Airbus A350XWB (partie 1)

In the three-class luxury-cabin layout Emirates wants, those planes respectively carry 320, 354 and 489 passengers.

New York-based Bernstein Research said Airbus may experience more A350 delays.

In a client report, Bernstein said the Emirates order for 50 Boeing 777s at Dubai highlights concern about the A350 schedule (ATW Daily News, Nov. 15).

“The A350 situation at Airbus looks increasingly challenging, particularly after Emirates elected to order delivery of 777s spread over 2015-20,” the report said. “Based on our airline discussions in Dubai, we believe that A350 delays could extend beyond the current schedule, with the need for substantial weight reduction.”

Bernstein has pushed back its forecast of the A350-900 first delivery by six monthsto mid 2015.

Earlier this month, EADS announced a six-month delay in the A350-900 to mid 2014 – a year earlier than Bernstein’s new forecast (ATW Daily News, Nov. 11). Previously, Bernstein had Airbus delivering eight A350s in 2014 and 50 in 2015 (ATW Daily News, Aug. 23, 2010). It noted the 777 appears to be benefiting from concerns about the A350 availability and ultimate performance.

“The 777 has performed very well for airlines in the region with high dispatch reliability. With uncertainty about the A350, the 777 orders also act as an insurance policy for airlines against A350 delays (much as A330 orders did for the 787).”

Bernstein added that “the positive experience with the 777 also makes it a low-risk option compared to an all-new aircraft.”

A350 chief engineer Gordon McConnell said the fatigue test aircraft will be divided between three stations. EF1 will
handle the nose sections 11, 12 and 13, while EF2 will deal with central sections 15-21, and 22, including the belly fairing and wing box. EF3 will focus on empennage sections 16-19, with a stub vertical fin.
The fatigue structures will include dummy parts for the nose and main landing gear, horizontal stabiliser and tail cone.

During EADS’s 9-month earnings call, EADS chief financial officer (CFO) Hans Peter Ring stated Europe’s largest aerospace group has “seen some activities on the supply of key components being later than expected,” and that Airbus was facing a “shortage of parts” on the A350. Ring attributed the delays to financial difficulties currently faced by key suppliers. “All suppliers are in big difficulties. It is difficult for medium-sized companies to get access to funding,” he said, adding concerns about Europe’s macroeconomic environment meant Airbus had to remain “very vigilant throughout the supply chain” in order to avoid further delays. Ring refused to single out any individual supplier, saying, “I would not pinpoint this to specific suppliers – the whole system is under pressure. Airbus has deployed teams to help suppliers where necessary”.
In illustrating EADS’s risk mitigation strategy on the A350, Ring mentioned the company’s acquisition of a majority stake in German A350 tubings supplier PFW Aerospace, which saved PFW from bankruptcy and a production line shutdown, thereby preventing related delays to the A350 production.

Further delays likely as Airbus grapples with weight reduction, new technologies
Having been delayed by more than one year, the A350 is likely to face further delays, which Aspire Aviation believes will ultimately total 2 years from its original mid-2013 entry into service (EIS) target, if not more. A 16th November research note by New York-based Bernstein Research to its clients states that, “the A350 situation at Airbus looks increasingly challenging, particularly after Emirates elected to order delivery of 777s spread over 2015-20. Based on our airline discussions in Dubai, we believe that A350 delays could extend beyond the current schedule, with the need for substantial weight reduction”.
Aspire Aviation’s various sources at the European airframer have reiterated that while the A350-900 is modestly overweight in Airbus’ design software, design changes have enabled parts arriving in Toulouse’s final assembly line (FAL) to be only slightly overweight. However, slight weight problems on each individual part can easily add up to tonnes of overweight on an aircraft as large as the A350, which helps explain Bernstein’s statement. The research firm now expects the first delivery of the A350-900 to take place in mid-2015, more than a year later than Airbus’ current projection.
Even more important for the A350-900 is risk management, to which Airbus attributes a significant chunk of the A350’s 6-month delay. “The foundations of the programme are robust and a lot of risks have been mitigated, sometimes at the expense of more time spent – wing root joint, stringers damage tolerance, electrical systems installation – but always for the maturity of the programme,” EADS stated in June. Industry analyst Scott Hamilton of Leeham Co. stated that it is prudent for Airbus to build additional margins totalling as many as 6 months in the A350-900′s schedule, which Aspire Aviation concurs, given the unprecedented amount of new technologies featured on the Airbus A350.
The A350 has been called a “hybrid” project by Airbus comprising 52% lightweight carbon fibre materials, which are being found on its fuselage panels, joints, fasteners and keel beam, while maintaining the aluminum frame typical of current generation aircraft. Even though Boeing has already proven such technologies on the 787, composites manufacturing remains challenging, contributing to part of the significant delays to the 787 Dreamliner and potentially the A350 XWB.
Airbus has elected to use composites only on the A350′s wings. The new wing, which has a surface area of 443 square meters featuring a sweep angle of 31 degrees, enables the A350’s typical cruise speed to Mach 0.85. A new high-lift system has been adopted for the trailing edge of the wing, utilising an advanced dropped-hingeflap, enabling the gap between the trailing edge and the flaps to be closed using the spoiler, in addition to the differential flap setting (DFS) and variable camber (VC) which redistribute critical loads inward and help reduce weight.
Airbus has also incorporated numerous technologies from its larger A380 superjumbo aircraft on the A350, including its nose configuration adopted from the A380 with a 6 panels cockpit glazing and a forward mounted nose landing gear bay. Additionally, the aircraft’s integrated modular avionics were first developed for the A380, although the A350’s examples manage up to 40 in-flight functions whereas the ones on the A380 only control 23.

