Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would The A350 Compete With The A340?  
User currently offlineOD-BWH From Kuwait, joined Jan 2002, 399 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8866 times:

Is the A350-1000 supposed to compete with the current A340-600? The same question applies to the A350-900 VS. A340-500.

The physical data, range, seating capacities, etc... are almost matching for the compared models. By the time the A350 enters service, the A340-500/600 will be relatively new to replace. What is the Airbus thinking?

Reg'ds
OD-BWH


A300, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B734, B738, B772, B773, F70
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineShamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 6361 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8862 times:

I think it's more likely that the A350 has been designed to replace the A330/A340 family rather than compete or complement.

The A350 is still a good few years away and many airlines might want to replace their A340s and possibly older 777s by that time.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8835 times:



Quoting OD-BWH (Thread starter):
What is the Airbus thinking?

They're thinking the 787 is replacing the A330 and the 777 offers up very stiff competition to the A340. Airbus needed something to replace the A340 and compete effectively with the 777, hence the A350ZTVDESN mk.89.  Smile


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2240 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8872 times:



Quoting OD-BWH (Thread starter):
By the time the A350 enters service, the A340-500/600 will be relatively new to replace. What is the Airbus thinking?

The A345/A346 fuel burn is some 40% higher than the A359R/A3510's. That is why the A350 is quite simply replacing the A340. Expect the A340 to disappear from the lineup by the time of A350 EIS.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4042 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8856 times:

Compete? I think the word is 'destroy', especially if Airbus puts an A350XWB-1100 on the market to serve the A340-600 market space.

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2240 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8847 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 4):
especially if Airbus puts an A350XWB-1100 on the market to serve the A340-600 market space.

No need: the A350-1000 already does that.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31212 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting OD-BWH (Thread starter):
Is the A350-1000 supposed to compete with the current A340-600? The same question applies to the A350-900 VS. A340-500.

The A350 program replaces the A330 and A340 in the Airbus family.

The A332 and A333 will likely last longest, since the A358 is not an optimal replacement for them (but then neither is the 787-8 for the 767-200ER and yet it is replacing them, as well).

The A340 family will quickly move to a handful of frames per year as interim lift for airlines, much as the 767 has done.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4042 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8835 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
No need: the A350-1000 already does that.

Hmm, I'm half in agreement and half not - at 350 seats, the -1000 is inbetween the A340-500 (313) and -600 (380), so I would like to see a larger A350-1100 which would sit more comfortably between the -1000 and the A380 at, say, 400 - 410 seats maybe.

Thoughts?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8782 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 7):
Hmm, I'm half in agreement and half not - at 350 seats, the -1000 is inbetween the A340-500 (313) and -600 (380),

The A346 is not really a true 380 seater, even though Airbus has that as the standard seat config... Try using the new and more realistic seat config Airbus used on the A380, and you'll see that the seat count on the A346 falls quite a bit, and that the A3510 is a true replacement for it.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4042 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8684 times:



Quoting Brendows (Reply 8):

The A346 is not really a true 380 seater, even though Airbus has that as the standard seat config... Try using the new and more realistic seat config Airbus used on the A380, and you'll see that the seat count on the A346 falls quite a bit, and that the A3510 is a true replacement for it.

So what makes the A340-600 figure unrealistic but the A350-1000 figure realistic?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8573 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
So what makes the A340-600 figure unrealistic but the A350-1000 figure realistic?

The seat density in the standard seat config for the A346 (380 seats and a floor area of 314 m^2) is quite a bit higher than the standard seat density for the A3510 (350pax and a floor area of about 318 m^2,) it's even quite a bit higher than the seat density you'll find on the A345 (which is pretty much similar to the seat density on the A359 and A3510,) and much much higher than the seat density on the A388.
This is the case due to a artificially high number of Y seats in the standard config for the A346.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5731 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8508 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 5):
No need: the A350-1000 already does that.

 checkmark 

The A350-1000 is only 1.4 m shorter than the A340-600. It's a 9-abreast airplane where the A340-600 is an 8-abreast airplane. I don't have cabin measurements for the A350-1000, but those specs suggest to me that the A350-1000 might seat *more* people in a comparable configuration.

