Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2235698/

Topic: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2005-07-24 20:31:48 and read 13989 times.

I don't know for sure if it has been posted here before, but I just saw this interesting link on another aviation site. It contains a power point presentation of Airbus on their A350 compared to both the 787 and the 777.

http://www.aci-na.org/docs/41%20SAN%...ohen-Nir%20A350%20PRESENTATION.pdf

Enjoy...

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2005-07-24 20:42:22 and read 13943 times.

Some interesting quotes:


An A358 carries 26 pax 600nm miles further than the 788 will do.
It has a 2% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-8.


An A359 matches the 789 in payload/range, or it can carry 29 more pax.
It has a 3% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-9 and a whopping 25% lower fuel burn/seat than the 777-200ER (!!!!)

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2005-07-24 20:45:11 and read 13929 times.

Yes very interesting. Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 20:46:59 and read 13921 times.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
An A358 carries 26 pax 600nm miles further than the 788 will do.

Bigger is not necessarily better. It depends on what the airline wants for a particular route.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
It has a 3% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-9 and a whopping 25% lower fuel burn/seat than the 777-200ER (!!!!)

That's been revised down. It was 30% a while back.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Newark777
Posted 2005-07-24 20:47:01 and read 13921 times.

Also note on the last page that all data is based on assumptions. This is still a paper airplane, and it is still early to make these comparisons.

Harry

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: YUL332LX
Posted 2005-07-24 20:47:18 and read 13919 times.

I wonder where you got that link Sabenapilot.

JFYI, YUL332LX = SR89.  Wink

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2005-07-24 20:48:50 and read 13908 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war?

So you prefer me NOT to link to interesting information then? Just so we understand you clearly....

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

Now now, whose starting off what here??? Big grin

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: UAL747-600
Posted 2005-07-24 20:49:10 and read 13907 times.

I wonder how the 350-8 compares to the 787-9. Anybody know?

UAL747-600

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: UAL747-600
Posted 2005-07-24 20:50:22 and read 13897 times.

I also wonder how the 350-9 would compare to another paper plane possibility the 787-10?

UAL747-600

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sabenapilot
Posted 2005-07-24 20:51:56 and read 13878 times.

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 5):
JFYI, YUL332LX = SR89.

Hi there SR89...
Didn't know you are one and the same, or I would have given you the full credit!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Udo
Posted 2005-07-24 20:52:11 and read 13876 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

Actually that comment is the first one in that thread to qualify for a bashing contest...  Yeah sure


Regards
Udo

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 20:53:36 and read 13863 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

It could be argue that part of the reason for Boeing whooping the A340 was being later to the market with the 777 knowing what they were up against. This situation would be reversed in this case.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

It depends on the definition of A vs B war. Having not been here that long, I would imagine it is an irrational slanging match. I think an intelligent debate over the relative merits of the two manufacturers products based on accurate facts and sound logic in a civil manner would not be an A vs B war. Lately, it seems like there have been some good debates of this kind as long as AirbusDriver keeps out of it. I hope we could have the same thing here.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: YUL332LX
Posted 2005-07-24 20:55:16 and read 13853 times.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 9):
Didn't know you are one and the same, or I would have given you the full credit!

Oh no problem... just being friendly here  Smile

What's your ID on " the other forum" ?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: 707lvr
Posted 2005-07-24 21:16:07 and read 13764 times.

We should give Airbus some credit here. Boeing has spent years developing what they believe will be the pinnacle of an efficient jet transport, using revolutionary materials and processes. By employing their best minds and exhaustive research and testing, they felt they had a product which would usher in a new era of flight. In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities. And it will probably cost considerably less. Boeing may sell a few of their model and eventually get some reward for the effort via freighter conversions.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Trident2e
Posted 2005-07-24 21:22:17 and read 13735 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Yes very interesting. Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

Sounds to me like it's you trying to start an A vs. B war - typical American sour grapes!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 21:58:35 and read 13621 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Boeing has spent years developing what they believe will be the pinnacle of an efficient jet transport, using revolutionary materials and processes.

Actually, the materials of the 777 are fairly conventional, only about 10% composite. The 787 and the A350 are revolutionising the map in terms of materials with carbon fibre and GLARE.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
By employing their best minds and exhaustive research and testing, they felt they had a product which would usher in a new era of flight.

Well, Airbus are hardly using university dropouts, which are throwing together the ultimate aircraft and selling it without research and testing. And it sounds like you making out the 772ER to be a failure when of course it has been a runaway success, which will be beaten by a newer aircraft 15 years later. Shock!

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities.

First off, Airbus had the A330 as a base, an excellent aircraft by any measure. Second off, they are using the GEnx, which is a major contributor to the increased efficiency of the A350 so half the credit goes to GE. It will not fly faster than the 777. It will not offer greater capacity than the 777. It will not fly significantly higher than the 777 (I'm not sure how the ceiling compares, but it would involve quibbling over 10 or 20 flight levels.). There's no talk about increasing passenger comfort significantly over the A330. The 787 is the one that's going to do that. Airbus promises large increases in efficiency, due to the use of GLARE (spinoff benefits from the A380 program) and the GEnx (credit goes to GE).

