Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Probability Of A350-1000 Launch?  
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5963 times:

Now that Emirates is pushing Boeing into building the B787-10, I have been wondering what would be the probability of Airbus doing a stretch of the A350-900.

An eventual A350-1000 may fit well between the B777-200 and B777-300. While at the same time offering greater economics.

Would we see a new wing to support the stretch or would the current wing be sufficient for such a stretch? What other changes should we expect from such a derivative? Engines, Landing Gear?

Regards,
Wings


Aviation Is A Passion.
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Airbus should dump the A346E proposal completly. I cant see why The A346 wings cant be adopted onto a streched A350 body with GE90 or similar engines. Im surprised this possible aircraft has not been discussed much before.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Interesting. Are you imagining something with the wings, engines and systems of an A350 but the body of, say, an A346? Or maybe not quite that long? Could the GEnx and Trent 1700 lift such a plane? What kind of range would it have?

But do Airbus really need to stretch the A350 yet? I haven't memorised all the numbers but - correct me if I'm wrong - I was rather under the impression that the 787-10 was in part a response to the existing A350-900 which was closer to EK's requirements than the 787-9. Would the 787-10 match the A359 in capacity or leap-frog it?

And, while we're at it, doesn't this just reveal again the unnecessary clumsiness of starting with -8s and -9s or -800s and -900s? They leave themselves with nowhere to go but into four figures which, to my traditionalist mind, looks ugly. (Minor rant. Ignore it.)


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5849 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Interesting. Are you imagining something with the wings, engines and systems of an A350 but the body of, say, an A346? Or maybe not quite that long? Could the GEnx and Trent 1700 lift such a plane? What kind of range would it have?

I think the weight savings offered by the A350s materials could be enough to make an 'A346 sized' A350 with GE90 or equiviant engines possible. Im not sure that the GENX could be developed to lift something that big, perhaps sombody with broad knowledge could give us an insight to this.

[Edited 2006-01-04 14:28:06]

User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

To make it short improbably.
The current wing is already to it's limits . I could guess they may be able to stretch it a further 3m maximum . Notice also a noticable range penalty then. If u mean one A346 style one , Airbus could build one using modified A346 wings. Wouldn't be to problematic but with one major problem. Engines !
Such a plane would need 773ER style engines with about 110K or 115K pounds. Airbus won't use the GE simply because it is not a RR. It also will probably not have enough space below the wing. RR building such engines is also unlikely -> RR proposed such ones for the 773ER but they got put down. Such ones would need major work and the aircraft just cannot get the development back , the market is small and already filled largely. The A346 E would be way better.
A346E is an A346 with A350 fuselage , nose , similar tail and GENX/Trent 1000 engines. Add to this modified gears and slightly modified wings using more composites , AluLi and A350 winglets and you have got probably roughly 15%lower fuel burn over current A346 + more payload at same MTOW (380t) and more range. That is 7 better then 773ER . The latter cannot improve much more without major work A350 style. Even just modifying the engines cannot get more then a few percent , because the current engines already have much GENX technology in it. Add to that lower trip costs (excluding fuel), lower purchase price and more range for the A346E .



Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
But do Airbus really need to stretch the A350 yet? I haven't memorised all the numbers but - correct me if I'm wrong - I was rather under the impression that the 787-10 was in part a response to the existing A350-900 which was closer to EK's requirements than the 787-9. Would the 787-10 match the A359 in capacity or leap-frog it?

In a minute someone will come along and scream about cabin floor spaces of the 787 and A350, and state how similar the 788 is to the A358 and 789 to the A359. However i'd be more interested in seeing the cabin lengths, because for most airlines the seating acoss will be the same, despite the 787 having a wider cabin.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5678 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 4):
Airbus won't use the GE simply because it is not a RR. ... RR building such engines is also unlikely -> RR proposed such ones for the 773ER but they got put down.

What do Airbus have against GE? They have no trouble with GE on the A350.  confused 

And what makes you think Airbus are so pro-RR? They gave GE a free run at the A345/A346. They only turned to RR and PW when GE chose not to continue.