The A340-600 does not hold 380 seats for any airline I can think of that operates it.


User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1879 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8495 times:



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 11):
It's a 9-abreast airplane where the A340-600 is an 8-abreast airplane. I

I thought the standard A350 seats 8 abreast, but low-cost airlines (or EK for that matter) can configure it to seat 9 abreast.



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8450 times:



Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 11):
The A340-600 does not hold 380 seats for any airline I can think of that operates it.

Lufthansa, but I think thats in 2 classes. AKAIK the A340-600 is universally regarded as being a 350 seater, and the 777-300ER as a 365 seater.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 12):
Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 11):
It's a 9-abreast airplane where the A340-600 is an 8-abreast airplane. I

I thought the standard A350 seats 8 abreast, but low-cost airlines (or EK for that matter) can configure it to seat 9 abreast.

The old (A330 based) A350 was an 8 abreast aircraft. The A350XWB is a nine abreast aircraft.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5731 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8342 times:



Quoting EI321 (Reply 13):
Lufthansa, but I think thats in 2 classes. AKAIK the A340-600 is universally regarded as being a 350 seater, and the 777-300ER as a 365 seater.

Not quite. The LH 2-class config seats 369.

The confusion stems from Airbus itself listing the A350-1000 as a 350-seater while listing the smaller (in cabin area) A340-600 as a 380-seater. Why they do so is not a mystery; it's flattering to structural efficiency (where the A340-600 is weak) at the expense of range (where it's strong and doesn't need flattering).


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2240 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8307 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
So what makes the A340-600 figure unrealistic but the A350-1000 figure realistic?

Seat Magic (TM).

There are probably three ways to measure and compare the seating capacity of an aircraft, in order of increasing complexity and accuracy:

(a) cabin floor area, which takes no account of seat / aisle width or areas lost to door vestibules and cabin monuments
(b) cabin floor length times the number of seats abreast in Y, which is slightly better than (a) in terms of taking into account seat / aisle widths, but still doesn't take into account areas lost to door vestibules and cabin monuments
(c) a detailed layout of the cabin taking into account all the detailed dimensions, and assuming a given seat width, pitch and class mix.

The manufacturers provide (c), but do not always assume the same seat pitch, width or class mix... assumptions which are usually not even stated anywhere. Hence the futility of the whole exercise, and why Seat Magic (TM) can be used to quite an advantage in arriving at whatever preconceived result one desires while sounding quite authoritative.

Bottom line: take any seat counts with a grain of salt, where performance comparisons are involved.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2240 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8296 times:



Quoting Brendows (Reply 10):
A3510 (350pax and a floor area of about 318 m^2,)

By the way, what are the respective floor areas of the A350 models? I had 241 / 274 / 308 m2 for the A358 / A359 / A3510, but I forgot where I got those figures. Does anybody have a source?


User currently offlineEaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1028 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8261 times:

The A350 will kill the A340.

Point's been made. But I just wanted to say that.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8231 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 4):
Compete? I think the word is 'destroy', especially if Airbus puts an A350XWB-1100 on the market to serve the A340-600 market space.



Quoting Moo (Reply 7):
I would like to see a larger A350-1100 which would sit more comfortably between the -1000 and the A380 at, say, 400 - 410 seats maybe.

I would also not mind a 79 or even 80 meter long A350-1100, and I think they could build it easily now that they have the materials and structure to do it.

However, the 747-8I can fly a long way at that size class. I am not sure an A350-1100XWB would be able to fly even the range of the A350-1000 and I think that might be a key point.

NS


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8195 times:



Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 17):
The A350 will kill the A340.

Thats the idea behind it. Its the same as saying the 787 will kill the 767.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7857 times:

Isn't the word "kill" a bit dramatic for what's commonly known as a 'replacement'?


Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1796 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7621 times:



Quoting Rara (Reply 20):
kill" a bit dramatic for what's commonly known as a 'replacement'?

Kill, replace? or compete? I hope it doesn't have a climb rate like the A340-300. I hope its closer to the A330 series in that regard.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5731 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7564 times:



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 15):
Seat Magic (TM).

