Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Chief Admits To Mistakes Over New A350  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5750 posts, RR: 47
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14557 times:

Gee when the 787 came out I remember all the derision that Airbus and its supporters heaped on the aircraft. Words like "Chinese Copy" or "Dreaming in Seattle" turned out to be Airbus' biggest nightmare.

I wonder what other mistakes they've made (something that also has an "8" in it).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060513.../franceaviationairbus_060513185041

Despite the revamping the "all new" A350 will probably still be heavier than the 787 IMO.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
119 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDavid31998 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14494 times:

The earlier plans for the A350 left a plane that did not compete well with the 787. Can the new A350 equal or exceed the 787 in fuel efficiency and other technological advances? Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market. Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?

User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14341 times:

Quoting David31998 (Reply 1):
Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market

Why not?

I had the exact same 'argument" with a friend yesterday.

Boeing has lept forward in the development in the mid-size market. Airbus now has the ability to sit back, take a look at what the market wants, re-evaluate, and perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?

This is the way that competing businesses work.

I laugh at how many people here say that one side or the other is failing, has lost the touch, etc.

Airbus made a good decision to re-vamp the "350" since their customers were asking them to, and they obviously realize what they were offering wasn't going to be sufficient.

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineJustPlanes From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 886 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14295 times:

This has got to make those airlines who picked the plane look a bit foolish... unless price was all they were really interested in...

User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14251 times:

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 2):
perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?

I doubt there is that much new technology available in the next 3-6 years to actually leapfrog the Boeing 787. It's going to be difficult for Airbus to match the 787 performance.

What Airbus is doing is replacing the A346 and hijaking the 773ER from its crown. But the problem I see with this is that the large the plane the less market there is for it... So by simply growing the A350 w/o properly addressing the larger market 220-300 seat planes could be very risky.

It's fine to publicy admit failure but you need to adress the much larger 220 to 300 longhaul plane to replace the A330, 332, 333, 762, 763, 764, 772, MD11, DC10s, etc... than just simply building a larger 350 variant.

Show me what you got Airbus...



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineCF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14237 times:

This topic is asking for a A VS B war..... but I quite frankly cant wait for the next 10 years to unfold. People make it sound like Airbus is packing its bags and they are doomed forever. I think everyone makes mistakes... especially in this business  . Just another thing .....if your developing a machine that costs 200+ million per unit, I would rather make a mistake now then when its in developmental process.

On a side note, I would love to see an a.net user name with the US flag beside it.... beginning a thread... in which the title reads "Airbus will pose harsh challenge to 787 Design" ... or pherhaps "Airbus improves A350 design 1000:1" or even "Boeing fights to secure more 787 orders" (due to the possible ... more profitable A350<<< would be located inside the thread)

.... feel free to think of some others. We should all stop trying to plan the future. Last time I was in history class, we were reading about how many said it was impossible for man to sustain controlled and powered flight  . They did didnt they? The more bazar things do indeed happen so lets let it all play out as the years approach 

[Edited 2006-05-15 02:34:54]

User currently offlineJet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14237 times:

Quoting David31998 (Reply 1):
Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?

For (1) above . . . it certainly could be. Airbus has access to the same universe of suppliers and engineers that Boeing does, and could duplicate the composites, engines, internal environment, etc. For (2) I'm a little less optimistic, but if the A350/A370 is introduced 5 years later, then it probably would, at least in some areas.

From Boeing's perspective, they should work to accelerate the launch of the 787 as much as possible, so that they capture so much of the market so fast, the cost of conversion to the new A350/A370 will make it uneconomical for many customers, no matter how good Airbus can improve it in the next 3 to 5 years, and so Airbus will have to wait until the 787s are being retired to make a big return to the market.

That would encourage Boeing to:
- open a second production line
- continue their movement into after sales support for business and customer retention

Boeing is sitting pretty now:
- ~350 orders from a number of serious airlines
- figure 50% more for options conversation (175)
- it is reasonable to expect 300 orders from other U.S. carriers
- they can find another 200 frames from other carriers not yet signing up

That totals 1025 frames. I think these numbers will apply no matter what Airbus counters with, if Boeing doesn't mess things up from here on.

For us aviation fanatics, the good news is that Airbus will need to, and will, introduce a very interesting plane if they go the new route.


