Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?  
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18774 times:

Ok, ok. The A306-sucession topic obsesses me, but up to this day no thread has ever gone deeper than to say that the A306 is becoming old and the A330 is not an appropriate successor. And despite the fact that markets like Europe and Asia have a wide-body short to medium range airliner written all over them, the 783 as the only alternative at the moment is only slowly gaining ground. Very slowly.

The market might be smaller than one think on the first sight, but what could Airbus do in order to keep or even extend its market share? The questions is: Is there a reasonable, profitable approach to revitalise the A300 by using low-key, low cost improvements from the A350 development (wingtips, engines, cockpit, composites) leveraged by the unique strengths of the existing A306, which are versatility (air-frame, cargo space), weight (<90t OEW) and the short-haul set-up (rather small and light wings) ???

I am looking forward to your ideas, but please read the previous threads on this topic first and be ensured that I do not question that the B787 is the more superior airplane by definition . No A vs. B discussions, let alone wars ...

Thx & Enjoy!
Jan

[Edited 2006-02-22 09:22:39]

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2954 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18728 times:

So far NH & JL are the only carriers to commit to the 783. Those carriers weren't going to buy the A330 or A350 anyways.
What the future holds in the 783 are orders from possibly DL, AA, UA, LH, BA & Chinese carriers. If no 783 order materializes from this group then Airbus went down the right path offering no 783 competitor. The 783 will be the equivalent to the 747SR.
Check back in 2015 when surely AA has no more AB6s or Chinese market continues its unprecedented growth.


User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18563 times:

The A300-600 certainly is not the most modern jet around, but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Already now, the 'old' A300-600 still has a lower EOW as the new composite 787-3 and because of identical cross sections on the entire Airbus wide body range (except obviously the A380), the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure by making use of those lighter elements it has in common with the A350 and which are already under design.
Making use of GLARE could also be considered for plane-specific structural elements, although this would then obviously require some more serious re-design of the plane itself, rather than a simple modular change of exisiting structures, thus costing more.

Just as the 787-3, the A300-600 makes use of 2 high by pass turbofan engines of around 275kN each, yet on the A300-600 these are either the CF6 or the PW4150, 2 long-established engines. Certifying the A300-600 with a derated version of the the GEnx or Trent 1000, similar as for the 787-3 is thus possible. It is a safe bet that re-engining the A300-600 with the same engines as the 787-3 alone would already give it a similar fuel consumption at very low cost and using lighter cross sections from the A350 would give it even an FF advantage, again at a very modest cost (the cross section is there anyhow and the first build A300-600NG or whatever they'd call it can be sold to a customer after certification).

On the con's, maintenance cost of the A300-600 are much higher compared to the expected maintenance cost of the 787-3, although again, mostly because of its engines, so there too the gap could be narrowed quite easily, especially because the fuselage of the A300-600NG would still be made of more conventional materials, making it less vulnerable to unknown risk factors like structural damage during turn around procedures, which obvioulsy are a much greater risk on planes operating many sectors a day with relatively short turn around times as the A306 or the 783.

From all this it is clear a new A300-600 could materialize at extremely low cost (€300 million) somewhere around 2012 and would be a very good match for the 787-3, certainly if offered at low cost (remember the A300 program is fully amortized, the 787 just starting off). It would also be a very low risk project for Airbus, as all elements used on it are needed for other more important projects too and since the A300-600NG would certainly be launched with a freighter version too, it should increase its market potential.

In short: if Boeing proves there is still a considerable market for this type of plane with their 787-3, Airbus will say thank you to them, rework their A300-600 and take a serious share of it at low cost and low risk.

[Edited 2006-02-22 11:28:37]

User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1917 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 18351 times:

Airbus does not seem to prepare an A300-600NG beyond the improved so-called General Freighter.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a300a310/freight.html
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a300-600/
But of course, we never know.


User currently offlineBrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1289 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18246 times:

I don't agree to consider that there is a market in Europe for domestic wide-body short range service. The only routes that used to see wide-body aircraft are now much more often seeing narrow-body types. I think that an A321 gets close enough in terms of capacity and is more versatile to provide a capacity boost according to seasonality. An A300 sized aircraft on the other hand would be waste capacity a good proportion of the time.

Asia is a different story but there again we are witnessing a fragmentation of the market to different city pairs than that of capital A to capital B. There's also the distance factor as the average distance between two points in Asia is much more significant that in Europe. This would support the idea of real wide-body service between those further away points.



