Skip to comments.Boeing wins $10 bln Qantas jet order (Its Boeing, baby! Another $10B that Airbus DOESNT get)
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.
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.
I heard this on the news last night. Good job, Boeing! Give 'em hell.
More likely the result of a company comprised of gung-ho capitalists going head-to-head with a socialist enterprise.
Maybe the Aussies didn't want to have to redesign all their international airports to accomodate the "Titanic of the Air".
Boeing is having a record year!
"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.
Does Airbus still sell planes??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
singapore airlines ordered several of the big airbus monsters..as I recall..but are very limited on their routes..
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!
Yeah, and my church's newsletter and Reader's Digest have a combined circulation of 15 Million too.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a good read on the reason for the switch to electrical. It's about a third of the way down:
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.
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.
Yes, why spend the extra fuel to produce heat and excess compression that only goes to waste?