Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing wins $10 bln Qantas jet order (Its Boeing, baby! Another $10B that Airbus DOESNT get)
Reuters ^

Posted on 12/14/2005 6:46:49 AM PST by Pukin Dog

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Boeing Co. won a $10 billion order from Qantas Airways Ltd. to deliver 65 Boeing 787 Dreamliner jets, with an option for a further 50 planes, dealing a blow to rival Airbus.

The decision by the Australian carrier comes amid a record year in aircraft orders for Boeing and Airbus, which is 80 percent owned by European Aerospace Defense & Space Co. and 20 percent by Britain's BAE Systems Plc.

.

Qantas, the world's eighth-biggest passenger airline by market value, said it ordered 45 twin-aisled B787 jets with options for a further 20. The value of the 65 B787s was A$13 billion ($10 billion) at list price, Qantas said, adding it also took out purchase rights for an extra 50 B787 aircraft.

"We regard the firm orders and the options as basically a done deal," Qantas Chief Executive Geoff Dixon told reporters, referring to the first batch of 65 planes.

He said the B787 -- to have its first test flight in 2007 -- was chosen because of the price of the aircraft as well as the technology, fuel efficiency and the distance a B787 would fly.

"This plan will give us a modern fleet offering maximum flexibility, lower seat mile costs and greater fuel efficiency," Chairman Margaret Jackson said in a statement.

Boeing and Airbus have recorded more than $100 billion in orders this year.

The Qantas order will push Boeing further ahead of Airbus in 2005 order numbers. Boeing had 800 orders as of November 30, its Web site showed. Airbus had 494 as of October 31, according to its Web site, but has since won a $10 billion deal to supply 150 single-aisle aircraft to China.

Airlines have been investing in more fuel-efficient planes to help lower costs.

POWER PLAY

Qantas said the selection process for the engines to power the B787 would begin in February. Two engine makers are competing -- Britain's Rolls Royce Group Plc. and General Electric Co. of the United States.

Engines typically account for more than 20 percent of the overall aircraft price.

Qantas' first B787 delivery is planned for August 2008 for its Jetstar budget carrier, which plans to start flying to overseas destinations within 6-10 hours of Australia by January 2007. Jetstar will initially use A330-200 aircraft.

Shares in Qantas rose as much as 4.8 percent to near a 3-year high. The stock closed up 3.2 percent at A$3.87.

Qantas said it had sought tenders from Airbus and Boeing on ultra-long range variants of the A340 and B777, but had been unable to find an aircraft that could operate non-stop flights economically between Australia and London or New York.

Singapore Airlines Ltd. , the world's second-largest airline by market value, is also considering taking up to 70 wide-bodied planes for its fleet, industry officials say, in a deal that could be worth up to $10 billion at list prices.

Qantas' latest fleet investment plan is in addition to A$18 billion it budgeted for fleet renewal between 2000-2010. Qantas has already ordered 12 A380 superjumbo aircraft, with options for 10 more and it expects to have 23 A320-200 planes by May 2006.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: suckstobeairbus

1 posted on 12/14/2005 6:46:50 AM PST by Pukin Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

I heard this on the news last night. Good job, Boeing! Give 'em hell.


2 posted on 12/14/2005 6:50:34 AM PST by Lekker 1 ("Computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes..." - Popular Mechanics, March 1949)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1
I sure hope that the decision is based upon superior product rather than back-room shenanigans and or politics.
3 posted on 12/14/2005 6:53:49 AM PST by dropzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Given that Singapore Airlines competes with Qantas on European routes one would think that they might be inclined to go with Boeing as well.
4 posted on 12/14/2005 6:59:44 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dropzone

More likely the result of a company comprised of gung-ho capitalists going head-to-head with a socialist enterprise.
No Contest!


5 posted on 12/14/2005 6:59:59 AM PST by newcthem (9/11- not terrorists - just troubled youths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Maybe the Aussies didn't want to have to redesign all their international airports to accomodate the "Titanic of the Air".


6 posted on 12/14/2005 7:02:25 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Boeing is having a record year!


7 posted on 12/14/2005 7:04:28 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

"had been unable to find an aircraft that could operate non-stop flights economically between Australia and London or New York."

Never heard of a passenger plane that could go from Australia to New York City non-stop- Quantas should order some old B-52s and put the passengers in the bomb bay if they want to do that.


8 posted on 12/14/2005 7:19:36 AM PST by Altair333 (Stop illegal immigration: George Allen in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Does Airbus still sell planes??


9 posted on 12/14/2005 7:25:38 AM PST by DTogo (Merry CHRISTmas, and a healthy & happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dropzone

I do too, but things sure are jumpin here. I attended the 747-8 kickoff yesterday. Hard orders for 18 and many options for more.