I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
User currently offlineB742 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 3768 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18029 times:

I realy like the A310/A300 series!

I wish Airbus would make a smaller version aircraft that could cater for the market between the 737/A32S and A350/787!

I would like to see an aircraft that has similar capacity to the 757 series enter the market, maybe Airbus could jump in and cater for this market!

Rob!  wave 


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 17950 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
The A300-600 certainly is not the most modern jet around, but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

What dead weight? The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it. The fuselage is thinner and lighter, as are the wings. Engines are possibly (probably) derated compared to the -8.

I'd also argue that it'd cost a hell of a lot more than €300 million to completely overhaul the structural materials used on the A300, modify the engines, most likely the wings, upgrade the flight deck...not to mention recertifying it.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do think Airbus' lack of a true 787-3 competitor is why most of the domestic US airlines will choose the 787 family, as the 787-3 is a nice replacement for their domestic 767-300ER fleets that fly high-density intra-continental runs and US Mainland to Hawai'i' flights.

An A330-200 is just too much plane, I imagine.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 17806 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 1):
The 783 will be the equivalent to the 747SR.

767-300, 767-400, 767-200 (as a growth bird) - Domestic hub jumper from large markets to the hubs (i.e. LAX-ATL, LAX-ORD, LAX-JFK etc...)

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Dead weight? You must be joking.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
What dead weight? The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it. The fuselage is thinner and lighter, as are the wings. Engines are possibly (probably) derated compared to the -8.

Same engines (-9 thrust available for a wacked out bean counter wanting the option to fly Orange County to New York fully loaded). Killer airfield performance (max range with a balanced load from 8,000' and 5,000' landing on a wet runway with the -8 engines) and a 15% trip cost improvement on a 1800nm trip vs. the 767-300 carrying more pax. Hmmm...

[Edited 2006-02-22 20:16:08]

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17746 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it.

That's just not true. Its a derivative of the 787-8. It is MANY tons heavier than an A300-600R and a 767-300.

Sure, its fuselage is not as thick and the gear is simpler. It has a larger rudder. But it is still a 787.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8):
Dead weight? You must be joking.

See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

N

N


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 17729 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Jeez, how did you pay for the 16 RR?? That statement is wildly wrong, a little study might educate you some. Now you are essentially claiming that Airbus could redo the A300 and it would compare to the 787??!! What happened to the 350??

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure

Again, this indicates a complete lack of understading of structures and engineering, airplanes are not built like lego blocks. If this was so easy to do, manufacturers would constantly improve the weight of their airplanes. But it is not easy and there are a lot of factors involved in structures, remove a little here, and the structure is affected in other ways.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 17660 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 10):
That statement is wildly wrong, a little study might educate you some. Now you are essentially claiming that Airbus could redo the A300 and it would compare to the 787??!! What happened to the 350??

Everything about his statement is absolutely correct. We're talking specifically about the 787-3 and the A300-600R. We're not talking about the A350 and the 787-8 and -9.

Read again.

N


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17468 times:

"It features a wing and structure optimized for shorter-range flights"

That comes from Boeings 787-3 data, so I stand by my post. However, I do have to say that I was surprised how the 783 and 306 compared quite nicely, for some reason it was the first time I had seen that data.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17425 times:

Its marketing.

Yes, the wing is shorter. Yes, the fuse is not as reinforced as the 787-8. But it is still a very heavy plane.

It benefits greatly from the next generation of engine technology, yes. But Airbus could easily A350ize the A300-600, move to a new generation of engines, and cover that gap.

I'm not saying they will.

N


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17393 times:

Gigneil

I cant find the empty weights for any 787 version, do you have that data??

And I agree, Airbus could certainly update the A300.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17393 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

Wow, I did not think it would be so much heavier, thats nearly 120 kg heavier per passenger! How big do you think the market for an A300NG is? I think they could sell quite a few to sun charters. It might (along with the 783) might make a good 757 replacement also. And there is AAs old A300s to replace eventually also, but I still think both they and DL will go 787 if not this year then next year.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17299 times:

I think the 787-3 is probably going to be great for AA.

For one thing, its bigger than an A300-600R and AA would no doubt put 9 abreast seating to the Carribean. That will yield an amazingly low CASM and a huge cargo capacity.

Plus, we know AA would rather a Boeing product.

As for the OEW of the 787 variants, I need to search. There is a Widebodyphotog chart he created at my request to compare the 767-300, A300-600R, and 787-3 that had the information relevant to this conversation.

