Rsbj From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 1 day ago) and read 2700 times:
1). How does the A350XWB fit into a 20 year vision? By that, I mean it seems to leave a big gap between it and the A380, and it would also seem to leave a big gap below it assuming an A320 replacement is roughly the same size.
2). Will Airbus try to fill these perceived holes with a 450 seater and a 225 seater meaning 4 different production lines with 4 different fuselage's? Has this been part of the plan since the A350XWB's inception?
3). I don't expect the 747-8I to sell too well (though I hope I'm wrong) so negating that, what pros or cons are there with Boeing's 3 aircraft lineup (Y1, Y2, Y3) versus Airbus's possible 4 aircraft lineup? To me, 4 sounds about right as it covers a lot of range with regards to seats with less compromise that's inherent in long stretches or shrinks.
4). Is Airbus's long-term product strategy negatively altered because they have to react to the 777/787 combination?
5). Would the A350XWB be different if the A340NG was competitive? How?
6). I really like the nose of the A350XWB; very sleek, and the only way for me to tell it apart from the 787. Will they really change it and put on the A380 style nose?
JayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 765 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 day ago) and read 2630 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 2). Will Airbus try to fill these perceived holes with a 450 seater and a 225 seater meaning 4 different production lines with 4 different fuselage's? Has this been part of the plan since the A350XWB's inception?
You inidcate a 450 seater and a 225 seater, that is two added models besides the 320 350XWB and 380. I believe Airbus will only be able to fill one of the gaps. The gap above is the 346-773-747 area which is good but probably has only around 1,000 frames needed in 15 years. The timing for replacements in this area will have a good peak in about 10 years.
Below it is the area previously filled with the A300, A310, 757, and 767. The replacement cycle is currently in a peak now. I believe that Airbus should update the A330 along with the 330F using new engines and some other easy improvements. That would give them a player in the size range with a better draw than the current 330 and extend the life of the 330. At least this option has a relatively low R&D cost compared to a new bird.
Rsbj From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years ago) and read 2477 times:
Sorry, yes that adds up to 5 different frames. So you think they'll abandon the 350-550 seat range? That seems like a big hole if you ask me, one that Boeing could easily fill with the 747 and Y3.
Interesting theory on the A330, but I think it's future is getting dim.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years ago) and read 2455 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 1). How does the A350XWB fit into a 20 year vision? By that, I mean it seems to leave a big gap between it and the A380, and it would also seem to leave a big gap below it assuming an A320 replacement is roughly the same size.
As things stand, the XWB will be the staple aircraft in Airbus' 200-400 seat category for the foreseeable future. The question of the perceived gap between it and the A380 is valid, although we have to ask ourselves is there much demand for an aircraft that fills that gap?
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 2). Will Airbus try to fill these perceived holes with a 450 seater and a 225 seater meaning 4 different production lines with 4 different fuselage's? Has this been part of the plan since the A350XWB's inception?
No, there is not enough demand for an aircraft in the 400-500 seat category. This is reflected by sales of the passenger versions of the 747-400 and 747-8 since the start of the century.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 3). I don't expect the 747-8I to sell too well (though I hope I'm wrong) so negating that, what pros or cons are there with Boeing's 3 aircraft lineup (Y1, Y2, Y3) versus Airbus's possible 4 aircraft lineup? To me, 4 sounds about right as it covers a lot of range with regards to seats with less compromise that's inherent in long stretches or shrinks.
Well the Intercontinental has the advantage of being relatively cheap, as its being developed in tandem to the Freighter, for which there is demand. The disadvantage of the Intercontinental is that because its a cheap derviative, its unlikely to win any new market share for Boeing against the A380.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 4). Is Airbus's long-term product strategy negatively altered because they have to react to the 777/787 combination?
The 787 definitely had a major influence on Airbus' decision to launch the A350.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 5). Would the A350XWB be different if the A340NG was competitive? How?
Yes, if the A340-500/600 were equally competitive with the 777-200LR-300ER, its likely that Airbus would have sized the A350 similarly to the A330, as Boeing did with the 787.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 6). I really like the nose of the A350XWB; very sleek, and the only way for me to tell it apart from the 787. Will they really change it and put on the A380 style nose?
