Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 = Horrible Timing  
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9559 times:

Here's my thoughts in a nut-shell-

The A350: to late to fight the 772ER, to soon to replace it

Looking at the 2010 EOS of the A350, it cannot be seen as a long-term product for Airbus. We mostly agree that the A350 takes on the high-end of the 7E7-9 and low-end of the 772ER rather than acting as a 767 replacement. But is now the right time to take on the 777? I believe the answer is no.

The majority of 772ER will be no more than 10-15 years old in 2010, and will be far too young for replacement in bulk. The need for a true 777 replacement won't come until 2015-2020, and at this time, the A350 will be older than 5 years. Boeing will be able to tailor their 777NG/Replacement after observing the A350 for several years and arguably place the superior aircraft on the market.

Will Airbus be forced to update the A350 again to match an improved 777? I can't see the A350 being a viable product... it arrives "between the waves" of aircraft purchase and would only benefit from add-on orders from A330/A340 customers (NW, LH, QF) and a few new customers (EK, QR).

But pass the 300 mark and cut into Boeing... not likely IMO

86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMinmiester From Australia, joined May 2001, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9471 times:

"The majority of 772ER will be no more than 10-15 years old in 2010, and will be far too young for replacement in bulk."

Not necessarily the case. SQ have shown that airlines may be more than prepared to replace a young aircraft if there is an obviously superior product on the market, and any airline CEO would have his/her shareholders to answer to if he/she didn't find and implement the most cost-effective way to increase shareholder return. IF (if being the operative word) the A350 appears and shows SIGNIFICANT cost advantages over a 772ER, then 772ERs might just start disappearing very quickly.

Cheers

Min


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9445 times:

Horrible timing for Airbus or Boeing?


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

SQ have shown that airlines may be more than prepared to replace a young aircraft if there is an obviously superior product on the market,

Is SQ representitive of most airlines? The answer is no... most airlines will hold onto the 772ER for a long time. The DC-10s/L1011's served until 1998 in North America.... the vast majority of the world (including Europe and parts of Asia) do not maintain 6 year-old fleets.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9346 times:

Why would Boeing build an all-new replacement for the 772ER? Since the 7E7 fuselage cross section is bigger than the 330/340/350, it ought to be as stretchable.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9301 times:

Well, given the fact that the idea behind A350 is to compete with 7E7, I wouldn't put it in the same league as 777. Any A350 vs 772 comparison is just Leahy's marketing agenda to lure customers away from purchasing 772 until Airbus has the true A343 replacement ready. Airbus is taking "slightly bigger is better" approach, which imo is smart, when we take passenger-per-mile fuel cost into account. What would not work is "hang 7E7 engines on A330" approach - I have a feeling Airbus will redesign A330s internal systems and make the aircraft "all electrical" using bleedless engines. In addition to the use of GLARE and AWIATOR technology, it might be a viable competitor to 7E7.


All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineRj111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9241 times:

I think it's pretty good timing. If they mangage to keep the aircraft similar to the A330 commonality wise generally in spares, they've already got a huge pool of A330 customers to work with. They wont get em all but it'll help.

I also think Airbus have sized the plane better.

However much will depend on those good old performance specs, which we are yet to see and are a long way off getting confirmed after EIS.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9231 times:

talk is cheap..until I see the finished goods, there is no credibility on either side....

that being said, Airbus is almost done with the BumbleBee 380, so I give them credit, now lets see if they achieve their goals..if they can, then kudos to them...they will have upped the product which was dominated by Boeing for decades..


the 7E7 development is moving along nicely, they have done extensive testing on it and hopefully will have a workable flying prototype soon.....


the A350 is NOTHING until there are working models and more information....the producer of a product must be able to PROVE they indeed have the superiour product, not just releasing a bunch of press releases stating "our product is better than theirs"......



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9204 times:

the A350 is NOTHING until there are working models and more information....the producer of a product must be able to PROVE they indeed have the superiour product, not just releasing a bunch of press releases stating "our product is better than theirs"......

...which is exactly what Boeing was doing with 7E7 about a month after they decided to shelve the Sonic Cruiser project. Remember that??



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9199 times:

The A350 has been conceived from a need for Airbus to respond quickly to the 7e7 and hence its timing is predicated on the 7e7 launch and EIS. The 350-900 will provide an effective competitor to the 772 but the 350 program in general was not conceived for that purpose.