Moreover, it's still a paper aeroplane. It hasn't taken months for Airbus to develop an improvement on what Boeing took years to develop. It has taken months for Airbus to realise they have to offer an improvement on what Boeing took years to develop. Guess what? They've got until 2010 to develop it at the easliest, which qualifies as "years".

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 21:59:45 and read 13614 times.

Quoting Trident2e (Reply 14):
typical American sour grapes!

Thank you. You don't need to prolong it with comments like that.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Texdravid
Posted 2005-07-24 22:05:14 and read 13583 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities. And it will probably cost considerably less. Boeing may sell a few of their model and eventually get some reward for the effort via freighter conversions.

It has done no such thing. An "infinitely superior plane...". Come on. Such grandstanding and cheerleading is lame. Of course, Airbus is going to say such things, and Boeing is going to say how their plane is better.

But for you to generalize that the Airbus 350 is infinitely superior at this stage is premature at best, foolish at worst.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-24 22:24:32 and read 13503 times.

How does the floor area compare between the 787-8/9 the 772ER and the A350-800/900?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Dynkrisolo
Posted 2005-07-24 22:25:39 and read 13496 times.

On page 8, it shows the 358 can fly 8,200nm with 258 pax, and the 788 can fly only 7,600nm with 232 pax. Boeing advertises the 788 can fly 8,500nm with 223 pax, see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html . That's a big hit on Boeing's specs, wouldn't you say so?

On page 9, it shows the 359 can fly 6,800nm with 316 pax, and the 789 can fly only 7,000nm with 287 pax. Boeing advertises the 789 can fly 8,300nm with 259 pax, see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_stretch.html . That's a big hit on Boeing's specs, wouldn't you say so?

When Airbus knocks down Boeing's specs by at least 10% or more, of course the 358 will burn less fuel than 788. One should also wonder why Airbus won't compare the 358 against the 789.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: ConcordeBoy
Posted 2005-07-24 22:27:41 and read 13486 times.

....anyone else notice how realistic Airbus was being with seating pitch (page six)?

Normally, they're content to use such unrealism as 39in pitch for Biz and 30in pitch for coach... but this time they've chosen a nice cozy 60in/32in

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 22:36:15 and read 13444 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities.

Now that I read this again, are you sure you're not confusing the A350 with the A380? The unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities is only promised for the behemoth A380.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2005-07-24 22:37:52 and read 13437 times.

Well, I just don't get it how Airbus with 315-seat A350-900 plane is comparing it's fuel burn to the 787-9 which is a 280 seat plane. They advertise that it burns 3% less fuel per seat. I wonder how those numbers would compare with that "ghost plane" everyone keeps mumbling about here, which would be a better match for the capacity - 787-10*.

Just prooves the point that every manufacturer swings his product. Boeing does it with that mock-up "airbus passenger cabin", which is a joke. Airbus fudges the fuel burn. And to everyone crying foul about it... let me say it again:

JUST WAIT UNTIL BOTH PLANES ARE FLYING WITH AIRLINES!!!!

thank you Big grin


*) hint: 787-10 would probably burn about 5 - 8% less fuel per seat. Please mind that the above is an educated guess, based on what other 787 variants are claimed to do.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: BoeingBus
Posted 2005-07-24 22:39:58 and read 13420 times.

These comparisons are meaningless... Does Airbus think they can fool airlines with these stats? I don't understand why they wouldn't use the 787-9 / A358 comparison and the A359 /772ER, which exactly what airlines would look at?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-24 22:44:59 and read 13392 times.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):

Good stuff. Funny how many think you are serious. Especially about the freighter conversions.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-07-24 22:46:23 and read 13382 times.

basically the air carriers are going to decide what plane is going to be the most successful....so far its the 787 (for now at least)-lets see what happens in a few years.....

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sonic67
Posted 2005-07-24 22:47:03 and read 13377 times.

See is believing!
With all the research Boeing has done the last couple of years with composites I don't see how the 350 can match it in performance. Sure it easy to put a presentation together but how much of that is based on hard #.

Did anyone catch the last page quoted below?

"The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof."

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2005-07-24 22:48:54 and read 13368 times.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 17):
Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities. And it will probably cost considerably less. Boeing may sell a few of their model and eventually get some reward for the effort via freighter conversions.



Quoting Texdravid (Reply 17):
It has done no such thing. An "infinitely superior plane...". Come on. Such grandstanding and cheerleading is lame. Of course, Airbus is going to say such things, and Boeing is going to say how their plane is better.

But for you to generalize that the Airbus 350 is infinitely superior at this stage is premature at best, foolish at worst.

I have a suspicion he was taking the piss.....

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 22:53:23 and read 13343 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 24):
Funny how many think you are serious.

Well sooooooory!! There was no smiley and there have been posts made in earnest far more non-sensical. It's not the height of gullibility to consider that maybe he was being serious.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2005-07-24 23:05:32 and read 13261 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 28):
Well sooooooory!! There was no smiley and there have been posts made in earnest far more non-sensical. It's not the height of gullibility to consider that maybe he was being serious.