User currently offlineDavid31998 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14216 times:

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 2):
Boeing has lept forward in the development in the mid-size market. Airbus now has the ability to sit back, take a look at what the market wants, re-evaluate, and perhaps, leap-frog Boeing in the future with their offering?

This is the way that competing businesses work.

I laugh at how many people here say that one side or the other is failing, has lost the touch, etc.

I am not saying anyone is failing. Airbus is doing well, but they have a significant challenge trying to compete with the 787. The time between development of the 787 and 350 is very small and therefore, technological advances will be negligible. Boeing anticipated a quick response by Airbus and they are pushing the the limits of their manufacturing ability and tech know-how. The question is can the new 350 measure up to the 787?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14198 times:

Quoting David31998 (Reply 1):
The earlier plans for the A350 left a plane that did not compete well with the 787. Can the new A350 equal or exceed the 787 in fuel efficiency and other technological advances? Since Boeing has only recently entered the development stage it seems unlikely that Airbus can leap ahead in the mid-size market. Now the most important questions for both A/B are: (1) will the new A350 be a viable competitor for the 787 and (2) can it in any way leap ahead of the 787?

I don't think that is the question. I think Airbus has shifted goals to countering the older portion of Boeing's product line, the 777. There will be overlap with the 540K lbs MTOW 787-10 if/when that gets launched, but I suspect right from the start Airbus wants to create a higher MTOW aircraft that will allow 8000-9000nm range in the 300pax category. They will have to use something other than the 787 engines, unless they go the quad route again. The resulting aircraft won't be a leader on CASM compared to the 787-10, but it will have capability in terms of payload-range. But Boeing is likely to come out with a higher MTOW 787-10 at some point, and that will likely be a better performer than the 300 pax version of the revised A350 for most missions.

They may offer something in the 250pax space, but it will probably be a weak offering in relation to the 787-9 as it probably will be relatively heavy.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4):
What Airbus is doing is replacing the A346 and hijaking the 773ER from its crown. But the problem I see with this is that the large the plane the less market there is for it... So by simply growing the A350 w/o properly addressing the larger market 220-300 seat planes could be very risky.

The other problem is that they would be releasing this 773ER competitor 10 years after it went into service. Boeing will likely have something out within 5 years of the -1000 EIS in that space, whether it be a 773LR or the Y3. Given Airbus's long development cycles they really need to be sure that Boeing won't clip their wings a few years after EIS like Boeing did with the 773ER to the A346.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14138 times:

This thread is becoming a parallel of
RE: FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Drama (by Widebodyphotog May 11 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2766138

iin which this whole topic was beaten to death ad nauseum. My only comment is that I think part of the answer to A's dilemma lies in learning how to design a weight efficient structure. This issue was well outlined in the afore mentioned thread by some of the posters. When oil was $25 a barrel it didn't matter too much but today it is a pre-eminent issue.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14110 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
Despite the revamping the "all new" A350 will probably still be heavier than the 787 IMO.

Funny. There is something here that I fail to understand. How important is the issue of weight when comparing different models of aircrafts?

Sure I understand that if you can make an airplane A 10t lighter then airplane A will be a more efficient aircrafts (provided that its specs. for MTOW etc. does not change). However, comparing different models to each other with roughly the same size something does not hold water. Try compare the 787-8 to the 767-300ER. Two airplanes with roughly the same seating (about 210-220) seats.

Max ranges of the two aircrafs are different. However, that might not reflect the construction of the two airplanes (explaining why the one is more heavier than the other) as it might rather indicate that the one of the two is more efficient than the other and by carrying the same amount of fuel will go that much further. Range cannot be used meaningfully in this context.

MTOW might be the thing to compare. MTOW is what the construction of the plane in terms of strength must take into consideration. Then it doesn't matter what combination of pax, cargo and fuel you are carrying. Let us call it the load. The structure must be able to deal with the "load"! And - one should not forget - that the structure must not only carry the load. It must also carry the structure of the airframe itself! MTOW is, therefore, load + airframe. Airframe here is expressed in OEW.

The 787-8 has a higher MTOW than the 767-300ER (with the highest MTOW). 216t against 187t. That is 30t more for the 787-8. Impressive at first.

