustainable like everyone else, or give up everythinf that they've worked towards and go back to riding camels.
This goes for both EY and EK.
 
VV
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:02 am

There is a discussion about Dubai being a "sandy" airport.

Emirates has all kind of aircraft and engines, so my question is do those aircraft/engine behave relative to Dubai environmental context?
I can only guess all engines are affected in a similar manner. Is that correct or do I make a wrong conclusion?
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:36 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert


Whereas the other options were? :confused: :lol:


Investing in and subsidising other industries, such as pharmaceuticals, etc...
The UAE is starting to give up their little aviation experiment after realising that there is no money to be made in it, at least the way they are doing it.
They had hoped to take their petrol dollars and develop real estate in the desert. Now they realise that they are worse off than if they hadn't done anything and had saved up the petrodollars.
The UAE only has two options. Carry on and make their EK/EY operations sustainable like everyone else, or give up everythinf that they've worked towards and go back to riding camels.
This goes for both EY and EK.


I don't think you understand the economics of the situation very well.

EK was created precisely because Dubai was quickly running out of petro-dollars. All the UAE's oil wealth is buried under Abu Dhabi, NOT Dubai.

Dubai and Abu Dhabi should each be conceptualized as a "corporate state" - a vertically integrated corporation in and of itself. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are in competition with each other, albeit relatively friendly competition.

EK makes some money. Now yes, its true they can turn a profit relatively easily given that the policies of the emirate are easily alterable to improve EK's performance. But this makes sense so long as you understand that EK is a subsidiary of "Dubai, Inc." You can say its an unfair advantage if you'd like, sure. But its not technically a subsidy. Not to mention its no different to how many other nations treat their flag carriers.

Finally, Dubai developed very valuable real estate in the desert. If they didn't, no one would want to buy it. The fact people do, in fact, buy it shows that it is valuable (economically).

They are not "less well off than they otherwise would've been." Dubai is doing extraordinarily well for itself, and has changed from a sleepy fishing village into an international brand and an Alpha + world city according to the Globalization And World Cities Research Network. Dubai created valuable stuff through leveraging its location and political structure so as to become an international finance/commerce hub for West Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.

Yes, EY will have to shrink substantially. Its already doing so. The amount of demand for intercontinental travel is, after all, limited. But that's true of any other industry and suggesting that "they should go into pharma" is just ignoring the fact that the entire strategy of Dubai and Abu Dhabi is based on economic diversification. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are essentially replicating the Singapore model (authoritarian political regime with little lang, little natural resources, and only location to exploit). They are diversifying and have been for the last decade. They've also been creating value, new jobs, new opportunities, cheaper travel, and to some extent their own nations have been liberalizing on social issues (if only modestly and de facto rather than officially).

I certainly don't think everything they've done or everything they currently do is good or morally justifiable. But they're HARDLY in a situation where the only alternatives are to dramatically reduce EK/EY or to "go back to riding camels." They've both created real value (Dubai moreso than Abu Dhabi). Abu Dhabi's airline must shrink, but Abu Dhabi has all the petro-dollars and won't be running out soon. Not to mention that to a substantial extent, Abu Dhabi free-rides on Dubai and will benefit even more once the new Dubai airport opens (since its closer to Abu Dhabi than DXB is).

Yes, there are many rational reasons to criticize the way the UAE is run. But don't try to make this a "just world hypothesis" thing. Atrociously totalitarian or at least authoritarian countries can become very rich and create economic value even if they aren't the kinds of places that we'd like to live in ourselves. They've made international travel much cheaper than it used to be. They've provided job opportunities which otherwise would not have even existed. They've created substantial economic value, whether or not you approve of every law they have.

They are not going to go back to riding camels.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 16834
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:55 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert


Whereas the other options were? :confused: :lol:


Investing in and subsidising other industries, such as pharmaceuticals, etc...
The UAE is starting to give up their little aviation experiment after realising that there is no money to be made in it, at least the way they are doing it.
They had hoped to take their petrol dollars and develop real estate in the desert. Now they realise that they are worse off than if they hadn't done anything and had saved up the petrodollars.
The UAE only has two options. Carry on and make their EK/EY operations sustainable like everyone else, or give up everythinf that they've worked towards and go back to riding camels.
This goes for both EY and EK.


The point you specifically made was it's all "EK's fault" for choosing to be based in Dubai. My question was what choice did they have? Your response had nothing to do with my question.

StudiodeKadent wrote:
I don't think you understand the economics of the situation very well.

