Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350: Authorization To Offer To Be Approved In 2004  
User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4150 posts, RR: 37
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10278 times:

EADS CEO Rainer Hertrich has announced in the German economic paper "WirtschaftsWoche", that Airbus will recieve the "Authorization to Offer" for the A350 in December 2004.

Currently it is still evaluated if the A350 will be basically a completely beefed up A330, or if it will be a completely new design. EIS is currently scheduled for spring 2009, just months behind the B7E7.

http://www.wiwo.de/pswiwo/fn/ww2/sfn/buildww/id/126/id/82292/fm/0/bt/2/SH/0/depot/0/


Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 847 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10092 times:


Great news!  Big thumbs up

Im dying to see the A350! Guess it´s gonna be a mix of 300/332.....

my 0,02

Micke//SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineRj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1753 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think an All-New Design is what's called for, not a derivative.

User currently offlineCRPilot From Costa Rica, joined Nov 2004, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9566 times:

Excellent news for Airbus and for the sake of healthy competition! Can't wait to see what it will look like!!!!


Flying is a privilege!
User currently offlineDrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9551 times:

It will have to be an all new design--otherwise you have the 764 vs. 330 roles reversed.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9564 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9396 times:

According to the article in Flight International magazine the A350 will be an updated A330 with the major changes being made in the aircraft's wingbox, improved wing design, improved engines, technologies used in the A340-600/-500 and the use of more composite material (Glare) in the aircraft itself. So physically speaking, the A350 will look indentical to any A330 with the main differences being made 'internally', so to speak.

I agree with the ones who think an all new design would give Airbus the best chances to compete against the 7E7. An updated A330 may not be enough. But like CRPilot already said, this is great for the competition. Keep up the good work, both Boeing and Airbus  Wink/being sarcastic

A388  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Arguably, an A330 made out of GLARE won't be an A330 anymore... but I hope they choose to do more.

A physically similar aircraft is fine.

N


User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1064 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9311 times:

So basically there really is no such thing as a A350. Not even on the drawing board. Pretty funny, they are already hoping for taxpayer money for something they have no idea what it will even be.
Just give us the money and we will think of something up.



I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9226 times:

- the A350´s will probably be larger then the 7e7´s, so filling in a slightly different requirement.
- the A330/40 hull has the right cross section, the all new 7e7 design proves it
- improvement should be made where it significantly improves performance
- retain technology where it is good; if it aint broken don´t fix it..

It will be a more conservative/ proven airframe then the 7E7. If that´s a bad idea, time will tell..

Remember first flight of the A330-200 was on August 1997, a few years after the B777. We are not talking an old aircraft here.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9097 times:

The 7e7 has a better x section than the 330. It can squeeze in a 9th row and better shaped for cargo.

A 350 will just be eating into the 330 market. Airbus are being desperately brought to this by the interest in the 7e7.

If they do go ahead with 350 then the 330 is effectively dead. Better to call it 330-500, but then, no new launch aid.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

The 7e7 has a better x section than the 330. It can squeeze in a 9th row and better shaped for cargo.

How is it better shaped for cargo by having 4 extra inches? You can fit side by side LD3s, which is the most common method of shipment.

If they do go ahead with 350 then the 330 is effectively dead.

That's no problem. Sales are sales.

Better to call it 330-500, but then, no new launch aid.

Well, if its an entirely new aircraft, no point in calling it the 330-500. Airbus got launch aid for the A340-500 and -600, so I don't see why they couldn't for a 330-500.

N


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8976 times:

The 7e7 has a better x section than the 330. It can squeeze in a 9th row and better shaped for cargo.

From a passenger density standpoint, the 7E7 does indeed benefit from the ability to fit 3+3+3. The A330 cannot do this in reasonable comfort, but the 7E7 can match 757 or 737NG comfort levels with 9-abreast seating, a very very attractive proposition for LCCs and -3 regional opperators.

As for cargo, Gigneil is right, there is no benefit from 4 extra inches. I'm wondering how Boeing is squeezing so much cargo into the 7E7-8, I assume they cleared out room along the length of the aircraft. Perhaps the center fuel tank was eliminated and the wing box was cleverly shaped? If you reduce the necessary fuel burn and build a much larger wing (increase wing fuel storage), maybe the fuselage tank can be shrunk.

A 350 will just be eating into the 330 market. Airbus are being desperately brought to this by the interest in the 7e7.