Less impressive though when comparing the OEW. Here it becomes clear that of those 30t only about 10t can be used for extra load (whatever combination of pax, cargo and fuel that might be)! The 787-8 is no less than 18t HEAVIER than the 767-300ER. 108t for the 787-8 compared to 90t for the 767-300ER.

(All numbers from Boeing's web-site)

Well - I am not to say that the 787-8 is less efficient than the 767. However, I recon that the gain in efficiency of the 787 is not gained by making it's OEW less.... And as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: the very same problem might well be involved when comparing the 350 (in whatever version) to the 787...

In other words: Unless someone comes up with a very good explanation I will remain considering the affirmation of a direct correlation between weight (OEW) and operational efficiency between different models of aircrafts to be nothing but uninformed myth. The lighter aircraft might not at all be the most efficient one! The question of operational efficiency seems to me to be far, far, far more complicated than that!

ABBA

[Edited 2006-05-15 03:03:52]

User currently offlineAirways45 From United Kingdom, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14110 times:

Boeing had, and has, always expected Airbus to come up with a rival. That's the game we are all in - 50:50 split or thereabouts.

It's just taken Airbus a while to sort themselves out. And, I'm not sure they are even there yet.

I think Airbus need to get this one right. They shouldn't rush (as they have been doing).

However, best scenario for Boeing was for them to stick with their luke warm A350.

Seattle (and Chicago) have a little more to worry about now they look like there's a new competitor on the block. The previous attempt by Airbus would have meant 787 all the way.

Given that this is the size of airplane that will sell 3,000 over the next 20 years, there's no room for errors (on either side).

Airways45


User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14110 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9):
. My only comment is that I think part of the answer to A's dilemma lies in learning how to design a weight efficient structure. This issue was well outlined in the afore mentioned thread by some of the posters. When oil was $25 a barrel it didn't matter too much but today it is a pre-eminent issue

Well said.


User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14075 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
Less impressive though when comparing the OEW.

I think OEW is exactly the name of the game. This is what airlines want - light empty structure. But in order to compare apples with apples you have to compare the volume of the cargo space in combination with the square footage of the passenger compartment. Using number of seats can be deceiving since seating vary due to configuration. If you rechecked you would find out that 787 is "more" airplane than 767-300.

[Edited 2006-05-15 03:17:56]

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14048 times:

Quoting Airways45 (Reply 11):

Seattle (and Chicago) have a little more to worry about now they look like there's a new competitor on the block. The previous attempt by Airbus would have meant 787 all the way.

lets see how the "old new whatever-it-is" A350 comes out first....

we'll know more in the next month or two.....

[Edited 2006-05-15 03:25:19]


"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14009 times:

Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 13):
I think OEW is exactly the name of the game. This is what airlines want - light empty structure. But in order to compare apples with apples you have to compare the volume of the cargo space in combination with the square footage of the passenger compartment. Using number of seats can be deceiving since seating vary due to configuration

I'll in principle agree with that (but it becomes complicated!). However, I believe the numbers for the 787-8 and the 767-300ER are such that to use the number of seats as a very roughly indication of the two being of about the same size is good enough for my argument here. In particular when the MTOW are so close to each other.

Look at the wingspan of the two! The 787-8 has a span of 60m while the 787-300 only has a span of 47m. It seems that most of the weight savings for the 787 has been aerodynamically "invested" in a much longer wing! Things like that complicate matters!


ABBA


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13869 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 15):
However, I believe the numbers for the 787-8 and the 767-300ER are such that to use the number of seats as a very roughly indication of the two being of about the same size is good enough for my argument here.

The B787-8 is closer to the B764 and A332 than the B763. In fact, the B788 is only a few square meters smaller than the A332/A358. In terms of passenger capacity, the -8 can match the A358 with 9-abreast seating and still maintain relative comfort.

Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
The lighter aircraft might not at all be the most efficient one! The question of operational efficiency seems to me to be far, far, far more complicated than that!

It is, but your slew of logic was so inprecise it isn't even worth delving into in this thread.

There are too many variables you exclude to make that sort of direct correlation between OEW. Why compare to the B763ER, rather than the A358? Their propulsion technology, range, mission limits, etc are more anaglous.