I think the extreme hyperbolic praise was a dead give away for it being sarcasm.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Boysteve
Posted 2005-07-24 23:06:55 and read 13242 times.

Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 26):
Did anyone catch the last page quoted below?

"The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to explain the basis thereof."

Surely this is just standard procedure in all walks of life these days. It doesn't necessarily mean that Airbus are over-egging things

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Beauing
Posted 2005-07-24 23:19:51 and read 13114 times.

A rather lame presentation in my opinion, with very little REAL compairson between the A350 and 787.

Compatibility with existing airports. This is news? The 787 will also have compatibility with existing airports.

Advanced lightweight structure. The 787 will be more advanced.

State of the art flight deck. Ditto for the 787.

All-new advanced composite wing. Ditto for the 787.

Preferred six abrest seating in business class. Ditto for the 787.

Preferred eight abrest seating in coach. Ditto for the 787.

A350 All-new advanced cabin. Minor tweaks compared to the 787.

Advanced engines. Will use bleed air version of the 787 engines.

Innovative new flight crew rest. What's innovative about it? They don't tell you. Is it in the cargo hold? The A340 does that. Is it in the crown of the aircraft? The 777 does that.

Then they show a pie chart of A350 structure composition by material. But they don't show the a similar chart for the 787, so how can we compare the two?

A358 seating 258 in two classes. 788 seating 223 in three classes.
A359 seating 316 in two classes. 789 seating 259 in three classes.
What counts is useable floor area.

A358 8200nm. 788 8500nm.
A359 6800nm. 789 8300nm.

The point is, you can play all kinds of games with statistics by slicing and dicing the numbers to achieve a particular outcome.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glideslope
Posted 2005-07-24 23:25:59 and read 13039 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Yes very interesting. Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

Exactly. As if any airline is going to take Airbus at their word on this. Have we forgotten the "wait and see approach" operators are taking with the 380.  Smile

Are we looking at another 346 media claim.  Smile

This is the largest obstacle Airbus faces at this point in their history. The 380 needs to be everything Airbus claims when it enters revenue service or the 350 is DOA.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-24 23:44:09 and read 12892 times.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 29):
I think the extreme hyperbolic praise was a dead give away for it being sarcasm.

But we've had worse said in earnest.

Quoting Beauing (Reply 31):
All-new advanced composite wing. Ditto for the 787.

I don't think the 787 wing is composite (yet).

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-24 23:51:12 and read 12828 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 33):
I don't think the 787 wing is composite (yet).

Yes it is, the whole wing is pretty much Carbon laminate except for some of the leading edges which are either fiberglass or aluminum, probably to protect the wings from impact damage. They say that the 787 is 50% composite, I'm not sure what number they mean though (i.e. weight or total parts etc.)

http://www.newairplane.com/en-US/Ext.../TechnologySpotlight/composite.htm

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Beauing
Posted 2005-07-24 23:51:29 and read 12822 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 33):
I don't think the 787 wing is composite (yet).



Quote:
Boeing has announced that the majority of the primary structure – including the fuselage and wing – on the 787 will be made of composite materials.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/background.html

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Ai
Username: Udo
Posted 2005-07-24 23:53:35 and read 12803 times.

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 32):
Exactly. As if any airline is going to take Airbus at their word on this. Have we forgotten the "wait and see approach" operators are taking with the 380.

Have you forgotten those successful and respected carriers which have ordered 159 aircraft so far?  biggrin 

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 32):
Are we looking at another 346 media claim.

Could also be an A332-like claim...who knows?  Confused

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 32):
This is the largest obstacle Airbus faces at this point in their history. The 380 needs to be everything Airbus claims when it enters revenue service or the 350 is DOA.

Amen, brother.  old 


Regards
Udo

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-25 00:01:27 and read 12739 times.

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 32):
Exactly. As if any airline is going to take Airbus at their word on this. Have we forgotten the "wait and see approach" operators are taking with the 380

Let's not make it so A v B there. Airlines are also taking a wait and see with the 772LR, and even did to a lesser extent for the 773ER. Was this because of the 345/346? Maybe, but we also have the MD-11 and 764 and 743 of aircraft that didn't quite deliver on the initial pr, either.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Lehpron
Posted 2005-07-25 00:04:10 and read 12713 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

I wonder if no one brought this up, would one start? Thesedays it seems as if we are waiting for someone to fire out just so we can react without being liable for the comment or starting the war.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 4):
This is still a paper airplane, and it is still early to make these comparisons.

You mean digital airplane, there are very few drafters around in this age, me certified as one.  Sad

Granted, your point stands to an extent. That being the scaled percent error between digital and physical product.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 00:15:48 and read 12626 times.

A big fact without the specs is this in the A350-787 "war";

A350 has commonality where again the B787 is a completely new aircraft and it will logically will cost more to operate.

CCQ (Cross Crew Qualifications) and MFF (Mixed Fleet Flying) is possible on A350 and that remains a big factor for airlines who already operate an Airbus.

Most Boeing fans say that commonality is BS, but prove me wrong...
BTW, I'am a fan of the best aircraft, not the maker who gives just some promotion on what it will do!
Airbus was not "kosher" in posting such a thing...