Boeing do not have the resources, capital or time to replace the 777 until well after 7e7 EIS and probably 737NG EIS. So yes the timing may not appear to be ideal to be going after the 772 but is it that simple to identify the ideal time when a program should be launched.
The 7e7 itself has not been launched at an ideal time with many potential customers in very poor financial health but Boeing wants to get the program and the technology in place as soon as possible.
Its not easy to predict exactly what health or shape the aircraft industry will be in 10 years into the future.

This is not an industry that rewards those who choose to procrastinate or sit around and do nothing - Boeing themselves slipped from number 1 to number 2 spot for precisely those reasons.
The rewards tend to come to those who innovate and are prepared to take a calculated risk.

Cheers,
StickShaker




User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9186 times:

BlueSky1976..I wasnt an a.net member then, otherwise, I would have possibly said the same thing regarding Boeing...fair is fair......  Big grin


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9170 times:

The A350 will most definetly maintain the current customer base as well as create new one. Is this timed right? Yeah, I think so... Boeing is losing the PR war... first announced 200 order by year end... and now - its not going to happen. So A350 is being timed well...

The A350 is a 7E9 as well as 772 competitor... look at the specs... come on folks... If the A350 is proven a success and their number add up.. you will see a new variants...

Also, for all those who really believe that this world is based on pure competition is not reading the news beyond Fox... world politics plays a huge role in decision making... A good part of Boeing's rash of bad luck coming up with new orders is due to our current administration.

So until we change our attitudes, the world will continue to prefer anything other than American... simple as that...



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9148 times:

The A350 is a 7E9 as well as 772 competitor... look at the specs... come on folks... If the A350 is proven a success and their number add up.. you will see a new variants...

Bingo-

A350-800 equals 7E7-9
A350-900 equals 772ER

Interesting to note that Airbus mentions the smaller 7E7-8 as the primary competitor to the A350-800, leading me to believe the -9 will blow the A350-800 away in seat/mile cost.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9043 times:

Well, that's not necessarily the wrong idea.

Just like the A350-900 will also do a number on the 7E7-9's seat/mile cost, if Airbus does everything correctly.

The A350-800 is larger than the 7E7-8, but it is still going to be smaller than the 7E7-9 by several feet.

N


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8874 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8943 times:

BlueSky said it all...

Airbus is taking "slightly bigger is better" approach, which imo is smart, when we take passenger-per-mile fuel cost into account.

In addition to the use of GLARE and AWIATOR technology, it might be a viable competitor to 7E7.

The only way airbus can compete with the 7E7 using a modified A330 is to do exactly what BlueSky said: more seats + incorporate new technologies.

Perhaps the seat/mile costs could go as low as the 7E7 if the airlines can fill in all the extra seats... which then the A350 would probably not be operating on the same market as the smaller 7e7...

...but in the end, Airbus is taking a more traditional/safer approach... hub-hub, instead of the boeing point to point approach.

No doubt these are very interesting times...

PPVRA

[Edited 2004-12-10 05:31:46]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineLockheed1011 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 156 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8927 times:

A350 = Horrible Timing

I think so. Instead of concentrating all the energy and new ideas into the A380 first and then go to the next step.
My mother always said to me, "Do not try to jump the river until you get to it!"


User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8913 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After listening to the opposing cases by each manufacturer for their 7E7 and AB380 products as for range and size I'd have to say the timing of the 350 is perfect for a 7E7 spoiler. It MAY be able to leverage from carriers already flying the 340/330 family and even the 320 series but most importantly if they show similar performance for less money from the shorter R&D work needed it will deter orders for the 7E7. It may be a giant killer. My own feelings is that is precisely what it's meant for.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently onlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8908 times:

Or it could be a giant dose of Leahy.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8828 times:

"350 is perfect for a 7E7 spoiler." - so, combining two similar topics, 350 is a threat to 7E7-9 and 777-200ER. Whom do we have in between? Exactly: 330 and, not far from that, 340NG. I'd agree, a "giant killer" 350 is going to be...

It was already discussed that 380 would look way more attractive being 450-seater base and 550+ stretch. Then it would cover everything from potential 747Adv and above - while now it is definitely going to be a success in the very upper niche but leaves even bigger 400 to 500 niche to (if built) 747Adv. Same looks with 350: competes with "upper" 7E7 and "lower" 777, in the same time "perfectly spoiling" 330/340, while leaving 757/767/300/310 totally unattended... Don't know about wrong timing, but the targeted market?