Yes, RR were working on a big Trent 800 for 777 developments and the basic Trent design can grow well above 100,000lbs. GE got the nod from Boeing but RR could still do such an engine for a bigger A350/346 hybrid if asked.


User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5636 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
What do Airbus have against GE? They have no trouble with GE on the A350. confused

Airbus have nothing against GE , but it for example offers the A345/6 only with RR. RR have got an exclusive deal from Airbus. Just like Boeing offers 772LR/773ER and the 747-8 only with GE because of exclusive deals. You can also see that Airbus prefers RR over GE as the A380 and probably the A350 too began testing with RR/ will go with RR's first. It has got GE's on the A350 because the market is big enough for both engines.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
Yes, RR were working on a big Trent 800 for 777 developments and the basic Trent design can grow well above 100,000lbs. GE got the nod from Boeing but RR could still do such an engine for a bigger A350/346 hybrid if asked.

Would that engine be based on Trent or Trent 800? The difference is that the latter is a 10 year old design. Of course it could build such engines but they would cost much. Is the market worth the devolpment? I doubt. Also would such an engine find enough place below the A346E wing? Here i think using 4 GENX ir slightly modified Trent1000 (Trent 1500 maybe) would be better economely. The purchase price would be lower then with 2 engines, no ETOPS , lower maintenance and the pax feeling safer (OK, i know , but the pax don't). 2 Engines would offer (if possible) slightly lower fuel burn 1 or 2% and exact A350 type rating. That is it. What do you think would be better ?



Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5626 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
Interesting. Are you imagining something with the wings, engines and systems of an A350 but the body of, say, an A346? Or maybe not quite that long?

Well what I has in mind was a stretch of the A350 to the size of the current A340-500. This would fit nicely between the B777-200 and -300.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
In a minute someone will come along and scream about cabin floor spaces of the 787 and A350, and state how similar the 788 is to the A358 and 789 to the A359. However i'd be more interested in seeing the cabin lengths, because for most airlines the seating acoss will be the same, despite the 787 having a wider cabin.

True, but Zvezda means well.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
What do Airbus have against GE? They have no trouble with GE on the A350.

GE is already the leading engine choice in relation to the A350. RR is still to capture its first A350 client.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineNW727251ADV From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5597 times:

As someone else commented, why on Earth would Airbus need to stretch the A359 to respond to an eminent 787-10 when the -10 would be roughly the same size as the A359??? That would be like Airbus producing the A340-600 in response to the 777-200ER. It wouldn't make any sense.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5528 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
Airbus have nothing against GE , but it for example offers the A345/6 only with RR. RR have got an exclusive deal from Airbus.

Not a good example. As I said above, Airbus first offered GE exclusivity on the A345/346. They never offered RR exclusivity. RR have exclusivity because GE weren't interested and PW said they'd only come to the party if they got exclusivity - which Airbus weren't prepared to give them. So RR ended up with exclusivity they hadn't demanded and more by luck than any bias on the part of Airbus.

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
You can also see that Airbus prefers RR over GE as the A380 ... began testing with RR.

Nope. RR will power the first flight of the A380 not because of any preference on the part of Airbus but because Singapore Airlines chose RR over GP and they were (are) the lead customer. If SQ had chosen the GP7000 then that would be the lead engine.

(Similarly, the 787 will make its maiden flight with RR - not because they're favoured by Boeing [over GE?!] but because the lead customer - ANA - chose RR over GE.)

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
You can also see that Airbus prefers RR over GE as ... probably the A350 too ... will go with RR's first.

It would be extraordinary if the A350 flew with the RR Trent 1700 before GEnx since the engine won't be available for delivery to customers until mid-2011. Moreover, RR have yet to secure a single customer whereas GE has at least six customers so far for the GEnx on the A350 amounting to over 100 airframes.

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
It has got GE's on the A350 because the market is big enough for both engines.

That remains to be seen  Wink. But your implication is that RR were a given on the A350 whereas GE just scraped on board because Airbus felt there was enough to go round. That's not the way I read it. GE were on board from the word go but RR didn't sign up until last October.


User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

If you say so then I will just sit silently . Always thought A prefers RR and B prefers GE.

