Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"xwb" Nomenclature  
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4365 times:

Am I the only one who finds the "A350XWB" name kind of ridiculous? I'm not slamming the design, just the name. It's almost redundant, like someone in the States saying "VIN number". Besides, it's not really an "XWB", it's just a "WB". If anything, the A380 is the "XWB". I know they needed to differentiate it from the original A350, but I still think they should have gone to an entirely different model number. Besides, it really has nothing in common with the original A350 design. "A360" would have sounded cool, kind of an indicator that "we've been around the block and now we're back". What say you, a.net?

 Smile


Airliners.net Moderator Team
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

I say you worry too much. Airbus needed some way to let everyone know that this version (Mk. V at the time, now Mk. VI) was drastically different from Mk. IV. Furthermore, it was an attempt to set it apart from the 787.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):

I'm not really "worried" about it, like, I won't lose any sleep. I'm just saying, I think from a marketing perspective it'd have been better to give it an all-new name. The original A350 was a bumpy road and I'd think they'd like to leave it in the rear view mirror. Maybe it'd have improved (potential) customer perception? "We've left that old thing and all it's problems behind. Now we're offering this cool, new thing".



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBirdbrainz From United States of America, joined May 2005, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

I don't know. By tagging "XWB" on the end, it will always beg the question how it got its name, and they will have to relive the story time and time again. Also, the XWB name is giving credence to the 787, unless they say that the extra wide body is relative to the A330/A340.

Ditto for the A360. Someone will always ask, "what happened to the A350?"

I would have just called the new plane the A350. All that said, it's really not a big deal either way.

By the way, I think the XWB name is cheesy as well. How about XBW ("extra bendy wings") or XCF ("extra carbon fiber") for the 787?  Smile I hope this XWB thing doesn't start a trend.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
Am I the only one who finds the "A350XWB" name kind of ridiculous?

I view it as a short-term marketing thing. The actual plane seems to be formally designated the A350, which is why I no longer append "XWB" when referring to it.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

Since the name came with the redesign at the time there was so much controversy over whether they'd gotten the plane "right" or not, XWB was probably the way to go, to distinguish it from the 787, not previous A350s.


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

eXactwy
Wike
Boeing


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I view it as a short-term marketing thing.

So you think it'll eventually be dropped like "7X7", "7J7" and "7E7"?



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6769 posts, RR: 76
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

Well, XWB is "Xtra Wide Bu77!"... indicating the different tail cross section being wider than the standard A300/310/330/340 butt the have!

LOL

XtWemely Boring...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 6):
eXactwy
Wike
Boeing

 laughing Waskawy Wabbit! I'm putting you on my WU list for that! smile 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 7):
So you think it'll eventually be dropped like "7X7", "7J7" and "7E7"?

Yes.


User currently offlineGregarious119 From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 532 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

Seriously - I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. Airbus A350 Extra Wide Body is a bit of a mouthful, ya think? Maybe it's not so bad in french...

Wait...they named it XWB...as in Extra Wide Body. That's a VERY English, if not American, name  headache . What would the designator be if they used the same name in French - any why didn't they use that?


User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
I know they needed to differentiate it from the original A350

Since one of the biggest criticisms of the original A350 was that it was the same width as the A300/330/340, the XWB refers to the fact that they changed the fuselage, not that it's wider than any particular Boeing. It's kind of a marketing "hey, we heard you guys, and we've listened". In practice I think it is going to disappear. Many articles are already just speaking about the A350.

The big nomenclature error was the original A350. It was a warmed over A330, and should simply have been known as the A330E or A330NG.

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
"A360" would have sounded cool, kind of an indicator that "we've been around the block and now we're back".

Before the XWB announcement, Airbus internally considered calling it the A280 or the A370.



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineTom_EDDF From Germany, joined Apr 2000, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Because Airbus is an international company selling to international customers. Airbus never used french messaging in their marketing, you won't even find a french version of their web site. In the end, it's a wholly owned subsidary of EADS which is controlled by french and german share holders, based in the Netherlands, with production facilities all across Europe and soon China, and final assembly lines in France and Germany.