(BTW, guys, our "new and improved" spell checker is totally ignorant about aircraft types...)


User currently offlineSebring From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8764 times:

Well, if you are an airline like Air Canada flying over 65 widebody aircraft, from 762 to 345s, the timing is great. Nothing like having two aircraft manufacturers competing for a multi-billlion-dollar fleet renewal and expansion program AC is contemplating for the end of the decade. Airbus has shown that it can overcome any inadequacies in design or performance with very aggressive pricing. AC's two 345s cost $87 million apiece, which is the same AC paid for its 343s several years ago, and with the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, those 345s actually cost less in C$ terms. That's about the price Boeing is probably flogging a 200-seat 7E7, and not necessarily the long-range variants. It's maybe two-thirds of what AC would have paid for 777s, and maybe half. AC's president noted in a new book he just published that Boeing can be obstinate and unbending as a supplier. Milton's mentor, Hollis Harris, switched to the Airbus widebody because Boeing wouldn't delay delivery of six 767-300s AC had ordered just before the onset of tough economic times. While I wouldn't dismiss Boeing chances of getting AC's big order, I think AC is thrilled to have Airbus in the room to create a real competition.

In fact, I believe most airlines feel the same way.




User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8721 times:

AC's two 345s cost $87 million apiece, which is the same AC paid for its 343s several years ago, and with the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, those 345s actually cost less in C$ terms

But that was probably when the US$ was near its peak in relation to the Euro and the european national currencies, which allowed Airbus to price aggressively. If Airbus were to bring the same revenue in Euros in, the price would be closer to $110 million today.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8700 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The giant killer I was refering to was Boeing. If AB can kill the 7E7 at the right time just after production is started it would extend Boeing so far that the 747 might, without newer models to undercut the 380, leave it totally dependent on the NG series.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineRT514 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8106 times:

Horrible timing for Airbus or Boeing?

An excellent question, Superfly.
Approval and launch of the A350 is bad timing -- for Boeing.
Until news of the A350, Boeing was going to be developing their first new aircraft in over a decade, one without a directly competitive product. That advantage now goes down the crapper, while Airbus continues ahead with what will be the world's largest airliner, an airliner with no direct competitor.


User currently onlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8080 times:

RT514:

The idea that the A350 can compete with the 7E7 is just speculation. We know that they can't achieve complete parity with high aluminum content and bleed-air engines. Airbus will be happy to stop the bleeding, let alone kill the 7E7 in sales.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRT514 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7938 times:

N328KF:

The idea that the A350 can compete with the 7E7 is just speculation.

Absolutely. Once they're closer to taking flight, it will be interesting to see the specs of both aircraft.

Also, I'm not necessarily predicting that the A350 will be a huge success. It just would have been better for Boeing had the 7E7 been able to go without direct competition, as the 747 was for over thirty years.

Ahhh, the beauty of competition.