10 posted on 12/14/2005 7:37:46 AM PST by freebird5850
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
"He said the B787 -- to have its first test flight in 2007 -- was chosen because of the price of the aircraft as well as the technology, fuel efficiency and the distance a B787 would fly."

Boeing sure has a lot committed to the success of this plastic 787. I hope they are analysing the heck out of the aerodynamics and structure.

I see big potential problems with electrical aspects of the carbon-fiber composite and those thin (and more flexible) outer wings could have some surprising (and catastrophic) flutter characteristics.

11 posted on 12/14/2005 7:47:39 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
I attended the 747-8 kickoff yesterday. Hard orders for 18 and many options for more.

The A380 may be larger, but the 747 is still Queen of the Skies. What an elegant (however long in the tooth) aircraft. The new GEnx engines (Airbus A350 flavor w/bleed air) will certainly help in the efficiency dept.

As for Boeing kicking Airbuzz's butt, keep in mind this is the first year Boeing's order book has exceeded Airbus's in the last several.

12 posted on 12/14/2005 8:20:55 AM PST by Knuckledragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pawdoggie
Maybe the Aussies didn't want to have to redesign all their international airports to accomodate the "Titanic of the Air".

Qantas has firm orders for 12 A380s and options on I think 10 more. They plan on using them on the Sydney-LAX run and on the Sydney-HK-London run. All the airports in question have been or will be modified to accept the A380.

13 posted on 12/14/2005 9:41:09 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Boeing keeps winning order after order. Airbus had Boeing's number for a while but Boeing seems to have learned from its mistakes and Airbus continues to make mistakes.


14 posted on 12/14/2005 10:18:30 AM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

singapore airlines ordered several of the big airbus monsters..as I recall..but are very limited on their routes..


15 posted on 12/14/2005 10:30:23 AM PST by GeorgiaDawg32 (Islam is a religion of peace and they'll behead 13 year old girls to prove it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; safisoft
Darn it, safisoft! This is like the third Boeing Bashing thread opportunity you've had and gosh-by-golly people are getting away with murder here!

They're actually bashing your Airbust company?!?!? And you're letting them get awaqy with it! Hmmm. I got a couple seconds here to do a FRiend a favor....I'll just google some of your previous bashes and save you some time!

16 posted on 12/14/2005 11:05:36 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Boeing and Airbus have recorded more than $100 Million in orders this year.

Yeah, and my church's newsletter and Reader's Digest have a combined circulation of 15 Million too.

17 posted on 12/14/2005 11:27:49 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
I see big potential problems with electrical aspects of the carbon-fiber composite and those thin (and more flexible) outer wings could have some surprising (and catastrophic) flutter characteristics.

I thought carbon-fiber composites were already being used in existing large commercial aircraft, specifically in the wings.... and even more extensively used in smaller aircraft.

18 posted on 12/14/2005 7:45:05 PM PST by Jorge (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
"I thought carbon-fiber composites were already being used in existing large commercial aircraft, specifically in the wings.... and even more extensively used in smaller aircraft."

Yes, carbon fiber has been used for control surfaces on large aircraft and more structural applications on smaller planes.

Bill Lear (of "Lear Jet" fame) discovered that carbon fiber composits tended to catch on fire when electrical current was passed through them. It sorta put the kabosh on carbon fiber for his company.

Now the entire fuselage and wing structure of the 787 is to be made from it. I just hope that they have learned from the experience of others in the industry.

19 posted on 12/14/2005 8:42:01 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
I see a lot of talk of the use of composite structures here. Composites have been used for years, and is a fairly mature technology. That they’re going to be 50% (by weight) of the 787 is a major step up, but Boeing sees it as an evolutionary step.

What isn’t being talked about much, but is revolutionary IMO, is the fact that the 787 is basically an “electric jet”. Traditionally, just about everything on an airliner is powered by engine bleed air—vast amounts of ~70 PSI 350 deg+ air pulled from whatever stage of the engine’s compressor. This air is directed all over the plane in what’s known as the pneumatic system. This air is not available to propel the aircraft.

The 787 is doing away with almost all that, and is switching to electrical powered devices. This is no small task, as evidenced by the 787 having over twice the electrical generating capacity of the much-larger A380. I saw some numbers in Aviation Week magazine and was astounded to read it takes several hundred horsepower to simply pressurize the aircraft at cruise. Boeing feels pneumatic technology (not very efficient and over 50 years old) has progressed as far as it will go, but electrical technology (motors, motor controllers, etc) have plenty of room to evolve in size, weight and efficiency.

While the B787 and the A350 will use the same engine cores and technology, the 350 will use traditional bleed air while the 787’s engines will have huge, 500+ KVA generators on them. Anyways, something to chew on.
20 posted on 12/15/2005 10:46:33 AM PST by Knuckledragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Knuckledragger

Woops, meant to say current bleed air is ~30 PSI and 350+ degrees. How do you edit anyways?