 Big grin  bigthumbsup  A favorite practice of both airframe manufacturers.

Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 21):
I hope it doesn't have a climb rate like the A340-300.

It's about the money, not the climb rate, as sad as that may make a.netters. But it's a twin, so it will be better than an A343 or 741. Twins are more overpowered than quads because they need to survive losing half their power, not 25%, in an engine-out situation.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18):
I am not sure an A350-1100XWB would be able to fly even the range of the A350-1000 and I think that might be a key point.

We just had a thread discussing Airbus's claims for A350-1000 range, and some of us were rather skeptical. The quoted difference in range between the -1000 and the -900 seems too small given the empty weight and thrust increases and the lack of additional fuel capacity. Watch for small but meaningful declines in the published range over time, like we've seen with the 787.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7469 times:



Quoting EI321 (Reply 19):
Thats the idea behind it. Its the same as saying the 787 will kill the 767.

My understanding has been the 767 was killed by the A330; the 787 is just attending the funeral.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2240 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7419 times:



Quoting Rara (Reply 20):
Isn't the word "kill" a bit dramatic

It's what happens when nerds get emotional.  Big grin

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 22):
The quoted difference in range between the -1000 and the -900 seems too small given the empty weight and thrust increases and the lack of additional fuel capacity.

You won't be able to tell much about range by looking at empty weights. MTOW must be considered as well, and the -1000 has 30,000 kg more of that over the -900. The idea of a -1100 gets tossed about because the -1000 has as a bigger wing and just as many MLG wheels as the 773ER, but weighs 50,000 kg less at MTOW. Provided an engine with suitable thrust (115 klbs) is available, those extra 50 tonnes could be used to preserve the range of a theoretical -1100 stretch compared to a -1000.

You're right that the wing tanks might be maxed out, though.

Where would the engine come from? Perhaps something Y3 related.


25 Cloudyapple : Much the same as the 340 has already been killed by the 777; the 350 is just attending the funeral.[Edited 2007-12-09 21:45:41]
26 Thegeek : Neither is quite dead yet, so let's not get this emotional. I expect that the A332 will be the longest lasting, by a fair margin. If they had a A330-3
27 AussieItaliano : The same could be said about the 764 or the recently delivered 762ER. Although they have been recently delivered, they aren't the best sellers (like
28 Post contains links and images Brendows : Stitch posted those figures in this thread: A350 - No Longer A 787 Competitor? (by Aloha717200 Oct 31 2006 in Civil Aviation) But I don't know where
29 Post contains images Stitch : Has he published new charts with the A350XWB? Last charts I have from him are for the original A350-800 and A350-900. As to my figures, I found a Ger
30 Post contains links Brendows : You'll find it here: master_lh_mission_dataset.gif He published it in this thread: Fuel Burn - How They Stack Up (by WingedMigrator Aug 4 2007 in Tec
31 OD-BWH : What about the climbe rate of the A343? I've never been on board. I've flown the A332 though, and have to admit that EK has misconfigured their Airbu
32 Stitch : Thanks, Brendows!
33 Eaa3 : It was a joke though so don't read to much into it.
34 Post contains images Stitch : Airliners.net is like the TSA - we don't respond well to jokes.
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...
Will The New A350 Mean The A340 Is Dead? posted Mon May 8 2006 20:53:16 by BoeingBus
Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2 posted Mon Nov 28 2005 16:22:19 by Astuteman
Airbus "A350" The A340? posted Wed Oct 26 2005 16:10:27 by Astuteman
Does The A350 Weaken The Resale Value Of The A340? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 18:44:45 by Clickhappy
What Would The A350 Look Like? posted Wed Nov 17 1999 00:49:08 by LeoDF
Airbus Intends To Source 5% Of The A350 From Japan posted Wed Dec 5 2007 05:42:24 by Stitch
Are GE Prepared To Work On The A350? posted Sun Nov 25 2007 01:04:40 by Beaucaire
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch
Whats The Future Hold For Emirates A340-500's? posted Thu Oct 25 2007 15:37:29 by Gilesdavies
Airbus Sticks With Panels For The A350 posted Mon Jun 4 2007 21:30:09 by T773ER