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
That remains to be seen Wink. But your implication is that RR were a given on the A350 whereas GE just scraped on board because Airbus felt there was enough to go round. That's not the way I read it. GE were on board from the word go but RR didn't sign up until last October.

I don't think that GE "just" came. HOWever , don't try to tell me that no one will order the RR1700 . Abwarten und tee trinken .



Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
Would that engine be based on Trent or Trent 800?

Gosh, I'm no engineer. I doubt if the Trent 800 will be developed further now but that was the plan back in the 1990s. All that matters is that RR could surely build a big enough engine to power a big Airbus twin if anyone asked them to. It'd be a Trent of some sort but almost certainly would have a 'new' (and odd) number. It guess it could be based on the T1000, the T1700 or pretty much any other Trent for that matter.

Or they could just use GE90s...  Wink


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

An A345/6E offers some advantages. The GE90 is going to start running up against efficiency barriers because of its size. Sure, its efficient, but it can't ever be as efficient as a GEnx.

An A345/6E with Trent 1700s or GEnx will reduce burn by 6 percent or so, maybe more by the time such an engine would enter service. A350 weight improvements will bring the 345/6E in line with the 773ER.

Then, the 1700 or GEnx can also grow a fair bit more (up to 65 - 70k) giving the plane growth potential in range and payload the 777 cannot match.

There was a fantastic article in FI a few weeks ago about this.

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 4):
Airbus won't use the GE simply because it is not a RR.

Airbus has already said they would offer the A345/6E with the GEnx.

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
RR have got an exclusive deal from Airbus.

That's actually NOT true. No such agreement exists.


At any rate, I'm skeptical of all of it, but I have read things that do make sense with regards to the 345/6E working out.

N


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5453 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 11):
Always thought A prefers RR and B prefers GE.

There's a history there. The very first A300 was intended to have RRs (the RB209, I seem to remember) but RR jilted Airbus in favour of doing the RB211 for the TriStar. Airbus wasn't best pleased and RR had to wait until the mid-1980s to get onto any Airbus programme by which time GE and PW had built up good customer bases on the A300 and A310. Indeed, at the turn of the millennium (just six years ago) there were only 50 Airbuses anywhere (all A330s) with RR compared to hundreds of GE and PW planes. Even now RR have their engines on just 235 Airbuses (A330s, A340s, A380s). They've definitely come in from the cold vis-a-vis Airbus but it took thirty years or so!

And Boeing's love affair with GE is also fairly recent but that's another story.

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 11):
don't try to tell me that no one will order the RR1700

Wouldn't dream of it! I'm sure they will. I've even seen it suggested that by waiting longer than GE and customising the Trent 1700 for the A350 they may end up with the better engine and, in the long run, higher sales. And, since I hold a small but emotionally important stake in RR, I very much hope they sell a bucketload of Trent 1700s!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13):
Airbus has already said they would offer the A345/6E with the GEnx.

Strictly speaking, the FLIGHT article dated 29th October says:

"The -600E would be powered by an engine developed from the Trent 1000/1700 family under development for the Boeing 787 and A350."

and

"Flight International understands the manufacturer has dubbed the proposed engine the “Trent 1500”, which would be a Trent 1000/1700 derivative."

and

"a version equipped with the General Electric GEnx has also been considered."

I think that falls somewhat short of stating that they will ofer a GEnx version. Would the market be big enough to warrant offering two engines?

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13):
Quoting Mohamed (Reply 7):
RR have got an exclusive deal from Airbus.

That's actually NOT true. No such agreement exists.

As I've argued above, RR ended up with exclusivity by default. But I've seen it argued here on A.Net in other threads that RR do have the field to themselves until some time soon (later this year? 2007?) after which time PW (or whoever) is welcome to offer an engine. Though it seems quite unlikely now that any such thing will happen!


User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

Thanks PM for the information. Quite interesting .


Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 16):
Thanks PM for the information. Quite interesting .

You're welcome!

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 11):
If you say so then I will just sit silently.