Its unlikely that the A350 will feature the A380s nose.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 7). Can this be discussed with civility on A.net?
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2407 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): The disadvantage of the Intercontinental is that because its a cheap derviative, its unlikely to win any new market share for Boeing against the A380.
And the disadvantage of the A380 is that it's a very expensive new design, its CASM will be higher than that of the A350-1000 and perhaps the 787-10. So it will have a very short life and never come close to recovering it's development cost, IMHO.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2372 times:
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 4): Quoting EI321 (Reply 3):
The disadvantage of the Intercontinental is that because its a cheap derviative, its unlikely to win any new market share for Boeing against the A380.
And the disadvantage of the A380 is that it's a very expensive new design, its CASM will be higher than that of the A350-1000 and perhaps the 787-10. So it will have a very short life and never come close to recovering it's development cost, IMHO.
Thats all possible now, but none of it was relevant when the aircraft was designed. Even Boeing is saying that the market for aircraft in this size is approx 1000 frames over the next 20 years. Thats with both the 787 and A350 at the table. Boeing also says that it expects the Intercontental so account for 2/3 of 747-8 sales. Assuming that the A380 break even point is 450 frames, will Boeing sell 550 747-8s?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 5). Would the A350XWB be different if the A340NG was competitive? How?
The A340"NG" is competitive with the 777, but it is not the twinjet's equal in the majority of applications. Quite the difference between that and not being an appreciably competitive product at all.
MotorHussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2747 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter):
4). Is Airbus's long-term product strategy negatively altered because they have to react to the 777/787 combination?
The 787 definitely had a major influence on Airbus' decision to launch the A350.
Yes, to counter both lines is why they didn't make a direct one-for-one competitor to the 787. The negative impact is that they don't have a new product in the 787-800 class and will have to rely on the ageing A330-200, but they would always have been playing catch-up on this market anyway.
The real opportunity is in the 787-900 to 777-300 class where, in the case of the 789, there have yet to come huge amounts of orders (compared to 788) and, with the 777, airlines will soon be looking beyond it (and/or to replace their existing Airbus equipment).
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2277 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 4). Is Airbus's long-term product strategy negatively altered because they have to react to the 777/787 combination?
I think they have been a long time in the 250-300 segment with the A330/a340. In the 2001-2007 they dominated the segment. So I don´t think Airbus's long-term product strategy is altered with the A350, it continues, Boeing is fighting back with the 787.
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 2). Will Airbus try to fill these perceived holes with a 450 seater and a 225 seater meaning 4 different production lines with 4 different fuselage's? Has this been part of the plan since the A350XWB's inception?
I think those holes have been there e.g. the 707/767 - 747 hole for 25 yrs until the 777 arrived in 1994.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): 1). How does the A350XWB fit into a 20 year vision? By that, I mean it seems to leave a big gap between it and the A380, and it would also seem to leave a big gap below it assuming an A320 replacement is roughly the same size.
The replacement for the A320, code-named NSR, will almost certainly have a CFRP fuselage, the inherent rigidity of which means that NSR can stretch beyond the length of the 757-300.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter):
1). How does the A350XWB fit into a 20 year vision? By that, I mean it seems to leave a big gap between it and the A380, and it would also seem to leave a big gap below it assuming an A320 replacement is roughly the same size.
The replacement for the A320, code-named NSR, will almost certainly have a CFRP fuselage, the inherent rigidity of which means that NSR can stretch beyond the length of the 757-300.
That does not mean that it will be suitable for long haul operations though. While the A320 replacement may indeed be stretched beyond the length of the A321, I cant see it being offered as an effective long haul aircraft. For instance, if the NSR was to be offered in lenth as long as the 753, it would need larger wings than the A318 sized NSR.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 10): That does not mean that it will be suitable for long haul operations though. While the A320 replacement may indeed be stretched beyond the length of the A321, I cant see it being offered as an effective long haul aircraft. For instance, if the NSR was to be offered in lenth as long as the 753, it would need larger wings than the A318 sized NSR.
As has been much discussed in the context of Y1/737RS, it would be possible for Airbus to develop wings in two sizes for NSR. There will be a large market for NSR/737RS with transatlantic range.