A350-1000 faces own troubles
Clark and Al-Baker may have been particularly vituperative towards Airbus given their displeasure over the largest A350 variant in the aircraft family, the A350-1000. Speaking to media at the Dubai Air Show, Clark said regarding the A350-1000, “we want the original specification I do not remember that we wanted something new and I really wonder why they [Airbus] did not ask”.
Emirates and Qatar Airways feel that the redesigned A350-1000 launched by Airbus in June at the Paris Air Show in June with a two-year delay in entry into service (EIS) to 2017 is not the aircraft that they originally signed up for, and that the operating economics on these new aircraft may have been compromised by the increased weight, which has not fully been offset by the increases in range and maximum take-off weight (MTOW).
In June, Airbus announced a two-year delay to the A350-1000’s EIS to help facilitate numerous design changes to the largest A350 variant. As part of these modifications, the engine thrust on the modified Trent XWB powering the A350-1000 will be increased to 97,000 lbs. from 93,000 lbs. The additional thrust will enable the A350-1000 to carry 350 passengers fly 400 nautical miles (nm) farther, or another 4.5 tonnes of payload, prompting an increase in maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the aircraft from 298 tonnes to 308 tonnes. The aircraft will retain the same fuselage size as before, as well as almost 100% hardware commonality with the A350-900, but the wing will be “optimised, not new,” implying that Airbus will utilise a scale-up of the A350-900’s wing with few modifications.
Airbus is optimistic that the more powerful Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines on the A350-1000 will not affect the aircraft’s fuel burn performance, claiming there is “no specific fuel consumption impact”. The upgraded Trent XWB engine will feature the same 118-inch fan blades as the smaller XWB, but will spin 6% faster and feature altered internal aerodynamics and a 3-4% larger core with a scaled up annulus will draw a larger airflow through the same intake. Additional efficiency tools include a dual microstructure technique implemented in turbine manufacture that enables the properties of the engine discs to vary in line with the different temperatures at the engine’s hub as compared to the engine’s rim.
These engine modifications will add roughly 2.4 tonnes to the aircraft’s empty weight. Additionally, Aspire Aviation has learned from its sources at Airbus that the Airbus A350-1000 is around 5 tonnes overweight in Airbus’ design software. The combination of these two factors could represent a significant fuel burn penalty, which Aspire Aviation estimates at around 3%-5%, for the A350-1000. However, given that Airbus will have at least 5 years worth of time before the A350-1000’s revised entry into service (EIS), Aspire Aviation thinks Airbus should be able to implement weight reductions to recover a large portion of these added 7.5 tonnes.
In spite of all its troubles, the A350-1000 is nevertheless likely to be a highly efficient up-scale of the A350-900, with fuel burn per seat between 15%-25% better than the Boeing 777-300ER.