EK was created precisely because Dubai was quickly running out of petro-dollars. All the UAE's oil wealth is buried under Abu Dhabi, NOT Dubai.


:checkmark:

StudiodeKadent wrote:
They are not going to go back to riding camels.


:checkmark: :checkmark:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2082
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:15 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Airbus could take on some risk and offer EK to lease the A380's directly from them. This could make the A380 profitable for Airbus and easier to remarket as well.
Airbus Asset Management does leases even if it's not their main business and they try to avoid competing with other lessors on new aircraft leases.
There is risk but they can for instance work out a strongly depreciating lease rate, so that they can quickly depreciate the production cost and reduce the risk.


I don’t see how Airbus taking on the task of leasing planes to EK would suddenly make the plane “profitable” for them. The net present value of the total lease payments and residual value of the plane would have to exceed the cost to build.

Leasing companies can’t make the numbers work even with a purchase price less than what it costs Airbus to build. If anything, Airbus would need to charge higher lease rates to break even.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
smartplane
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:39 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
That means a QF A380 engine is averaging 1 month on wing. Which would be horrible.

What about other engines? Other planes? There are a lot of planes flying into and out of DXB. If all engines were experiencing this kind of deterioration, it should be all over a.net. And major aviation publications for that matter. What am I missing?


The sand issues were in 2015 but they havebeen there way before the A380 EIS.
The shop visits were every 800 cycles for EK. For an A380 operating 2 flights per day this means approximately once a year.
This was covered under Total Care, so the only issue was aircraft downtime. Engine changes can be scheduled to coincide with big A-checks, or C-checks, so no biggy there either. The GP's also suffer from the issue as do other aircraft engines, at different extents.
So when selling aircraft engines to an airline based in the desert, you better keep that in mind when you draft the contract...
Perhaps this is the reason why EK is having a hard time getting the deal that they want from either engine manufacturer?
The sand is really EK's fault for choosing to hub in the desert and neither engine OEM wants to foot the bill for that.

Issue is the rate of performance erosion. And who pays to re-instate in terms of premature engine removal and downtime, and compensation while waiting. RR currently credits EK, but presumably selling more engines on this basis doesn't add up.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:38 am

First of all, there is no chance in hell that Airbus is going to give EK the benefit of ordering the A350 on loose terms and certainly not at the expense of the A380.
EK humiliated Airbus with the cancellation of 70 A350's back in 2014 and again by ordering the B777X and again with the B787-10.
That is not happening again.

Second, it's too late for EY to cancel the A350 now. The first units already entered production.
Airbus will expect EY to fulfill the commitment, and orders are not transferable to other airlines unless EY is taken over by EK for instance.
Airbus is sitting on a comfortable backlog of 750 firm A350 orders worth 6 years of production.
If EY cancels the A350 order, they can easily open up the slots for other carriers. Several carriers would be happy to take early A350's.
Sure, EY over-ordered but that's hardly Airbus' problem. If EY is serious about cancelling A350's, Airbus will expect EY to cancel equal numbers of Boeing orders between the B787 and B777X.

Back to EK, what use is there for the A350 when they already have the B778/B779 planned?
Also, what use is there for A330neo's?

Everyone around here talking about the per seat fuel efficiency of the A380 vs twins as if oil was at 200 USD per barrel.
Fuel is cheap, the A380 is cheap to buy. At these fuel prices it actually doesn't make sense to splash money on expensive A350's or B777X's.
Look at the thread title, talk about opposite wisdom.
In fact at these fuel prices, B737NG, A320Ceo, B767's, A330CEO, B77W, B748i, A388 are the most attractive propositions, this is why we see so many end of the lines being ordered right and left. Not the shiny B737 Max, A320neo, B787's, A330neo's, A350's or B777X's.
 
jagraham
Posts: 763
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:05 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Back to EK, what use is there for the A350 when they already have the B778/B779 planned?
Also, what use is there for A330neo's?



Airbus says the A330ceo beats the A330neo and the A350 on fuel burn per seat up to 2 hours. Then the A330neo is best between 2 and 4 hours. Somewhere before the 5th hour the A350 becomes best and gets better as the stage length gets longer.

The middle east to MAN is 7 hours. The A350 beats the A330neo, but not by a lot. Everywhere on the continent, the A330neo would be equal to or better than the A350 on fuel burn. That's before purchase price.

