Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will A380 Experience Help Make A350 A Success?  
User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7631 times:

I think the general perception around here is that because of the delays, financially the A380 will never be a big success for Airbus, they will be more or less happy if it will breakeven.

Now my question is, if it won't pay out "moneywise", will the experience - Airbus has gained by building such a big bird - at least help considerably in the development of the A350?
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

What's your opinion, what could be the key advanced features introduced to the A380 that were new to the A330/340 and could be used in the A350?

Cheers!


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
122 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7594 times:

I think it will help. Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance. This might influence other airlines to buy the A380 as well as the A350, as there is a lot of A380 technology (that is still very advanced) in the A350. Also, the improvements that the A350 makes on A380 technology will only be for the better.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

I think they learnt from the dumb A380 management experience, it's the best asset for building the A350XWB smoothly.

(in fact they can learn also from the actual B787 experience)


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think it will help in that the various design teams will likely be more integrated due to the issues the French and German design teams had on the A380-800 program. As such, as issues crop up on the A350 the response should be better.

And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7402 times:

I would compare the A350 with the A320, more than the bigger ones A340/A380.

User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7358 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7303 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
And while the materials and skinning process will be different on the A350, I am assuming that the A350 will be pre-built in multiple (five, in this case) sections and then those sections will be connected at TLS just as the A330/A340/A380 is, so the actual final assembly process should be little, if any, different from what Airbus is used to.

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used.


User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used

Sounds like An-225 is needed  Wink

Anyway I'm happy that the A380 is performing well this just makes me hope that A350XWB will be success. I hope I can hear the RR Trent's soon in HEL  Smile



Flying high and low
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7246 times:



Quoting MBJ2000 (Thread starter):
Or are the technologies already "too old" or too different to be reused efficiently?

What's your opinion, what could be the key advanced features introduced to the A380 that were new to the A330/340 and could be used in the A350?

It is not the technologies are too old, on the A-380, it is more it is too different. To build a future composite version of the A-380, would be a major redesign, major enough to actually make it a different airplane (A-360/-370?). What Airbus really needs is a totally new technology to go beyond what the B-787 is today. The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance.

How can anyone even say that? SQ was the A-380 launch customer, and they have only ONE in service (and will only have 1, in service, until late Feb. 2008), so what else can they say publicly? SQ or Airbus will not say "our new airplane is a dog". I am not saying that, either, nor am I saying the 1 A-380 in service, flying short hops to SYD, (short in relation to it's real potential range) is reaching it's full potential. The airplane has not been given the chance yet to do that, in airline service.
 ashamed 

Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):
Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?



Quoting EI321 (Reply 6):
The Beluga is indeed wide enough but Im not sure if it will be used.

Perhaps they can lease a Dreamliner carrying B-747 from Boeing?
 Silly


User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.



Flying high and low
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7183 times:



Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
I think it will help. Especially now that SQ is very happy with the A380's performance. This might influence other airlines to buy the A380 a

No it wont....Airlines will buy the A380 if the economics make it work, not becasue performance is good. No airline is gonna say "The A380 really doesnt fit in the fleet, but the performance is so awesome, we'll buy it. Now if performance is bad, that would induce some cancellations


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7176 times:

You would think so. Certainly they will design the plane with 1 software , not two. But the A350 has new challenges, like the CFRP fuselage panels. I predict a delay of at least six months for the A350, but thats based on the increasing complexity of global supply chains and difficulties putting these planes together in a new manufacturing process other than AL skin.
Plus, Airbus might even decide to spin barrels, so that might necessitate another year of delays.

But the important thing to remember is that the A350 will get built and be a great plane a success. I'll bet it has 700+ orders by end of 2008.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

I honestly do not expect an airline to pull a complete 13m/16m/18m panel.

I expect that Boeing and Airbus will use similar - if not in some cases, identical - repair techniques for their respective planes.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7060 times:



Quoting Scouseflyer (Reply 5):

Do we know if the XWB fuselage sections will fit inside the current Beluga transport aircraft or will they have to rethink how (or if) they are transported?