Though Qatar Airways and Emirates have been vociferous about the performance shortfalls, as the additional 15 seats and larger cargo space of the 777-300ER can outweigh the better fuel efficiency of the A350-1000 XWB, especially given the around US$ 25 million list price differential between the two aircraft.
Furthermore, Boeing is very likely to strengthen its market leadership in the 350-400 seats segment by launching a revamped 777-8/9X, a move already under consideration by the Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer. However, Boeing does have a buffer period and more leverage while deciding whether to go forward with the major 777 upgrade, as industry analysts mostly agree the A350-1000′s entry into service (EIS) could easily slip into 2018-2019, and possibly even early 2020. Aspire Aviation reported in December that Boeing is eyeing a provisional date of launch for the 777-8X/-9X in 2013 with a 2019 entry into service (EIS) with the -8X and -9X being the revamped versions of the ultra long-range 777-200LR and the popular 777-300ER variants, respectively.
A new 777X would likely feature a revamped version of the GE90-115B1 engine that currently powers the Boeing 777-300ER. Boeing is targeting a 10% specific fuel consumption (SFC) improvement for the new engine versus the already fuel-efficient GE90-115B1 which burns 0.25 pounds of fuel per pound of thrust delivered per hour (lb/lbt/hr), which would negate a large chunk of the fuel burn advantage currently possessed by the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines.
From a payload perspective, the A350-1000 currently has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 308 tonnes whereas the 777-300ER has an MTOW of 351.55 tonnes. A 777-9X which is slated to replace the 777-300ER would likely see a modest MTOW reduction to around 342 tonnes while retaining a similar range to that of the 777-300ER primarily owing to the weight saving brought by the new composite wings. The 777-9X would also likely be scaled upwards to around 390 seats through “internal stretching” of the cabin.
When coupled with a 10% fuel burn reduction from the engines, the additional seats would push the fuel burn per seat reductions to 10-15% versus the 777-300ER (“New Boeing 777X likely to be a highly efficient derivative”, 14th Sep, 11). Additionally, increased usage of composites, and/or aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) technologies would provide both weight reductions and improved maintenance costs. That said, the cash operating costs (COC) of a 777-9X could easily be 20-25% less than the Boeing 777-300ER’s, which if Boeing were to maintain the 8.1% advantage in list prices for the 777-300ER versus the A350-1000, would in fact give the 777-9X an advantage in direct operating costs (DOC , DOC = COC + capital cost).
Aspire Aviation thinks that Alcoa’s 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium (Al-Li) technology, which the world’s largest aluminium producer says offers a 12% better fuel efficiency with 10% weight saving and a 6% reduction in skin friction drag, as a very attractive option for an application on the 777X, given the existing production system of aluminium materials is well understood and it carries substantially less risk as well as costing substantially less than upscaling the autoclaves composite production system adopted by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner programme.

Delays will not affect business case of A350-900
Despite the short-term troubles for the baseline A350-900 variant, much as with the 787, its longer-term prospects remain sound. Delays are always pricey for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Airbus could still be forced to push the A350-900 further back.
However, the Airbus A350-900 occupies a unique niche as a replacement aircraft for current generation widebodies, it is probably the only true replacement for the Boeing 777-200ER, which is the second most popular 777 variant of which 428 examples have been sold through October 2011, only behind the 777-300ER’s stellar sales performance of which 545 examples have been sold by the end of October.
Whereas Boeing has pitched both the 787-9 and the potential 787-10X as 777-200ER replacements, the 787-9 is considerably smaller than an A350-900, and the 787-10X’s proposed payload/range capabilities are insufficient to truly replace the 777-200ER, which in fact serves well as an A330-300 replacement with a range of 6,800 nautical miles (nm) while offering a 20% fuel burn saving over an A330-300. Therefore carriers will likely be forced to choose between the 777-200ER and the A350-900 XWB for replacement and growth, absent a revamped 777X that is designed as a true 777-200ER replacement. A few carriers, such as Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) have elected to remain operators of the Boeing 777-200ER with additional orders for a few more examples. But the vast majority of airlines have ordered the A350-900, and with good reason. As the economic analysis below shows, the Airbus A350-900 enjoys a significant advantage operationally versus the 777-200ER.
Aspire Aviation has performed an economic analysis on the Airbus A350-900 versus the Boeing 777-200ER on a route of 5,500 nautical miles, which is within the typical operating envelope of the Boeing 777-200ER, with zero wind speed. This analysis makes numerous assumptions, most of which are actually favourable to the 777-200ER, and thus illustrates the A350-900’s significant advantage over the Boeing 777-200ER. A full list of assumptions is listed below.

