Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300  
User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6554 times:

Can someone please explain to me why Airbus starts its new model numbers with -800 and -900 (A350-800, A350-900, A380-800)?
Doesn't it make more sense to start with -200/-300/-400?

I noticed also 7e7, already has -800 and -900!!
I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives.


22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6498 times:

Not sure why, in this case, maybe its like software-its bad marketing to have 'version 1.0', always 1.2 or even 4/5/6/7 and so on-if you have version 1.0-people think it is untried, untested and not to be relied upon

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

I noticed also 7e7, already has -800 and -900!!
I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives.


It isn't likely that the 7E7 will have too many more stretches, and if they do, they would fall in the category of a 777 replacement. This isn't the 737 which runs through nine sizes and generations...

Can someone please explain to me why Airbus starts its new model numbers with -800 and -900 (A350-800, A350-900, A380-800)?

Could be a marketing move to associate the A350 variants with the 7E7 variants... or perhaps continuing the same vouge as the A380-800.

I think Boeing picked the 7E7-3/8/9 based on the range and payload of the variant...


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6349 times:

It's called "endowment" wars. Once started, hard to stop.

Coming out is a -100 would be, well, puny these days.

Perhaps Rekkof can indeed jump in with the F70-4000 just to mess with Airbus and Boeing  Smile  Smile  Smile

Steve


User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6323 times:

"This one goes to 11"  Laugh out loud

User currently offlineAlphafloor From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

"I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives."

...I think that this is the point here. Starting by a number of -800 would announce that there will be no such derivatives for these aircrafts...

-Al-


[Edited 2005-01-22 19:30:00]


Whatever
User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6225 times:

In addition to the thinks mentioned above, I also think they are trying to lure large Chinese orders by jumping strait to -800. 8 is a lucky number in Chinese, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4880 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

its simple, they are planning a whole family to replace all their other products
800-500 seats
700- 400 seats
600 - 300 seats and replace A346
500 -250 seats and replace A343/333
400 -200 seats and replace A300
300 - 150 seats and replace A320
200 - 100 seats and replace A318
100 - 50 seats and compete with RJs.
the latter 2 will be a flying wing! Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineAmirs From Israel, joined Dec 2003, 1333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6073 times:

yeah, but everything you guys speculate could have been reached with even using -500/-600.
I just find it WEIRD, does anyone have the precise reason???


User currently offlineAlphafloor From Chile, joined Jun 2004, 1277 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5956 times:

"The -700, -800, and -900 designations were chosen to reflect that the A380 will enter service as a "fully developed aircraft" and that the basic models will not be soon replaced by more improved variants"

This explanation comes from airliners.net aircraft data&history (before updating).

-Al-

[Edited 2005-01-22 22:35:05]


Whatever
User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8467 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5871 times:

and Airbus will do what they did with th A300 and add a B or something onto it so eventually we could see the A380-800B69

User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5838 times:

>This isn't the 737 which runs through nine sizes and generations...<

Actually, 3 generations and 5 sizes  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Boeing's reasoning for the 7E7 numerology is actually a hodgepodge of reasons. The 7E7-3 (not 300) is a 300 passenger aircraft (in 2 classes) with a 3500 nm range, the 7E7-8 (not 800) is an 8000nm (actually more like 8300) aircraft, the 7E7-9 is a bigger version of the -8. And yes, the Chinese 8 had a lot to do with it. Airbus kind of had to do the same thing



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePyroGX41487 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

They did it to show that there would be no upgrades and that they were putting out a fully developed product.

Think of it as the 747 skipping from -100 right to the current -400 status. They're simply saying that the plane won't need it.

Pretty clever marketing if you ask moi..


User currently offlineAviationhack From United States of America, joined May 2004, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5259 times:

I wonder who will come out with the -1000 version first  Smile

Has there ever been a commercial airliner with a -1XXX suffix?