User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13649 times:

The mistake wasn't the A350, it's the A380--Airbus misjudged the market and now they are paying dearly for it.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4):
I doubt there is that much new technology available in the next 3-6 years to actually leapfrog the Boeing 787.

Airbus can't wait 3-6 years, they got to get humpin on this immediately in order to finish it by 2012.Already there's skepticism that 2012 is doable

Quote:
Such a decision would delay the first delivery date by a year and could double the development costs, currently estimated at four billion dollars, the source said.

Other sources spoke of a two-year delay


Quoting CF188A (Reply 5):
On a side note, I would love to see an a.net user name with the US flag beside it.... beginning a thread... in which the title reads "Airbus will pose harsh challenge to 787 Design" ... or pherhaps "Airbus improves A350 design 1000:1"

Sorry, I don't do fiction  Wink

[Edited 2006-05-15 05:42:58]

User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13609 times:

I agree with your points in principe. However, even if you compare the OEW of the 764 to the 788 you will still not see the true gain in efficiency of the 787 over the 764. What I believe is that OEW does not say as much about an aircraft's efficiency relative to other "similar" aircrafts as some people here seem to believe (and it is highly debatable what "similar" might mean in this context). That the 350 is heavier than the 787 might not say very much about the efficiency of the two aircrafts relative to each other! What I tried to do was to show just how misguided such a comparison of OEW might actually be!

Abba

PS I will disagree with your affirmation that an 788 with 9 abreast maintain relative comfort!


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13504 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 18):
PS I will disagree with your affirmation that an 788 with 9 abreast maintain relative comfort!

Go ahead, but that assumption is proving to be the bane of the A350 program.

Boeing has shown the B787 to be an effective 9-abreast aircraft without sacraficing economy-level comfort. That puts a tremendous dent in the A350's seat/mile projections.

Quoting Abba (Reply 18):
What I tried to do was to show just how misguided such a comparison of OEW might actually be!

Abba, there's been a hundred and four topics on this subject so I will be brief. Your assumption that OEW is not one of the most criticial indicators of aircraft efficency is so wrong it is laugable.

Higher OEW requires higher take-off thrust and higher cruise thrust. Additional weight means more induced drag. Higher weight means more wear and tear on the landing gear and replaceable items like brake pads and tires. Additional weight means higher landing fees and airport costs. These are not trivial dollars we are talking about.

The A350 is 15 tons heavier, carries no significant payload any significant distance further, and features less optimal propulsion than the B787. That leaves no opportunity for the A350 to have superior economics


User currently offlineAp305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13441 times:

There is still no factual evidence that the "new" proposed a350 is inferior to the 787 in any way. There appears to be some sort of assumption among some members that Boeing holds a technical advantage over Airbus.The whole composites vs al-li is still a theory. Until Airbus releases the oew, mtow and fuel usage data for the "new" -800 and -900(the -1000 has no 787 rival yet)figures, we will not be able to know for FACT if the composite fuselage of the 787 provides some sort of a technical advantage over a al-li fuselage. As i said before in a previous post- the whole weight issue of the "current" a350 MAY be down to the usage of a antiquated fuselage sub-structure that owes its roots to the ta10/ta11 studies. Until we are able to prove that a composite fuselage does indeed provide a definite advantage i would hope that members refrain from stating what are unproven theories as facts.

[Edited 2006-05-15 06:48:20]

[Edited 2006-05-15 06:49:00]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13401 times:

Quoting Abba (Reply 10):
In other words: Unless someone comes up with a very good explanation I will remain considering the affirmation of a direct correlation between weight (OEW) and operational efficiency between different models of aircrafts to be nothing but uninformed myth. The lighter aircraft might not at all be the most efficient one! The question of operational efficiency seems to me to be far, far, far more complicated than that!

I think I covered exactly the same question pretty well in a thread about a year ago, though it took me several tries. Without digging that back up (you're welcome to), I'll take another stab at it.

There are three components of efficiency in flight:
a) structural efficiency,
b) SFC, and
c) aerodynamic efficiency.
All three are important.

