Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Compared To 787 And 772ER According To Airbus  
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14020 times:

I don't know for sure if it has been posted here before, but I just saw this interesting link on another aviation site. It contains a power point presentation of Airbus on their A350 compared to both the 787 and the 777.

http://www.aci-na.org/docs/41%20SAN%...ohen-Nir%20A350%20PRESENTATION.pdf

Enjoy...

81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13974 times:

Some interesting quotes:


An A358 carries 26 pax 600nm miles further than the 788 will do.
It has a 2% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-8.


An A359 matches the 789 in payload/range, or it can carry 29 more pax.
It has a 3% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-9 and a whopping 25% lower fuel burn/seat than the 777-200ER (!!!!)


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4763 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13960 times:

Yes very interesting. Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13952 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
An A358 carries 26 pax 600nm miles further than the 788 will do.

Bigger is not necessarily better. It depends on what the airline wants for a particular route.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 1):
It has a 3% lower fuel burn/seat than the 787-9 and a whopping 25% lower fuel burn/seat than the 777-200ER (!!!!)

That's been revised down. It was 30% a while back.


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13952 times:

Also note on the last page that all data is based on assumptions. This is still a paper airplane, and it is still early to make these comparisons.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13950 times:

I wonder where you got that link Sabenapilot.

JFYI, YUL332LX = SR89.  Wink



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13939 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war?

So you prefer me NOT to link to interesting information then? Just so we understand you clearly....

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

Now now, whose starting off what here??? Big grin


User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13938 times:

I wonder how the 350-8 compares to the 787-9. Anybody know?

UAL747-600


User currently offlineUAL747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13928 times:

I also wonder how the 350-9 would compare to another paper plane possibility the 787-10?

UAL747-600


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13909 times:

Quoting YUL332LX (Reply 5):
JFYI, YUL332LX = SR89.

Hi there SR89...
Didn't know you are one and the same, or I would have given you the full credit!


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13907 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

Actually that comment is the first one in that thread to qualify for a bashing contest...  Yeah sure


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13894 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

It could be argue that part of the reason for Boeing whooping the A340 was being later to the market with the 777 knowing what they were up against. This situation would be reversed in this case.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

It depends on the definition of A vs B war. Having not been here that long, I would imagine it is an irrational slanging match. I think an intelligent debate over the relative merits of the two manufacturers products based on accurate facts and sound logic in a civil manner would not be an A vs B war. Lately, it seems like there have been some good debates of this kind as long as AirbusDriver keeps out of it. I hope we could have the same thing here.


User currently offlineYUL332LX From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13884 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 9):
Didn't know you are one and the same, or I would have given you the full credit!

Oh no problem... just being friendly here  Smile

What's your ID on " the other forum" ?



E volavo, volavo felice più in alto del sole, e ancora più su mentre il mondo pian piano spariva lontano laggiù ...
User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13795 times:

We should give Airbus some credit here. Boeing has spent years developing what they believe will be the pinnacle of an efficient jet transport, using revolutionary materials and processes. By employing their best minds and exhaustive research and testing, they felt they had a product which would usher in a new era of flight. In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities. And it will probably cost considerably less. Boeing may sell a few of their model and eventually get some reward for the effort via freighter conversions.

User currently offlineTrident2e From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13766 times:

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 2):
Yes very interesting. Reminds me of all the claims of the A340 vs. 777 and we see where that left Airbus.

BTW - were you trying to start an A. Vs. B. war? We know you love those.

Sounds to me like it's you trying to start an A vs. B war - typical American sour grapes!


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13652 times:

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Boeing has spent years developing what they believe will be the pinnacle of an efficient jet transport, using revolutionary materials and processes.

Actually, the materials of the 777 are fairly conventional, only about 10% composite. The 787 and the A350 are revolutionising the map in terms of materials with carbon fibre and GLARE.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
By employing their best minds and exhaustive research and testing, they felt they had a product which would usher in a new era of flight.

Well, Airbus are hardly using university dropouts, which are throwing together the ultimate aircraft and selling it without research and testing. And it sounds like you making out the 772ER to be a failure when of course it has been a runaway success, which will be beaten by a newer aircraft 15 years later. Shock!

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities.