It's not a french company, even though the french goverments tendency to view it this way and attempts to intervene sometimes make it look like it (Forgeard for instance, a career politician, was installed by the french government as EADS CEO)

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers
T


User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Thread starter):
A350XWB

As far as trying to make the A351 seem superior to the 772, XWB won't really work, so I agree with you in that sense, because the 772 is just as wide, maybe less maybe more, at least not to the point where the A350 can accomadate more seats through its width. However, I think the name EWB would have been better, efficient wide body, due to the fact that the A350 would be more efficient than the current 772, and therefore the name would actually make the A351 unique to the 772, where as the the XWB does not imply a great difference between the A351 and 772.



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineHimself From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

I think they're going to have to drop it, since even though it's "extra wide" it's still not as wide as the 777. I'm waiting for them to drop XWB like a codename and give the media less stuff to get wrong about it. (I've read in places "XBW" and "WBX") However, they've got time to fix it, since it won't be entering service for about 6 years.

User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3980 times:

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 3):
I don't know. By tagging "XWB" on the end, it will always beg the question how it got its name, and they will have to relive the story time and time again. Also, the XWB name is giving credence to the 787, unless they say that the extra wide body is relative to the A330/A340.

It may beg a question here, it won't beg any questions from anyone that actually buys or leases large, commercial, passenger aircraft since they already know the story. It doesn't give any extra credence to the 787 either, it simply acknowledges (again as all the buyers already know) the prime competition. They aren't selling automobiles to consumers where marketing spin makes as much or more of a difference than actual price/performance.


User currently offlineMIT787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

I wouldn't even mind letters if it rolled smoothly off my tongue. Like A350XL (for extra large fuselage). Sounds kinda good actually. Or how about A350XB? That is not too bad either...Just get rid of the damn W...  banghead 

User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting MIT787 (Reply 17):
A350XL



Quoting MIT787 (Reply 17):
A350XB

The only use for the name itself that Airbus can capitalise on is marketing, drawing attention, (I know I'm stating the obvious, sorry). The significance of what you have outlined here actually made me realise that as well as both of the names you have suggested, and the current XWB exploit, is that I think the marketers have used a common marketing trick by using a letter designed to add impact and therefore draw attention; X. The letter is used everywhere on a large variety of products. I think it works well, as I am sure products with extravagant names have drawn my attention at some point. So, actually, so long as the name contains X, the name should still have a more positive, attractive impact on its audience.

I think the name XE would be good, as the name contains the impact tool X to attract, and E (efficient) still makes the product exclusive to its competitor when referring to the 777, where as referring to the width of the aircraft won't.

[Edited 2007-07-05 21:27:00]

[Edited 2007-07-05 21:27:22]


Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineHelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 6):
eXactwy
Wike
Boeing

God that was dreadful Big grin

I'd stick you on my RU (or WU - thanks Team America) but you're already there.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I view it as a short-term marketing thing. The actual plane seems to be formally designated the A350

 checkmark  right on the money, Stitch


User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3669 times:

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 12):
Before the XWB announcement, Airbus internally considered calling it the A280 or the A370.

Never heard the slightest whisper of the terms A280 or A370 at work, so I'm not sure where you got that from!

As for "XWB", personally I don't like it much, but find it no sillier than "Dreamliner"  Wink I prefer 350 or 787.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting HB88 (Reply 21):
Never heard the slightest whisper of the terms A280 or A370 at work, so I'm not sure where you got that from!

I don't know about A370, but it was the Financial Times that stumbled upon the A280 ad that was never officially released. A few days later, the same ad was officially released, labeled 'A350 XWB' (with an explanation as to what 'XWB' meant.)

[Edited 2007-07-05 23:18:39]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 22):
Quoting HB88 (Reply 21):
"Never heard the slightest whisper of the terms A280 or A370 at work, so I'm not sure where you got that from!"

