Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350 Just An A330 Variant?  
User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4499 times:

According to Flight International, Oct. 25th issue, page 43, "the A350 will be certified as an A330 variant". This is despite the fact that Airbus claims that the A350 is an all-new aircraft with little in common with the A330 and that only 10% of the parts between the two aircraft are interchangeable. I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

What do you think?

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

I think that is just speculative cowdung. The A350 hasn't even been launched yet for Christ's sake!

-IR


User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

Um, I thought they did earlier this month

User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

True, but when it is launched, will it truly be a variant, as Airbus says, or will it be an all-new aircraft, as Airbus also says?

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

It was called the A330 Light couple of years ago but they changed it to A350. Guess the outside will look like the A330, but with all-new composite

Micke//SE  wave 



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8879 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4398 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter):
This is despite the fact that Airbus claims that the A350 is an all-new aircraft with little in common with the A330 and that only 10% of the parts between the two aircraft are interchangeable. I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

Same as the 747-100 shares the same type certificate data sheet as the 747-400ER, or the 737-100 shares the same type certificate data sheet as the 737-900.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter):
According to Flight International, Oct. 25th issue, page 43, "the A350 will be certified as an A330 variant". This is despite the fact that Airbus claims that the A350 is an all-new aircraft with little in common with the A330 and that only 10% of the parts between the two aircraft are interchangeable. I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

What do you think?

This is exactly what I predicted would happen because it is vastly less expensive and time consuming to certify an aircraft as a variant and for the A350, this really is the right choice.

For the fuselage, the A350 will be an A330 except for a different alloy used, which will account for a huge number of those new part numbers. Some parts of the existing A330 wing will be made from CFRP and the engines will come from the B787.

Those are clearly updates only to an existing certificated design and not what constitutes a totally new aircraft.

[Edited 2005-10-27 08:34:04]

User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4379 times:

Having 90 percent new parts, or being nearly identical depends on whom Airbus are pitching the airplane.

If they are pitching to an A330 operator, then Airbus will go out of their way to show how many parts are interchangeable, thus reducing the Airlines spare part procurement.

If it is an Operator that has no A330s, they will probably pitch that it is basically an all new airplane.

Simply salesmanhsip.

I think most every airline know it is a derivative.

Cheers


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4367 times:

Does that mean flight testing will be a shorter period? If so, why so long to EIS?

Also, with the "news" of doing the A350 treatment to the A340, but still calling it the A340, how is the A350 an entirely new aircraft and not the "LR/HGW" version of the A330?

This is not a knock on the aircraft, just a jab at the marketing department. I mean, considering how well the A330 is selling and how popular it is right now, one would almost thing calling the newer planes A330-800 and A330-900 would have made MORE sense to customers than A350, really selling the fleet commonality argument to those who already operate the A330 as well as those looking to replace their 767s and earlier A340s, MD11s, etc. And it also leaves room for a shorter range A330-500 to replace the 333.

But alas, there was a pissing contest, and it got the better of logic.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2758 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4356 times:

Interesting post Ikramerica, and your point on an A330-800 or -900 does seem to make sense.


Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4352 times:

Why don't you take a step back and think about what you are trying to say?

After all, you are arguing over the name of a plane! Who cares? Airbus can market the thing however they want, they're the ones building it.

Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter):
I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

Probably the same as me, they won't give a s**t.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 6):

"and the engines will come from B787"

Huh!

I thought the engines will be made by GE, and not for Boeing 787 alone! Monopoly?

Micke//SE  Wink



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2758 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4330 times:

Ok, in the end I think Munteycarlos has come out with the best response, and you know what Monteycarlos? You're totally right!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 10):
Why don't you take a step back and think about what you are trying to say?

After all, you are arguing over the name of a plane! Who cares? Airbus can market the thing however they want, they're the ones building it.

Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter):
I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

Probably the same as me, they won't give a s**t.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 12):
Ok, in the end I think Munteycarlos has come out with the best response, and you know what Monteycarlos? You're totally right!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 10):
Why don't you take a step back and think about what you are trying to say?

After all, you are arguing over the name of a plane! Who cares? Airbus can market the thing however they want, they're the ones building it.

Quoting Dhefty (Thread starter):
I wonder how the aviation authorities will view the situation.

Probably the same as me, they won't give a s**t.

Toulouse and Monteycarlos, you're both very wrong! It does matter to aviation authorities and it needs to matter to Airbus and its stakeholders!

The difference in cost and time is huge and will contribute to whether a program is even considered viable or not!