Even if and most likely it will be that the 787 is better, Boeing will have to come up with something to get fleet commonality operational costs lower when flying and if the 787 will not be better, they are in some problems...

Look at the A345-A346, Airbus still has fail safe regarding the commonality and ease of implementing them in an existing fleet where Airbusses are present, and this battle is defenitly not over yet altough Boeing has better credit regarding commonality in the matter!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Sonic67
Posted 2005-07-25 00:22:03 and read 12539 times.

Quoting Boysteve (Reply 30):
Surely this is just standard procedure in all walks of life these days. It doesn't necessarily mean that Airbus are over-egging things



Quoting Boysteve (Reply 30):
Boysteve

Yes I do relize this. I'm just suprized that Airbus is able to make these esmates this early in the game without extensive windtunnel time.

I wonder if Airbus is doing what Mc D did in the late 80's basing their # off over enthusiastic claims and not exact hard #, If so this could come back to hunt them. Or is this just an early marketing ploy to try to hurt some of the potential 787 sales? If this is the case couldn't this strategy back fire on them?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-25 00:26:41 and read 12495 times.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
CCQ (Cross Crew Qualifications) and MFF (Mixed Fleet Flying) is possible on A350 and that remains a big factor for airlines who already operate an Airbus.

I still don't understand why Boeing doesn't have the exact same cockpit design on all their aircraft. Take the 777 and make it the standard cockpit for all future types.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-25 00:31:46 and read 12452 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 34):
Yes it is, the whole wing is pretty much Carbon laminate except for some of the leading edges which are either fiberglass or aluminum, probably to protect the wings from impact damage.

So it is. I have memories of people saying the 787 have an aluminium wing, which is why Airbus's use of composite was better or something. I'm probably misremembering.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
A350 has commonality where again the B787 is a completely new aircraft and it will logically will cost more to operate.

Not more to operate. Maybe more to introduce (maybe), but not more once the core of 787 pilots is established. Besides, I believe cockpit commonality with the 777 is one of the goals.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
CCQ (Cross Crew Qualifications) and MFF (Mixed Fleet Flying) is possible on A350 and that remains a big factor for airlines who already operate an Airbus.

You're just asking for a torrent of people bringing up AI, KE, NW and AC (although they are uncertain, it is clear they wanted the Boeings).

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-25 00:37:04 and read 12423 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 41):
I still don't understand why Boeing doesn't have the exact same cockpit design on all their aircraft. Take the 777 and make it the standard cockpit for all future types.

The layout is the same. The 787 uses bigger screens. The problem with being too rigid with standardisation is that it prevents improvements on future types. The A380 cockpit looks a fair bit different from other Airbus cockpits, but in functionality, it will no doubt will similar to ensure commonality.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 00:43:11 and read 12383 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 42):
Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
CCQ (Cross Crew Qualifications) and MFF (Mixed Fleet Flying) is possible on A350 and that remains a big factor for airlines who already operate an Airbus.

You're just asking for a torrent of people bringing up AI, KE, NW and AC (although they are uncertain, it is clear they wanted the Boeings).

Yes I know what you mean,
but a fact is that an existing A320 pilot is converted in 8 days on the A350,
try that with for instance a 738 with 787, but off course I would defenitly hope Boeing will accomplish that possibility!

It safes a lot of money for the airlines and in regards to the operational envelope of a flying A319 to An A332, there is not much really different when you feel it, you easely forget that you fly a 50 meter aircraft most Airbus pilots claim.

[Edited 2005-07-25 00:46:28]

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-25 00:43:34 and read 12370 times.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
A350 has commonality where again the B787 is a completely new aircraft and it will logically will cost more to operate.

Not true. Since the major redesign, A's been claiming all new parts out of one side of their mouth and commonality out of the other. That graphic that tries to claim that it is somehow cheaper to train pilots to fly A320s and A380s together is nonsense. Or that there is any major part commonality between the A318 and A350. yet they imply that with the graphic. Nobody will buy that line.

Sorry, but with new materials, new interiors, new flight deck, new engines, new landing gear, the commonality of the A350 with the A330 is not real. And the A350 will not be considered the same type as the A330/340, unless Airbus want's to cripple it by forcing it to operate in much the same way a 25 year older design does. But if they do, your point still theoretically stands re: pilots and only pilots. IF, and only if, the carrier already flies newer A330/A340s in large numbers, pilot training may be less, depending on how the final A350 develops.

Also not at all sure where that range chart comes from for the 788, nor do I see how the 789 has the same range as an A359. B's website is not very detailed. Are there other docs someone can point to that show the range/payload charts Airbus is using/misusing?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 00:48:51 and read 12319 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 45):
Not true. Since the major redesign, A's been claiming all new parts out of one side of their mouth and commonality out of the other. That graphic that tries to claim that it is somehow cheaper to train pilots to fly A320s and A380s together is nonsense. Or that there is any major part commonality between the A318 and A350. yet they imply that with the graphic. Nobody will buy that line.

I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-25 01:11:29 and read 12153 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 43):
The layout is the same. The 787 uses bigger screens. The problem with being too rigid with standardisation is that it prevents improvements on future types. The A380 cockpit looks a fair bit different from other Airbus cockpits, but in functionality, it will no doubt will similar to ensure commonality.