Airbus have already said that the A350XWB transportation will be done by a fleet of ships, and then trucked to the FAL by road - no 'super beluga' in the works.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7051 times:

Short answer: Moderately helpful.

Long answer:

Airbus learned a great many things by building the 380.. and unfortunately, they learned many of them the hard way. In terms of technical knowledge they gained that can be applied to the 350XWB, I would say very little new knowledge was gained.

Everyone here forgets that while the 380 is huge, it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary sure, but not revolutionary. Multi-decked airliners have existed for nearly 40 years (regardless of full deck or otherwise). The engines are the same old high-bypass engines we've seen again for 40 years. The structure is made largely of AL which again has been done since the virtual dawn of time (at least as it relates to practical commercial aviation). So techincally the 380 probably taught Airbus a little but not all that much that would be useful for 350 design.

Having said that, the 380 did teach Airbus a lot about mutli-team engineering on large projects. It taught Airbus a lot about logistics (with the shipping constraints of those huge parts). Airbus likely learned a great deal about the need to limit customer options to something that is managable. The 380 also probably taught Airbus that they need to be a bit more careful with respect to forcasting exchange rates.

At the end of the day the 380 taught (I hope) Airbus some valuable lessons about what not to do. None of those lesson though are technical in nature. There has never been a *technical* issue with the 380. All of the issues were related to management, project planning, finance and politics. The engineers at Airbus did a wonderful job as they always have.. and the management cocked it up.. as they have pretty much done for the last little while consistently.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

Says Airbus. Incidentally in other news, I'm the best looking man in the entire world.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
I expect that Boeing and Airbus will use similar - if not in some cases, identical - repair techniques for their respective planes.

That remains to been seen. But my theory is still valid  Wink



Flying high and low
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10897 posts, RR: 37
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 7019 times:

There is no more Noel Forgeard Big grin so I hope things will go more smoothly for the A350 than they did for the A380.


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6962 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?  banghead 

I suspect any repairs needed on both jets will be similar.


User currently offlineTeme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?

Just take the damm panel out and put another in place.... in Dreamliner you might end up replacing th whole selection and it means cutting all wires etc...  Wink



Flying high and low
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3948 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6941 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 18):
Just take the damm panel out and put another in place.... in Dreamliner you might end up replacing th whole selection and it means cutting all wires etc...

The A350 panel design does not allow for that action - the panels will be as irreplaceable as the barrels on the 787.


User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6921 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?

more than 300 SALES within a year!!! not too bad for a plane that "does not exist"  bigthumbsup 


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6902 times:



Quoting Teme82 (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
The A-350 does not do that, as the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Perhaps. But A350's composite panels are easier to repair if the composite surface has crack in it.

 redflag ......that is completely false....as mentioned above, the panels for the A350 won't be able to "be just taken off and replaced"....it will require extensive repairs and the plane will be out of service. For minour B787 repairs, there will be various "patch" kits which will allow the carrier to repair minor cracks and what not via "patch bonding"....for larger repairs, the same concept will hold and the CFRP will be just as strong as the original.

In either case, for a majour repair, both planes will be out of commission for a while...

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 20):
more than 300 SALES within a year!!! not too bad for a plane that "does not exist"  bigthumbsup 

..while the A350XBW is a new plane, it had existing orders and there weren't too many carriers if any which actually canceled their previous orders and purchased the B787....so your statement is a bit misleading....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineCygnusChicago From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6868 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
the A-350 composit technology is actually inferior to that of the B-787.

Source?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
How can anyone even say that? SQ was the A-380 launch customer, and they have only ONE in service (and will only have 1, in service, until late Feb. 2008), so what else can they say publicly?

That is pretty daft. If the A380 was underperforming, SQ would be howling and screaming to get compensation. Claiming now it is exceeding performance guarantees, and then later claiming otherwise, will negate any opportunity they have for compensation.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Since the A-350 does not exsist yet, and the B-787 does, how do you know that already?
I suspect any repairs needed on both jets will be similar.