So if EK is not going to take its last 36 A380s but wants to do something with the deposits, and wants to save fuel going to Europe, most of Africa, and up to India, and doesn't need to move 77W passenger loads, then the A339 is best. Better than the A350 for under 7 hours, especially after purchase price is factored in. And if they need to move lots of cargo, send a 77W.

For the 787 fans, yes the 787 is better. By about 5% for the 789. Even more for the 78J. But the A339 vs 789 comparison is not so good as to outweigh the outstanding deposits. If EK feels they can consistently sell more than 300 tickets per day to most European cities, then firm up the 78J order. Otherwise, salvage the deposits on A339s.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 941
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:24 am

smartplane wrote:
Issue is the rate of performance erosion. And who pays to re-instate in terms of premature engine removal and downtime, and compensation while waiting. RR currently credits EK, but presumably selling more engines on this basis doesn't add up.


STC did specifically mention once that a major benefit to the 77W was how well the engine performance resisted erosion. It can be done.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:02 am

jagraham wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

Back to EK, what use is there for the A350 when they already have the B778/B779 planned?
Also, what use is there for A330neo's?



Airbus says the A330ceo beats the A330neo and the A350 on fuel burn per seat up to 2 hours. Then the A330neo is best between 2 and 4 hours. Somewhere before the 5th hour the A350 becomes best and gets better as the stage length gets longer.

The middle east to MAN is 7 hours. The A350 beats the A330neo, but not by a lot. Everywhere on the continent, the A330neo would be equal to or better than the A350 on fuel burn. That's before purchase price.

So if EK is not going to take its last 36 A380s but wants to do something with the deposits, and wants to save fuel going to Europe, most of Africa, and up to India, and doesn't need to move 77W passenger loads, then the A339 is best. Better than the A350 for under 7 hours, especially after purchase price is factored in. And if they need to move lots of cargo, send a 77W.

For the 787 fans, yes the 787 is better. By about 5% for the 789. Even more for the 78J. But the A339 vs 789 comparison is not so good as to outweigh the outstanding deposits. If EK feels they can consistently sell more than 300 tickets per day to most European cities, then firm up the 78J order. Otherwise, salvage the deposits on A339s.


As said earlier, with jet fuel at 600 USD per ton, and the A380 at firesale pricing, fuel efficiency is not as relevant.
An A380's monthly fuel bill would be around 3 M USD, the monthly lease rate about 1.6 M USD.
A B779's monthly fuel bill would be about 1.7M USD and the monthly lease about 1.5 M USD.

As you can see, fuel efficiency is not everything. Capital cost is also a very relevant factor and the A380 excels in it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8206
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:12 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:

Back to EK, what use is there for the A350 when they already have the B778/B779 planned?
Also, what use is there for A330neo's?



Airbus says the A330ceo beats the A330neo and the A350 on fuel burn per seat up to 2 hours. Then the A330neo is best between 2 and 4 hours. Somewhere before the 5th hour the A350 becomes best and gets better as the stage length gets longer.

The middle east to MAN is 7 hours. The A350 beats the A330neo, but not by a lot. Everywhere on the continent, the A330neo would be equal to or better than the A350 on fuel burn. That's before purchase price.

So if EK is not going to take its last 36 A380s but wants to do something with the deposits, and wants to save fuel going to Europe, most of Africa, and up to India, and doesn't need to move 77W passenger loads, then the A339 is best. Better than the A350 for under 7 hours, especially after purchase price is factored in. And if they need to move lots of cargo, send a 77W.

For the 787 fans, yes the 787 is better. By about 5% for the 789. Even more for the 78J. But the A339 vs 789 comparison is not so good as to outweigh the outstanding deposits. If EK feels they can consistently sell more than 300 tickets per day to most European cities, then firm up the 78J order. Otherwise, salvage the deposits on A339s.


As said earlier, with jet fuel at 600 USD per ton, and the A380 at firesale pricing, fuel efficiency is not as relevant.
An A380's monthly fuel bill would be around 3 M USD, the monthly lease rate about 1.6 M USD.
A B779's monthly fuel bill would be about 1.7M USD and the monthly lease about 1.5 M USD.

As you can see, fuel efficiency is not everything. Capital cost is also a very relevant factor and the A380 excels in it.


You buy a plane for 12-20 years. Want to bet on fuel prices staying low during that time?
 
ArtV
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:33 am

VV wrote:
By the way, Qantas is Emirates partner and QFA decided to drop its outstanding 8 A380 order. Is there a pattern here?
What's next for Qantas? Will they follow Emirates path concerning its fleet planning?


