Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A359 30% More Efficent Than 772?  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9635 posts, RR: 68
Posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9663 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

"We have about same number of seats, and I can fly about same range, within a couple hundred miles, but burn 30 percent less fuel and I'm doing it with a much quieter airplane," Leahy said of the A350-900 versus the 777-200.


Source is the Seattle PI

114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9588 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):

How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

Why not? The A350 always got to have a new composite wing and a new lightweight Li-Al fuselage. Now it seems that it will have a composite half (rear) fuselage and a Li-Al half (forward) fuselage or viceversa, so very roughly speaking it will have at least 75% of the weight reduction factor of the 787. It will sport the same engine in a bleed air version, and engine manufacturers have played down the importance of bleedless vs bleed air for fuel savings effects.
So it will have efficency improvements on the same order of magnitude of 787, albeit a bit less, and since the 787 is (I think) supposed to have a 30-33% savings over the existing conventional competitors I will say that we are almost there.

Now pick with a grain of salt what Lehay say about having 'roughly the same seats and range' and it is pretty plausible that the A359 will have maybe a 30% savings over the 772ER on a trip basis and say 25% or so on a seat basis.

Marco

[Edited 2005-06-03 12:52:22]


Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9575 times:

ATI (Flight Int) comparison 359-772ER, latest available specs:

.............................A350-900.....777-200ER
3-class seating................300...............295
Full load range............7500nm.............7700
Block fuel/seat..............Datum............+30%
Cash cost/seat.............Datum............+18%
MWE/seat....................Datum............+18%
London noise arrival.......QC0.5...............1.0
London noise departure......1.0...............2.0


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

"We have about same number of seats, and I can fly about same range, within a couple hundred miles, but burn 30 percent less fuel and I'm doing it with a much quieter airplane," Leahy said of the A350-900 versus the 777-200.

Well it's not so surprising really. The A350 is supposed to match the B787, so just like the B787 has those advantages over the B777, so does the A350. It's a simple equation really...



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9417 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 3):
so just like the B787 has those advantages over the B777,

AFAIK all comparisons released by Boeing for the 787 are relative to the 767, not the 777, though with a lower weight yet similar capacity and range and more efficient engines the A350 will be more economical than the 772 though 30% may be stretching it.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9331 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 4):
AFAIK all comparisons released by Boeing for the 787 are relative to the 767, not the 777

Yep true, I just used the 777 because that's what they compared the A359 in the article to  Wink

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 4):
though with a lower weight yet similar capacity and range and more efficient engines the A350 will be more economical than the 772 though 30% may be stretching it.

That thought also sat in the corner of my mind... for Airbus' sake though, I hope it! But we'll see  Smile



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9254 times:

Airbus may have a direct competitor to the B787-800/900 and B777, although the B787-300 remains not targeted. Airbus may find that this market segment may prove to be very attractive as it is intended to replace A300/310 and the B757/767 on short hopes. I can not see Airbus laying back and giving it all away to Boeing.

By the way what ever happened to the A305 project? Does anyone have any info as to what was proposed?



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9087 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 6):
Airbus may have a direct competitor to the B787-800/900 and B777,

Not for the 787-800! the 350 is way bigger... So Airbus has a direct competitor to just the 789 and possibly the 772.

But I am not sure if the 359 is adequate to compete with the 772. 772 holds more cargo and is wider... more range and much more spacious interior... I can see Boeing modify the 772, just like its going to do to the 747Adv. - new engines and a modified wing tips.

Airbus is smart going after the 772... but I think they are ignoring the smaller widebody jets. BIG MISTAKE!!!!



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8917 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
But I am not sure if the 359 is adequate to compete with the 772. 772 holds more cargo and is wider... More range and much more spacious interior... I can see Boeing modify the 772, just like its going to do to the 747Adv. - new engines and a modified wing tips.

You may be right as to the range and cargo but as for comfort I would choose the A330/340 over the B777 any day. I still prefer 2-4-2 seating over the 3-5-3.



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8893 times:

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 4):
AFAIK all comparisons released by Boeing for the 787 are relative to the 767, not the 777,

Of course...Boeing does not want the 787 to canibalize the 777.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8844 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

A-It's not "so bad". It is one of the most efficient passenger jets ever developed.