You hypothesize on repairs for two planes that are no where near complete, yet don't accept independent information from an A380 operator as fact?  Yeah sure



If you cannot do the math, your opinion means squat!
User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6812 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 19):
The A350 panel design does not allow for that action - the panels will be as irreplaceable as the barrels on the 787.

Can you elaborate please?



Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1596 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6804 times:



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 14):
Everyone here forgets that while the 380 is huge, it's not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. Evolutionary sure, but not revolutionary. Multi-decked airliners have existed for nearly 40 years (regardless of full deck or otherwise). The engines are the same old high-bypass engines we've seen again for 40 years. The structure is made largely of AL which again has been done since the virtual dawn of time

Don't agree with this, the A380 isn't just a improved doubledecker. While the engines are a derivate, numerous other technologies never were used before.
In my ignorant opinion the A380 is more then evolutionary.
Because:

first CFRP Wingbox on a commercial plane
first IMA architecture on a commercial plane
first variable requency electrical generators " "
first Power by Wire " "
first 3rd-Generation Fly by wire
first 5000psi hydraulics
first 2H/2E actuators
25 % of frame CFRP by weight about ~ 30t
some parts are monolithic CFRP
First brake to vacate
NSS (Network System Server)
GLARE
etc..
etc..
etc..


The A350 will sure use most of these, like enhanced brake to vacate, IMA, GLARE 2. And other technologies like the SILENT program.