Actually... is a 100% A343 killer. The A350 targets the 7E7 more than anything.


User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8866 times:

The 343 is dead anyway. If you look at the natural progression of aircraft sales through a model line, the initial sales for one reason or another are of the shorter range type. Then as sales start to dry up a longer range version breathes new life into the program. From that point most sales are for the longer range versions. So I think Airbus have been forced to jump the gun on what , it seems to me anyway is a 330 derivative and not a new aircraft at all. It is the obviuos next 330 development, forced out early by the 7e7.

One of the advantages of the 7e7 concept is that it covers aircraft sizes ranging from A300/767/310/330. The 350 is attractive to a much smaller paert of this market than the 7e7. It seems quite obvious they need a new aircraft.
In fact I think the 350 in it's present form is just bluff.

I agree the 4 inches doesn't make much difference to cargo carrying ability,I was referring to the total cargo capacity,which is significantly better than 330, but did not make that clear.

Ruscoe



User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7909 times:

"the A350´s will probably be larger then the 7e7´s, so filling in a slightly different requirement.
- the A330/40 hull has the right cross section, the all new 7e7 design proves it
- improvement should be made where it significantly improves performance
- retain technology where it is good; if it aint broken don´t fix it..

It will be a more conservative/ proven airframe then the 7E7."

These are all perfectly valid points though it's a bit peculiar to hear the Airbus crowd air them after rebutting Boeing's similar arguments about updating the 747, dismissing it as being uncompetitive against an all-new A380. It's not quite that cut and dried in the larger volume midsize airliner market but the biggest problem I see in the publicized A350 strategy is insufficient weight reduction to be economically competitive with the half-composite 7E7. Just replacing mostly rear fuselage panels with GLARE won't reduce it nearly enough, even figuring in a lighter wing; the major A330 fuselage structures will be virtually unchanged. Bleed-air variants of 7E7 engines likely won't be quite as efficient as the 'bleedless' types, so the A350 should burn more fuel, giving it higher trip costs. Targeting larger A350-800 and -900 models at the 7E7-8 and -9, respectively, is an attempt to compensate for that with better seat/mile costs. This strategy may work with carriers who want a bigger airplane than the 7E7 but it will probably fail with those who don't. And the A350 will surely also cannibalize sales from the current A330, with its range and any fuel-saving improvements. The A350 won't be a bust, surely stealing some number of potential 7E7 sales but neither will it dominate that market; as Airbus itself has proved, newer designs and technology are generally preferred over proven types, which is why a 747 Advanced would get only a smaller precent of the big airliner market against the newer-tech A380. Don't think for a minute the A350 is Airbus's ultimate solution to this market; it's being pursued because it's a fairly cheap and fast way for them to answer the 7E7 challenge in the short-term and given its relatively low development cost, will likely prove a success though I'd not expect it to sell in the same volumes as the 7E7. Expect Airbus to field a more proper competitor in maybe a bit over a decade, after it addresses the shorter-range widebody A300/310 replacement market with the A300 fuselage derived, A30X and perhaps after also revamping the A320 family.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7870 times:

I personally think a 747 Advanced, if done right, could be a great competitor.

I just don't think Boeing will go the distance necessary.

N


User currently offlineKEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7687 times:

IMO an 744adv efficient 450 seater that

- uses significantly less fuel then 747-400
- offers significant improved payload range capabilities
- has an existing competitive world wide support infra structure,
- has most 747 disadvantages fixed
- offers a good degree of cockpit commonality with 777 and 7e7
- is offered at a relative (to the A380) competitive price

could have its place between 773/346 and 380, why not?.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7585 times:

Boeing is extremely slow to respond to changing market conditions... and it was hardly certain that they were even going to launch the 7E7. In fact, the board refused to do it without some certain cost cutting initiatives that many thought would jeopardize the program beyond salability.

I still think that Airbus could design an all new type, at this point. I think they know that minor changes will not be sufficient and they will compete accordingly.

N


User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7328 times:

Rlwynn wrote:
"So basically there really is no such thing as a A350. Not even on the drawing board. Pretty funny, they are already hoping for taxpayer money for something they have no idea what it will even be.
Just give us the money and we will think of something up."