Sure, we concluded the mission fuel and costs for the 787-3 were better. But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

N


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17266 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

How things change, but you are right, scary to me as a BA shareholder.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16782 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
How things change, but you are right, scary to me as a BA shareholder.

Are you kdding? Boeing stock is at historic levels  Yeah sure

I doubt the fate of the 783, niche-market extrodinare, would change much.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
There is a Widebodyphotog chart he created at my request to compare the 767-300, A300-600R, and 787-3 that had the information relevant to this conversation.

Taadaa  Smile

http://theaviationspecialist.com/787_family.gif

(OEW)
783 - 223,100 lb (101,197 kg)
788 - 239,200 lb (108,500 kg)
763 - 190,000 lb (86,000 kg)
A306 - 198,000 lb (90,000 kg) *approx*

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

A lot would depend on how much an upgraded A300 would beat the 783. If the new A300 only marginally beat the 783 (say under 5%), then an opperator like AA would struggle to justify an entire fleet type.

If the A300 owned the 783 to a simmilar extent of the 772LR/A345, then perhaps the economics would overcome the lower overall cost of a 787/783 subfleet.

Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16598 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?

I think your estimate of how much it would cost to develop (A350ize) the A306(X) is a lot more realistic than the 300M Euros suggested earlier.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 16557 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Are you kdding? Boeing stock is at historic levels

Yes I know!! I bought low, but you know the trick is sell high, wherever it might be. So I have to be careful because now I see how the 787 might not be that hot.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15952 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure by making use of those lighter elements it has in common with the A350 and which are already under design.
Making use of GLARE could also be considered for plane-specific structural elements, although this would then obviously require some more serious re-design of the plane itself, rather than a simple modular change of exisiting structures, thus costing more.

I am concerned that the redesign of the hull und the use of new materials could increase the effort for re-certification and development to a point beyond feasibility ...

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
From all this it is clear a new A300-600 could materialize at extremely low cost (�300 million) somewhere around 2012

300mn might be a little less. The mere costs for the prototype can easily be higher. And you have not started testing and certification yet ...

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 4):
I don't agree to consider that there is a market in Europe for domestic wide-body short range service. The only routes that used to see wide-body aircraft are now much more often seeing narrow-body types. I think that an A321 gets close enough in terms of capacity and is more versatile to provide a capacity boost according to seasonality. An A300 sized aircraft on the other hand would be waste capacity a good proportion of the time.

I don't know if the European undergoes the same structural changes as the North American market, namely a shift from high capacity to high frequency, but up to now there are quite a few carriers using widebodies on their european trunk routes (LH, BA, Turkish ... and some tourist/charter airlines ...)

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
I'd also argue that it'd cost a hell of a lot more than �300 million to completely overhaul the structural materials used on the A300, modify the engines, most likely the wings, upgrade the flight deck...not to mention re-certifying it.

I second that ...

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

that was my thought. There must be a reason that it did not materialize. Either the market is too small or dev costs way too high ...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?

Could be become a self-fulfilling prophecy and a dejavu of the A318/B736 story, where the market is too small to profitable feed two products. But there's one difference, both the A318 and B736 are not competitive as compared to the Embraers while the potential A300NG and the 783 do not have any competitors ...




What are remains to be solved are questions of market size and dev costs. But I think with costs estimated at 1bn and a market price of 100mn a piece break-even could be reached at only 100 frames ...

Great thread so far ... carry on!

Jan


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15881 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
(OEW)
783 - 223,100 lb (101,197 kg)
788 - 239,200 lb (108,500 kg)
763 - 190,000 lb (86,000 kg)
A306 - 198,000 lb (90,000 kg) *approx*

That's sure not 30 tons of difference. How 'bout 12.5 tons difference? That's still a lot, though.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15750 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
That's just not true. Its a derivative of the 787-8. It is MANY tons heavier than an A300-600R and a 767-300.

Sure, its fuselage is not as thick and the gear is simpler. It has a larger rudder. But it is still a 787.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

No, it is only about 25000lbs heavier, that's just 12.5 tons. Don't forget, the B-787-300 is still in the design phase, some of that weight could be shed before it gets built.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
there is AAs old A300s to replace eventually

No, AA believes the A-300-605Rs they have now are pigs. Why would they want an updated version?

