Posted on 07/14/2006 7:39:35 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:42 AM ET
By Jason Neely, European Aerospace & Airlines Correspondent
LONDON, July 14 (Reuters) - Airbus will expand its offering of two new mid-sized planes to three in order to catch up with surging rival Boeing Co. , industry sources said on Friday.
Worried that its pair of proposed A350 models aimed at competing with the Boeing 787 due in 2008 will do little to slow sales of Boeing's larger 777, France-based Airbus will add a third, larger model.
"They are definitely looking at doing three," one industry source said, adding that the new planes were likely to be named the A350-800, A350-900 and A350-1,000. There was a chance Airbus could go with the name A370, he added.
A second source confirmed the story, saying: "It is designed to take on both the 787 and triple-7."
A spokesman for Airbus declined to comment on specifics, but said Airbus' chief executive would provide an update at the year's biggest air show next week: "Christian Streiff will be responding to feedback from customers received over recent months on Monday."
The additional model could benefit suppliers such as steelmaker Alcoa Inc. and Goodrich Corp. , a maker of nacelles and thrust reversers.
It also means Airbus will look to engine makers GE Aviation and Rolls-Royce for more than the one engine each has so far committed to build as the three models will range from 250 to 400 seats and fly different distances.
Pratt & Whitney could also bid on the bigger engine, analysts said.
First deliveries, which Airbus had hoped to begin in 2010, will likely slip to 2012, with some versions even later.
A350 CRITICISED
Airbus has been talking about the A350 since 2004 and has signed 10 customers for 100 of them.
But one powerful buyer, International Lease Finance Corp. boss Steven Udvar-Hazy, in March lashed out at Airbus for not thinking the project through, and warned the A350 as it stood was destined to win as little as 25 percent market share versus the 787.
Singapore Airlines was seen as a possible A350 customer but said last month it would buy up to 40 of the Boeing 787, underscoring the need for Airbus to do better.
The sources said Airbus is still at work defining details of the A350 but has taken on board the need to increase the model's appeal, offering a new, wider fuselage and a third, larger version.
Airbus is in the spotlight ahead of the Farnborough International Airshow, the year's largest in business terms, which opens near London next Monday.
The biennial event is usually a frenzied duel with Boeing to announce as many new deals as possible, a battle which saw the two planemakers take the lion's share of the $21 billion in announced business in 2004.
The sources said Airbus is not ready to formally launch the A350 at Farnborough, because Airbus CEO Streiff, brought in to sort out costly delays of the mammoth A380 superjumbo, has been in place less than a month.
Still, they said Airbus was determined to go forward with the A350 soon, a move some analysts say the planemaker must make to stay level with its U.S. rival.
"It makes a lot of sense," said an aerospace analyst at one London-based brokerage.
Boeing says the market for the 787, 777 and A350 will be the industry's most lucrative over the next two decades.
Analysts say development of the A350 will cost $10 billion, a figure likely to escalate a clash between the European Union and Washington, which have filed complaints with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about government support for Boeing and Airbus, respectively.
Airbus initially estimated the new model would cost no more than 4 billion euros ($5.07 billion), and made clear that it would again ask Britain, France, Germany and Spain for loans to fund a third of the development.
If-At-First-You-Don't-Succeed Ping
This will cost tonnes of money from the European tax payer in the form of "loans". Yeah right, loans.
"Given how much they've already spent on the A350 development, and the lackluster sales of the A380, they're going to have a good time finding the funding for three new models."
Given the business acumen and technical expertise they've demonstrated to date I cannot imagine why.
/sarc
Airbus grossly misstepped and now is paying the price for it.... its business.
Airbus would be better off if they were not associated with governments and were able to execute as a company and not as a political entity.
I am no fan of airbus, but its hard to argue that their existence has not made Boeing that much better.
Technical Expertise?? I don't mean to sound rude, but hardly are Airbus's falling from the sky due to poor design....
Airbus suffers from bad management, not inately bad engineering.
You are right, IMHO. If it weren't for Airbus I doubt we'd have the 787. Then again if it weren't for Airbus, McDonnell Douglas might still be in business instead of having been absorbed by Boeing.
"Airbus suffers from bad management, not inately bad engineering. "
Why have the development costs soared? A big part was poor management. A big part was also resolving technical design issues. For example the wings having to be redesigned.
I'm certainly not an aviation expert but from a laymens viewpoint airbus's product is not nearly as good as Boeing. Airbus has pushed Boeing to be better so I congratulate them for that.