Fuel Burn
For this mission, the Airbus A350-900 is around 24% more fuel efficient than the 777-200ER, mainly because the A350’s advantage in fuel burn during cruise is lessened due to the shorter stage length. During climb and descent, the A350 burns a similar amount of fuel to the 777-200ER. On longer missions that is 6,000 nautical miles (nm) and beyond, the fuel burn saving will likely be closer to 25-28%, matching Airbus’ figures.
Maintenance
The A350 was assumed to have maintenance costs roughly 20% better than those of the Boeing 777-200ER, reflecting highly increased usage of composite and alloy technologies, as well as other maintenance reductions on the A350.
Navigation and Crew
The navigation and crew costs were estimated to be the same or similar as both the A350-900 XWB and the 777-200ER would be in any country such as India)where navigation fees at airports are measured by aircraft type, not specific weight. Given that the A350-900 would serve as a direct replacement for the 777-200ER, crew costs would likely be similar for both types.
Finance Charges
The Airbus A350-900 is priced at roughly US$22 million higher than the 777-200ER. Monthly lease rates for airlines with good credit are typically on the range of 0.8% of the aircraft’s purchase price, and both aircraft were assumed to have annual utilisation rates of 4,750 hours, which are in-line with the standard utilisation on medium to long-haul routes by world airlines. (Note: the 4,750 annual flight hours figure was used for the maintenance calculation as well). Discount for the aircraft was assumed to be 35%.
Overall
While the figure of 10.6% better operating costs per seat for the A350-900 seems low, that figure is between US $15,000 – US $20,000 for typical flights in this range, which is a significant amount. And at longer ranges, the low fuel burn of the A350-900 would make that differential even bigger. Finance charges are perhaps the greatest equaliser, depending on the discounts offered, the 777-200ER could potentially become cheaper on a direct operating cost (DOC) basis, though it would likely require discounts of closer to 70% in order to achieve this rather than a typical discount rate of 35% by Boeing assumed in this analysis.
Revenue Generation
From a revenue perspective, at identical passenger density configurations, the 777-200ER has two more first class seats, three more business class seats, and eleven more economy class seats. For typical 3-class 777-200ER flights in the US such as those operated by United Airlines and American Airlines (AA), one-way fares in these classes usually trend towards the ratio of 6:3:1. Thus the 777-200ER would have a maximum earning potential of 8.9% more passenger revenue, assuming static yields for the remaining 15 seats. At the typical 80% load factor for long-haul flights, that figure would be around 7.2%. On the cargo side, the A350-900 can carry 8.6% more cargo, which at typical belly load factor of 60%, would translate into a 5.2% revenue advantage from cargo for the A350-900. All in all, the 777-200ER would enjoy between a 6-8% maximum revenue advantage over the A350-900, or 4-7% at typical loads. This revenue advantage cannot outweigh the more than 10% operating cost advantage held by the A350-900.

Conclusion
As with the 787, the negative effects of A350 delays will eventually be outweighed by the superior operating economics offered by the aircraft. Airbus has been painstaking in its attempt to ensure that the A350-900, with all of its new technologies, is mature before it enters into service and it is unquestionably better to have any potential safety issues discovered and fixed before delivery than after the aircraft type entered operation. In the short to medium term, however, these delays will provide a moderate boost to the A350′s competitors such as the Boeing 777-300ER and 787-9 Dreamliner, similar to the boost seen in A330 sales precipitated by perennial delays to the 787. Notwithstanding this, the A350 should regain its edge over its competitors in the long-term, which is subject to change owing to Boeing’s potential response.
‪For the A350-1000, only time will tell what its true sales potential is. While the aircraft is likely to be a highly efficient stretched variant, a lot will depend on Boeing’s response to the A350-1000. In the interim, if Boeing were to introduce a further Performance Improvement Package (PIP) for the 777-300ER which will improve its fuel burn by 4% (“777 PIP further negates A350-1000′s business case“, 1st Mar, 10), which, combined with a 777-9X with a 2019 service entry, would likely squeeze A350-1000 sales. Though several carriers who have purchased the A350-800s and A350-900s have options to convert their orders to the larger A350-1000 variant, and any further design improvements may prove to be attractive to them.
‪All in all, the Airbus A350-900’s long-term prospects remain sound despite the latest 6-month delay in its entry into service (EIS) date. The A350 is an innovative product that builds on a leap in engine technologies to deliver superior fuel burn and maintenance improvements, both of which will ensure its place in airlines’ fleets for decades to come.