But anyway let's hope it won't get the ugly A380 nose.  indifferent 



“Faliure is not an option.”
25 Osiris30 : Not necessarily true... without trying to hijack the thread I would just caution that the 380 has only seen one of many mission profiles. It has flow
26 KC135TopBoom : The B-787 sold over 600 airplanes before the first one was built. Where did I say it was underperforming? We don't really know how a fleet of 1 airpl
27 Osiris30 : Their CEO recently said they were getting about 20% better per seat fuel burn than their 744s.
28 Post contains images PlaneInsomniac : Well, they will certainly have learned the lesson that it makes sense if everyone in the project uses the same version of the CAD software. In partic
29 Stitch : Does the fact that their A388 has 20-23% more total seats then their 744s play into that calculation any?
30 PlaneInsomniac : Yes, it does. That's why SQ's CEO referred to seat-mile costs. To put it in other words, the absolute trip costs for the A388 are only slightly highe
31 Post contains images CygnusChicago : I'm sure it does So, basically the total fuel cost on the 744 for the same mission will be marginally lower than that of the A350, so, as long as the
32 Post contains images Teme82 : As said earlier: Can you elaborate please? Why since the plane is still in the freeze there is the possibility that they will make it so that the pan
33 Moo : Although the A350 fuselage is made from four panels per section, those panels are attached to the frame at tens of thousands of points - to replace t
34 Post contains images Stitch : They could do so, but it would add weight and complexity and increase the number of maintenance checks, all of which airlines find more undesirable.
35 Teme82 : Yes that is correct. But I don't think that it would increase the number of maintenance checks.
36 Tdscanuck : It's far more common the program management, not technology, is what bites an airplane program in the rear. Airbus should be about to reuse almost al
37 WingedMigrator : The 787 has sold 762 airplanes before the first one was built. (and counting!!)
38 Scipio : What about the other way around? What is the scope for incorporation of A350XWB technology into future variants of the A380? Engines should be a possi
39 Flipdewaf : Not wise to use that statement anymore, the delays help a bit. There's a very good point, maybe boeing will use this to help save weight on the T7 fo
40 Stitch : To allow the panel to be easily replaced would require Airbus to use a fastener that could be easily removed and replaced. So you'd look at something
41 Dougloid : That would be your classic Pyrrhic victory. King Pyrrhus of Epirus is alleged to have said "Another victory like that and I am undone".
42 Jacobin777 : ..nope, not possible...not to mention, for the most part, Airbus has most of the plans for the A350XWB completed with finalization of the details by
43 Post contains images Revelation : 3rd generation fly by wire is not evolutionary? I do like your list of A380 enhancements. We've had the evolutionary vs revolutionary debate before s
44 PlaneInsomniac : You are right, they were (as I also said in my post). Still, I find it ironic that EADS/Airbus with strong traditional ties to Dassault failed to imp
45 CygnusChicago : Please substantiate with either a source or a basic principles derived calculation.
46 Speedbird128 : If the A350 doesn't exist - you sure seem to know a lot about it... It seems whatever Airbus does will never be good enough for some armchair critics
47 Abba : Do you have any professional basis for that rather sweeping statement - or is that just your own private (and rather uninformed) view? I'd tend to ag
48 Stitch : All this "well if my plane isn't revolutionary then neither is yours" silliness can't obfuscate the fact that CFRP primary structures of the 787 and A
49 MBJ2000 : After reading this I think we can conclude the A380 exercise wasn't done for nothing, also in another thread somebody mentioned, by building the A380
50 Kaneporta1 : On the contrary, the A350 composite technology is superior. Fuselage panels was a choice Airbus made based on a lot of factors and after the airlines
51 Osiris30 : Ostensibly better aging with fewer inspections and heavy checks necessary. Also (again theoretically) greater structural integrity allowing for bette
52 Abba : Well - even that is not truly a revolution, but a significant evolutionary step that started with CFRP being introduced on major structures on the A3
53 Stitch : If it was primarily about the engines, the original plan to put Trent 1000s and GEnx-1BAs on the A330 should have been wildly successful since it was
54 Post contains images Rheinbote : The five Belugas currently on hand are fully booked and must be operating close to 24/7 already. Nevertheless, XWB parts would fit AFAIK. Devised as
55 Stitch : And in the end, panels vs. barrels likely won't really play much of a role since the A350 is going to be bigger then the 787, so it would be heavier e
56 Post contains images AutoThrust : Can only agree with that. Thats not proven; but the A380 IMA architecture is pretty unique design. I'm no expert but they just gone a totally diffren
57 Pygmalion : It does, the maintenance burden is mostly joint based, the more joints the more inspections. Longitudinal lap joints (the "panel" edges") have the hi
58 Post contains images Astuteman : IMO the CFRP panels are just an extension of the technology that has been successfully applied to the A380 tailcone. I don't perceive it as anything
59 PlaneInsomniac : Thank you very much for your excellent and balanced post! Some people here are so eager to apply wildly different credibility standards for Boeing an
60 Post contains links Abba : Sure - the use of composites results in a 3% saving in fuel consumption. That might - perhaps - represent an even larger weight saving... (improved a
61 Osiris30 : I'm not sure why so many folks seem to think I have something *technical* against the 380.. I really don't. I think she's a marvelous machine. My 'is
62 Osiris30 : Edit to read: "CFRP isn't revolution solely".... no edit button for some reason on the post!?!?