Structural efficiency is usually measured as payload/OEW or load (payload + fuel)/OEW. Comparisons of structural efficiency are only valid for aircraft of comparable range. Why? Because increasing the range capability of an aircraft (that carries a given payload) requires increasing OEW (given SFC and aerodynamic efficiency). That's the problem with your comparison between the B767 and the B787. Add enough structure to a B767 to carry enough fuel to match the B787's range and then compare structural efficiency. Don't forget the higher thrust engines, upgraded landing gear, etc. that will be needed.


User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1334 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13290 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Higher OEW requires higher take-off thrust and higher cruise thrust. Additional weight means more induced drag. Higher weight means more wear and tear on the landing gear and replaceable items like brake pads and tires. Additional weight means higher landing fees and airport costs. These are not trivial dollars we are talking about.

The A350 is 15 tons heavier, carries no significant payload any significant distance further, and features less optimal propulsion than the B787. That leaves no opportunity for the A350 to have superior economics

Strange then that Airbus has been able to sell the 350 at all then - even to airlines (such as Finn Air) that were to replace third party products and wasn't committed to either A or B. Are these people plain stupid? Are the people at Airbus so stupid that they think that the entire airline industry cannot come up with an argument as simple as yours above? Just dream on if you like!

Again - I am not saying that weight does not matter. Of cause it does! Only that it is very difficult to compare different models with each other which might be build according to different philosophies. I have no problem believing that the 787 is a more efficient aircraft than the 350 (as it used to be offered at least) in the view of many people who should be able to form an informed aopinion on the matter. But I believe that many more things than just the difference in OEW per se contribute to that.

There seems to be a balance between eg. size (hence weight) of the wing and its aerodynamic efficiency. Different philosophies might well put the optimum point of trade-off between the two differently. Nevertheless, the 350 has a one meter wider wingspan than the 788/9 and might also have a larger wing area. What these differences (which has implications for overall weight) means in terms of aerodynamic efficiency I certainly cannot come even close to form an educated opinion about. And I feel that I am not alone.

Abba


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13271 times:

Quoting Ap305 (Reply 20):
The whole composites vs al-li is still a theory. Until Airbus releases the oew, mtow and fuel usage data for the "new" -800 and -900(the -1000 has no 787 rival yet)figures

Not to say anything bad about Airbus' planes, but yes the "new" A358's number has not been released yet, and we are still guessing what airbus is going to do. However, judging from the "old all new" A358, the composite Vs. Al-Li, it looks like composite planes have a distinct structural weight advantage.

I am sure when Airbus first released the numbers, it has already put its design weight to the "lightest" possible. This weight is probably not going to change significantly unless there is a fundamental change in the Airbus' plane design and materials. I think a change in fuselage size alone will not reduce this OEW difference, because A358 should not suffer from aspect ratio problem as A346 does.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13222 times:

I would say that Airbus has learned from the mistakes Boeing did in the past.
The 787 a newly desigend, high developed aircraft that offers commonality with other Boeing products like the 777.
Airbus has learned its lesson over the last year that they have to come up with a real competitioner instead of a warmed up derivate like Boeing did with the 767-400 to compete with the A330 ten years ago.
Good for Airbus that they noticed that they would fail with that aircraft before it rolled-out.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
25 Post contains images Manni : Taken from the article for wich a link is provided in the first post. "Last Thursday, sources at the Airbus plant at Toulouse in southern France said
26 Flying-Tiger : German bizplane manucafturer did a comparision between "all metal" (likely all AL) and "composites" for their new SPn jet. The difference in weight w
27 OyKIE : The only way I can see Airbus being able to fully compete head on with the 787 is if they offer a composite fuselage. The 787 has some maintenance be
28 Post contains links Joni : Why would it be difficult for Airbus to match the 787, given that they have a few years of advances in manufacturing technology and materials on thei
29 Manni : Joni, In the article is written that the current development costs estimated at US$4 billion could double. That makes it US$8 billion (wich is slight
30 Joni : Ok, you're right I missed that.
31 TWAtwaTWA : Being the first to the market has its advantages (prestige, early market share), but also disadvantages (competition reacts to mistakes and imperfecti
32 Post contains images OyKIE : Welcome to Airliners.net TWAtwaTWA! I take it your a TWA fan? I will be very impressed if the Boeing 787 is just 1-2 months behind when it enters ser
33 Post contains links Joni : There's still time for the schedule to slip further.. And the 787 is also a bit overweight http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b393803
34 Post contains images BoomBoom : The sources at EADS also told us for many years that the first A380, would be delivered last April
35 Zvezda : There is truth in this, in theory, but in practice one does not sacrifice aerodynamic efficiency of a wing to save weight -- at least not to any sign
36 Post contains images Manni : Great, you continue with going with the rumours from the retired gate agent, 14 year old student, nurse, police officer and rubbish collector then. T
37 Zvezda : Actually, it was March. That slipped to May. Then it slipped again to November. In this case, the analysis was based on the data published by Airbus
38 MrComet : It's not worth all the speculation now. We'll see how Airbus does with the new plane. I've been harsh on the A350 as have many and we have turned out
39 CWFan : Mr. Comet: Nice post. But I fail to understand how the new 350/370 can beat the 787 in the given seat range that the 787 is attacking (now the 777 is
40 Zvezda : I think you've got that exactly right. The "new all-new" A350 will have to not only beat the CASM of the B777-300ER but match the CASM of the B787-10
41 Post contains images Manni : I see, I've got the picture . Here's one for you BoomBoom. I was talking to my dentist today, he told me that the people working for EADS are all mad
42 Joni : I think Leahy's been pretty successful in selling the A350 so far, not to mention that the inferiority of the design re. the 787 has been exaggerated
43 OyKIE : Yup. But IMO keeping the weight on target is more important than having an exact schedule in the longer run. A schedule is nice, but if something une
44 Post contains links Revelation : Are you saying that 10% is not significant? According to http://www.grobspn.com/aircraft_4.php?pageID=8 the MTOW of the Grob SPn is 13,889 lbs so thi
45 Katekebo : I'm still curious what will happen to the 100 or so firm orders that Airbus already took for the "old all new" A350. I presume that Airbus will try to
46 Abba : It is heavier because it has a larger wing area. The lager wing does have a weight prize! However, it is another question whether all the 15 extra to
47 Revelation : Interesting points, but also keep in mind a lot of the A350 customers are "friends and family". In the case of US/HP, the order was tied to a loan th
48 Post contains images Brendows : Interesting theory... If it's heavier because of its larger wing, why didn't they shrink the wing?... Abba, start believing what Zvezda is reading, y
49 PolymerPlane : Do you have a link to Widebodyphotog's explanation? I am not trying to question your credibility, but I am honestly interested in reading the explana
50 Post contains links Abba : Good question indeed! They actually enlarged it compared to the 330 with a few feet. They must be mad at Airbus. Out of their right mind indeed! And
51 DAYflyer : Does this mean the A-350 will be an all composite fuselage? If they stick with the Ali-Li fuselage, a wider one means a far greater weight advantage
52 Ultrapig : As an amateur observer (more amateur than most of you) it seems to me that the two biggest advanges ar ethe carbon fuselage and the bleedless engines.
53 Abba : Airbus has a tube - bigger than anything planed for the 787 - made in the very same way as the tubes for the 787 now flying on the 380. The differenc
54 MrComet : I agree with you it will be difficult. However, they are talking new engines that will be a half generation newer than the 787. It's also easier to o