This whole string seems a waste of time. I can't believe I'm even posting here. Airbus, like Boeing has to many big projects going on now to worry about updating an old design. This is like Boeing offering a B-767-800ER, it just isn't going to happen. Airbus does not have enough engineers just sitting around with nothing to do to begin another project. They are still working on the A-380 and the A-400M, next is the A-350, and after that they will probably start on the A-320 Series replacement. The same with Boeing with the B-777-200LR/F, B-747-800I/F, B-787-300/800/900, then the Y-1 project to replace the B-737NGs. Both manufactures are going after the USAF Tanker project. There just isn't anyone left to work on an A-300-800.

Updating a 30 year old design, give me a break.
 Yeah sure


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15677 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20):
I bought low, but you know the trick is sell high, wherever it might be. So I have to be careful because now I see how the 787 might not be that hot.

In about 18 months, Boeing has sold as many 787 as Airbus sold A332 from 1996-present. The launch of the 787-10 is looking more and more likely, Boeing will continue making front page news with the 787 for some time. It is the definition of a hot product.

Not to mention, you should hardly base your investments around a single product. Boeing is an incredibly diverse company, the 787 is just one of many revenue streams. Boeing sold 100+ B777, 500+ 737NG, 40+ 747, and launched a new 747 variant. Boeing has a healthy defense division with big dollar space launch, military aerospace, and military technology contracts.

Do not let a purely hypothetical discussion phase your investor confidence. Airbus has made no indication that they are seriously considering a modernized A300 in the near term.