Terry From Qatar, joined Jul 2005, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
The initial posting I think reflects a bit of wishful, unrealistic thinking. Boeing has always outgunned the opposition with a bigger range of models and I can't see that changing.
History: B's 707, 727, 737, 747 (4 models) beat the DC-8, DC-9 and DC-10 of Douglas.
Present era:
B's 737, 767/787, 777 and 747 will take care of A's 320, 330/340/350 and A380 ranges.
With 4 models Boeing obviously offers a more focussed product than competitor 3-model range.
And Airbus seem to think that 3 is enough - I haven't heard/seen any proposals for a new model (even if they could afford to develop one!)
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 14, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2133 times:
Quoting Rsbj (Thread starter): Will Airbus try to fill these perceived holes with a 450 seater and a 225 seater meaning 4 different production lines with 4 different fuselage's? Has this been part of the plan since the A350XWB's inception?
When Airbus produced the original A300, they found it extremely cost-effective to stick with that fuselage to produce a whole range of widebodys, the A330, A340, and A340NG. It seems very obvious to me that this is their intent again.
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): As things stand, the XWB will be the staple aircraft in Airbus' 200-400 seat category for the foreseeable future
The -XWB cross-section will be Airbus's staple widebody for the forseeable future. The gap between the current A320 and the A350 will easily be filled with a combination of a) larger variants of A320RS, as Zvezda says, and b) a "smaller" derivative of the A350XWB.
Smaller in every sense, not just an A350-700 style shrink. Think more along the lines of a reincarnation of the A300, but based on the A350 fuselage, all-CFRP, and damned efficient. From a capability viewpoint, such a plane might re-create the capabilities of, say, the A330-200, but on an MTOW of c. 400 000lb.
I'd expect a 225 seat, 6500-7000 Nm range, and a 250 seat 5500 - 6000Nm range variant
Shorter ranges at this capacity would be narrowbody. IMO.
We may see a 400 seat A350XWB-1100 someday.
I would guess the gap between this and the A380 will remain until the A380 is replaced with a "look-alike" Y3 style aircraft, sometime after 2020
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2120 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14): Smaller in every sense, not just an A350-700 style shrink. Think more along the lines of a reincarnation of the A300, but based on the A350 fuselage, all-CFRP, and damned efficient.
Think A305, the model that was cancelled the day after the WhaleJet was launched.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14): We may see a 400 seat A350XWB-1100 someday.
I agree. An A350-1100 is a possible response if Boeing build a 787-11.
DeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): The disadvantage of the Intercontinental is that because its a cheap derviative, its unlikely to win any new market share for Boeing against the A380.
That is probably true for the passenger market and incorrect in the freighter market. It would not shock me to se a few new customers.
Quoting EI321 (Reply 3): Can anything be discussed with civility on A.net?
Isnt it ironic this formum is called "CIVIL Aviatiaon"?
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13): Boeing's announced strategy is to transition to 3 models:
Y1/737RS
787
747-8/Y3
True, but is is likely that Y1 will be two planes and Y3 will be offered along side the 748F.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
Airbus has a very strong product in the 225-seat market right now - the A330-200. So I don't believe they really need to play that low because by the time the 787 comes to dominate that segment, Airbus will have had a fantastic run with the A332. It's much the same with Boeing and the VLA segment. Airbus will come to dominate it thanks to the A380, but the 747 made Boeing a shedload of money during it's life.
The real battle is going to be in the 250-350 segment and that is where the 787 and A350 will go head to head, taking over for the 777 and A340.
As to "gaps", right now the demand for long-range large narrowbodies (757/A321 class) is just starting to grow, driven mostly by domestic competitive pressures. If WN wasn't beating the US majors into the ground in North America or FR/U2 doing the same to the EU majors in Europe, I don't believe we'd be seeing the trans-Atlantic expansion via 757 ops that we are now. They're going international because their competitors are not. So Boeing not having a 757 replacement and Airbus not having an A321 that can cross The Pond are not real hindrances right now, I believe.
And both the 787 and A350 should be able to grow one step larger (787-11/A350-1100) which will offer growth options and flexibility to long-haul airlines.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1960 times:
Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 17): True, but is (sic) is likely that Y1 will be two planes and Y3 will be offered along side the 748F.