55 Gkpetery : so what happens to the A350 orders that are already booked.. Will the customers get the new re-designed planes? And it's finished product probably won
56 Post contains links Zvezda : There are not 100 A330s sitting around and available to be leased for 2 to 4 years. Attempting to find them would be very disruptive to the market an
57 Jacobin777 : for now, it seems as if they are going to stick with the Al-Li fuselage and have composite wings...
58 Tockeyhockey : i would be glad to start that thread -- if the statement were true! that gets to the core of this A vs. B issue: americans don't bash the a350 becaus
59 Atmx2000 : The 787-8 OEW is 108.5t. The useful payload is 107.5t.
60 Trex8 : and an EADS factory has the contract from Boeing for a pressurized composite bulkhead for the 787. It may take Airbus a little time to get an actual
61 Post contains images CF188A : I'm going to openly disagree with you because I doubt given your defense towards Boeing above, that you would ever give a positive impression for Air
62 N328KF : This is most definitely not true. There are 787 components that have already been produced that will be in the first flying aicraft. Try to say that
63 Gritzngravee : Do you actually believe either side? This is like COKE and PEPSI coming out with new products to out do each other, it was cherry years ago then it we
64 N328KF : It's not hard to see that some aircraft have already garnered enough orders to pay for the R&D. The 787 is estimated to have a development cost of $8
65 DAYflyer : Then why don't they just do that since this is waht would make them competitive against the 787?? I do not understand the hesitation as the A-350 is
66 11Bravo : You make it sound as though aircraft production and aeronautical engineering is voodoo where companies like Airbus and Boeing just randomly build thi
67 Zvezda : Actually 350 to 100 if we're counting firm orders.
68 EbbUK : Absolutely disagree with you on both counts. If anything they've shown faith in their products and when the market hasn't shared it they've shown bus
69 CF188A : what more do they have to go on? Tha ts the nature of this business. What I was stating above, is directed to those in here, who make it sound as tho
70 DAYflyer : The Boeing web site has several photos of fuselage sections which have been produced already.
71 EbbUK : Cannot agree with that. Airbus is in a strong position with those 100 orders, cause frankly where are they going to go? to 787? When would they get t
72 N328KF : Sheesh; take some Proazac. I don't believe the fuselage sections are production items—merely test articles. The piece that I am referring to was, I
73 Picard : From what I could gather the hesitation with going with a composite fuselage is or was the below points. 1) The ability of re-using the tooling from
74 Post contains images Glideslope : 1) No 2) Not a prayer.
75 Post contains links and images Halibut : It wasn't too long ago that Noel Forgeard was stating the A350 was an all new aircraft & the most modern aircraft of this century . http://www.itp.net
76 Post contains images CF188A : = immature (must be your nature). so your comment is actually aimed right back at you with some hypocrtical coating to help wash it down you still di
77 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : it's costing around $billion to develop the 787, of which Boeing is shelling out around $5-$6 billion and rest of the risk sharing is with the partne
78 Abba : It already has about the same load as the 767-400ER. So in principle the airframe need not be any stronger so as to carry more fuel and/or load. The
79 Texfly101 : Actually, this airplane has been in development for quite awhile. It was in co-development with the Sonic Cruiser, it was just Plan B, which turned o
80 Zvezda : You're still ignoring range. A B767-400ER cannot carry the same load the same distance as the B787-8. Reengineer the the former to have the payload a
81 Abba : You can achieve range in two ways - and in two ways only: a: carry more fuel. The 767-400Er only caries 2/3 of what the 787-8 can keep in its tanks (
82 Joni : I agree. Just consider winglets: if you add winglets to a plane, you will increase it's weight, but you can lower fuel burn.
83 Abba : So very true.... Abba
84 Tockeyhockey : airbus says it isn't true. that's why they stopped the a350 program all together and are creating an entirely new design. why do you get so defensive
85 DeltaDC9 : That may not be possible with Boeings market share in the US and Japan being enough out of whack to make 50/50 improbable. When every airline is back
86 Post contains images CF188A : .Defensive? I wouldn't say its defensive. I am just playing devils advocate and not going off unreliable information from people who are indeed "Pro-
87 Post contains images Hb88 : With respect, I think you are wrong. Coming to a.net and reading the airbus-bashing threads along with the complete and (sometimes literally unbeliev
88 Saturn5 : I am too new to this forum to speak about any bias if any. But this current wave of Airbus/A350 bashing may have roots in something else - the prior
89 Hb88 : I think you're partially right. Some of the Airbus PR may be part of it. But that was before my time and frankly I don't care. I'm neither american n
90 Post contains images CF188A : HB88, thank you Atleast i am not the ONLY one , with the same outlooks
