Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:36 From: H Andrew Chuang <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Niels Sampath wrote: > > James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... > >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes > >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. > >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new > >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines > >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > > You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. So, do you mean Flight International is not credible? ;-) Well, I actually have heard this from the customer's side. I don't always believe everything I read in Flight International or Aviation Week & Space Technology. However, in this case, since I have heard it from other sources, I think the report is credible. > If the Airbus retort to these rumours this week is true... > that the 6.5 tonne overweight rumour stems merely from future > development version projections of the 340 and is -not- related > to the -500, -600 `as is' programme, > then the rumour is a red herring. > It is a Sporty Game tho isn't it?<g> What Airbus is doing is called damage control. Airbus has always been quite good at not leaking development problems to the media, partly because it's not a publicly listed company. Tell me, other than from what I told you in these forums, how often have you heard about the A340-300E payload/range problems that Airbus had to increase the certified MTOW from 267 metric tons to the current 275 tons? 8 tons translate roughly to 80 passengers! It's not an insignificant increase of TOW. (Also, the two MTOW numbers that I quoted are easily verifiable.) It seems history is repeating itself in less than 5 years. > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > on the 777X. Hmmm... Now, you think FI is credible. ;-) In the FI report, I believe BA was reportedly to be concerned not displeased. (Quote: "... the airline has not yet formulated a view on the likely impact of the exclusivity deal on its own fleet planning strategy...") UA's protest is quite meaningless because UA's preferred engine supplier, P&W, would offer a whole new engine. Thus, no matter what, UA would not have engine commonality if they choose to order the B777X. No doubt airlines don't like sole source. However, what does Boeing's competitor has to offer? An A340-500/600 with a sole-source engine supplier, too (at least for the time being)! Ask yourself, what's more expensive to operate: two different fleets with similar engine or same type of fleet with two different engines? Also, if you have read AW&ST, some airlines said they were more concerned with payload/range capabilities than what engines are offered on the 777X.