Either of those are possible, but I don't believe either are likely, if by "two planes" you mean two different cross-sections.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): And both the 787 and A350 should be able to grow one step larger (787-11/A350-1100) which will offer growth options and flexibility to long-haul airlines.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1926 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15): Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
Smaller in every sense, not just an A350-700 style shrink. Think more along the lines of a reincarnation of the A300, but based on the A350 fuselage, all-CFRP, and damned efficient.
Think A305, the model that was cancelled the day after the WhaleJet was launched.
The A300-500? Tell me more! Where can I get info on that design?
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15): Quoting Astuteman (Reply 14):
We may see a 400 seat A350XWB-1100 someday.
I agree. An A350-1100 is a possible response if Boeing build a 787-11.
While these models are stong future possibilities, I dont think we will see them for a while. Do you think the current A350 wing is sufficient to support a -1100 length aircraft (lets assume a range of 7500m) without modifications?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18): Airbus has a very strong product in the 225-seat market right now - the A330-200.
Whats you opinion on re-engining the A330-200, and putting her on a diet? Something similar to what Emirates Mr Clark wants Boeing to do to the 777?
Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Do you think the current A350 wing is sufficient to support a -1100 length aircraft (lets assume a range of 7500m) without modifications?
Larger wingtip extensions to increase the swept area would probably be required for good field performance.
Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Whats you opinion on re-engining the A330-200, and putting her on a diet?
I would just put on new engines. I wouldn't spend a lot of development money on weight or aerodynamics.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26681 posts, RR: 83 Reply 22, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 1838 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Whats you opinion on re-engining the A330-200, and putting her on a diet? Something similar to what Emirates Mr Clark wants Boeing to do to the 777?
I imagine it wouldn't hurt, and could put the A332 in a similar situation to the 787-8 where the 763ER is to the A332 - around a 2:3 sales ratio (two A332Es for every three 787-8s). It would also make the A332F even more effective.
EI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 12 months 4 days ago) and read 1829 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): Quoting EI321 (Reply 20):
Whats you opinion on re-engining the A330-200, and putting her on a diet? Something similar to what Emirates Mr Clark wants Boeing to do to the 777?
I imagine it wouldn't hurt, and could put the A332 in a similar situation to the 787-8 where the 763ER is to the A332 - around a 2:3 sales ratio (two A332Es for every three 787-8s). It would also make the A332F even more effective
All considered, I dont think they will do it, as they would be shooting themselves in the foot, with regards to A350 sales. I think GE and Boeing are in a similar boat regards the GEnx A350, 787-10 & 777 GE90 - all potentially fighting in the same ring.
BoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1700 times:
Richard Aboulafia:
Quote: Original plans called for Airbus’ new
product spending to ramp down after first
A380 deliveries, in early 2006. This
would have allowed Airbus to focus on
satisfying shareholders while maintaining
a 50+% market share position with a new
product line. Yet thanks to the A380’s
marginal commercial relevance, the 777’s
victory over the A340, and Boeing’s renewed
commitment to the market in the
form of the 787, Airbus has no choice but
to press ahead and generate the cash any
way it can (increase production of its
existing models).
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 25, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Quoting EI321 (Reply 20): Do you think the current A350 wing is sufficient to support a -1100 length aircraft (lets assume a range of 7500m) without modifications?
The current A350-1000 is a 295t aircraft.
It has roughly the same wingspan as a 360t 777-300ER.
The A350-1100 you describe (i.e. 7 500Nm) would in all probability be the same MTOW as the 8 300Nm A350-1000.
In reality, I suspect an A350-1100 would have to grow to 320t-325t in order to achieve 8 300nm ish range.
As the current wing is the same span as a 360t aircraft, it should be sufficient.
However, against he envisaged stiff competition, sufficient won't be good enough.
As increased span reduces drag, the wing span would need to increase from 64m to c.67m in order to deliver a proportional Lift/Drag.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 21): Larger wingtip extensions to increase the swept area
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 152 posts, 
From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2747 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Qatar, joined Jul 2005, 37 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, 
Where can I get info on that design?
Printer friendly format 