B- It is being somewhat eclipsed by newer technology and that happens to all aircraft. Just because the 787 is now the more efficient replacement for the A-330 does that mean the A-330 is "that bad"?? Or because the 747-100/200 was replaced by the 777 does not mean the 747 was "that bad" ?? Hardly-the new product is simply superior.

C- Boeing will incorporate the new 787 technology across the family of commerical aircraft and develop a 777 replacement that will offer greatly enhanced performance.

D- The 777 was, until the 787, the most advanced product offering in the Boeing line. It has sold about 900 airframes to date. It hardy qaulifies as a "bad" aircraft. It outsold it's nearest competitor to almost the point of shutdown, hence the A-350 had to be developed.

E-The A-350 is a reaction to the leap Boeing took with the 787. It is supposed to compete with both the 787 and 777-200. The 777-200 is on life support anyway and will be replaced.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12573 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
but I think they are ignoring the smaller widebody jets. BIG MISTAKE!!!!

They will not ignore this market segment. They have said they will look at a short-ranged people-mover (the so-called A305).



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8795 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
Not for the 787-800! the 350 is way bigger... So Airbus has a direct competitor to just the 789 and possibly the 772.

Not necessarily, the 787 are much bigger aircraft than they look. The -8 variant is large enough to economically compete with the A358.

Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 9):
Of course...Boeing does not want the 787 to canibalize the 777.

The 772ER is past it's experiation date, Boeing knows this. It's order stream has slowed down significantly since before the 787 and A350 have been available for purchase. The last new customer was Air NZ (a year ago) and the 772ER hasn't been a part of most major evaluations since. It's just a matter of when to replace it... how many times has what EK wanted been what the rest of the market wanted?

Quoting WINGS (Reply 6):
By the way what ever happened to the A305 project? Does anyone have any info as to what was proposed?

Purely conceptual. It will be atleast 2015 before it has a chance of becoming reality.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
But I am not sure if the 359 is adequate to compete with the 772. 772 holds more cargo and is wider... more range and much more spacious interior... I can see Boeing modify the 772, just like its going to do to the 747Adv. - new engines and a modified wing tips.

All valid points, but the cost and lead-time for a 777NG might be prohibitive. By Airbus own admission, they predict several "waves" of 300-seat replacement and growth. I can't see why Boeing will invest heavily in the 777 now just to catch the first wave.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 8):
I still prefer 2-4-2 seating over the 3-5-3.

I can count the number of 3-5-3 777s on one hand... ZERO  Wink


User currently onlineMD80Nut From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 940 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8713 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 8):
still prefer 2-4-2 seating over the 3-5-3.

Nobody flies the 777 with a 3-5-3 configuration. Most airlines us either 3-3-3 or 2-5-2. Emirates uses 3-4-3, I believe they are the only ones though.

Cheers, Ralph



Fly Douglas Jets DC-8 / DC-9 / DC-10 / MD80 / MD11 / MD90 / 717
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2008 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 8647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

The A359 is still just a blueprint. Considering the steady improvement in composits and manufacturing, it only stands to reason that new designs will be more efficient than existing ones. Considering that both manufactures deal in hyperbole, it remains to be seen how efficient the A359 will actually be. Keep in mind that Boeing has enjoyed a recent track record of exceeding expectations while Airbus has had a problem meeting expectations. This too could change.



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 8632 times:

Quoting MD80Nut (Reply 13):
Emirates uses 3-4-3, I believe they are the only ones though.

No, they aren't - Lauda also has a 3-4-3 config.

Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter):
How is this even possible? Is the 777 that bad? If so why do airlines keep buying it?

How's it possible? The A350 is much newer and based on completely new technology... that's how.

And, no, as others have said - the B777 isn't bad, but just as many other very good planes, it's slowly being overtaken by newer ones. Will happen to the B787 some day as well...

And as to why airlines keep buying it? How many B787s or A350s are in service today? That should answer your question.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 8502 times:

Boeing is at this point selling only 773ER and 772LR models, though some 772ERs are still being sold/delivered. The 772LR is more efficient than the 772ER, and it is pretty interesting that Leahy seems to be ignoring that plane, or is he?

The 772 legacy will be receiving winglet retrofits before the A350 EIS, which should increase efficiency 5-8% for those who want to keep theirs, cutting down on the A350 advantage as a replacement for a still viable airframe. But it will still be 15 years newer than the 772ER.

I still don't get why Airbus is forcing 30 more seats on the market.

Either way, something the A350 has going for it is this: many 787 launch customers are buying 772LRs also. With the A350-8/9, you get a 789 and a 772 sized craft in the same type, with same engines and 90%+ commonality.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8475 times:

ATI (Flight Int) comparison 359-772ER, latest available specs:

.............................A350-900.....777-200ER
3-class seating................300...............295
Full load range............7500nm.............7700
Block fuel/seat..............Datum............+30%
Cash cost/seat.............Datum............+18%
MWE/seat....................Datum............+18%
London noise arrival.......QC0.5...............1.0
London noise departure......1.0...............2.0


You can watch that evaporate when Boeing rolls out a 777 ADV.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4774 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8423 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 10):
It has sold about 900 airframes to date.

Boeing website shows 680 orders through April

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
The 772LR is more efficient than the 772ER, and it is pretty interesting that Leahy seems to be ignoring that plane, or is he?

if you don't need the range why get an LR, you are paying landing charges at many airports based on certified TO weight, let alone 10-15 tonnes extra structural deadweight


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8387 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 7):
But I am not sure if the 359 is adequate to compete with the 772. 772 holds more cargo and is wider... more range and much more spacious interior... I can see Boeing modify the 772, just like its going to do to the 747Adv. - new engines and a modified wing tips.

I don't think a cannibalized 772 can make up for an all new (or so claimed by Airbus) design like the A350. Same issue as before with the 787/A350, except Airbus did not make that mistake and the A350 became an all new deisgn.

Considering the greater payload and range of the 777, they could get closer then the initial A350 concept, but doubt enough for the all new design.

Keep in mind that the 777 already makes use of composites (little, but still), making reaching that 30% superior efficiency claimed by Airbus with a 777Adv. much more difficult.

This is what will be needed to compete on the same playing field:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 10):
C- Boeing will incorporate the new 787 technology across the family of commerical aircraft and develop a 777 replacement that will offer greatly enhanced performance.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8346 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
can count the number of 3-5-3 777s on one hand... ZERO

Ooooops, sorry about that its been a long day.  Embarrassment



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8323 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 19):
This is what will be needed to compete on the same playing field:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 10):
C- Boeing will incorporate the new 787 technology across the family of commerical aircraft and develop a 777 replacement that will offer greatly enhanced performance.

Agreed. Whatever Boeing could do to reduce the OEW of the 772ER while either maintaining or increasing the MTOW would suffice to counter the A359. And Boeing has time to do this. Even if a formal launch for such a project is issued in 2008-9, it should be ready to enter airline service right around 2012. By this time, the 787 would be in airline service, Boeing would have a much better understanding of the issues involved with composite technology and still emerge with a product only a year or two after the A359. Just my  twocents 

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineCltguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

I look forward to seeing the USAirways A350 in CLT...I think it will look sweet.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8230 times:

Tell me what engines are to power the 359 at the weight necessary to get 300 pax , 7500nm?

787 engines won't do it.

I have not seen the article but would be interested in the MTOW Airbus is stating for the 359 with this capability.

Airbus have obviously made some btreakthrough efficiency discovery, to get 30% efficiency gain , considering the 787 can only get 20% improvement with a start from scratch all weight bearing composite aircraft, new engines and groundbreaking systems improvements, which Airbus have already said they are not going to use.

One thing is for sure, if this is not a distortion of the figures, as well as killing the 772 it will kill the 380, and the 340, and the 330.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineMarcoT From Italy, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8162 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17):


.............................A350-900.....777-200ER
3-class seating................300...............295
Full load range............7500nm.............7700
Block fuel/seat..............Datum............+30%
Cash cost/seat.............Datum............+18%
MWE/seat....................Datum............+18%
London noise arrival.......QC0.5...............1.0
London noise departure......1.0...............2.0

You can watch that evaporate when Boeing rolls out a 777 ADV.

No.
Exactly in which way this hypotetical 777ADV will achieve efficiency gains similar to the all composite 787 and 75% composite A350 without going down the composite alley, ie without being an almost all new plane with a proportionate development cost?



Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
25 DfwRevolution : It's cool... there are a few carriers that opperate 3-4-3, namely EK. But would the cost and lead-time of such an aircraft be? I agree that the A359
26 Aerosol : Put Air Austral on that list as well.
27 Glom : 30% eh? Ambitious! At this stage, given that the A350 keeps on changing, it's more of a target rather than a statement of what they can achieve. I thi
28 NoUFO : Agreed. Was't that VS's mantra? The first 2-hauler crossing the Atlantik was an A300.
29 Post contains images DfwRevolution : The A300 was the frist widebody twin, however it lacked intercontinental range. Initial variants were delivered to North America via YQX and REK. The
30 Brons2 : Airbus is not competing with the 787-8 in the 220 seat range. There is no 777 made that is flying 3-5-3. 3-3-3, yes. 2-5-2 yes. But not 3-5-3.
31 Zvezda : TG also. I believe there are others. Because that's the only way they can get close to the B787's CASM without going to a composite fuselage.
32 Ikramerica : yeah, but that's not a good answer. If it's too big, it's too big. Also, how are they going to thin out the interior materials to give the plane a lit
33 Gigneil : It hasn't. Its still 7,500 nm. 6800nm isn't competitive with the 772ER. Also, I believe they've decided on a 262kg MTOW now. GE has offered Airbus a
34 QFA001 : The -800 is hovering around 245t. Airbus was trying to do a -900 based on the -800 MTOW, but airlines have said that they want more payload/range. So
35 Post contains images DfwRevolution : I was going by a Flug Review article posted within the last week or so, but I agree, finding details for a product yet to be firmly defined is clear
36 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Careful now. Someone might be trying to smoke out your identity.
37 Lehpron : Dude it's been ten years, would there have been enough improvement in the industry to talk about getting better? By the time A359 goes into service,
38 Intothinair : That's without the 18 777"s for AC 15 777's for AI, and 5 777F for AF though, including those this would add up to 718 orders. True, I thought of the
39 Trex8 : good point but its still not anywhere near 900!
40 Zvezda : Gigneil is correct. 75,000 lbs thrust would suffice because the A350-900 (262,000 kg MTOW) will be a lot lighter than the B777-200ER (297,560 kg MTOW
41 Lightsaber : Weight (or the lack of it) is critical for aircraft efficiency. Judging from the thrust the A389 is going to be much more efficient than the 772. Oth
42 Intothinair : Ok then, the average thrust for a 777-200ER per engine is between 90,000 and 95,000 pounds of thrust, so let's say 92,500 pounds of thrust. However,
43 Leskova : It would be, if all other factors were equal - drag, wing, etc... They're not, so just going by percentages won't work. Regards, Frank
44 Astuteman : Just a thought - one of the REALLY clever things about the 787 is that Boeing have made it 10t - 15t lighter than the A330, AND more capable. No matt
45 N79969 : I think it is entirely conceivable that the A350 could be more efficient than B772ER by many measures. As Lehpron points out, they will able to utiliz
46 Zvezda : Could one make an aircraft of concrete as efficient as one of wood? Composites have a dramatically better strength-to-weight ratio than that of Li-Al
47 Glom : A great shame given how incredibly cool the 772ER is. Does that mean that a 7810 will be around sooner rather than later? How long will the 777 last?
48 Zvezda : If someone has an urgent need for more B777-200ERs and can't pick them up used, then we may see more orders. The earliest we might see either the A35
49 Post contains images Adria : well the 773/747 market has also the A346 in it so no Boeing does not have the market to itself. There are a lot airlines replacing the 747 with 773
50 Zvezda : I don't have the exact numbers at hand, but the cabin floor area of the B777-300 is nearly 10% greater than that of the A340-600. The A340-600 is jus
51 Widebodyphotog : I'm glad someone brought up this point... Even at the old preliminary MTOW for A350-900 of 242t (533,500lbs) the aircraft would need at least 74,000l
52 Post contains images Adria : the A346 is a B773 competitor in terms of range, capacity and so no so get the exact numbers on more then only one data. It's like saying the A340 ha
53 N60659 : It wasn't too long ago (on another thread) that we were discussing the engine-out performance of the 777-200LR. IIRC we were discussing whether there
54 TinPusher007 : A very valid point..let us not forget NW's intensive review of the A330 vs the 777. The 777's higher wieght, which NW didn't require made it too expe
55 Keesje : Well they come from the same line. Would you also state The direction that Airbus is taking the 772LR is an implicit concession that the 772ER (parti
56 ConcordeBoy : ...why not ask every carrier that's ordered the 772LR? None of them have ordered it at its maximum range specs. 2ndly, yes. You have it backwards. Ai
57 Glom : How can they come from the same line now that the two aren't even made of the same material? More to the point, he was referring to the 4 engines 4 l
58 Atmx2000 : Come on Keesje. Quit being argumentative and acknowledge the basic fact here that the 772LR is a minor upgrade of the 772ER that extends its range an
59 Post contains images Zvezda : Now I understand why Keesje is such a devoted Airbus fan. He thinks they make the 777.
60 Adria : now Airbus has to produce a more competitive aircraft for the 772ER which was the money maker in the past 10 years for Boeing. the market for B762 or
61 Glom : You need to come here more often. You're not up to date on the latest news. The whole point of the 787 is to make it cheap.[Edited 2005-06-04 22:47:0
62 Gigneil : Airbus argues that the plane is lighter, per seat, than the 787. I dunno If I believe that, but if its true then its not uncompetitive. Even GE's web
63 Glom : At this stage, the claim is not what it is, it's what they want it to be. Similar thing for the 787 although their is a bit more reality in the claim
64 Atmx2000 : Well, isn't that the way they expect to get lower seat costs, by stretching the sucker and spreading the weight of the base platform over more seats.
65 Trex8 : I thought Ikamericas point in post 16 was that the LR was a good replacement for the ER, my point is that for most carriers its overkill. If you need
66 Atmx2000 : But if you need greater payload for the same range, the LR is attractive. Boeing has investigated options for an 777 upgrade involving replacing larg
67 Sjoerd : It will be interesting to see how the 'new A358' and the B789 compare. They will have similar capacity and range, but will they weigh the same ? Anybo
68 Widebodyphotog : Niel, Right, I read the recent press release but was going by the old info on the GEnX page at GEAE... Still, I do believe power is a question. Given
69 Intothinair : O.k., although I love the 772ER, here are a couple reasons as to why the A350-900 will be so much more efficient. Got this from a very friendly person
70 N79969 : Keesje, I supposed that I should be flattered that you nearly copied my argument word-for-word. However your version argument is flatly incorrect. In
71 Calags : Just curious if anybody knows if Airbus has already started its launch aid repayments for the 330/340 series? I've been lurking these forums for a whi
72 ConcordeBoy : History (of the 772A vis-a-vis the 772ER) tells a different story.... there's more factors than weight and purchase price in the acquisition of the t
73 Zvezda : Of course there are other factors. However, the comparison is not quite apt. The difference in OEW between the B777-200 and the B777-200ER is only 50
74 B2707SST : Note that Leahy is using fuel burn, not seat-mile costs, in his claim versus the 772ER despite the lead-in sentence above. Although the quoted capacit
75 NorCal : welcome aboard! I think it has been well documented that the British treasury has been receiving royalties from the A320. I've heard some arguing bac
76 Pyxisnautica : How much? Millions? Hundreds of millions?
77 Post contains images QFA001 : Care to wager? IMO, it's not too far from the truth. Using publicly available information, we can show that a GEnx-A172 powered A350-900 comapred to
78 Post contains images Adria : back then it was also cheap to fly with the B762 but the 763 was cheaper, that's my point. You don't see so many A310s or B762 around and airlines in
79 Zvezda : The A350-800, not the A350-900, will be powered by the GEnx-A172. The A350-900 will need at least 75,000 lbs. of thrust per engine. Some here have ar
80 QFA001 : I have read the thread. At one stage, I was going to enter the argument about the required thrust with a comparsion of the T/W ratios of the A350 wit
81 Post contains links StickShaker : Reply 68: ...Hopefully more substantial details of A350-900 will be reveled soon. I'm very interested in the aft fuselage modifications that allow in
82 Zvezda : EIS for a B787-10 could be 2011, though 2012 seems more likely. I believe A350-900 EIS will also be 2012, no?
83 QFA001 : 4Q'10. Six months after the -800.
84 RayChuang : I've read that Boeing redesigned the wing of the 787-8/9 series so it will allow for a further stretch of the fuselage to accommodate almost as many p
85 Adria : and your OPINION is based on what?
86 Glom : On the fact that Airbus have stated that the A350 will still use bleed air.
87 PM : Every carrier? EVERY single one?! Oh, you mean both of them. (Source: Boeing's website today.) Has that been confirmed yet? The A350 will be integrat
88 Glom : I'm sure that was the original intention, but given that the aircraft will be made of a different material, have various other structural differences
89 Atmx2000 : Of course we know there are a couple of more commitments in the pipeline, though one of the existing firm orders may convert to other 777 models.
90 PM : A week or two ago we discussed when is a 'derivative' not a 'derivative'. A case could be made that the A330/A340 are derived from the A330/A310 and
91 Post contains images PM : I know. I'm just being a smartarse. "Every carrier that's ordered the 772LR" just amused me somehow.
92 MarcoT : Yes, this seems a good option. Honestly I thought that going for a composite tube with 787 technology was an all or nothing proposition. This seems t
93 Zvezda : It would not be terribly difficult to join composite fuselage sections to an aluminium center fuselage section. It would probably be done much the sa
94 ConcordeBoy : ...fair enough. Every carrier who's even signed any form of non-binding commitment for the bird.
95 DAYflyer : Thank you for the correction!
96 Trex8 : but does lower installed thrust automatically mean a similar reduction in SFC???
97 Widebodyphotog : The short answer is no. And actually in general smaller engines have smaller BPR and greater cruise SFC. But the GEnx and Trent 1000 will have very h
98 FlyAUA : It depends what you mean by commonality. Commonality for whom? The cockpits will look like the A330 cabin so for the pilots there should be no major
99 Glom : Yes but they all have different type ratings and have different production lines. The new materials and slightly different form of the A350 to the A3
100 Post contains images FlyAUA : Ok thanks for bringing those points forward and enlightening me with your wisdom Though we disagree on some points, I see that at least we agree to a
101 RJ111 : Do you realise they will be producing the A350 on the A340/A330 line?
102 Glom : Surely it will require a hefty amount of retooling though.
103 RJ111 : Who knows, not me, so i ain't gonna speculate on it. You could start a thread about it.[Edited 2005-06-06 18:39:50]
104 Zvezda : Some retooling will certainly be required, but I would not expect it to be major.
105 PM : Let me ask again, has that been decided for sure? You seem very certain.
106 Areopagus : Besides cockpit layout and electronics, what parts do the A320 and A380 have in common?
107 Revelation : So will the production of a330/a340 stop when a350 begins, or will the line be capable of producing all three models? Just wondering....
108 Zvezda : That really depends on whether or not there will be an order backlog for the A330 and A340. I hesitate to guess on that. However, I don't see any gre
109 RJ111 : I'm back! As far as i know it's pretty much confirmed PM. And A340/A330 production will still be possible Revalation.
110 NorCal : Why would they build it anywhere else? Why go to the efforts of building a completely new factory when you don't have to.
111 MD-90 : It shouldn't be a huge surprise that such a younger aircraft is going to be more efficient than the 777, especially since you're looking at the base s
112 PM : You don't have build a new factory to open a new line. Boeing 747s and 767s are built under the same roof aren't they?
113 TP313 : What I read in FI is that the current MTOW of the 359 is indeed arround 245t. That is the plane currently on offer that would be fitted with 75000 lb
114 NorCal : Fine, but there is finite space in that factory. My point is why wouldn't they build the A350 on the A330 line. Why go to all the trouble to open tha
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...
Air ASIA, Likely To BUY 30 More A320'S posted Sun Aug 6 2006 05:25:43 by Manni
Lion Air Order 30 More Boeing 737-900ER posted Mon Jul 17 2006 13:04:53 by PanAm_DC10
KLM Makes More Money Than Air France! posted Fri Jun 16 2006 15:43:15 by KLMCedric
Why Is STN More Popular Than LTN? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 19:25:42 by CRJ900
Frontier Adds 30% More Flights To Mexico... posted Thu Jun 8 2006 15:51:10 by DIA
Douglas Aircraft More Durable Than Boeing? Why? posted Sat May 27 2006 20:04:38 by ClassicLover
"Air Travel = More Dangerous Than Driving" posted Wed Feb 8 2006 18:21:36 by RichM
Environment Where The A300 Is More Efficient Than The A330? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 20:52:51 by MaverickM11
Why Is One Way More Expensive Than Round Trip? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:29:38 by RootsAir
Ryanair Carry More Passengers Than BA In August posted Mon Sep 5 2005 18:38:23 by BestWestern