Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 17, 2018 15:40:34 GMT 1
Well if Airbus proved themselves ready to deliver, it shouldn't cause too much of a concern to its investors by now on missing the actual delivery date. Everyone knows about Qatar's strange acceptance antics and how it isn't an industry norm anyways.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 18, 2018 1:48:35 GMT 1
ATW makes it sound like QR didn't take it The facts are the following : - MSN 88 made three test flights, the latest on December 20th ; - to the best of my knowledge, MSN 88 was never seen at the delivery center ; - no CAF was ever made by MSN 88. I think that had Airbus been ready to deliver the aircraft, then we would have spotted her at the delivery center and QR, in my opinion, would not have refused her without at least having a CAF performed. What is more, we know from a Flightglobal December 28th story that there was an agreement between Airbus and QR on a revised delivery schedule. "The airframer tells FlightGlobal that it has agreed with Qatar Airways that the delivery of the initial A350-1000 will 'now be planned early in the new year' ". www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-qatar-a350-1000-delivery-slips-to-2018-444508/This report suggests that an actual problem arose, that pushed delivery into 2018. That Airbus and QR agreed on the change is consistent with their improved relationship : once the A320neo dispute was resolved, QR quickly took delivery of several widebodies (at least four A350s and one A380). For the above reasons, I don't believe in the ATW version, which is no more than an unsupported opinion. I think that Airbus rushed to deliver the aircraft before year-end, but needed more time.
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Jan 18, 2018 3:25:06 GMT 1
ATW makes it sound like QR didn't take it The facts are the following : - MSN 88 made three test flights, the latest on December 20th ; - to the best of my knowledge, MSN 88 was never seen at the delivery center ; - no CAF was ever made by MSN 88. I think that had Airbus been ready to deliver the aircraft, then we would have spotted her at the delivery center and QR, in my opinion, would not have refused her without at least having a CAF performed. What is more, we know from a Flightglobal December 28th story that there was an agreement between Airbus and QR on a revised delivery schedule. "The airframer tells FlightGlobal that it has agreed with Qatar Airways that the delivery of the initial A350-1000 will 'now be planned early in the new year' ". www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-qatar-a350-1000-delivery-slips-to-2018-444508/This report suggests that an actual problem arose, that pushed delivery into 2018. That Airbus and QR agreed on the change is consistent with their improved relationship : once the A320neo dispute was resolved, QR quickly took delivery of several widebodies (at least four A350s and one A380). For the above reasons, I don't believe in the ATW version, which is no more than an unsupported opinion. I think that Airbus rushed to deliver the aircraft before year-end, but needed more time. I think CAF is a good point, but it was towed away from the flightline and move to somewhere in TLS (not sure where it is now). It can very well related to the fact that QR is not ready (or not planning) to accept it so leave some space for other customers who are serious about accepting airplanes ? Especially during Dec delivery rush .....
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jan 18, 2018 13:53:43 GMT 1
I think CAF is a good point, but it was towed away from the flightline and move to somewhere in TLS (not sure where it is now). It can very well related to the fact that QR is not ready (or not planning) to accept it so leave some space for other customers who are serious about accepting airplanes ? Especially during Dec delivery rush ..... QR is the launch customer, this has been said time and again by Airbus and QR. The fact that QR has not disclosed its planned routes suggest that they may have been expecting some delivery delay. QR not being 'serious about accepting deliveries' is not, in my opinion, the right characterisation. They have exerted maximum pressure on Airbus to solve a major issue that broke out when they refused the A320neo, holding the P&W engine non-compliant. Now that this issue has been solved, they are consistently taking delivery of other types, even if it takes them some time to catch up.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Feb 5, 2018 4:05:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Feb 5, 2018 4:37:28 GMT 1
what do they meant by "empty" ? I thought the manufacture empty weight for 777-9 is about 185t ?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 5, 2018 10:13:51 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 5, 2018 13:34:02 GMT 1
Airbus is praising the A35K performance, yet nothing is reported to be said about fuel burn ... I don't think it is too early for an assessment of this key metric, so I wonder whether the aircraft is performing worse than expected ... I hope I am wrong !
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 5, 2018 13:42:48 GMT 1
Fuel burn was confirmed earlier and is on spec too.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 5, 2018 13:46:17 GMT 1
Fuel burn was confirmed earlier and is on spec too. Thank you, XWB, I read that myself, but not repeating important good news made me grow suspicious.
|
|