That's the last thing I'd want you to do! Post your ideas and impressions on A.Net and see if they fly. The worst that will happen is that some smartarse (like me) will disagree and you'll get into an interesting discussion. Both parties (and onlookers) will probably learn something. I've learned a lot here by stating what I understood to be the case and then having others correct me. We're all learning all the time.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

Quote : Messier-Dowty has just been selected to provide the main landing gear, which has been conceived to allow for future growth of the aircraft.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...awst_story.jsp?id=news/12125p3.xml


User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5329 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 17):

That's the last thing I'd want you to do! Post your ideas and impressions on A.Net and see if they fly. The worst that will happen is that some smartarse (like me) will disagree and you'll get into an interesting discussion. Both parties (and onlookers) will probably learn something. I've learned a lot here by stating what I understood to be the case and then having others correct me. We're all learning all the time.

Beautifully said PM. Welcome to my respected users list. You have deserved it.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

Quoting WINGS (Thread starter):
Now that Emirates is pushing Boeing into building the B787-10, I have been wondering what would be the probability of Airbus doing a stretch of the A350-900.

An eventual A350-1000 may fit well between the B777-200 and B777-300. While at the same time offering greater economics.

Would we see a new wing to support the stretch or would the current wing be sufficient for such a stretch? What other changes should we expect from such a derivative? Engines, Landing Gear?

The A350-900 already has substantially less range than both the A350-800 and the 787-9 (7,500 vs. 8,800nm and 8,600-8,800nm), so a double-stretch without a commensurate increase in takeoff weight will further reduce range, possibly below 7,000nm. This would greatly hinder the A350-1000's ability to compete with the 772ER and 773ER. The 787-10x will also suffer some loss in range, but word is Boeing can push the 787's takeoff weight to about 560,000 lbs. (compared to the -9HGW at 540,000 lbs.) without redesigning the wing or landing gear to help recoup some lost range.

Quoting WINGS (Reply 8):
Well what I has in mind was a stretch of the A350 to the size of the current A340-500. This would fit nicely between the B777-200 and -300.

The A340-500 is slightly smaller than the 777-200 and the A340-600 is noticeably smaller than the 777-300, so an A350-1000 would have to be quite a bit longer than the A345 to pose a threat to the 777-300.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 20):
The 787-10x will also suffer some loss in range, but word is Boeing can push the 787's takeoff weight to about 560,000 lbs. (compared to the -9HGW at 540,000 lbs.) without redesigning the wing or landing gear to help recoup some lost range

It will also need much more powerful engines to this. Such engines would also benefit the A350, which has stretch to 570 000 lb built in to the existing design.


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 5):
A346E is an A346 with A350 fuselage , nose , similar tail and GENX/Trent 1000 engines.

How can the A346E have those sort of changes and merely be an enhanced A346 when those changes produced the A350 as a completely new aircraft? Shouldn' this new aircraft be called the A360?


User currently offlineMohamed From Egypt, joined Jan 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 22):

How can the A346E have those sort of changes and merely be an enhanced A346 when those changes produced the A350 as a completely new aircraft? Shouldn' this new aircraft be called the A360?

Good point. Never thought of it. I would like to Add that the A350 has a completeley new Wing where the A346 would properly use it's current wing with slight modifactions.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):
That's the last thing I'd want you to do! Post your ideas and impressions on A.Net and see if they fly. The worst that will happen is that some smartarse (like me) will disagree and you'll get into an interesting discussion. Both parties (and onlookers) will probably learn something. I've learned a lot here by stating what I understood to be the case and then having others correct me. We're all learning all the time.

I have been an onlooker for over 1 and a half years, that is where all my knowledge come from. What I meant is what is the point in arguing when it seems that you are right and I am wrong logically. At least for this time.
You may have won the battle , but you haven't won the war !  box 



Don't mistake me by my age.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6920 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

Quoting Mohamed (Reply 23):
You may have won the battle , but you haven't won the war !