91 DeltaDC9 : This is what, as an MBA, I find fascinating. Both Airbus and Boeing have at one point or another, had idiots at the helm, and yet they both prosper.
92 Zvezda : There is an abundance of Airbus-bashing and an approximately equal abundance of Boeing-bashing, when viewed over the long term. Over the very short t
93 Post contains images Picard : That would be funny to watch
94 Post contains links Abba : I cannot right now find the article that some time ago was discussed in detail here on this forum - so this one will do (there is even a video showin
95 Zvezda : This really is an inconsequential difference. Whether pressurized or not, the item must withstand loads that are calculated by design. A pressurized
96 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I think you should let your senior management know to keep their mouth shut...comments about the B787 such as "that plane is nothing to be concerned
97 Abba : I'll tend to agree - without being an expert. Some however, have put a lot of empahis on this issue. As an outsider it might well be that this part -
98 Texfly101 : What happens is that the circular (just for arguments sake, I know its not circular) fuselage itslf is a pretty basic design. Its the areas that are
99 WingedMigrator : What process do you refer to? Automated tape layup?
100 TWAtwaTWA : As a brand spanking new member around here, I find the heated pro-B vs pro-A discussions that make up a large portion of the forums very entertaining.
101 Abba : I have no doubt that what you are saying here is right. Thank you! However, I wonder if much of the analysis that you describe isn't more or less the
102 NAV20 : Abba, best answer is that design is an integrated and on-going process. One decision affects another, and requires compromise. Sometimes this produce
103 Atmx2000 : It means the 787-8 can carry 6% more payload than you suggested.
104 Flying Belgian : I've just seen a report on the French TV about the A350. It's the first time they talk about this A350 revamp subject. They confirmed Airbus has to re
105 Zvezda : This is a great explanation of why the process used by Airbus to produce aft pressure bulkheads in CFRP is not suitable for fuselage barrels. However
106 Abba : Boeing engineers (and it might even have been Gilette himself) has explained that the idea of the bleedless system originally came from the engine ma
107 Abba : You can actually see the very strange machine that creates the fabric for the aft bulkhead on the video which is on the page I liked to above. And th
108 Zvezda : Design is more complex and difficult because of the directional nature of carbon fibre. However, it is clear that Airbus can cope with this. Yes and,
109 Abba : You seem to be right on this one! Funny, though as this might be the least difficult part of the process. If Airbus can make an all CFRP fuselage - w
110 Zvezda : I've spent some time at Finkenwerder, though not recently, but enough to get a taste of Airbus corporate culture. My thought is bureaucratic inertia
111 DeltaDC9 : So what are you guys saying, that Airbus has the same technology and manufacturing processes as the 787 project? I find this as hard to believe as Bo
112 Zvezda : Not the same, but my understanding that the process used to produce the tail cones is similar and could be used to produce fuselage sections. I don't
113 Sebolino : Nope. There's only 1 photo of 1 section (or I don't know where to find the others ... ).
114 DeltaDC9 : I have seen the cockpit section, a normal barrel, and a barrel section from the rear that tapers in towards the tail. The problem is where the hell a
115 Abba : Interesting theory. Until recently Airbus has been a rather innovative organization. Perhaps Boeing only managed to make the change now because they
116 11Bravo : ...or maybe they changed out of necessity because they became unimaginative and lazy as a result of their successes twenty and thirty years ago. The
117 DeltaDC9 : GM, Ford, McDonnell Douglass, Digital Equipment Corporation, Tandy, every cable TV company in the US, every land line phone company in the US, Burger
118 Tockeyhockey : what? i'm confused. they didn't screw up, but they did come to the conclusion that the plans for the a350 were not appropriate for the market. and yo
119 Hb88 : Wrong. In fact, I'm not a national of any of the Airbus countries. I have pride in a product, not in any particular state which builds it. I think my
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 All-New A350 May Work To Boeings Advantage? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 01:37:18 by BoeingBus
New Airbus Chief: Job Cuts Are Coming posted Tue Oct 10 2006 18:59:00 by Dw747400
BAE Urged To Sue Over Airbus Delay Blow posted Tue Jul 4 2006 05:51:01 by RAPCON
BAE Ready To Sue Over Airbus posted Sun Jun 25 2006 06:54:41 by NAV20
Imminent: Airbus Reveals New A350 posted Wed Jun 7 2006 07:22:28 by Singapore_Air
Is Airbus Already Offering New A350/A370? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 11:23:20 by Joni
Airbus-Forgeard & Humbert Fighting Over A350! posted Thu May 18 2006 21:13:40 by Halibut
Composite Divide: Airbus, Boeing And The New A350 posted Fri May 12 2006 12:06:17 by A380900
Can Airbus Afford Not To Redesign The A350? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 22:46:37 by BoomBoom
Airbus To Create 1000+ New Jobs In Germany posted Sun Jul 17 2005 22:24:57 by Solnabo