That is a good point you bring up. I was just looking at the 747-400 and 777 cockpit posters I have in my room, they both look very similar, though not identical. I guess there is a degree of commonality between the 2?

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!

What do you mean exactly by operational commonality? Does that mean similar checklist sequences?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: B2707SST
Posted 2005-07-25 01:23:46 and read 12060 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 41):
I still don't understand why Boeing doesn't have the exact same cockpit design on all their aircraft. Take the 777 and make it the standard cockpit for all future types.

All we can say is that if Boeing's customers wanted common cockpits badly enough, Boeing would offer them. Boeing itself pioneered commonality on the 757/767, even going so far as to achieve a common type rating, something Airbus has never done. If Boeing continues to pass over this blatantly obvious potential selling point on the 787, it must be for a good reason, e.g. new cockpit technology being worth more to potential customers than commonality with other models. This would indicate that cockpit commonality -- the only commonality it appears that the "now 90+% new" A350 will share with other Airbus models -- is not so valuable as Airbus likes to claim.

--B2707SST

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-25 01:33:40 and read 11989 times.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 48):
All we can say is that if Boeing's customers wanted common cockpits badly enough, Boeing would offer them. Boeing itself pioneered commonality on the 757/767, even going so far as to achieve a common type rating, something Airbus has never done.

Actually the commonality goes back further than that, the 707, 727, and 737 had commonality.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-07-25 01:42:22 and read 11941 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 3):
That's been revised down. It was 30% a while back.

I'd appreciate knowing when or where Airbus has claimed -30% fuel burn vs B772ER.

Quoting Glom (Reply 15):
The 787 and the A350 are revolutionising the map in terms of materials with carbon fibre and GLARE.

FWIW, neither airplane will use GLARE. Airbus will be using the new Al-Li alloy in the fuselage in lieu of GLARE.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 19):
That's a big hit on Boeing's specs, wouldn't you say so?

As the B787 is a paper airplane, perhaps it won't reach its performance target. Yet, Airbus is forecasting a target miss twice as bad on the B787 for Boeing than MDC had on the MD-11. Needless to say, that is unlikely. OTOH, if the 245t A350 can't match the payload/range or fuel burn characteristics of the B787, then what else can Airbus do? They simply have to make the Boeing look bad to make their product look better.

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 19):
When Airbus knocks down Boeing's specs by at least 10% or more, of course the 358 will burn less fuel than 788. One should also wonder why Airbus won't compare the 358 against the 789.

IMHO, all the number fudging does is make the document seem less credible. Not only has Airbus taken a 10% sword to the Boeing numbers (and let's face it, Airbus is probably the only company less believable about Boeing products than Boeing themselves!), but the 8,200nm (A358) and 6,800nm (A359) range figures do not correlate with the 245t MTOW airplane performance measures released by Airbus at the Paris Air Show. Then, Airbus said the 245t airplanes would have 8,800nm (A358) and 7,500nm (A359) range, respectively.

If Airbus can't get their own numbers right, then why on earth would any reasonable person (let alone an airplane performance engineer) believe that they could get Boeing's numbers right? Somewhere along the line, Airbus' left hand is going to have to start talking to its right hand.

Quoting Beauing (Reply 31):
Innovative new flight crew rest. What's innovative about it? They don't tell you. Is it in the cargo hold? The A340 does that. Is it in the crown of the aircraft? The 777 does that.

The A350 flight crew rest area is under the floor near the avionics bay.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 39):
A350 has commonality where again the B787 is a completely new aircraft and it will logically will cost more to operate.

The A350 won't have a high amount of spares commonality with the A330. In fact, it will be quite low. However, it will retain some sort of cockpit commonality. The B787 isn't too different. It won't have much spares commonality with the B777 but will have a brand of cockpit commonality. Both airplanes should have MFF.

Quoting Glom (Reply 42):
So it is. I have memories of people saying the 787 have an aluminium wing, which is why Airbus's use of composite was better or something. I'm probably misremembering.

It was said here around about six months ago that the A350 wing would have more composite content than the B787 wing. However, it was eventually highlighted that that was not necessarily true...

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 44):
Yes I know what you mean, but a fact is that an existing A320 pilot is converted in 8 days on the A350, try that with for instance a 738 with 787, but off course I would defenitly hope Boeing will accomplish that possibility!

Any reduction in training time is good, but it isn't yet confirmed that the A320 <-> A350 training time will be 8 days as it is with A320 <-> A330. Besides...

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 44):
It safes a lot of money for the airlines and in regards to the operational envelope of a flying A319 to An A332, there is not much really different when you feel it, you easely forget that you fly a 50 meter aircraft most Airbus pilots claim.

...only 21 airlines are using MFF. It is a brilliant concept that hasn't delivered the benefits in practice that a lot of people seem to perceive.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!

Sir, operational commonality includes spares.

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 01:44:11 and read 11922 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47):
Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!

What do you mean exactly by operational commonality? Does that mean similar checklist sequences?

You are a pilot, so you should know what I'am talking about and how type ratings and CCQ work...