Which aircraft certification programs have either of you worked on? Please share your experiences with us.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1871 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Nothing wrong with that. Happened in the past before.
MD-11 was certified as a DC-10 variant, thought McDonnell Douglas was pitching it to the airlines as an "all-new" airplane.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4133 times:

Wow, this really takes the wraps off the truth about the A-350 then! So it really is nothing more than a variant, a warmed over A-330. I think this is really a mistake by Airbus in the long term competition against the 787.  stirthepot 


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1871 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 15):
So it really is nothing more than a variant, a warmed over A-330. I think this is really a mistake by Airbus in the long term competition against the 787.

737NG was also just a warmed-over 737 and look how many frames it has sold... Don't write the plane off until it proves itself in service...



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4076 times:

Quoting Solnabo (Reply 11):
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 6):


"and the engines will come from B787"

Huh!

I thought the engines will be made by GE, and not for Boeing 787 alone! Monopoly?

Micke//SE

You are correct. Well, you know what I meant to say, anyway...


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Good Steve Creedy article here comparing the two. Nice contrast in conversational styles between the two 'company spokesmen', too  Smile:-

Airbus (Leahy) -

"It's an all new airplane," says Leahy. "We're spending 4.35 billion euros - that's about $US5.5 billion. Our colleague (Boeing) is spending about $US6 billion on their program so we're both designing all-new aircraft for the 21st century.

"Ours is coming out a little later than theirs and taking advantage of more state-of-the-art improvements in technology."


Boeing (Tinseth) -

"So when we take a look at the capabilities of our airplane and the Airbus airplane, we just see so many advantages because they're really working with a derivative aircraft. (It's) an airplane we just don't think quite matches up to what we can do in our all-new airplane."

"When we take a look at the two airplanes again, (they're) very close in seating, very close in range (and) our airplane weighs about 60,000 pounds less when it's at the end of the runway ready to take off."

"At the end of the day, he says, it comes down to the experts at Qantas and other airlines "taking that really sharp pencil" to the aircraft."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au.../0,5744,17055201%255E23349,00.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 18):

"At the end of the day, he says, it comes down to the experts at Qantas and other airlines "taking that really sharp pencil" to the aircraft."

smartest qoute yet... thumbsup 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2758 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 1):
I think that is just speculative cowdung. The A350 hasn't even been launched yet for Christ's sake!

Ehmmm, it WAS actually launched in early October, the 6th I believe...

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 16):
737NG was also just a warmed-over 737 and look how many frames it has sold... Don't write the plane off until it proves itself in service...

Very well said BlueSky1976



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 6):
Those are clearly updates only to an existing certificated design and not what constitutes a totally new aircraft.

I tend to agree with those who feel that it would have been better to position the aircraft as perhaps an A330NG or A330-500. It seems to me that it isn't a good idea to seem to obsolete their best-selling wide-body product.

The other thing that occurs to one is why it should take so long to produce a derivative?


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 21):
The other thing that occurs to one is why it should take so long to produce a derivative?

That's what I don't get. Why so long and expensive? Same time frame and cost as the 787 from all accounts, yet not a clean sheet design.

Are they really just waiting on the engines?

Mike



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

I generally try to avoid semantic arguments, but I'll just pipe in that I think it's fair to call the A350 "new" but not fair to call it "all-new". For whatever that's worth.

If Airbus can get it certified as an A330 derivative and thereby save money, that's great. The less the bureaucrats force Airbus to waste the better.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3778 times:

It is all semantics, and I see on some levels (marketing, hubris) why it's called the 350. Also, it makes it seem like the next generation of both 330 AND 340, while an A330-800 would not sound like that.

But people ask: why did they start with 800,900.

My answer is this. Because not too long ago, Airbus clearly said that they could match the 787 JUST with engines and avionics upgrades on the 330, and thus they had already planned on doing that and calling it the 330-800 and 330-900. After all, they say airlines and pax already prefer the 330/340 fuselage design to anything else out there, so why change it?

Then, as things progressed, they saw customers demanded more than that, including some of the other features of the 787, and A made more changes, and decided to call it the 350, since they saw it would be replacing 342/3/4s as well (much how a 787-10 will take out the 772ER and maybe LR if there's a 787-10LR). But the 800,900 stayed on with the name change out of consistency, and because there won't be MORE planes based on this platform. We might very well see a reduced weight 350-500 or 350-300 or something to supplant the 333 in a few years. but they can only do so much at a time.

Just my view on how it came about.

