JAL Airbus Deal

Can't say I blame them. While I'm sure this was a little easier for JAL with the 787 issues, I don't think that is the whole reason. JAL already has 787-9s on order, and the next step up from Boeing are the next gen 777s which are too large for what JAL wants. The A350 was really the only fesable option as the 777-300ER replacement JAL needs, as the 787-9 will only replace the 772s.

Because of its long range, people forget how few people the 787 really carries. A friend of mine took a picture at SJC the other day of a Volaris A320 next to an ANA 787 and pointed out the A320 had 14 MORE seats than the 787 next to it. Granted, Volaris packs them in like a clown car and ANA could fit some more seats in the 787 without all the premium seating. Still something to remember in the long range airplane game.
 
Last edited:
ChasenSFO said:
Can't say I blame them. While I'm sure this was a little easier for JAL with the 787 issues, I don't think that is the whole reason. JAL already has 787-9s on order, and the next step up from Boeing are the next gen 777s which are too large for what JAL wants. The A350 was really the only fesable option as the 777-300ER replacement JAL needs, as the 787-9 will only replace the 772s.

Because of its long range, people forget how few people the 787 really carries. A friend of mine took a picture at SJC the other day of a Volaris A320 next to an ANA 787 and pointed out the A320 had 14 MORE seats than the 787 next to it. Granted, Volaris packs them in like a clown car and ANA could fit some more seats in the 787 without all the premium seating. Still something to remember in the long range airplane game.
Click to expand...

A350 is jack of all trades plane. Part 787 fighter. Part 773 fighter, depending on the variant.
 
Yeah, but just like JAL, many carriers are going to find the size of the 777-8/9 too large and go with the A350. Also got to figure airlines may not trust the new 777 project to launch without 787 like issues, and further might not trust Boeing to compensate accordingly. Some of the 787 operators are still livid about what Boeing has done for them so far in leiu of lost revenue.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
What has Boeing done ? I didn't follow up on that...
Click to expand...
From what I've read, nothing has been done publicly, but some airlines are more satisfied with what they got then others. LOT has been making the most noise lately, but while I found an article stating Boeing would compensate LOT, I've only read that LOT wasn't happy with it since.
http://news.investors.com/business/...nt-compensation-for-boeing-787-dreamliner.htm

Interweb rumors are that compensation may have come largely in the form of discounts to carriers on future orders and what not. But that doesn't do much good to carriers like LAN, LOT, and Norweigan Air Shuttle who have smaller fleets and don't order new airplanes often.
 
Woops.... It really looks like Boeing screwed up a lot of things with the 787 and its new corporate ways... They are seeing the effect now and it sucks that many Boeing workers will be the final victims of this way of doing business...
 
Derg said:
1. Design it in Seattle
2. Build it with insourced Boeing parts, in Seattle.
3. Recapture your core product.
Click to expand...

I'm not positive that'll work, when Boeing is selling 737-900 max's like they were going out of style. Why spend the R&D costs on a new airframe when customers are happy to gobble up 737's with new engines on them? Hell, if I was a stockholder in Boeing I'd be calling for the CEO's head for even THINKING about designing a new airframe.

We may not like the idea of flying 737's across the pond, but if you can do it cheaper than a 757, and it fits the market, and you can stack the cash, then all a new airframe does is feed egos and make pilots happy that they can bid the super extra awesome mega premium airframe that has USB ports at every seat (Boom, @BobDDuck).
 
jtrain609 said:
We may not like the idea of flying 737's across the pond, but if you can do it cheaper than a 757, and it fits the market, and you can stack the cash, then all a new airframe does is feed egos and make pilots happy that they can bid the super extra awesome mega premium airframe that has USB ports at every seat (Boom, @BobDDuck).
Click to expand...

If (and it's a big if) the 321neo performs the way it is supposed to, and if (and this is another big if) the PW1000G and the CFM LeapX work as advertised, I think the 737 Max line is going to be in a world of hurt. Airlines flying the 321 can send people across 15% cheaper and charge 10% less for a ticket (and still pocket 5% more in revenue). AND... they come with USB ports in every seat!
 
jtrain609 said:
I'm not positive that'll work, when Boeing is selling 737-900 max's like they were going out of style. Why spend the R&D costs on a new airframe when customers are happy to gobble up 737's with new engines on them? Hell, if I was a stockholder in Boeing I'd be calling for the CEO's head for even THINKING about designing a new airframe.

We may not like the idea of flying 737's across the pond, but if you can do it cheaper than a 757, and it fits the market, and you can stack the cash, then all a new airframe does is feed egos and make pilots happy that they can bid the super extra awesome mega premium airframe that has USB ports at every seat (Boom, @BobDDuck).
Click to expand...

Because if/when the "new generation" of airliners debuts and it's got a significant cost advantage, remember, efficiency is market in single-digit percentage improvements to make phat loot for the operators, it will sell like gangbusters.

Remember, one of the only reasons you have a 737-800 is because Airbus jumped into the 150-seat market after Boeing decided the minimum airframe was going to be a 185-passenger 757 after the retirement of the 727. Then when the Frenchies came up with a 727 replacement that you could pull a plug out of and sop-up the rest of the smaller 737 (classic) lift, flow up to an tickle some of the 757 market and, believe it or not, be nearly type-rating compatible with a 330/340 with variants that compete directly with the 767 and the 777, I think they got caught with their pants down.

The idea that we're playing catch-up with the Europeans when it comes to commercial aircraft should be an American economic emergency. Boeing has to win this thing and it's going to take a lot more than re-engining 737's.

I am a huge Boeing fanboy, but I want our team to get their crap together.
 
This might hurt Japan more than the US. There are talks of pulling all new parts from Mitsubishi, Fuji and Kawasaki heavies.
 
I think the 787 thing shows the very limit of outsourcing everything... Airbus has a limited number of suppliers who are faithful to the company since the A300, they know how much they can pull and will not venture into unknown territories quality-wise. Airbus has always worked like that, it's in their core philosophy, not something imposed by shareholders.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
I can't wait for your thoughts on the side stick and tray table. 8)
Click to expand...

If you're flying a fly-by-wire aircraft, why muck up your PFD's with a big obtrusive yoke designed for hydromechanical leverage for flight control systems?

And why would you design a FBW control system that needs a trim wheel?
 
Derg said:
If you're flying a fly-by-wire aircraft, why muck up your PFD's with a big obtrusive yoke designed for hydromechanical leverage for flight control systems?

And why would you design a FBW control system that needs a trim wheel?
Click to expand...

Just treat the side stick like an oversized F-16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top