User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5252 times:

Actually, I've heard it's a marketing thing. In China, 8 is considered a lucky number, thus A380-800 as the standard version, same with 7e7 and A350.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

How about less "I heard..." or "I think it's..." or "My guess is..." and more "Stonecipher said" or "Leahy said?"  Big grin


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMdl21483 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Posted Sat Jan 22 2005 18:56:30 UTC+1 and read 2186 times:
It's called "endowment" wars. Once started, hard to stop.

Coming out is a -100 would be, well, puny these days.


Oh Gawd! I hear enough about "endowment wars" everywhere else, I dont think I really need to hear that being applied to some big, long, Jet-setters!  Big grin

first the 737's get branded as "pocket rockets", and now this!  Yeah sure

I guess it was to be expected from a XXX-large aircraft!

that or, just blame it all on Virgin for saying "Mines Bigger Than Yours!"


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson - AirTeamImages



*sighs* Men...  Insane


~Melanie~



From the shores of the sea we have come afar, we have risen high, among the stars.
User currently offlineNucsh From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

"This one goes to 11"

 Big thumbs up

"My fingers go to 11..."



If landing is about "kissing" the ground, you just about raped it.
User currently offlinePosti From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

I think naming airplanes with an 8 for the Chinese is a little ridiculous. My number is 8 also, but I don't go out and buy a Dodge Ram V8 or a Cessna 182 just because it has an 8 in the title, I'd get the best product on the market no matter what the name was. I say go back to the -200, -300...

This proves the west is willing to do anything to make as much yuan as possible.


User currently offlineDazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Posti,

esotheric stuff like the lucky numbers is much mor wide-spread and serious in Asia than in the west. Considering that most of the traffic growth of the future is going to be in Asia, where's the problem.

And, would anybody in teh west buy a plane with a 13 in it? After all, there are hardly any row 13's in western planes...

ciao
Daniel


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Those numbers are to indicate a final product, one where there is no plan for follow-on derivative. With the A380 I suppose they only planned for the stretch version is the market asks for it sometime in the future, perhaps its only replacement. With the 787, same case, I'm sure Boeing will claim to have researched all the possibilities against what they can offer with current models and even their potential derivatives of derivatives and came to the conclusion that there are so few options left. Big grin

Of course markets change, which WILL add new dimensions of products that we have yet to see or even make up to ourselves.

[Edited 2005-01-23 23:02:36]


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineAirEMS From United States of America, joined May 2004, 684 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

This might be a little off subject but I thought I would ask anyway...... Would Boeing ever if they were to design a totally new plane give it a number that they had ceased program on i.e. 727, 757, 717 etc etc.... I know when Boeing was doing something with a SST I want to say in the early 90's maybe they called it the 2707 (I think I saw it in a book) any thoughts?


Fly Safe
-Carl



If Your Dying Were Flying
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

The number "4" in Chinese and Japanese means "death."
It's sad the 747 wasn't successful in China, especially Japan.  Sad



Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
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...
Why Did LY Pick 777-200 And Not 777-300? posted Thu Apr 4 2002 00:26:45 by Shlomoz
Why Small Engines On A340-200/300? posted Sat Oct 22 2005 07:13:29 by AirCanada014
Why Is CPH And Not ARN SAS's Main HUB? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 14:28:36 by RootsAir
737-900 And 767-200 Exits posted Wed Jul 12 2000 23:47:41 by Macyjet
Southwest, The 737-800/900, And Long-term Growth posted Wed May 10 2000 06:07:00 by Fjnovak1
Why The 747 And Not The 767? posted Wed Jun 16 1999 02:29:22 by Ansett767
Why 747-800 And Not 747-500 Or 797? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 21:18:56 by Andahuailas
Why AC Get's The EMB170 And Not The CRJ700/900? posted Tue Sep 13 2005 15:25:44 by CV990
Why All The 5191 Speculation And Not Others posted Thu Aug 31 2006 16:29:05 by Skibum9
Why A330's And Not 777's! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 20:38:09 by American777