25 Scbriml : We know that they can't achieve complete parity with high aluminum content and bleed-air engines. The economy of the new GE and RR engines is not depe
26 BoeingBus : The biggest competitive advantage Airbus has is politics and underpricing... you will see both in action and the A350 will sell very well. Most airlin
27 A319114 : The biggest competitive advantage Airbus has is politics and underpricing... you will see both in action and the A350 will sell very well. Most airlin
28 Cumulonimbus : Honestly I do not think it is bad timing on Airbus' behalf. You Know it is now or never, if they wait any longer they could lose some potentiel order
29 RIX : "It just would have been better for Boeing had the 7E7 been able to go without direct competition, as the 747 was for over thirty years."... "By makin
30 BoeingBus : >>This is ridiculous. You seriously think that airlines don't care for performance >>numbers?! Airlines have to make profits, and nothing is more impo
31 Jacobin777 : dont forget, Boeing is trying very hard to trim the "fat" off from their manufacturing, and they are exporting some R&D and manufacturing, if they can
32 Ken777 : A will have an advantage from existing 330 customers and I anticipate a lot of orders from this. B will have an advantage from more advanced technolog
33 Atmx2000 : The entry for service date for the A350 is in 2010. This is quite far off, so it allows Airbus to sell more A330s. But it gives Boeing more time to as
34 MD80Nut : I don't think Airbus' timing with the A350 is all that bad. The market for twin engine long range aircraft has been growing steadily, and it's probabl
35 N328KF : Odd that it will take Airbus five years of development time to offer a warmed over product, whereas Boeing is offering an all-new one in four years.
36 Rlwynn : The replacement for the 777 will fly around 2020 and be a full composite plane. Just as the 737 replacement will be.
37 Post contains images Solnabo : What will happend to 747Adv, IF there ever be building those? I mean...take SQ for ex: They ordered a lot of 773ER and a lot of 388! Are SQ going to n
38 Post contains images N328KF : Solnabo: Yes, we know what you see. The 747A theoretically has a replacement with existing 747-400 operators, and there's a gap between the A346/773ER
39 PPVRA : What will happened to 747Adv, IF there ever be building those? I think Boeing is going to have to come up with a clean sheet design for the 747 replac
40 PlaneSmart : Lease terms/ownership periods have diverged in recent years, with financially sound airlines tending to lease/own for shorter periods, and less financ
41 AirbusCanada : "Odd that it will take Airbus five years of development time to offer a warmed over product, whereas Boeing is offering an all-new one in four years."
42 N328KF : AirbusCanada: By that token, Boeing has the 777-200LR, 7E7-3, 7E7-8, 7E7-9, V-22 (since you included A400M, and both need to be able to fly in civil a
43 RedDragon : Now if Boeing comes out with a long range 7E7-3... that would bring in big problems for Airbus in the long run... Um... am I missing something about t
44 AirbusCanada : By that token, Boeing has the 777-200LR, 7E7-3, 7E7-8, 7E7-9, V-22 (since you included A400M, and both need to be able to fly in civil airspace) to ce
45 N328KF : AirbusCanada: A400M is not from Airbus' civil division either, if you're going to note that the V-22 is not a BCA product. In any event, sure, the 777
46 AirbusCanada : In any event, sure, the 777-200LR is just a derivative of an existing product. Just like the A350-900 is a variant of the A350-800, and the 7E7-9 is
47 N328KF : AirbusCanada: The A350-800/900 is not all-new. It's a derivative of the A330/A340. Don't bother arguing that. It's true. Just like the 777-200LR is a
48 Atmx2000 : So why is the GE engine going to be the only engine offered for the A350 initially? Does this have anything to do with the fact that GE hasn't receive
49 N328KF : Atmx2000: There are a variety of possible reasons. Here are some, and they are just guesses. 1) GE has more free resources to devote to the project ri
50 CRPilot : Hey N328KF At what point do you stop considering an airplane a derivative? New engines, new wing design, new composites in the frame construction...hu
51 N328KF : CRPilot: Except for the part about using composites instead of aluminum, sure sounds like the 737NG to me, doesn't it you?[Edited 2004-12-11 02:22:55]
52 CRPilot : Well so far we don't know everything that Airbus is planning on doing with this bird, but it seems to me that the moment that you change the materials
53 N328KF : CRPilot: Well, like you said, we won't know for certain for a little while, but it doesn't sound like they're getting rid of as much aluminum as Boein
54 PPVRA : Now if Boeing comes out with a long range 7E7-3... that would bring in big problems for Airbus in the long run... Um... am I missing something about t
55 Atmx2000 : The 7E7-3 seats more than 60 pax than the 7E7-8, while having less than half it's range. The quoted 7E7-3 capacity numbers are for a two class config
56 Post contains links and images DfwRevolution : To me, this seems like an excellent way for Pratt & Whitney to try to get back in the game. Why? They proved fairly well that they cannot fufil the ro
57 PPVRA : Atms2000, True, but the ranges are very different... compare both wingspans. 7e7-8: 193 feet (59 meters) 7e7-3: 165-170 feet (50-52 meters) PPVRA