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 01:51:47 and read 11878 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 50):
Quoting SWISSER (Reply 44):
It safes a lot of money for the airlines and in regards to the operational envelope of a flying A319 to An A332, there is not much really different when you feel it, you easely forget that you fly a 50 meter aircraft most Airbus pilots claim.

...only 21 airlines are using MFF. It is a brilliant concept that hasn't delivered the benefits in practice that a lot of people seem to perceive.

Already 21? that's more then I expected!

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 50):
Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!

Sir, operational commonality includes spares.

Let me rename it aircrew cockpit commonality then for you!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Beauing
Posted 2005-07-25 01:55:55 and read 11845 times.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 50):
Innovative new flight crew rest. What's innovative about it? They don't tell you. Is it in the cargo hold? The A340 does that. Is it in the crown of the aircraft? The 777 does that.

The A350 flight crew rest area is under the floor near the avionics bay.

Is that an inovation vis-à-vis to the A340?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: QFA001
Posted 2005-07-25 02:10:28 and read 11748 times.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 52):
Already 21? that's more then I expected!

Then you had low expectations.  Sad

It is now well over a decade since Airbus' MFF became fully available to airlines (with A333 EIS in 1994). Yet, the number of Airbus MFF customers has not exceeded the number of B757/767 common-type rating users.

Quoting Beauing (Reply 53):
Is that an inovation vis-à-vis to the A340?

Apparently, yes. However, I presume that a cabin crew rest facility would still be either on the main deck or in the hold area. Unfortunately, Airbus has not exactly been forthcoming in answering questions about the A350.

 airplane QFA001

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: ConcordeBoy
Posted 2005-07-25 02:20:34 and read 11681 times.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
I'am talking about operational commonality,

...which derives a pitance of commonality for most large/varied-fleet carriers

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 46):
not parts!

...which is by far, the most valuable commonality aspect


in short:
weak argument  Wink

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Ha763
Posted 2005-07-25 02:25:21 and read 11642 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 47):
That is a good point you bring up. I was just looking at the 747-400 and 777 cockpit posters I have in my room, they both look very similar, though not identical. I guess there is a degree of commonality between the 2?

The 747-400 cockpit was the basis on which the 777 cockpit was designed upon. That's why they look similar. Also, this design has also spread to the design of the 737NG and 767-400 ccckpit, giving all these Boeing aircraft similar cockpits.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: NorCal
Posted 2005-07-25 02:34:55 and read 11590 times.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 51):

I'm a private pilot working on my other ratings, so I still have a lot to learn, but I do know how type ratings work.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-25 02:36:40 and read 11570 times.

Further, the 747Adv will share the cockpit of the 772LR/3ER from what I understand.

The problem with true cockpit commonality is that it basically forces you to adopt a de facto standard based on the first example. Sure, things can be improved, but not dramatically so, or not without legacy functionality.

It's a similar problem with computers, Windows, and legacy/backward compatible code. The longer you go on with it, the more it begins to bottleneck evolution and cripple new ideas.

I'm not a pilot or an airline here, so I'm speaking in general terms here, but if I have the choice of a state of the art completely new cockpit in 2008 in a 787, or a derivative one meant to be common with the plane it is replacing in 2010 in an A350, I'm not sure which would be better. Both have pluses. But if you don't already operate the A330/340, the value of the A350 philosophy is basically zero, while the 787 may offer new functionality.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Fumanchewd
Posted 2005-07-25 03:04:33 and read 11397 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 34):
Yes it is, the whole wing is pretty much Carbon laminate except for some of the leading edges which are either fiberglass or aluminum, probably to protect the wings from impact damage.

I could be wrong but I believe that the aluminum is to conduct heat from the heating element for anti-acing as well as being important in the manufacturing of the slats.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: SWISSER
Posted 2005-07-25 03:14:49 and read 11346 times.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 55):
in short:
weak argument

Yes it was, I'am looking at the A350 in the eyes of a pilot and off course that is a small factor in the total packet.

If you look at the B777's succes concerning the completely new cockpit.

To get back on topic regarding the specs Airbus delivered us,
I'am still in the opinion that the B787 will achieve better results until some proof of the specs is made and I would defenitly be surprised if the A350 performs better.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Shenzhen
Posted 2005-07-25 07:17:14 and read 10360 times.

Wonder why Airbus didn't provide a chart depicting trip costs..... probably harder to fudge the numbers, like seat counts. LOL

By the way, Airbus doesn't have the market on Mixed Fleet Flying, and airlines can do this with any airframe, as long as the pilot stays current on the airplanes they are rated on, and it is allowed by their regulatory authority (which many countires don't allow, therefore you need two seperate crews to operate the A340 and A330).


Cheers

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: GQfluffy
Posted 2005-07-25 07:34:54 and read 10286 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 49):
the 707, 727, and 737 had commonality.

Like what? Maybe the old "steam and clockwork" type cockpits, but I'm pretty sure a 707 pilot couldn't just strap him or herself in a 727 and fly away.

fluffy

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Shenzhen
Posted 2005-07-25 08:32:20 and read 10055 times.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 62):
Like what? Maybe the old "steam and clockwork" type cockpits, but I'm pretty sure a 707 pilot couldn't just strap him or herself in a 727 and fly away.

fluffy

Probably the largest group of pilots mixed fleet flying are US Airforce Reserve pilots flying 707s (KC135) and modern day transports for their work at the airlines.