25 Revelation : But aren't the GEnx and/or Trent 1000 a lot heavier than the CF6 or PW4150? Won't there be 'knock on' effects of the weight, i.e. needing stronger py
26 PADSpot : Updates as discussed here would eliminate many of the "pig-like" properties of the A306 (engine maintenance etc). Also the concurrent thread about AA
27 AndesSMF : Understand, I'm not afraid now, but its something that has to be thought of for the future, this market being so cyclical. I see myself buying and se
28 Skymileman : You know, I'm not a big fan of Airbus. In fact, I cannot stand Airbus, but I think the A300/A310 are outstanding airplanes. They are of an extraordina
29 Post contains images PADSpot : Ehhhmm, ... ehh ... OK! Terrific! Thank You! ... ??? Your post lead me to another reason why the A300NG might be necessary or least useful in the sho
30 DfwRevolution : The alure of the 787-3 is the complete commonality with the other 787 variants. If fully adopted by AA, the 787 could replace the 767, 777, and A300.
31 PADSpot : ... to put it in other words: Much of the advantages of the 787 over the A306 at AA are outside the scope of the A306 ... No doubts about that .. but
32 Atmx2000 : The 783 is heavier, but it is also larger: 2m longer cabin, 12in more usable cabin width, more cargo space, more payload capacity. All of these featu
33 Blue787 : What about the A321???
34 Post contains images LTU932 : Tell that to Boeing and the 737. They did upgrade the today over 40 year old 737 design several times and continue to upgrade it. So why would an A30
35 Post contains images Astuteman : Don't forget smaller GEnx's are already in dvelopment for the 747-8. However, I suspect the biggest advantage that Airbus might have for an A300 deve
36 Post contains images Johnny : @ OEW A300-600 : nearly correct, just take the same as the B763 has,then it is allright ( i have checked it in our manuals... ) Isn´t that amazing? B
37 Ikramerica : The A300-600 and 767-300ER share the same engine, which weighs in at around 9500lbs (ave). A GE90 (first gen) weighs in at 16500lbs (min). One can ass
38 MrComet : Seems to me this plane is designed for a niche market in the US and Japan where there is high density flights over short distances. JAL ordered but th
39 AndesSMF : I would think that the wing might need a little tweaking, but remember that the 783 has a 'different' wing optimized for short distances, which is pr
40 Atmx2000 : For the umpteenth time, the 783 is a larger plane than the A306, and it certainly isn't a shrink as it is the same length as the 788. The 783 has a 2
41 Ikramerica : someone above said 2000 lbs more than the CF6 on the 767/A300, but that seems very, very low. The GEnx/Trent1000 is much bigger, nearly as big as the
42 Leelaw : Once the cost of development and upgraded engines are factored into the equation would a potential A306(X) be price competitive with the 783?
43 Johnny : @ Atmx2000 The B783 is probably more airplane as the A306, but probably also more airplane as the airlines want to buy... To repeat it another time fo
44 HiJazzey : The A300 was a great plane, and I always found it a shame that Airbus ignored the very market that gave it it's first break by not updating it after t
45 Post contains links Widebodyphotog : I believe you meant these.. 250-300 Seat Short/Medium Range Characteristics 250-300 Seat Short/Medium Range Design Mission Data Actually the specific
46 Revelation : Call me skeptical, but if there were such a clear need, it would have been filled a while ago, presumably with a modernized A300. Note also the B787-
47 Sabenapilot : Coming back to this topic, it seems quite a few people have had their eyes opened about the 787-3 and its so-called dedicated short haul design, which
48 PADSpot : ...at this point it starts getting infeasible. Changing structural properties are definitely the most expensive ones ... definitle 1bn at least then,
49 AndesSMF : Sabenapilot, this is a good quote, now I repeat what I previously posted with some added thoughts: Then it wouldn't be a 787, would it? Easier said t
50 Gigneil : I still maintain that the currently spec'ed 787-3 sucks. 1350 nm range at max payload is extremely limiting. That's not even a US transcon, and couldn
51 Leelaw : What is your source for this statistic? If it's from Widebody's charts I can't read what is displayed as it's way too small.
52 Post contains images Jacobin777 : if you click (or double click) on it, it expands.....then go to the bottom of the chart and you'll get your answer.
53 Atmx2000 : It would be, but it should be noted that max payload is a much greater percentage of OEW for the 783 than the A306, at 47.9% versus 43.9%, and the ca
54 PADSpot : Thats nothing new. Early A300s (name B2s and B1s) had the same problem. They should give the 783 the same landing gear as the other 787 versions have
55 Post contains images PM : Cough - 747 - cough! I wonder how the Chinese and Indian markets are going to develop. At present most flights are in 737/A320 class planes but at cu
56 Post contains images PADSpot : Nice closing words! But it seems that discussion reached somewhat of a dead end. Thats why I pass your thanks to the rest of the crew! Thank you all
57 Post contains images Astuteman : I'll repeat my earlier statement. If Airbus do replace/update the A306, I believe it would almost certainly be powered by updated RR T500's (the T150
58 Rolfen : Maybe they are preparing something to compete against the 787, but are not announcing it yet so as not to take the media spotlight off the a380.
59 787engineer : Uhhh. . . probably not. Considering the number of projects that Airbus has going on, and the massive spending planned for these various projects its
60 Post contains images Andessmf : I just had to tell you from your comments that it makes it very clear to me that you have been involved in engineering for a long time. I wonder how
61 Ikramerica : You might want to look further into the actual weight savings of composite/lighter alloys before making such a statement.
62 Andessmf : I just read the other day from Boeing, I believe the figure quoted was 3% for using composites. The 20% advantage for the 787 comes from several diff
63 Stitch : While it is true the 787-3 is not securing orders outside of Japan, the domestic United States airlines are logical customers, considering many of the
64 Astuteman : I'm well aware of the relative diferences in weight, thanks. Nevertheless, their use would contribute to a weight reduction. Was that the only commen
65 Atmx2000 : I believe he is mixing up fuel efficiency improvements and weight reductions. The weight reduction is certainly more. The 787-9 OEW is lower than tha
66 Post contains images Astuteman : This was my suspicion, too Atmx2000, but as I apparrently have so little knowledge of a range of structural materials I shall remain silent Regards
67 Post contains links Stitch : Well it's academic, now, as Airbus is closing the A300 and A310 lines in July 2007. A300/310 Line To Close Down Next Year? (by NA Mar 7 2006 in Civil
68 Ikramerica : Pointing out half of the weight gain of the plane is due to the increased weight of the engines and the need to support them is a diatribe? The main
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...
How Is Airbus Going To Compete With The 7E7? posted Sat Jun 12 2004 02:25:55 by BoeingBus
How To Mess With The Pax posted Thu Jul 20 2006 17:14:08 by Starlionblue
Was The A320 Built To Compete With The 757 posted Thu May 13 2004 02:06:14 by 747400sp
A Way For Airbus To Compete With 773ER posted Wed Nov 23 2005 01:56:30 by BG777300ER
772NG Or 787-10 To Compete With A350-900? posted Fri May 20 2005 00:53:18 by NorCal
Airbus To Compete With Boeing SC posted Mon Apr 9 2001 10:16:44 by Cfalk
Wow! A Thread That Has Nothing To Do With The A380 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 19:37:20 by 727200er
How To Get From The Kaagban From AMS posted Sun Sep 24 2006 01:30:08 by USAF757300
How Boeing Did With The 744 EIS Delay? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 20:47:01 by FCKC
How To Deal With Overweight Passengers? posted Thu May 18 2006 14:20:17 by B777A340Fan