I don't know about A370, but it was the Financial Times that stumbled upon the A280 ad that never was never officially released. A few days later, the same ad was officially released, labeled 'A350 XWB' (with an explanation as to what 'XWB' meant.)

Strange. I hadn't heard of the A280 story before and it seems hard to believe it can have been anything more than a mistake. The naming conventions for the a/c series are pretty fixed. Eh well!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HB88 (Reply 21):
Never heard the slightest whisper of the terms A280 or A370 at work, so I'm not sure where you got that from!

I do recall the A370 moniker being kicked about in the press, mainly to create a clean break from the A350 as well as position it just below the A370, but never the A280.


25 HB88 : By work, I meant Airbus, so if there had been a rumour, it probably would have been floating around. We usually get most of the rumours just before (
26 Stitch : I understand you work for Airbus (at Brighton, correct?). This may have just been speculation within the press with no basis coming from information
27 T773ER : Doesn't the A350XWB-1000 sound like some sort of power saw you would pick up at your local hardware store and pay way too much for? Introducing the A3
28 Post contains images MCIGuy :    The DeWalt A350XWB-1000 Power Saw, 36 volt Litium Ion! :D (again, poking fun at the name, not the product )[Edited 2007-07-05 23:50:56]
29 T773ER : I find the 36 volt works best when cutting through dense materials, over the rather "weak" 18 or 21 volt models.
30 777236ER : We had these arguments when Boeing dared to call the 787 varients the -3, -8 and -9, with some strange people on here refusing to call them that and d
31 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It probably will, with all that Rolls-Royce power Do you enjoy ripping panels?
32 Post contains images MCIGuy : Certainly, I wouldn't dispute that it's their plane so they can call it whatever they want. Far be it from me to try to talk sense into the Airbus' m
33 Stitch : I believe they formally refer to it as the A350, but just use the "A350XWB" for non-airline marketing materials. The Airbus website refers to the mod
34 DL767captain : i personally believe that the A350XWB and the original A350 are needed (2 separate aircraft). The A350XWB is an important plane that can compete with
35 Post contains links CygnusChicago : Stitch is probably correct in that it may have just been press speculation. The A280 moniker was reported on July 18, 2006 in the New York Times: Sou
36 Post contains images DL021 : AAARRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or ATM machine! STOP IT!!! That's funny as hell..... XWB... I can come up with several monikers but I just got warned ab
37 Dougloid : The funny thing about this is if you go to the ever trustworthy Wikipedia and you compare fuselage specs the A350XWB is five inches larger in diameter
38 PM : No. Agreed. My guess is that the XWB thing will be quietly dropped sooner rather than later. Boy, you had to struggle to make that work. And it's eve
39 Post contains images Iwok : Dude... That is rich in so many ways They should have called it the A3-AFIT-FITY (Airbus's First Interesting Twin Fuselage In Thirty Years) I think t
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...
CO - Why No "G" Or "H" Seats? posted Mon Jun 4 2007 22:25:33 by 1337Delta764
Full "Y" Ppr Ticket Only Half Used, Can I Renew? posted Fri May 11 2007 19:44:35 by Hamad
Mexicana "N" Numbers posted Tue May 1 2007 15:04:42 by Piedmont177
The Use Of The Number "8" For Marketing Purposes posted Sun Mar 4 2007 23:26:24 by KFLLCFII
CoEx Using "C" Gates At CLE? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 18:12:18 by Lincoln
Will Airbus's "XWB-A350" Be Delivered On Time? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 23:20:39 by OU812
"D" At Atlanta? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 23:33:41 by SW733
MKE Concourse "C" Expansion posted Fri Sep 8 2006 00:16:19 by Phxtravelboy
Flying Blue Mileage For AF "Z" Class posted Thu Aug 31 2006 11:24:27 by Marcus380
Why Do All Canadian Airport Codes Start With "y"? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:05:56 by NZ8800