So, you are probably wrong.

Cheers

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: MidnightMike
Posted 2005-07-25 08:56:19 and read 9953 times.

Quoting NorCal (Reply 41):
I still don't understand why Boeing doesn't have the exact same cockpit design on all their aircraft. Take the 777 and make it the standard cockpit for all future types.

The 787 will have a similar cockpit to that of the 777, even though the 787 will have a separate type rating, the length of training is very short if a pilot is to transition from the 777 to the 787. Boeing is presenting the 777 & the 787 as a family, since the cockpits are similar.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: MidnightMike
Posted 2005-07-25 09:22:44 and read 9826 times.

The website gave some interesting information on the A350, but, it did make some unfair comparisions, such as comparing the A350 in a "2" class config vs the 787 in a "3" class.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: GQfluffy
Posted 2005-07-25 09:25:28 and read 9819 times.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 63):
So, you are probably wrong.

Could be, but I guess my question is this: How can one pilot jump from a 4-engine to a 3 engined T-tail, to a 2 engined aircraft? Just looking at the three different a/c Flt Decks...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yakfreak - VAP



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Serge Bailleul - AirTeamImages



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrés Sotelo



Sure, I see some similarities, but not enough to be type-rated on all three, especially the 727. Will the FAA even let pilots be rated on two different a/c? GQ pilots can't hold ratings for both the Metro and the Beech 1900D. But I suppose their flt decks are a bit more different then those above.

So, if I'm wrong, I guess I'm wrong. I just don't think them flt decks are similar enough to warrant pilots to jump from one to other, like the 757/767.

fluffy

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Shenzhen
Posted 2005-07-25 09:41:42 and read 9736 times.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 66):
Sure, I see some similarities, but not enough to be type-rated on all three, especially the 727. Will the FAA even let pilots be rated on two different a/c? GQ pilots can't hold ratings for both the Metro and the Beech 1900D. But I suppose their flt decks are a bit more different then those above.

I don't have the FAA AC Circular at hand, but it is allowed. If GQ pilots aren't allowed to fly two different airplane types, it is their policy, not the FAAs. There is a cost involved with keeping a pilot current on two airplane types, but GQ certainly can't stop a pilot from holding two ratings.

Cheers

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Trex8
Posted 2005-07-25 14:43:15 and read 8490 times.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 63):
Probably the largest group of pilots mixed fleet flying are US Airforce Reserve pilots flying 707s (KC135) and modern day transports for their work at the airlines.

they are kept current by both the AF and whoever their regular employer are on whatever type their employer uses and the type they need to fly for the AF! I know people who fly F16s for the ANG and in their regular job with airlines fly DC10s or A320s! But its 2 totally seperate certifications they have to keep up. The same would apply for a KC135 pilot and a eg 737, though flying a large multi engine commercial airplane and a KC135 is probably less of a difference in handling characteristics than flying a fast jet!

there's nothing to stop an airline keeping a pilot type certified on a 777 and a Sopwith Camel simultaneously but there is no cross qualification!! however an A320 pilot can if the airline desires be kept current on a A330/340 with essentially the same certification which some airlines do find useful.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: USAF336TFS
Posted 2005-07-25 15:10:56 and read 8328 times.

Quoting Glom (Reply 16):
Quoting Trident2e (Reply 14):
typical American sour grapes!

Thank you. You don't need to prolong it with comments like that.

Thank you Glom. BTW, we "sour grape Americans" are with you and your countrymen during these difficult past few weeks.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2005-07-25 15:41:39 and read 8116 times.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 67):
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 66):
Sure, I see some similarities, but not enough to be type-rated on all three, especially the 727. Will the FAA even let pilots be rated on two different a/c? GQ pilots can't hold ratings for both the Metro and the Beech 1900D. But I suppose their flt decks are a bit more different then those above.

I don't have the FAA AC Circular at hand, but it is allowed. If GQ pilots aren't allowed to fly two different airplane types, it is their policy, not the FAAs. There is a cost involved with keeping a pilot current on two airplane types, but GQ certainly can't stop a pilot from holding two ratings.

Cheers

In the US, Pilots can hold many different type ratings. It is up to the Pilot to maintane his/her currency. Several Commerical Pilots own a private airplane, like a C-172 or other GA aircraft. Yet, they may fly the B-757 and B-767 for their airline employer.

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 63):
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 62):
Like what? Maybe the old "steam and clockwork" type cockpits, but I'm pretty sure a 707 pilot couldn't just strap him or herself in a 727 and fly away.

fluffy

Probably the largest group of pilots mixed fleet flying are US Airforce Reserve pilots flying 707s (KC135) and modern day transports for their work at the airlines.

So, you are probably wrong.

Cheers

You are correct, although the KC-135 is not a B-707 (and the KC-135 is being updated with new avionics and glass cockpit). Even more different would be a USAFR or ANG pilot flying the C-130 or A-10 for the military and a B-777 for an airline.