First off, Airbus had the A330 as a base, an excellent aircraft by any measure. Second off, they are using the GEnx, which is a major contributor to the increased efficiency of the A350 so half the credit goes to GE. It will not fly faster than the 777. It will not offer greater capacity than the 777. It will not fly significantly higher than the 777 (I'm not sure how the ceiling compares, but it would involve quibbling over 10 or 20 flight levels.). There's no talk about increasing passenger comfort significantly over the A330. The 787 is the one that's going to do that. Airbus promises large increases in efficiency, due to the use of GLARE (spinoff benefits from the A380 program) and the GEnx (credit goes to GE).

Moreover, it's still a paper aeroplane. It hasn't taken months for Airbus to develop an improvement on what Boeing took years to develop. It has taken months for Airbus to realise they have to offer an improvement on what Boeing took years to develop. Guess what? They've got until 2010 to develop it at the easliest, which qualifies as "years".


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13645 times:

Quoting Trident2e (Reply 14):
typical American sour grapes!

Thank you. You don't need to prolong it with comments like that.


User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13614 times:

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities. And it will probably cost considerably less. Boeing may sell a few of their model and eventually get some reward for the effort via freighter conversions.

It has done no such thing. An "infinitely superior plane...". Come on. Such grandstanding and cheerleading is lame. Of course, Airbus is going to say such things, and Boeing is going to say how their plane is better.

But for you to generalize that the Airbus 350 is infinitely superior at this stage is premature at best, foolish at worst.



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13534 times:

How does the floor area compare between the 787-8/9 the 772ER and the A350-800/900?

User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13527 times:

On page 8, it shows the 358 can fly 8,200nm with 258 pax, and the 788 can fly only 7,600nm with 232 pax. Boeing advertises the 788 can fly 8,500nm with 223 pax, see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html . That's a big hit on Boeing's specs, wouldn't you say so?

On page 9, it shows the 359 can fly 6,800nm with 316 pax, and the 789 can fly only 7,000nm with 287 pax. Boeing advertises the 789 can fly 8,300nm with 259 pax, see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_stretch.html . That's a big hit on Boeing's specs, wouldn't you say so?

When Airbus knocks down Boeing's specs by at least 10% or more, of course the 358 will burn less fuel than 788. One should also wonder why Airbus won't compare the 358 against the 789.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 13517 times:

....anyone else notice how realistic Airbus was being with seating pitch (page six)?

Normally, they're content to use such unrealism as 39in pitch for Biz and 30in pitch for coach... but this time they've chosen a nice cozy 60in/32in


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13475 times:

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):
In the space of only a few months, and almost as an afterthought, Airbus has managed to do a bit of tweaking and will offer an infinitely superior airplane which will fly faster, farther, higher, smoother, quieter with much greater capacity, extraordinary operating efficiencies and unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities.

Now that I read this again, are you sure you're not confusing the A350 with the A380? The unsurpassed passenger comfort and amenities is only promised for the behemoth A380.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13468 times:

Well, I just don't get it how Airbus with 315-seat A350-900 plane is comparing it's fuel burn to the 787-9 which is a 280 seat plane. They advertise that it burns 3% less fuel per seat. I wonder how those numbers would compare with that "ghost plane" everyone keeps mumbling about here, which would be a better match for the capacity - 787-10*.

Just prooves the point that every manufacturer swings his product. Boeing does it with that mock-up "airbus passenger cabin", which is a joke. Airbus fudges the fuel burn. And to everyone crying foul about it... let me say it again:

JUST WAIT UNTIL BOTH PLANES ARE FLYING WITH AIRLINES!!!!

thank you Big grin


*) hint: 787-10 would probably burn about 5 - 8% less fuel per seat. Please mind that the above is an educated guess, based on what other 787 variants are claimed to do.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1597 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13451 times:

These comparisons are meaningless... Does Airbus think they can fool airlines with these stats? I don't understand why they wouldn't use the 787-9 / A358 comparison and the A359 /772ER, which exactly what airlines would look at?


Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13423 times:

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 13):

Good stuff. Funny how many think you are serious. Especially about the freighter conversions.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Jacobin777 : basically the air carriers are going to decide what plane is going to be the most successful....so far its the 787 (for now at least)-lets see what ha
26 Sonic67 : See is believing! With all the research Boeing has done the last couple of years with composites I don't see how the 350 can match it in performance.
27 Astuteman : I have a suspicion he was taking the piss.....
28 Glom : Well sooooooory!! There was no smiley and there have been posts made in earnest far more non-sensical. It's not the height of gullibility to consider
29 Atmx2000 : I think the extreme hyperbolic praise was a dead give away for it being sarcasm.
30 Boysteve : Surely this is just standard procedure in all walks of life these days. It doesn't necessarily mean that Airbus are over-egging things
31 Beauing : A rather lame presentation in my opinion, with very little REAL compairson between the A350 and 787. Compatibility with existing airports. This is new
32 Post contains images Glideslope : Exactly. As if any airline is going to take Airbus at their word on this. Have we forgotten the "wait and see approach" operators are taking with the
33 Glom : But we've had worse said in earnest. I don't think the 787 wing is composite (yet).
34 Post contains links NorCal : Yes it is, the whole wing is pretty much Carbon laminate except for some of the leading edges which are either fiberglass or aluminum, probably to pr
35 Beauing :
36 Post contains images Udo : Have you forgotten those successful and respected carriers which have ordered 159 aircraft so far? Could also be an A332-like claim...who knows? Amen
37 Ikramerica : Let's not make it so A v B there. Airlines are also taking a wait and see with the 772LR, and even did to a lesser extent for the 773ER. Was this bec
38 Post contains images Lehpron : I wonder if no one brought this up, would one start? Thesedays it seems as if we are waiting for someone to fire out just so we can react without bei
39 SWISSER : A big fact without the specs is this in the A350-787 "war"; A350 has commonality where again the B787 is a completely new aircraft and it will logical
40 Sonic67 : Yes I do relize this. I'm just suprized that Airbus is able to make these esmates this early in the game without extensive windtunnel time. I wonder
41 NorCal : I still don't understand why Boeing doesn't have the exact same cockpit design on all their aircraft. Take the 777 and make it the standard cockpit f
42 Glom : So it is. I have memories of people saying the 787 have an aluminium wing, which is why Airbus's use of composite was better or something. I'm probab
43 Glom : The layout is the same. The 787 uses bigger screens. The problem with being too rigid with standardisation is that it prevents improvements on future
44 SWISSER : Yes I know what you mean, but a fact is that an existing A320 pilot is converted in 8 days on the A350, try that with for instance a 738 with 787, bu
45 Ikramerica : Not true. Since the major redesign, A's been claiming all new parts out of one side of their mouth and commonality out of the other. That graphic tha
46 SWISSER : I'am talking about operational commonality, not parts!
47 NorCal : That is a good point you bring up. I was just looking at the 747-400 and 777 cockpit posters I have in my room, they both look very similar, though n
48 B2707SST : All we can say is that if Boeing's customers wanted common cockpits badly enough, Boeing would offer them. Boeing itself pioneered commonality on the
49 NorCal : Actually the commonality goes back further than that, the 707, 727, and 737 had commonality.
50 Post contains images QFA001 : I'd appreciate knowing when or where Airbus has claimed -30% fuel burn vs B772ER. FWIW, neither airplane will use GLARE. Airbus will be using the new
51 SWISSER : You are a pilot, so you should know what I'am talking about and how type ratings and CCQ work...
52 SWISSER : Already 21? that's more then I expected! Let me rename it aircrew cockpit commonality then for you!
53 Beauing : Is that an inovation vis-à-vis to the A340?
54 Post contains images QFA001 : Then you had low expectations. It is now well over a decade since Airbus' MFF became fully available to airlines (with A333 EIS in 1994). Yet, the nu
55 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...which derives a pitance of commonality for most large/varied-fleet carriers ...which is by far, the most valuable commonality aspect in short: wea
56 Ha763 : The 747-400 cockpit was the basis on which the 777 cockpit was designed upon. That's why they look similar. Also, this design has also spread to the