Either way, this is the last plane you will see based on this fuselage, whatever they want to call it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 Mham001 : I think you are seeing some results from Boeings work to decrease development time. They fully expect to have the ability to clean sheet a plane in 3
26 Zvezda : Certainly the A350-900 and B787-10 will kill the B777-200ER. However, there is no way that the B787 can touch the B777-200LR unless Boeing replaces t
27 Post contains images TinkerBelle : Yeeah the A350 is an A330 on steroids but look at how successful the A330 is! I doubt it makes a difference whether it's certified as a variant or not
28 Ikramerica : Please don't let this thread turn negative. Posts have clearly indicated the A330 is successful and continues to be so in the future. The subject tit
29 TinkerBelle : Woow, put down the cool aid! In what way is my post negative? All I said is whether or not the A350 is an A330 variant, the A330 itself is a heck of
30 Ikramerica : Not saying you were negative, but that you were starting us down a path of an argument by defending the A330 when nobody was attacking it! It's so eas
31 TinkerBelle : lol... You're right although a little debate as long it's logical is okay.
32 Dhefty : Ikramerica, I agree in general, however even though a derivative might serve them well for a time, I don't see how it can put them in a leadership po
33 TinkerBelle : Talking of that, why would any airline order the A330 instead of the A350 in the future unless they buy it for much less or get a much earlier delive
34 Dhefty : Delivery slot availability on the B787/A350 right now is nearly 4 years out, so on that basis the A330 will probably do OK - for a while.
35 ANZ772 : Anyone got any Technical specs on the A350 vs B787?... Not likely...I guess the airline orders will do the talking.
36 Post contains images Stall : Perfect summary !!!
37 Zvezda : Leahy doesn't hope that the A330 will continue to sell for 10 more years. He hopes that the A330 will continue to sell long enough to fill the order
38 Post contains links Bells : In this technical report from the summer Flight quotes Airbus saying that the A350 will have 10% parts commonality with the A350. http://www.flightint
39 Post contains images EddieGunsmoke : Excuse my ignorance, but why does it matter if airlines order the A350 instead of the A330? Wouldn't this be the same thing as if the A330 had been g
40 Monteycarlos : yet you provide no reason why? prove it.
41 Dhefty : EddieGunsmoke, you do not speak out of ignorance. I agree, it really doesn't matter to the airline as long as they don't need the product for at leas
42 Slarty : Sharing a "data sheet" is not the same as type certification. LOL[Edited 2005-10-29 03:21:34]
43 Dougloid : The way they did it was pitch it as all new, 'struth. It was a stretched DC10 with new engines, a glass cockpit, new engines and a lot of other upgra
44 TrevD : When pushed on the the 10% parts commonality comment, my Airbus marketing rep admitted it was mostly due to different part numbers and tried to justif
45 Revelation : Say again, Bells? I think we know what you meant to say. Yes, Airbus wants it both ways: an all new plane, so customers will get the benefit of techn
46 Dhefty : If I understand what you are suggesting, then it may only be the part number, but not the actual part itself, that is different, correct? It appears
47 Trex8 : well if a substantial portion of the structure in an A350 is made of different materials than an A330, even if they look exactly the same, I would hop
48 Dougloid : The ten percent will be nuts, bolts, rivets, tires, and tubes of sealer. There's your ten per cent commonality.
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...
Is The A350 Just An A330 With A New Name? posted Fri Mar 10 2006 06:47:59 by Sonic67
Will It Be Possible To Tell An A350 From An A330? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 23:58:01 by Grantcv
Just An American A300 Question posted Thu Apr 13 2006 22:53:49 by American762
773 Orders To Pass 772? +, A350 To Eclipse A330? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 20:36:33 by DIA
A350 To Kill A330? posted Sat Oct 29 2005 00:25:32 by TinkerBelle
GOL Brazil-USA: Just An Idea posted Fri Mar 25 2005 01:40:51 by Xkorpyoh
380 On US Domestic Run (Just An Idea) posted Sun Dec 19 2004 06:14:36 by AirbusCanada
Could Airbus Build An A330-600? posted Mon Jul 5 2004 00:52:32 by EnoreFilho
LH Why Not An A330/340 To PHX? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 20:42:10 by AV8AJET
How Mcuh Would An A330-200 Cost To Lease? posted Sun Apr 20 2003 22:23:15 by Monarch
Viewing Solar Eclipse From An A330 posted Sun Jul 27 2008 07:27:29 by Meta
Why Not An A330-500 And 600 posted Mon Dec 31 2007 08:09:32 by Carls
The Best US Airways Route On An A330? posted Mon Sep 24 2007 01:37:12 by A380fo