Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Width Same As A330  
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2002281794_airbus20.html

"Since December, we improved width, range, seat costs, economics," Leahy was quoted as saying Wednesday to the aviation trade press in Toulouse, France, home of Airbus.

"We changed the aircraft three or four times in the past 90 days. We achieved an eight-ton weight reduction through the use of new technologies."

"This is an all-new aircraft," he said.

Previously, the A350 had been pitched as a derivative of the Airbus A330 — with the same fuselage but new wings and engines — up against the all-new 787.

Leahy's assertion that Airbus had increased the airplane's "width" briefly raised the possibility of a new fuselage, which would truly mean an entirely new airplane.

But later an Airbus spokesman punctured that idea. There is no new fuselage, the spokesman clarified — the A350 will have the same cross-section as the A330.

But the cabin "lining is now thinner, so the internal cabin width is improved a bit for passengers," the spokesman said.


It seems that Leahy's stay in the hospital has left him a bit delirious and filled with visions of new, wider fuselages.  Wink


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

he's a salesman, if the internal cabin cross section width is 1mm wider, its "wider" than the old product!

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

You said the fuselage would be wider, he didn't.

pls read carefully!

 Wink


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5735 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

yeah pretty soon customers are going to see through he BS and call him on it. They may have already..that's why Airbus has lost many big orders this year already.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
You said the fuselage would be wider, he didn't.

Well he called it an all new aircraft too. Now we know he only meant it was all new aircraft derivative revision. You can sue me for underestimating Leahy's ability to exaggerate.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Im sure that the Boeing Times, er I mean Seattle Times takes a nice unbiased view regarding anything to do with Airbus.  sarcastic 


British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6870 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 3):
yeah pretty soon customers are going to see through he BS and call him on it. They may have already..that's why Airbus has lost many big orders this year already.

Hmmm, it took customers three decades and 5,000+ orders to "see through" the BS. Great BS!


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

Thats strange, because this is the first time i've heard anything about a 'wider fuselage.' I'm sure it was just a passing idea but obviously you have chosen to dwell on it considering your inclination. I think everyone else who knows anything about the A350 including possible customers know and knew all along that the fuselage would be the same as the A330. Really, if you want to have a dig at the A350 and Airbus you are going to have to do better than this.

User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3954 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):
You said the fuselage would be wider, he didn't.

pls read carefully!

Well based on the quote in the paper:

Since December, we improved width, range, seat costs, economics," Leahy was quoted as saying Wednesday to the aviation trade press in Toulouse, France, home of Airbus.

It looks like Mr. Leahy was the one who commented about the "improving the width". To me that would mean "making the fuselage wider".

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12395 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3926 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N60659 (Reply 8):
To me that would mean "making the fuselage wider".

That is an entirely reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, despite it being an entirely reasonable assumption, it's wrong.  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Quoting Gman94 (Reply 5):
Im sure that the Boeing Times, er I mean Seattle Times takes a nice unbiased view regarding anything to do with Airbus.

Well, it looks like you never followed the entire 737 rudder saga after UA 585 US 427 and the reporting by the Seattle Times.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9604 posts, RR: 69
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

he's talking out of his rear, assuming that since it is the Seattle Times they must be pro Boeing. Anyone who has ever read the paper knows this isn't true, but for an internet expert what would you expect?

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3871 times:

Quoting Gman94 (Reply 5):
Im sure that the Boeing Times, er I mean Seattle Times takes a nice unbiased view regarding anything to do with Airbus.

Just like the London and Paris papers hate Airbus.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 11):
he's talking out of his rear, assuming that since it is the Seattle Times they must be pro Boeing. Anyone who has ever read the paper knows this isn't true, but for an internet expert what would you expect?

Well said.

And of course the A-350, with 10 frames sold to date, will replace all and be the end all of the aircraft world.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9):
Unfortunately, despite it being an entirely reasonable assumption, it's wrong.