58 DfwRevolution : True, but the ranges are very different... compare both wingspans. That's simply because the -3 will have the "compromised" wing for short-haul. The m
59 Post contains images N328KF : DfwRevolution: Well, P&W obviously still has a competent military division. Time to scrap the civil side and start over.
60 DfwRevolution : Well, P&W obviously still has a competent military division. Time to scrap the civil side and start over. Yeah... I agree. They gave a hell of an effo
61 PPVRA : DfwRevolution, But then how could a difference from 2 to 3 class config. make a 60 PAX difference? or is it just marketing? PPVRA
62 Gigneil : 2 class shorthaul configuration is much different than a 3 class longhaul one. Yeah, its marketing. The planes are exactly the same size. The 7E3's fu
63 Atmx2000 : Aren't they also reinforcing a few structures on the 7E3, like landing gear? What's the expected operating empty weight difference between the 7E3 and
64 StickShaker : Odd that it will take Airbus five years of development time to offer a warmed over product, whereas Boeing is offering an all-new one in four years.
65 Ryanair!!! : Is SQ representitive of most airlines? The answer is no... Lets not forget here who caused the demise of the MD11 program?
66 Angelairways : The 350 is not horribly timed. It is a natural response to the 7E7. Airbus will never just sit back and let others take all the sales. Most of the 380
67 Post contains links DfwRevolution : But then how could a difference from 2 to 3 class config. make a 60 PAX difference? or is it just marketing? Think of it this way: first and business
68 StickShaker : plus Boeing is outsourcing in a big way for the first time. So what? This is the exact technique Airbus has been using since the A300. Airbus has bee
69 Rlwynn : To say that Boeing is "doing all of this for the first time" Proves you have no clue to what you are typing. It would take very little effort to find
70 RayChuang : The A350 is very likely NOT an all-new plane. It will likely use a modified version of the A330 fuselage, including a new tail and updated cockpit usi
71 Post contains images DfwRevolution : Boeing also has to keep a handle on QC issues at these manufacturing plants half a world away from Seattle. Its a big move when your suppliers start t
72 Post contains images N328KF : DfwRevolution: The Vought 747-400 has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
73 Gigneil : The A350 is very likely NOT an all-new plane. I can't help but continue to respectfully disagree. $5.3b USD is too much of an investment for just a de
74 StickShaker : When has Boeing ever been supplied a complete fuselage for a commercial airliner by an external contractor ? Particularly one manufactured from compos
75 BigB : Hey Guys Time will tell, so lets just all be sit and be quiet about this issue. We will wait and see.
76 Atmx2000 : I can't help but continue to respectfully disagree. $5.3b USD is too much of an investment for just a derivative. N It's probably more appropriate to
77 Post contains images DeltaWings : The A350 is a 7E9 as well as 772 competitor... look at the specs... come on folks... If the A350 is proven a success and their number add up.. you wil
78 Minmiester : Atmx2000: "It's probably more appropriate to compare the inflation adjusted Euro cost for the A345/6 program to the Euro cost for the A350 to get a fe
79 Zvezda : Time will tell, but I expect the B7E7-9 to have more floor area, more payload capacity, longer range, and lower operating costs than the A350-800. How
80 Atmx2000 : Zvezda, I agree with your vision, except maybe for the twin issue. I wonder if Boeing might go the twin and four-way route for whatever very large air
81 Rj111 : You two are getting way beyond yourselves here. For all we know Boeing and Airbus could have merged by then.
82 StickShaker : Similary, I expect Boeing to develop a further stretch of the B7E7 to compete directly with the A350-900 that will effectively replace the B777-200.
83 RayChuang : The more I think about it, the more I think the A350 is essentially an A330 with a new tail, a cockpit derived from the A380, new wings and derivative
84 Zvezda : Let's be clear. The A350 is a replacement for both the A330 and A340. The range of the A350 is claimed to exceed that of the A340 and the operating co
85 RedDragon : Sorry to bring up something from twenty replies ago (hey, I didn't look at the topic over the weekend, and a lot can happen in two or thre days!), but
86 Gigneil : The fuselage of the 7E7 is going to be made of composite tape. You take a cylinder, and you wrap the tape around it however many times to get the desi
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...
A350 Pilot Rest Moved posted Wed Feb 14 2007 20:08:07 by Egronenthal
Finnair To Sign For A350-900XWB.....FI posted Mon Feb 12 2007 22:48:00 by 2wingtips
Finnair Expects Deal On A350 Compensation posted Tue Feb 6 2007 11:46:16 by Flying-Tiger
Could Airbus Do An A350-1100? posted Tue Feb 6 2007 01:56:45 by EI321
FI: 787-10 To Face A350-900 Challenge posted Mon Jan 29 2007 11:26:06 by RichardPrice
Airbus A350 And Pratt And Whitney posted Sun Jan 28 2007 02:24:30 by Eaglewarrior
A350 Program To Cost US$15 Billion posted Thu Jan 25 2007 21:28:48 by Pygmalion
A350 Noise Levels posted Wed Jan 24 2007 20:25:42 by EI321
Airbus A350 Specifications posted Wed Jan 24 2007 13:07:53 by Eaglewarrior
Why Does 787 Cost Less To Develop Than A350? posted Sun Jan 21 2007 01:50:10 by Art