I'm still amazes me it takes a nominal 700 HP (522KW) to pressurize a widebody aircraft at cruise.


21 posted on 12/15/2005 11:01:23 AM PST by Knuckledragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Knuckledragger
"The 787 is doing away with almost all that, and is switching to electrical powered devices."

That's news to me.

I haven't run the numbers, but it would seem that using bleed air from the efficient compressor stage of an engine would be much lighter in weight, simpler and much more reliable than adding a several hundred horsepower electric air compressor that the ship has to lug around all its life. Mechanical work still has to be done, so it gets robbed from the engine in some way, no matter what particular system gets used.

The engine is already a very efficient air compressor, so why not use it, rather than increase the load on the spindle shaft and require more shaft energy from the engine to run a larger, heavier generator, to run a several hundred horsepower electric motor, (more added weight) to run another air compressor (still more added weight) for cabin pressurization?

Something tells me that good ol' Boeing may have bitten off more than it can chew with this new 787.

22 posted on 12/15/2005 11:10:28 AM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver

Here's a good read on the reason for the switch to electrical. It's about a third of the way down:

http://www.cocardes.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=366

Basically, they say pneumatic and (infant) electrical systems are currently equal in efficiency, but pneumatic technologies peaked around a decade ago while electronic stuff has the sky for the limit. Add to that only a few companies are in pneumatics (in a very limited and mature market) while everyone and his brother are working on improving power electronics and electrical devices in the quest for efficiency.

Also, forgot to mention that the bleed air system in an aircraft frequently requires maintenance and the extensive ducting takes up valuable space that could otherwise be used for revenue service. I also wonder about the compatibility of 350 degree bleed air ducts in a composite aircraft.


23 posted on 12/15/2005 12:07:34 PM PST by Knuckledragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Knuckledragger
Dang, why can't you edit?

For you non-link readers, here's selected quotes from the the article.

Snip

Why did Boeing make the jump to electric pressurization? Some of the answers seem to be already fading in the mists of time and computer programs as the aircraft rapidly becomes more solid, and not everyone gives the same answers.

A top reason is that Boeing feels that power electronics, which are key to the all-electric airplane, are on a steep curve of performance and cost improvement, while pneumatic systems growth "tapped out" around 1995, says Michael K. Sinnett, Boeing chief engineer for 787 systems. At the moment, the performance of pneumatics and electrics is roughly similar, but electrics are poised for growth and pneumatics are not.

"This was a Boeing gut decision, and I think they made a good decision," says Clifton D. Jacobs, Hamilton Sundstrand Electrical Systems vice president and general manager. "If we get a high-temperature power transistor that needs less cooling, the system will be better later. I don't see much further improvement in bleed."

Along the same line, Boeing believes it should get its technology more from the broader industrial market, which has a large investment in better designs, rather than from what it calls the "boutique" aircraft business--and electrics have broader use than pneumatics. The billions of dollars being thrown at hybrid cars affects the motors and controllers that Boeing will use.

But do electrics burn less fuel? "When we decided on electric pressurization, it lowered aircraft empty weight 1,000-2,000 lb. and fuel burn was down several percent," Sinnett says. "But the numbers got muddied as the 787 got integrated. It's hard to say where the weight has gone."

He says the main reason the electric cabin is more efficient is that modern engines compress and heat the air too much--that energy is thrown away in the precooler and excessive expansion. At current 30-psia. bleed pressures, the amount of wasted energy is about 30%. The electric compressor creates less pressure and less waste.
24 posted on 12/15/2005 12:22:17 PM PST by Knuckledragger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Knuckledragger
"A top reason is that Boeing feels that power electronics, which are key to the all-electric airplane, are on a steep curve of performance and cost improvement, while pneumatic systems growth "tapped out" around 1995, says Michael K. Sinnett, Boeing chief engineer for 787 systems."

But he doesn't cite any specifics. His reasoning reeks of "Gee, we need to use the latest technology or else we will be laughed at," not that it produces a better airplane.

So far, there are good arguments against his reasoning for an all-electric airplane, but I wish him the best.

25 posted on 12/15/2005 2:30:37 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Knuckledragger
He says the main reason the electric cabin is more efficient is that modern engines compress and heat the air too much--that energy is thrown away in the precooler and excessive expansion. At current 30-psia. bleed pressures, the amount of wasted energy is about 30%. The electric compressor creates less pressure and less waste.

Yes, why spend the extra fuel to produce heat and excess compression that only goes to waste?

26 posted on 12/15/2005 3:43:06 PM PST by Jorge (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
Boeing sure has a lot committed to the success of this plastic 787.

No more than Airbus has riding on the "albatross" of the air Airbis 380.
At least they haven't done postponement after postponement like Airbus keeps doing on the 380 every few months.
27 posted on 12/10/2006 10:12:33 AM PST by ShawTaylor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson