DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3130 times:
According to this article, the A-350 has been totally redone and will only retain 10% of the parts of the A-330. This statement is near the end of the article:
The A350 that's being offered to airlines now will be a virtually all-new aircraft, and only about 10% of the A330's components will be retained. Cockpit commonality with other members of the Airbus wide-body range will ensure that training costs will be minimized.
Airbus reckons that the break-even point for the A350 is somewhere between 400 and 500 aircraft. But industry analysts said that probably the main reason behind the EADS statement Wednesday is to clear the air going into next week's air show.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3114 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter): Cockpit commonality with other members of the Airbus wide-body range will ensure that training costs will be minimized.
At this point, they are at no more advantage than Boeing with 777 to 787 conversion time.
Quoting DAYflyer (Thread starter): The A350 that's being offered to airlines now will be a virtually all-new aircraft, and only about 10% of the A330's components will be retained.
And yet only $5 billion dollars? Talk about pinching pennies to 90% of a widebody airplane of this magnitude. The 787 is tipping the scale at $8 billion plus additional RD...
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3097 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1): And yet only $5 billion dollars? Talk about pinching pennies to 90% of a widebody airplane of this magnitude. The 787 is tipping the scale at $8 billion plus additional RD...
Interesting observation. I wonder if it includes the $3.5 B they are seeking for launch aid.
I wonder if the 787 is more expensive as a result of more composites and other new technologies, possible because of GLARE being cheaper??
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21027 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3060 times:
or more expensive because it is real and not a morphing product right now.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, RR: 47 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3032 times:
Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 2): I wonder if it includes the $3.5 B they are seeking for launch aid.
Where did you get that number? They're looking for $1.5 - $2 billion, as in a third of the total cost, not $3.5. And this is included in the $ 5 billion.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2911 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3): or more expensive because it is real and not a morphing product right now.
the 787 is a totally new design, every part is designed from scratch , the A350 in whatever guise it eventually ends up as could still use the basic design of the A330 for many structures, even if the parts are made of different materials and have some minor changes in dimension, they are not having to reinvent everything from zero. it may well be that only 10% of parts is interchangeable with a A330 but that does;'t mean 90% of the drawings are totally different or need new production jigs etc, that saves you lots of $$$!
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2628 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
At this point, they are at no more advantage than Boeing with 777 to 787 conversion time.
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 7): All I have to say is A330 commonality my ass - any a.netter who now tries to raise that shall be ruthlessly ridiculed going forward...
The A350 would still have a small advantage in spare parts commonality.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
And yet only $5 billion dollars? Talk about pinching pennies to 90% of a widebody airplane of this magnitude. The 787 is tipping the scale at $8 billion plus additional RD...
I haven't heard of any new technologies being developed for the A350. The B787, on the other hand, is pioneering two major advances in aviation technology (composite fuselage and bleedless systems). One would expect the B787 to have significantly higher R&D costs than the A350. The payoff for Boeing is that the B787 should be significantly less expensive to manufacture and to operate.
Glacote From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2430 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 7): All I have to say is A330 commonality my ass - any a.netter who now tries to raise that shall be ruthlessly ridiculed going forward...
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8): The A350 would still have a small advantage in spare parts commonality.
Spare parts and most of all pilot qualification and training. Please.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7694 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
In that case, the cost of R&D for the A350 will now officially zoom through the roof. I wouldn't be surprised that the A350 development costs reach the €7-€8 billion range, and EADS shareholders won't stand for that!
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 4): Where did you get that number? They're looking for $1.5 - $2 billion, as in a third of the total cost, not $3.5. And this is included in the $ 5 billion.
Thank you, that was a typo. I hit the 3 instead of the 1. I am aware of the correct figure. Sorry about that!
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2283 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 6): the 787 is a totally new design, every part is designed from scratch , the A350 in whatever guise it eventually ends up as could still use the basic design of the A330 for many structures, even if the parts are made of different materials and have some minor changes in dimension, they are not having to reinvent everything from zero. it may well be that only 10% of parts is interchangeable with a A330 but that does;'t mean 90% of the drawings are totally different or need new production jigs etc, that saves you lots of $$$!
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8): I haven't heard of any new technologies being developed for the A350. The B787, on the other hand, is pioneering two major advances in aviation technology (composite fuselage and bleedless systems). One would expect the B787 to have significantly higher R&D costs than the A350. The payoff for Boeing is that the B787 should be significantly less expensive to manufacture and to operate.
Thank you for those excellent perspectives on the savings of the aircraft development costs.
Planefreakaa From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
how can airbus develope 2 aircraft at the same time......oooohhh yea, government loans/gifts.
im an idiot, i forgot about those things...
Glom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2222 times:
Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 14): how can airbus develope 2 aircraft at the same time......oooohhh yea, government loans/gifts.
im an idiot, i forgot about those things...
Well, Boeing developed the 727, 737 and 747 at the same time.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Quoting Planefreakaa (Reply 14): how can airbus develope 2 aircraft at the same time......oooohhh yea, government loans/gifts.
im an idiot, i forgot about those things...
Yes you are. What 2 aircraft are currently being developed?
Do you forget Boeing developing the 747-400, 767, 757, and 737-300 all at the same time?
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2208 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 15): Well, Boeing developed the 727, 737 and 747 at the same time.
Didn't they also develop the B757 and B767 at the same time too?
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 15): Well, Boeing developed the 727, 737 and 747 at the same time.
Yes, and they also almost bankrupted themselves in the process. 3 distinct programs at the same time is a substantial drain.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6871 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2040 times:
Holy cow, this surely must be a new record. It took only one post to turn a thread about the A350 into a thread about the 787.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21027 posts, RR: 60 Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Quoting Glacote (Reply 9): Spare parts and most of all pilot qualification and training. Please.
787 is supposed to be similar to 777 for pilots, no?
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 20): Like what??? Lav seats and reading light bulbs???
interior fixtures don't count, do they?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
Quoting Glom (Reply 15): Well, Boeing developed the 727, 737 and 747 at the same time.
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16): Do you forget Boeing developing the 747-400, 767, 757, and 737-300 all at the same time?
There was a slight overlap between the 731 and the 741, but the only two Boeing models that were really developed concurrently were the 762 and 752. Timing on the other programs allowed shifting of the design resources so competition for those resources was kept to a minimum.
Airbus has the same opportunity on the A388 and A358 since engineers needed for initial design work on the A358 probably will not be needed on the A388 now unless testing identifies need for major changes.
Money might still be a challenge though.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
N60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 28 Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1942 times:
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 22): There was a slight overlap between the 731 and the 741, but the only two Boeing models that were really developed concurrently were the 762 and 752.
Well wasn't there a fairly large overlap between the 741 and the B2707, although the latter never saw the light of day.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3128 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): If so the book on "lying with statistics" has a new chapter.
Aren't there lies, damn lies and statistics?
Of course it depends on what you define as different or equal. When a component is only slightly changed but not interexchangable with the 330 anymore, it's different. What is mostly says, is that part commonality obviously is less important than perfect-match-for-the-product.
25 B2707SST: Yes, there were up to 3,000 engineers working on the B2707 in the mid-to-late 1960s, with activity ramping up after Boeing won the contract at the en
26 N60659: Prompting the billboard - "Would the last person leaving Seattle please turn out the lights" or something close to that. Great summary B2707SST !!! -
27 GQfluffy: Guess you didn't see the sarcasm dripping off your screen. No, I don't think interiors count... fluffy
28 B2707SST: Yep, 1971 was not a good time in Seattle. In fact, the city even draped an anti-suicide net below the Space Needle. SST employees get their layoff no
29 OldAeroGuy: Agreed, as well documented by B2707SST. However, there were two big differences: 1) Most of the SST R&D money was being provided by the FAA, also des
30 Avek00: Probably wrong on both counts: 1. The 350 will likely have greater spare parts commonality with the 787 or even 777 when all is said and done. 2. The
31 Monteycarlos: Well its only the case for the 777 and 787, and the 764 to 777... Airbus has it across almost all types. The costs are not finalised in any case. Don
32 Zeekiel: 10% of parts. Interesting. So if the A330 hypothetically had 1000 parts the A350 would inherit 100 parts if my maths hasn't exploded in my brain. Of c
33 AirbusCanada: Boeing anticipated that they would need substantial earnings from the 747 to fund SST tooling-up and production in the early 1970s, which were to be f
35 BigB: Most of the 757/767 studies happened thoughout the late 70's because they were slated to be 727-300. Read about UAL and the 727-300. The 737 classics
36 Keesje: R&D and maintenance cost for a slightly different part are a different story than an all new part... Nice backgrounds on the SST..
37 B2707SST: It is almost certain that Boeing could not have paid for SST production expenses out of pocket during the early 1970s. That said, if the project had
38 Trex8: FWIW I was glancing through that FI article about the A345/6 airline experience from early May and the A345/6 only has 30% parts commonality with the
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From France, joined Jun 2005, 409 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2803 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