Just to be clear, while the assumption is an inference from the aforementioned statement by Mr. Leahy, I personally do not subscribe to it (the assumption, not the statement). Clear as mud right!  confused 

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 13):
Just to be clear, while the assumption is an inference from the aforementioned statement by Mr. Leahy, I personally do not subscribe to it (the assumption, not the statement). Clear as mud right!

No, you were wrong, read it again.

Since December, we improved width, range, seat costs, economics," Leahy was quoted as saying Wednesday to the aviation trade press in Toulouse, France, home of Airbus. .

Where is the DIRECT reference to the width of the fuselage itself? Due to the lack of context it is safe to assume that the width improvement wasn't anything to do with fuselage witdth. Making the fuselage wider would be an enlargement and not an improvement.


User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 14):
Where is the DIRECT reference to the width of the fuselage itself? Due to the lack of context it is safe to assume that the width improvement wasn't anything to do with fuselage witdth.

Okay. Let me try this one more time. The quote made a reference to "width". Width of what? You are right inasmuch that there was no reference to the width of the fuselage. Hence the assumption - width of fuselage. When you have a "lack of context" as you claim, all types of assumptions are possible. Just as you have asked me to read the statement again, I will implore you to read Reply 13 again. While "increasing the width of the fusealge" is my assumption to the statement, I do not believe that the fuselage width will be increased. Two entirely seperate entities - assumption from statement and belief of fact.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

You don't need to try one more time, you got it wrong the first time. You made an assumption that was wrong and not really justified. Do you really think that Airbus would make modifications to the dimensions of the aircraft itself and only mention it as an 'improvement in width' in an article? The basis for your assumptions are unfounded. Had it been a major design change there would have been a context, thats why you should assume that as nothing was mentioned of the fuselage that the width gain was purely due to interior design, a much more minimal change.

User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

Ok wisasses, how about some specifics.

How much could be shaved off the interior? How thick are the fusalage walls and exactly what could be made thinner without losing stuctual integrity?

Enough of the silly word games.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12353 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 12):
And of course the A-350, with 10 frames sold to date

Sold? I suppose, in a manner of speaking  Smile

Quoting EGGD (Reply 16):
Do you really think that Airbus would make modifications to the dimensions of the aircraft itself and only mention it as an 'improvement in width' in an article?

Maybe, if they were talking about their "all-new aircraft"...

So, what were you saying about context?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3666 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 16):
Do you really think that Airbus would make modifications to the dimensions of the aircraft itself and only mention it as an 'improvement in width' in an article?

Sir, I am well aware of the complexity involved in changing a fuselage width on a series of aircraft that has existed since the early 70s. I do not take that lightly at all. And apparently you completely missed the point of my last statement. So let me repeat it again -

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FUSELAGE WIDTH OF THE A350 WILL BE INCREASED!!!.

So can we lay this to rest? I guess we are on the same page now. Or is that assumption of mine wrong as well?

-N60659

[Edited 2005-05-20 20:14:27]


Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12353 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 17):
Ok wisasses, how about some specifics.

How much could be shaved off the interior? How thick are the fusalage walls and exactly what could be made thinner without losing stuctual integrity?

Why don't you ask "Honest John" Leahy? I'm sure he'll give you a straight answer.  sarcastic 



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 7):
I think everyone else who knows anything about the A350 including possible customers know and knew all along that the fuselage would be the same as the A330. Really, if you want to have a dig at the A350 and Airbus you are going to have to do better than this.

In what way is this a dig at the A350? It's more of a dig at Leahy. But I think a slightly larger fuselage has advantages as Boeing has shown with the 787, as it makes a 9 abreast seating arrangement with reasonable seat width possible. And if Leahy is going to call it an all new plane and say it has improved width, it isn't unreasonable to think that in the context of specific recent contract losses that Airbus has reevaluated the fuselage width.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

The A-350 is a warmed over A-330 with a new wing and engines. Why don't they (Airbus) just shut up and tell people the truth? The may sell a few of them that way. The airlines smell something wrong here and they are not going to order. Need proof? Look at the order book, and the new deal with US Airways.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5456 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3551 times:

Quoting EGGD (Reply 16):
You don't need to try one more time, you got it wrong the first time. You made an assumption that was wrong and not really justified. Do you really think that Airbus would make modifications to the dimensions of the aircraft itself and only mention it as an 'improvement in width' in an article?

Uh, no he didn't get it wrong. It was a generic comment that I think a majority of people would believe relates to the size of the fuselage. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter - it was left to the reader to interpret, as he didn't make it clear. I interpreted it that way, and I certainly don't care one way or another.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 3):
yeah pretty soon customers are going to see through he BS and call him on it. They may have already..that's why Airbus has lost many big orders this year already.

No offense, but it's getting to the point where you need to put some sort of disclaimer on your posts. After all, I doubt customers are choosing Boeing because of what Leahy does or doesn't say.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12395 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 22):
The A-350 is a warmed over A-330 with a new wing and engines. Why don't they (Airbus) just shut up and tell people the truth? The may sell a few of them that way. The airlines smell something wrong here and they are not going to order. Need proof? Look at the order book, and the new deal with US Airways.

Let's see what Airbus tells us at Paris shall we?  wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
25 Aloha717200 : I think you're grasping as straws here. Leahy let his mouth run off, plain and simple. He said width, that means width. Airbus has openly corrected h
26 Pope : Isn't the A350 really an A330 with new engines and some composites? What's the big surprise about the fuselage width?
27 Post contains images Aa777jr : same pony, different saddle. if it flys, airbus will be even richer. + =
28 Ruscoe : As I understand it Airbus are going to use Al-Li to make the internal fuselage frames. Because this type of aluminium is stronger than that currently
29 Trex8 : presumably thats what all the new alloys and structures are doing, despite the heavier engines. , if they jst applied that to the A330, it woudl real
30 Gman94 : Funny that the Boeing fan boys don't get the same words said to them with their equally ridiculous BS.
31 Jet-lagged : The A330/A340 cabin widths are 208 inches on the inside, and 222 inches on the outside, or 7 inches per 'side'. If they can reduce fuselage width by 1
32 Zoom1018 : It is weird that he just said "we improved width" .... so what kind of WIDTH was that??? It is really ridiculous!
33 CRJ900 : I read somewhere here that the width issue is about the last few rows of the cabin, the A350 fuselage will not taper in as much as the current A3xx wi
34 RayChuang : Look, if Airbus is going to keep development costs of the A350 as low as possible they will NOT go to a new widebody fuselage design, mostly because t
35 Jet-lagged : That is defintely enough excuse for Leahy to make that comment!
36 Glom : But if they're changing the material of the fuselage, wouldn't that require substantial retooling?
37 Post contains images Dazeflight : Please read the thread. He was talking about the increased interior width. What about it is so hard to get? ciao daniel
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...
BA Club Europe - Seats Look The Same As Economy! posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:07:53 by 8herveg
Passenger Rights In Switzerland - Same As EU posted Wed Nov 15 2006 14:24:21 by ZRH
Is The 737-900ER Extra Door Same As A 757 Door 3? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:35:04 by Speedmarque
USAirways 90 Days Same As Cash Flying. posted Thu Aug 3 2006 23:12:30 by FlyGuyClt
787 Same As 757...? posted Wed Jul 5 2006 19:20:50 by Cun757
Ajet Tech Problems At BHX Same As Crash? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 17:33:09 by Thomsonfly
A350: What About Interim A330's Post 2012? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:51:24 by Art
DMM: Same As Dharhan? posted Sat May 7 2005 11:46:50 by BOAC911
738/9 Same As 707? posted Fri Nov 14 2003 14:05:38 by BOAC707
A300-600 Rear Quarter Same As A310? posted Sun Jul 27 2003 11:05:42 by Airmale