57 NorCal : I'm a private pilot working on my other ratings, so I still have a lot to learn, but I do know how type ratings work.
58 Ikramerica : Further, the 747Adv will share the cockpit of the 772LR/3ER from what I understand. The problem with true cockpit commonality is that it basically for
59 Fumanchewd : I could be wrong but I believe that the aluminum is to conduct heat from the heating element for anti-acing as well as being important in the manufac
60 SWISSER : Yes it was, I'am looking at the A350 in the eyes of a pilot and off course that is a small factor in the total packet. If you look at the B777's succ
61 Shenzhen : Wonder why Airbus didn't provide a chart depicting trip costs..... probably harder to fudge the numbers, like seat counts. LOL By the way, Airbus does
62 GQfluffy : Like what? Maybe the old "steam and clockwork" type cockpits, but I'm pretty sure a 707 pilot couldn't just strap him or herself in a 727 and fly awa
63 Shenzhen : Probably the largest group of pilots mixed fleet flying are US Airforce Reserve pilots flying 707s (KC135) and modern day transports for their work a
64 MidnightMike : The 787 will have a similar cockpit to that of the 777, even though the 787 will have a separate type rating, the length of training is very short if
65 MidnightMike : The website gave some interesting information on the A350, but, it did make some unfair comparisions, such as comparing the A350 in a "2" class config
66 Post contains links and images GQfluffy : Could be, but I guess my question is this: How can one pilot jump from a 4-engine to a 3 engined T-tail, to a 2 engined aircraft? Just looking at the
67 Shenzhen : I don't have the FAA AC Circular at hand, but it is allowed. If GQ pilots aren't allowed to fly two different airplane types, it is their policy, not
68 Trex8 : they are kept current by both the AF and whoever their regular employer are on whatever type their employer uses and the type they need to fly for th
69 USAF336TFS : Thank you Glom. BTW, we "sour grape Americans" are with you and your countrymen during these difficult past few weeks.
70 KC135TopBoom : In the US, Pilots can hold many different type ratings. It is up to the Pilot to maintane his/her currency. Several Commerical Pilots own a private a
71 Boeing7E7 : Assuming you can fill those seats or that your seating configuration doesn't preclude the seats from being available in the first place. Always per s
72 Xkorpyoh : I hope they don't use this as a real sales presentation and if they do, i hope they have their numbers ready when an airline executive ask them about
73 Boeing7E7 : Three class 358 would be about 240 seats and a 359 in three class about 290.
74 Beauing : Does anyone have a comparison of usable floor space, that is the only true apples to apples comparison, as the seat pitch can be different when simpl
75 Boeing7E7 : The 330-200 is one foot longer than the 358 and the 330-300 is 21 feet shorter than the 359. Everything else is the same.
76 Glom : They're shrinking the airframe? What's the point in that?
77 Post contains images Trex8 : it must be the new math because in the presentation it says a A333 is 209 feet and a A359 214ft 11in!!
78 Astuteman : And it is very much appreciated! Interesting. Happy to believe you. It's amazing how many posts I've read on here (bombarded might be an appropriate
79 Post contains images Boeing7E7 : Typo. 4 feet 11 inches. Subtracted 332 length from 359 length. Yikes!  [Edited 2005-07-25 19:20:04][Edited 2005-07-25 19:21:20]
80 BlueSky1976 : It is when you have the same cockpit layout, making it easier for pilots to become familiar with it. OTOH, pilots who flew on A380 simulator claim it
81 Avalon : The A350s look great to me - especially for airlines already operating Airbus planes. It would seem perfect for an airline like Qantas, particularly o
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...
LH Starts A346 To YYZ And B744 To BLR Today posted Mon Oct 9 2006 07:11:48 by DABVF
Planes Most Profitable To Boeing And Airbus? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:29:14 by JAM747
Why Is LHR So Coveted Compared To LGW And STN? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 01:31:40 by Tracks
FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Dramatic" posted Mon May 8 2006 10:00:34 by Leelaw
Airbus And Boeing To Renew Qantas Talks Early 06 posted Mon Dec 19 2005 22:30:59 by Keesje
Can Airbus Send The A350 Back To Redesign? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 08:09:41 by MrComet
A350 Advances, Akin To 787? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 17:50:47 by DIA
Airbus 380 MAX PAX Compared To Antonov posted Wed Feb 2 2005 13:39:13 by Ncl
A380 Flaps And Landing Gear Compared To 747 posted Fri Nov 26 2004 00:17:58 by A380900
From Airbus To Boeing And Back Again posted Sun Apr 11 2004 04:22:41 by MSYtristar