LOL. Another gem from Reuters. Those steel planes from Airbus might be part of their problem.
It's not really three new models. Sounds like it's just three different stretches of the A350/A370, similar to what Boeing's doing with the 787-8, 787-9, and the possible planned 787-10.
Whatever they are, they've finally figured out that a warmed-over A330 refit simply can't compete against the all-new 787.
}:-)4
They have to be redesigned because management and governments that support AIRBUS pushed for what was there.. they weren't worried about increased fuel efficency.. The wing isn't being redesigned because it can't carry the load, its being redesigned because with it its not fuel efficient enough to compete with Boeing... Management dropped the ball.
Engineers design to the specs they are given.... Management said, do this this and this, they did. Then the marketplace kicked their arse for it, and now they are asking for something from the engineers they didnt' orginally ask for because they didn't anticipate the marketplace because they were caught up with the albatross that is the 380.
Exactly, thats a problem with MANAGEMENT not engineering... I agree Airbus suffers from the same problems that GM had which gave us the AZTEK.... without a doubt the UGLIEST consumer vehicle ever mass produced.
That is not building to what the marketplace needs or wants... but to what will keep everyone in the management level happy.. design by committee. UK wants so many jobs, not inately a plane that will fill a strict need in the market place for the next 30 years.. same with FR et al..
The management of AIRBUS has to try to mesh these demands with what the market wants or will need... they missed the market grossly, focused on what their backers wanted.. which was a white albatross that they could crow about... basically a penis envy issue with wings.
They didn't focus on the market place, took a gamble on the 380 that was wrong, and while all that was going on, completely dropped the ball with the 350 and other planes because they weren't high enough in the pool for management to care about.
I would much prefer to be on a Boeing than an Airbus when I fly... but I am not a CEO or Purchasing agent for an airline. Engineering wise, you can't sit here and bash Airbus... their problems are purely at the management level.
Everything is managements fault regardless if some engineer screwed up. That said its not just bad management when things go wrong. Technical people are responsible for getting good requirments just as management is responsbile for giving good requirements. I've frequently seen requirements sessions where the business asks if something is possible and some eager to please engineer says "sure, we can do anything".
Also, the wing did have to be redesigned because it barely "passed" the stress test. Wasn't one of the 380 wings also dropped and had to be repaired?
I'm sure there are lots of good people at Airbus. Perhaps they were too bold in their vision. I prefer Boeing primarily because its an American company. It also has a tremendous history and I prefer to trust my life with them vs some social experiment from the EU.
BARELY PASSED? It handled if I recall nearly 150% of its max requirements.. that's not "barely" passing.
I'm not arguing that I prefer Airbus over Boeing..... However to blame engineering for mismanagement is nonsense.
Yes there are overzealous engineers, but the 350s problem isn't from that in fact I predict the "NEW 100% composite wing" is going to be an even bigger flop and have more problems! And I guarantee you some dufus middle manager was the one pushing this.. and the marketing folk at the top.. not engineers in the line saying, hey, lets go 100% composite on a wing... on a plane that's already late.... Yea, lets do something never been done before in this sort of scenario.
No engineering team in the world would have signed on for that, unless management at some level mandated it down to them.
" The management of AIRBUS has to try to mesh these demands with what the market wants or will need... they missed the market grossly, focused on what their backers wanted.. which was a white albatross that they could crow about... basically a penis envy issue with wings.
They didn't focus on the market place, took a gamble on the 380 that was wrong, and while all that was going on, completely dropped the ball with the 350 and other planes because they weren't high enough in the pool for management to care about.
"BARELY PASSED? It handled if I recall nearly 150% of its max requirements.. that's not "barely" passing."
Actaully it didn't pass, my mistake.
"The wings are supposed to take 1.5 times the design load limit but this one failed at 1.45 times, about 3.3 percent shy of the certification requirement." http://www.rapp.org/wp-print.php?p=386 another source has pretty much the same information http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/12_08a/briefs/191616-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
"Yes there are overzealous engineers, but the 350s problem isn't from that in fact I predict the "NEW 100% composite wing" is going to be an even bigger flop and have more problems! And I guarantee you some dufus middle manager was the one pushing this"
Companies are made up of people, some good and some bad. I didn't start out saying the engineers of Airbus were bad. I started out saying Boeing was a better company and had better products. But then I am biased.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.