BTW (and I am not saying this will ever happen), it is possible (not probible) that airline XYZ buy 15 A-350-900s and 15 B-787-800s and want to qualify some pilots in BOTH types. That would be legal to do (at least in the US). I did not say it would be logical or economical.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2005-07-25 16:05:58 and read 7938 times.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
An A358 carries 26 pax 600nm miles further than the 788 will do.
It has a 2% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-8.

Assuming you can fill those seats or that your seating configuration doesn't preclude the seats from being available in the first place.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
An A359 matches the 789 in payload/range, or it can carry 29 more pax.
It has a 3% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-9 and a whopping 25% lower fuel burn/seat than the 777-200ER (!!!!)

Always per seat....It'll screw you every time. 25% lower than the ER maybe in 2 vs. 3 class 777, lets get back to reality with the LR.

[Edited 2005-07-25 16:20:00]

[Edited 2005-07-25 16:22:32]

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Xkorpyoh
Posted 2005-07-25 16:13:01 and read 7872 times.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 65):
The website gave some interesting information on the A350, but, it did make some unfair comparisions, such as comparing the A350 in a "2" class config vs the 787 in a "3" class.

I hope they don't use this as a real sales presentation and if they do, i hope they have their numbers ready when an airline executive ask them about the comparision of both planes in "2" class configuration or both planes in "3" class configuration. Many of their claimed figures would be very different. If anybody finds this comparision please post it.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2005-07-25 16:28:32 and read 7776 times.

Quoting Xkorpyoh (Reply 72):
Many of their claimed figures would be very different. If anybody finds this comparision please post it.

Three class 358 would be about 240 seats and a 359 in three class about 290.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Beauing
Posted 2005-07-25 16:38:47 and read 7686 times.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 73):
Three class 358 would be about 240 seats and a 359 in three class about 290.

Does anyone have a comparison of usable floor space, that is the only true apples to apples comparison, as the seat pitch can be different when simply comparing seat counts.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2005-07-25 17:43:08 and read 7234 times.

The 330-200 is one foot longer than the 358 and the 330-300 is 21 feet shorter than the 359. Everything else is the same.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Glom
Posted 2005-07-25 18:04:34 and read 7103 times.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 75):
The 330-200 is one foot longer than the 358 and the 330-300 is 21 feet shorter than the 359. Everything else is the same.

They're shrinking the airframe? What's the point in that?

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Ai
Username: Trex8
Posted 2005-07-25 18:10:59 and read 7043 times.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 75):
and the 330-300 is 21 feet shorter than the 359

it must be the new math  Smile because in the presentation it says a A333 is 209 feet and a A359 214ft 11in!!

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Astuteman
Posted 2005-07-25 18:25:35 and read 6941 times.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 69):
Thank you Glom. BTW, we "sour grape Americans" are with you and your countrymen during these difficult past few weeks.

And it is very much appreciated!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 37):
but we also have the MD-11 and 764 and 743 of aircraft that didn't quite deliver on the initial pr, either.

Interesting. Happy to believe you. It's amazing how many posts I've read on here (bombarded might be an appropriate description) making the point that Boeing has ALWAYS exceeded expectations in order to rubbish Airbus' performance claims.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 45):
Sorry, but with new materials, new interiors, new flight deck, new engines, new landing gear, the commonality of the A350 with the A330 is not real

Wow, and I thought it was only warmed over.......

Please accept my apologies for looking like I'm picking on you, Ikramerica, I'm not. In fact I personally agree with you.

Quoting QFA001 (Reply 50):
but the 8,200nm (A358) and 6,800nm (A359) range figures do not correlate with the 245t MTOW airplane performance measures released by Airbus at the Paris Air Show. Then, Airbus said the 245t airplanes would have 8,800nm (A358) and 7,500nm (A359) range, respectively.

Agree. What always troubles me though, is that there are a whole set of different maximum ranges for a whole set of different operating conditions (e.g) ferry, max pax only, max pax + max payload, with/without additional tanks and so on). I often wonder if we actually know what's being compared.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2005-07-25 19:11:18 and read 6690 times.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 77):
it must be the new math because in the presentation it says a A333 is 209 feet and a A359 214ft 11in!!


Typo. 4 feet 11 inches. Subtracted 332 length from 359 length. Yikes!  

[Edited 2005-07-25 19:20:04]

[Edited 2005-07-25 19:21:20]

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2005-07-26 02:20:37 and read 6049 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 45):
That graphic that tries to claim that it is somehow cheaper to train pilots to fly A320s and A380s together is nonsense.

It is when you have the same cockpit layout, making it easier for pilots to become familiar with it. OTOH, pilots who flew on A380 simulator claim it's actually easier to fly than the A320.

Topic: RE: A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus
Username: Avalon
Posted 2005-07-26 12:27:06 and read 5819 times.

The A350s look great to me - especially for airlines already operating Airbus planes. It would seem perfect for an airline like Qantas, particularly on existing and new routes to China and India, especially from the Australian east coast cities - & particulalry because they have invested in 330s & have a large order for A380s.

It is a shame that there is not a short range 350 to match the 787-300.

I think people are underestimating the value of this plane.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/