But I hope we're both on the same side: disinterested seekers of the truth!  Wink


25 B2707SST : Why? It's only a 3.7% increase in gross weight. The -10X's reduced rotation margin might demand an additional slight increase, but nothing terribly d
26 Post contains images Mohamed : Of course we are looking at the truth! Although I doubt the same side!
27 PM : Does "truth" depend on which "side" you're on? Hmmm, who out there has heard of the IB Diploma course, 'ToK'? You have your truth and I have mine. Th
28 Post contains images Mohamed : Actually in our case it matters. You are disinterested while i am interested !
29 Thorben : I think Airbus should develop the A350 in both directions, longer and shorter. The A358 is 59m long, the A359 is 65m long. IMO the need two longer ver
30 PM : I'll take you at face value and assume that you know the difference between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested'. I try to be the former but am definit
31 Mohamed : That is the A346E , the 70m version could be either the A345E (IF build) or an A350 with 2 wings and standard engines with only about 7000km range ,a
32 Atmx2000 : Well, that would be an insane plan. 6 variants in a smaller market than for a narrowbody jet, none of which being by enough capacity, particularly at
33 PM : Is it worth it? The 777-300 sold well at first but has been a non-event subsequently. Put it this way. Boeing have sold 60 so far. Of these, forty (4
34 Atmx2000 : Well, it's market has been cut short by the 773ER and A346. I would imagine airlines would rather abuse the 773ER in a larger fleet than add 773As, j
35 Mohamed : @ PM , actually i think it isn't worth it. In some time i will make a new thread about modifactions for the A350 i think could be worth it . Tomorw or
36 Stitch : I agree. As is, the A350 offers better economy to existing A342/A343 operators, so it's a natural upgrade path for them, especially if they also oper
37 RIX : Point is, these improvements will only make A340E competitive against current B777. While 787 advantages applied to 777 will (again!) make 340 an out
38 Atmx2000 : Well, that's assuming that the discounted price is $26 million more per 773ER frame. I expect that the actual difference is far less. There is signif
39 Thorben : Not more insane than Airbus with the A310, A300, A330, A340, A345, and A346. The A346E would clearly outperform the 773ER. The A346 already has bette
40 Atmx2000 : Um, if the A346 had better economics, they would be selling.
41 Kaneporta1 : The A346E will not be dumped simply because there are too many people and resources allocated to the program at this current stage and also because A
42 Atmx2000 : There were some around here who stated the -1000 was not a stretch but simply the study name for the higher MTOW A359. It seems likely there will be
43 Kaneporta1 : This thread is about an A359 stretch, not a HGW version, and that's what I meant isn't going to happen. I haven't heard anything about a HGW version
44 Post contains links Thorben : Uuummmmm. They are selling, there is still a backlog of around three years. The other factor is that these airplanes are supposed to fly another twen
45 Mohamed : Besides the already mentioned fuselage, it will get the new A350 style nose, a modified A350 tail wich ads 20 seats to get it to 773 size and lower C
46 Post contains links Mohamed : http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html The Boeing 777-300 costs 198.5 -- 225.5 The Boeing 777-3ER costs 226.0 -- 253.0 From the lower end
47 RIX : I don't know what this "better economics is", but the way you put it sounds like 773ER and 346 are "more or less equal", like 320 and 737NG. I'm afra
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...
Airbus Shareholders OK Launch Of A350 posted Fri Dec 10 2004 14:26:18 by KEESJE
EADS-Enders: Stop Of A350 Program Not Impossible posted Thu Oct 5 2006 09:11:38 by Fraport
AFX: Airbus To Build Additional Model Of A350 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 09:35:21 by SFORunner
Status Of A350 Orders posted Wed May 10 2006 21:28:10 by MrComet
Leahy Gives Spirited Defense Of A350, A380 posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:24:42 by BoomBoom
Probability Of An A320 Family Upgrade? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 13:31:46 by WINGS
Website Giving Probability Of Being In Aircrash posted Fri Dec 23 2005 00:08:56 by RootsAir
Prospect Of A380-700 Launch? posted Tue Nov 15 2005 10:27:18 by WINGS
Big Part Of A350-wing To Be Built In Germany posted Sat Nov 12 2005 12:13:29 by Fraport
Seating Capacity Of A350 And 787 Exaggerated? posted Thu Oct 6 2005 18:04:04 by Columbia107