Ah, it is sooo refreshing to see an EU member post who lives in Reality. Keep up the good work!!!  Smile



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7220 times:

IMO, Airbus is making a mistake, the same mistake that Boeing made with the 764 and 753. Although A332 sales have been good, and largely contributed to killing additional 767 sales, it has hardly been a roaring sales success. In fact, Boeing has sold more 767s (exclusive of the 764) since the A332 went forward. I don't think current A332 operators will necessarily be queuing up for an A350 when there will be zero engine commonality between the types. Additionally, only EK operates or will operate more than 20 A332s (based on current order backlog), so there isn't the depth of commitment among operators to necessarily make upgrading to the A350 a logical move. If the 764 was a flop given depth and breadth of 767 operators, why would an A350 fare any better?

User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7146 times:

The Airbus A350, once the definition is frozen, can be quite challenging, for the reasons seen above plus the Airbus commonality concept. It is important for airlines. Training is costly and the crew flexibility for aircraft type is improved.

For a minimal development cost the A350 can be quite challenging. But perhaps it should have been marketed as an A330 enhanced, i don't know.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineKnoxibus From France, joined Aug 2007, 251 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So basically there really is no such thing as a A350. Not even on the drawing board. Pretty funny, they are already hoping for taxpayer money for something they have no idea what it will even be.
Just give us the money and we will think of something up.


So I guess all the files I have seen on my desk since June in terms of cabin definition and configuration with a big "A350" on it must have been a dream,

Damn, I must wake up!!!



No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Airbus is making a mistake, the same mistake that Boeing made with the 764

The 764 was a "mistake" because it was handicapped by the fuselage cross section. That is not a problem with the A330/350.


AvObserver,

Good post - dispassionate and rational. I agree with your prognosis - "The A350 won't be a bust, surely stealing some number of potential 7E7 sales but neither will it dominate that market", if the A350 is indeed launched. However, I would like to suggest the possibility that the A350 could conceivably outsell the 7E7 due to events largely beyond Boeing's control - even before, as you said, "Airbus to field a more proper competitor in maybe a bit over a decade."



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1848 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6971 times:


The 764 was a "mistake" because it was handicapped by the fuselage cross section. That is not a problem with the A330/350.


Then tell me why the 762er/763er outsold A310/300-600.

The 764 can't effectively compete against the 332 because the 764er has less payload and shorter range. The 764 is also slower. The inability to hold LD-3s side by side is a disadvantage, but it's hardly the most important one. Many non-network airlines that don't heavily rely on cargo revenue have ordered the 332 for better payload/range capability. If the 764er could carry 253pax/6,500nm and 332 could carry 247pax/5,600nm, then the outcome would likely be similar to the 762er/763er v 310/300-600 competition.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6878 times:

Dynkrisolo is correct. While the 764's constrained cross section would still have mildly limited its salability, greater payload range availablility would have made the plane attractive to more current 763 customers.

Really, this whole debate is rampant speculation at this point. I don't think Airbus even knows exactly what the final outcome will be. There's still a high likelihood they could launch an all new airframe.

N


User currently offlineRlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1064 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6825 times:

"So I guess all the files I have seen on my desk since June in terms of cabin definition and configuration with a big "A350" on it must have been a dream,

Damn, I must wake up"


I guess you better wake then because cabin definition and configuration doesnt fly. It is what is around it that does, which in this case Airbus has not even decided to launch an all new plane or an 330 derivative.