Whoa....
QF (Alan Joyce) announced in August 2016 that QF was not going to be taking up its remaining 8 A380's on order as there was no room in its fleet plans for them. The only recent activity was the formal cancellation by QF (I suspect they kept the order technically "alive" until now was to use the deposits against other potential aircraft - ie, Project Sunrise).
EK seems to be following QF more than QF following EK (...if you really wanted to make an analogy, that is).
 
WIederling
Posts: 8230
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:15 am

Waterbomber2 wrote:
As said earlier, with jet fuel at 600 USD per ton, and the A380 at firesale pricing, fuel efficiency is not as relevant.
An A380's monthly fuel bill would be around 3 M USD, the monthly lease rate about 1.6 M USD.
A B779's monthly fuel bill would be about 1.7M USD and the monthly lease about 1.5 M USD.

As you can see, fuel efficiency is not everything. Capital cost is also a very relevant factor and the A380 excels in it.


Under that kind of metric and in view of bottomed out interest rates money is no real issue either, isn't it?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:01 pm

In the past week or so Airbus A380 MSN 1, F-WWOW has been flying some sort of tests - I wonder if it is related to the EK discussions?
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2321
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:26 pm

Why can I smell BS on the wild claims over engines above?

Let's consider RR engines in the sand pit. EK,EY and SV operate Trent 700s quite happily with seemingly no major issues. EY, QR and EK have flown the Trent 500 which has some commonality with the bigger T900 engines. At multiple thrust ratings too. Again no issues we know of.

EK has used the Trent 800 on its early 777s. They changed to GE when Boeing introduced the 773ER. Trent 800 know-how went into the Trent 900.

And now, all of a sudden, RR engines specifically built using existing technology, become as reliable as a chocolate condom? Nope. Not having it at all.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:40 pm

flee wrote:
In the past week or so Airbus A380 MSN 1, F-WWOW has been flying some sort of tests - I wonder if it is related to the EK discussions?

I thought this is the testbed for the A350-1000 engines.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:14 pm

flee wrote:
In the past week or so Airbus A380 MSN 1, F-WWOW has been flying some sort of tests - I wonder if it is related to the EK discussions?


I've heard rumours that it is being used to train ANA pilots.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:25 pm

Erebus wrote:
flee wrote:
In the past week or so Airbus A380 MSN 1, F-WWOW has been flying some sort of tests - I wonder if it is related to the EK discussions?


I've heard rumours that it is being used to train ANA pilots.

Would make sense, delivery soon ...

And I have to correct myself: F-WWOW is no longer a test-bed, it seems:
Image
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/45763235175
 
musman9853
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Emirates considering order changes - Airbus A380 for A350, Boeing 787 for 777-9

Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:43 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
First of all, there is no chance in hell that Airbus is going to give EK the benefit of ordering the A350 on loose terms and certainly not at the expense of the A380.
EK humiliated Airbus with the cancellation of 70 A350's back in 2014 and again by ordering the B777X and again with the B787-10.
That is not happening again.

Second, it's too late for EY to cancel the A350 now. The first units already entered production.
Airbus will expect EY to fulfill the commitment, and orders are not transferable to other airlines unless EY is taken over by EK for instance.
Airbus is sitting on a comfortable backlog of 750 firm A350 orders worth 6 years of production.
If EY cancels the A350 order, they can easily open up the slots for other carriers. Several carriers would be happy to take early A350's.
Sure, EY over-ordered but that's hardly Airbus' problem. If EY is serious about cancelling A350's, Airbus will expect EY to cancel equal numbers of Boeing orders between the B787 and B777X.

Back to EK, what use is there for the A350 when they already have the B778/B779 planned?
Also, what use is there for A330neo's?

Everyone around here talking about the per seat fuel efficiency of the A380 vs twins as if oil was at 200 USD per barrel.
Fuel is cheap, the A380 is cheap to buy. At these fuel prices it actually doesn't make sense to splash money on expensive A350's or B777X's.
Look at the thread title, talk about opposite wisdom.
In fact at these fuel prices, B737NG, A320Ceo, B767's, A330CEO, B77W, B748i, A388 are the most attractive propositions, this is why we see so many end of the lines being ordered right and left. Not the shiny B737 Max, A320neo, B787's, A330neo's, A350's or B777X's.



airbus can't make EY or EK cancel any boeing planes and vice versa. also, the a380 is more expensive than a a350 or a 77x or a 787. And there's been far more MAX, 787, a350s etc ordered over their older generation counterparts.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos