I would agree that the profitability of the 787 program has been hurt.

I don’t believe the A380 will ever be profitable, but I confess that we don’t really know and I doubt we ever will. If I were a taxpayer in the EU and therefore directly supporting the Airbus programs, I would want to know, it seems rather amazing that there is not more transparency.

On a related note, there is an interesting column from Pierre Sparaco in the most recent Aviation Week, whereby he quotes some French politicians basically saying that Airbus is a government entity.

Any online comments you can link to? I’d like to read more.

Nope. Perhaps I should qualify my statement by saying “IMHO.” I have seen others saying the same on airliners.

Two answers for no GE90 on 773…..1) only 60 have been ordered, yet over 500 773ERs have been ordered, so its not too much of a loss, and 2) the engine fits the 300ER and 200 LR better, its optimised for them, not the lighter airframes. The GE90-94 was merely the original “development” engine….its a shame BA didn’t weather the very early (and short) reliability storm (not to mention the nationalist/political storm) and stay with GE.

Interesting comment about the possible lack of profitability for GE on the A350. Basically, I see the A350/GE tussle as a gigantic power struggle. Airbus does not want to directly compete with the 787, they want a larger airplane. This requires GE to “re-size” one of their engines to fit on that airplane. GE doesn’t want to make that investment without guarantee of a reasonable return. Thus, the stalemate, made all the more interesting by French politics. AF always buys GE when it’s available when they buy an Airbus. GE engines almost always have some French involvement/content: 50% on CFM, 25% (I think) on CF6, etc. So GE not offering an engine option on the 350 is a real change of direction for both GE and Airbus. Meanwhile AF feels like they have been thrown under the bus by Airbus WRT the 447 accident. I don’t see any way they don’t order 787’s, but political forces mean they will have to order 350’s also. They’ll justify it by saying they are different sized airplanes.

To me, its interesting that Airbus sized the 350 where they did. There have been a lot of direct competitions in earlier days: 707/DC-8, 732/DC-9-32, DC-10/L1011. Airbus made a real smart decision IMHO with the A320 by making it just big enough to be transcon U.S. capable, whereas the 733 was not and Boeing had to respond with the 737NG, albeit 14 years late. Now Boeing is committed with the 787 to a specific size, and Airbus is trying to gain an advantage by making a very slightly larger airplane. All of this serves to back up Boeing’s marketing plan that the “action” is between 150 and 300 seats, not VLA’s, thus leading them to develop the 787 and not respond to the VLA threat. Look at all the options available between the A320/737NG and 777, thousands and thousands of airplanes will be sold in this region, while the VLA A380 languishes along….I guess the 380 is important from a “national” pride point of view for Europeans…..:). The 747 program delivered 93 airplanes in 1970, while the 380 program is just reaching 50 11 years into the program and 3 years into production. It will never be truly profitable.

The “rush” of 320NEO orders was an orchestration to try to make Boeing feel extreme pressure and do something stupid, like they did with the sonic cruiser. They’re more patient this time. I really think they will sell 737NGs at cut rate prices with a modest efficiency increase while they put together the new airplane for 2018-2020. For a few years while they are selling the NG’s at cut prices, they’ll develop the 777 improvement….when it’s done it will be time for the 737 replacment aircraft.

All just mho

One other thought I had yesterday after my post. In response to your statement that the RR entry on the 777 was lighter than the other two engines…..I would say that of course the GE is heavier….it’s bigger. It was originally designed to run in the 115,000 lb thrust area for the -300. It’s really too big for the -200, where it runs at 94k, but I suppose there are some commonality benefits there for an operator that runs both 772’s and 773’s. By comparison the Trent was optimized for a lower thrust level, in the 90k range, and of course has been upscaled from the original RB211-22B which ran at 42k I believe. IMHO, the Trent is a pretty good engine for the 772, arguably the “best” available for the 772ER.

As for why the PW entry is heavier….I have no explanation, other than it is a PW and they suck by definition….:diablo:

I wouldn’t compare the GeNX and GE90 to the RB-211/Trent series. To my mind the GE’s are different engines, while the Trent is just an updated RB-211. Just MHO.

The heavy three spool design of the RB211/Trent naturally lends itself to bigger airplanes like the 777, instead smaller airplanes like the 767. I guess we agree.

How long can you keep “adapting?” At some point you need a clean sheet design, and I contend that only GE has done that successfully in the last 30 years. I guess we agree again.

The 340 and 350? Really? GE doesn’t have an engine that is optimized for their size…..the CFM56 is too small for the big 340’s (which haven’t done too well head to head with the GE90 powered 777) and the 350 is too small for the big GE90(115). It would not be economic to use the GE90-94. I believe, but can’t prove, that there are a lot of politics (between GE and Airbus) swiring around the 350 engine situation BTW. I’m just an observer and have no dog in this fight, but it seems pretty obvious. Finally, I don’t believe the A350 has flown yet, its hard to set the standard with a bunch of composite test parts that haven’t been assembled yet….:) I suppose eventually the “330 killer” will get certified, and then GE may lose some orders.

Uh……No, no, and no. “Moves” might be more appropriate than “move,” I see at least three immediately:

1. Continue to offer 737NG series at reduced prices (perhaps not necessary if the A320 line is sold out, but it might keep a few “core” customers happy.)

2. Develop an all new 737 replacement aircraft for EIS around 2018-2020.

3. Launch an improved 777-300ER for EIS in 2018.

I believe they can do all 3 simultaneously….they just did something similar with 787 (all new) and 748 (rehash). 787 and 748 engineering requirements have decreased rapidly, freeing up considerable resources. Granted, they got the time frame all wrong on the 787, but if they sell realistic expectations, simultaneous development can be done.

With regard to internal “housekeeping.” They also have begun to shift final production out of the Puget sound area and that trend will continue, in spite of the evil conspiracy between the current government and organized labor. IMHO, the Obama administration is the “last hurrah” of organized labor in the United States. Too many large unions haven’t adjusted for the world marketplace……large corporations are simply not going to pay 60-100,000 dollars a year in salary, with fully paid pensions and medical plans to high school graduates. Instead, in the future they will pay $40-50,000 and make the employees pay a portion of the medical and most of the retirement. Oh, yeah, and they will have to actually work also….:)

IMHO, the Boeing Company is far from defeated.

I believe the United 747 that lost the forward cargo door in flight between Hawaii and the mainland U. S. (there were fatalities) was repaired, as was the MD-80 at Delta that had an uncontained engine failure in Florida.

The most extreme example I have ever heard of, though no fatalities, was of the famous DC-8 “Shiga” that landed short of the runway in San Francisco bay in 1968. The airplane was fished out of the bay and repaired at United’s very extensive shops and placed back into service, I believe it flew 30 more years. More details here: http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm

So, there have been lots of airplanes damaged extensively and repaired. I just recalled these off the top of my head, I’m sure there are many more.

This particular SWA 737 incident is very interesting to me, I’m wondering if there might have been a manufacturing defect when the fuselage was constructed, undetected damage at some point in service, or improperly made aluminum that caused the failure. It happened in a spot where one would not normally expect damage.