I can drive faster than you
25 Keesje : "So I guess all the files I have seen on my desk since June in terms of cabin definition and configuration with a big "A350" on it must have been a dr
26 Rlwynn : EADS Chief Backs Away From A350 Design, Subsidy Plans Wednesday October 20, 1:55 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A top executive at European Aeronauti
27 Planemaker : "Then tell me why the 762er/763er outsold A310/300-600." The answer is very obvious. Without going into any detail, in 1978 when the A310 program was
28 Dynkrisolo : Planemaker, you're avoiding the real question. I'm not talking about how successful each program is. I'm talking about your statement: The 764 was a "
29 Widebodyphotog : So if the latest speculation on A350 is correct Airbus will build a twin engine successor to the A343 and challenge the 772ER market with a twin. Does
30 Trex8 : > Makes me wonder if the reality of the greater economy of twins is finally setting in over there in Toulouse. the manufacturer can think whatever it
31 CRPilot : How about waiting until the design and final specs are announced, instead of speculating on what it is or isn't?
32 Planemaker : "The 763er and the 300-600/-600R came out within a few years of each other. If your statement is true, then how could the 763er have outsold the 300-6
33 Thrust : Why am I sensing that Airbus will try to do the same thing with the A350 as Douglas did with the DC-8? Look at the design of the 7E7 and attack its we
34 Gigneil : Second, the aircraft are not even close to being in the same range class - the 763ER has approx. 2500 NM more range than the A300-600, and approx. 20
35 Planemaker : So why even bother to compare the two aircraft? The aircraft class is incorrect and the historical context is incorrect.
36 Alessandro : Guess that engine designers has already been told to work on engines for this bird or will they use the same engines as B7E7?
37 AvObserver : "However, I would like to suggest the possibility that the A350 could conceivably outsell the 7E7 due to events largely beyond Boeing's control." Plan
38 StickShaker : ..."A 350 will just be eating into the 330 market. Airbus are being desperately brought to this by the interest in the 7e7".... Wouldn't go quite so
39 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : Second, the aircraft are not even close to being in the same range class - the 763ER has approx. 2500 NM more range than the A300-600, and approx. 20
40 Post contains images Planemaker : Yet, you have no problem comparing the two. I did not compare the 764 and the A332. BTW, the A332 was developed as a competitor to the 736ER.
41 Swissa330 : Just a short comment regarding "a350 is just a a330 upgrade"... Remeber, if we say an upadated B747 is inferior to an new a380 we're talking about a t
42 Gigneil : Oh come on now. Its like saying the A320 wasn't developed as a 737 or MD80 competitor because they're not in the same range class. The A300 and 767 we
43 Post contains images Planemaker : ”I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on your point, perhaps you've something else in mind Mr. Davies hasn't.” AvObserver, when I made my post that
44 Post contains images Planemaker : "The A300 and 767 were designed as direct competitors for the same market." Please take look at the market (airlines and manufacturers), and the respe
45 Gigneil : There's obviously no explaining things to you. Did you miss my explanation about how Airbus stopped developing capability into the A300 and Boeing pas
46 Post contains images Planemaker : If Airbus had developed the A300-600R further (added range) then Airbus might have won that whole order. ..."might"... what completely baseless specul
47 AvObserver : "Remeber, if we say an upadated B747 is inferior to an new a380 we're talking about a time difference of around 30 years... The A330 is 'almost' new i
48 StickShaker : ..."Boeing is developing and integrating many new technologies - not evolutionary but truly revolutionary, concurrently on a scale that has never bee
49 AvObserver : Thanks, Planemaker, for espousing on your viewpoint. In my response, I'll just offer a couple of observations. First, though there's undoubtedly some
50 Planemaker : AvObserver, Thanks for your observations. I think that you may not appreciate the scale of 7E7 composite "requirements" versus any military aircraft t
51 Post contains images DeltaWings : BTW, the A332 was developed as a competitor to the 736ER. .............................. This is wrong. Airbusses competitor to the 763ER was, and sti
52 Ptknight : Will they redesign the bathrooms in the A350 or will I still have to lean when I'm taking a leak?
53 Leskova : Ptknight, I guess Airbus will continue to expect a minimum of decency from men - and expect them to sit down... you don't have to be a woman to find i
54 Post contains images BuyantUkhaa : I am positively surprised by the level of this thread (obviously disregarding the previous two posts ), finally some good arguments and no mud fights.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
200 7E7's To Be Ordered In 2004: Boeing posted Tue May 25 2004 10:56:02 by United777
Airbus To Top 305 Deliveries In 2004 posted Mon Jul 19 2004 03:41:53 by YUL332LX
MEA To Join Skyteam Alliance In 2004 posted Sat Dec 27 2003 16:43:54 by BA
PIA To Madrid & Almatay In 2004 posted Thu Nov 20 2003 23:25:45 by GF-A330
WN's CFO - Plan To Add New Cities In 2004 posted Thu Feb 13 2003 23:44:20 by FATFlyer
Big Part Of A350-wing To Be Built In Germany posted Sat Nov 12 2005 12:13:29 by Fraport
AN-12 To Be Based In Canada. posted Fri May 19 2006 19:20:00 by Wolsingerjet
Emirates A380 To Be Delivered In April/Fly In July posted Wed Apr 26 2006 12:00:28 by Singapore_Air
Was The MD12 Going To Be Built In Long Beach posted Mon Apr 24 2006 02:56:59 by 747400sp
Big LH Long Range Order To Be Announced In March posted Tue Feb 28 2006 00:44:04 by Bolu340