Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8286 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2631 times:
It'll definitely be a 7E7 equivalent. Something that is long overdue - a 767 / A300 / A310 replacement. It'll sell like hotcakes, the biggest sector in the market probably. They had a half-hearted stab at it a while back, an A330 with an A300-600R wing. Didn't grab people's interest. When they get around to it, this new plane might be the A329, that's what they're looking at, a smaller and lighter A330. No need for an A300NG, the current version is still young and cutting edge.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Motorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3429 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2545 times:
As well as looking at an NG wide-body twin to counter the 7E7 and replace the A310, 762, A300, 763, A332 - with an A3XX-300 and 200 series with ER options - they're going to need to look at an NG A320 before too long. One with composites and lighter weight materials as well as new engines and so forth because Embraer might beat both Boeing and them to it if they're not careful.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
I don´t see that Airbus will build smaller jets and compete with Embraer and Bombardier. They should concentrate on the A380, perhaps A380SR and so
on, since I still think A and B civilian aircraft will be one company in the future
and the natural choice will be the B7E7 for that size of aircraft.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 69
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Cedarjet, actually, I think the A330 with the wing of the A300-600R was the version that some airlines wanted, but Airbus wanted to keep the A330 wing on the proposed A330-500 - the main downside to that being that the aircraft would have to (continue to) use the same gates as for B747/B777/A340 operations - and the airlines wanted something that could use the gates that were used for B767/A300s at the airports. Airbus wanted to offer the aircraft as a shortened A330-200 which, through software, could have it's engines either rated at a lower or higher thrust, thus making the airplane either a medium-haul or long-haul plane... but that was something that the airlines simply didn't want (at least not with the same wing on it).
For that much, I'll agree with the general sentiment here that they'll, most likely, concentrate on something to counter the B7E7, followed by a new generation A320.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1013 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
OMG........not another war!!!!!!!
No one is starting a war. Do you have to piss your pants every time someone says Airbus and Boeing in the same sentence?
Put me down. I doubt anything could be carried over from the A310 line, but a simmilar sized aircraft would go over well with me. I think Airbus would do well by overhauling the A330 line (A350 for the heck of it) with new systems, materials, aerodyamics ext. and offer the following-
A350-200- update of the A332 with 8000nm range
A350-300- update of the A333 with 7000nm range
A350-400- stretch A333 with 7500nm range, 350 pax capacity (A340-600 replacement)
It would be almost impossible to configure a short-range/shrink version from this without starting from scratch. I don't think Airbus is in the position to spend massive amounts on an A330 update, so maybe a solution would be to update the A330 followed by a strong A320 replacement to fill the gap.
Azmd80 From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1722 times:
A305: a low cost enhanced A310 with new wing, cockpit and engine, that can fille the gap between A321 and A 330 200: it coud be used on ahort high density route and from long low density (as trans pacific or asiatic) to replace all old 767 300 and 310, with high commonality with 330 and 340.