63 Stitch : But your own argument in Reply 52 said that it is engines that are what primarily makes the 787 and A350 so efficient. So at least with the 787, the
64 Post contains links WingedMigrator : Airbus has never to my knowledge claimed that the A380 was 25% CFRP. They said 25% composites, which is an entire class of materials of which CFRP is
65 Kaneporta1 : I'm no stress engineer but I'm sure the circumferential joints will also need inspections and maintenance. Along with all the window and door re-enfo
66 Rheinbote : The impact of (less) corrosion and (less) fatigue on aircraft residual value are not to be underestimated. We can perfectly agree on that. I certainl
67 Brendows : The wings on the A350 is in fact a little bigger (443m^2 vs about 430m^2 on the 777) (on an aircraft that will be considerably lighter than the 777.)
68 Post contains images Flipdewaf : Totally agree, its how the aircraft performs. I could build a plane totally out of composites but if it's totaly rubbish then no one will want it. Do
69 Post contains images Baroque : Or putting it round the other way, between the improved engines and the excellent aerodynamics, you get to fly all that extra empty weight around for
70 AirNZ : Then, using your same logic of the A350 not existing yet, how do you claim it's technology is inferior to the 787?
71 Abba : You will never know what will happen to engines in 30 (save 50!!!) years time and whether or not they will fit on the common pylon as of the 787 toda
72 Tdscanuck : Actually, you probably can't. Fuselages are built with the stringers carrying (functionally) all of the compressive loads while the skins carry all o
73 WingedMigrator : Umm, are you sure about that? I seem to recall (but can't find in my notes) that it is a few inches taller than it is wide.
74 Post contains images Astuteman : Er, yes! (and it's shape, too). Wings are a pretty important contributor to an aircraft's overall performance (curious, that, isn't it?.... ) Echo WM
75 Thegeek : There is no argument that there was bad execution on the A380 project. But that doesn't make the business case good. Even if it had gone well, I'm no
76 Rheinbote : I think it's a three-lobe where the upper lobe is larger than the lower lobe by ~1'' in radius. There's a 'spacer' lobe in between resulting in a hei
77 Post contains images Atmx2000 : Assuming widebodyphotog's drawing is accurate, these are the radii, and it is basically double bubble.
78 Post contains images Rheinbote : Great, my source seems to confirm widebodyphotog's overall dimensions, but his lower radius seems to be a few inches off. The 'spacer' is my interpret
79 Post contains images CygnusChicago : But, generally, you're not - still waiting for you to identify "those difficult questions" that you asked of the EADS CEO on the earnings calls, so I
80 Bmacleod : The A380 and the A350 are two different aircraft. True the cockpits may be very similar but the A380 is closer to the 747 whereas the A350 is better c
81 Mariner : I'm not sure why that is of interest - here. I can think of several wonderful aircraft that were not a good business case. Would you rather the VC-10
82 Tdscanuck : I stand corrected...it's 18'11" wide and 19'5" tall. Almost circular, but not quite. Might not be an issue for modestly sized repair patchs but the p
83 Osiris30 : In short: I believe the 380 is the wrong aircraft on a financial level. (A) it's going to be rendered obsolete by a major materials change (not Airbu
84 CygnusChicago : That is an over simplistic analysis that doesn't take into account the flight stresses. About six months ago there was a thread that hammered out the
85 Stitch : I think it unfair to look back with 20-20 hindsight when discussing a plane program. Did Airbus really think they would only sell 200-300 A380s and di
86 Flipdewaf : Yes but thats not what I meant. Of course the size is important but to compare the wings to that of the T7 is silly because like you say shape is imp
87 Jacobin777 : .....I would like to know Stitch, what recent plane model has "broken even" (on a financial basis) with 250 frames sold? Especially an all new aircra
88 Stitch : Airbus has said the projected production cost for an A380-800 was under $100 million per airframe. While we both know that Airbus hasn't been able to
89 Post contains images Rheinbote : Now that's interesting. Can you point me to a source? If only financial math would be that simple! Unfortunately it ain't - $10bn spent a decade ago
90 Post contains images Stitch : Uh, Airbus? Seriously, Keesje referenced the comments a number of times with links, but I admit I never wrote them down. I understand that, but Airbu
91 Tdscanuck : Actually, it conservatively takes flight stress into account *in favour of panels* and they still come out behind. It's appropriate to use simple ana
92 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..there are a lot of variables and % which used would skew the numbers big time....now you state fellow A.netter Keesje has said production costs are
93 Stitch : I think Airbus rightly felt they needed a full family of planes, but were hamstrung by coming late to the party, which meant they needed to do someth
94 Post contains images Jacobin777 : IIRC, development costs for the A340NNG were >$4.5 billion..not cheap by any standards..... ..all the reasons not to be bold.... I still believe ther
95 Victor009 : Defenlety yes, i guess A380 was real opener for Airbus in many ways good, bad and in terms of learning curve, new ideas, etc etc. A350XWB may have got
96 Post contains links WingedMigrator : Morgan Stanley research note http://www.leeham.net/filelib/A380DEBATEFINAL.pdf assumes ~110 - 115 million euros direct production cost per frame. (a)
97 Post contains images Astuteman : An assumption that's been conferred the status of a "given" on A-net. I'm increasingly less convinced that it is...... Hope you noted the big grin...
98 Post contains images Stitch : But cheaper then the $10-15 billion they will spend on the A350XWB...
99 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..true - but look how well the A350XWB is and will be doing compared to them...
100 Post contains images Baroque : Almost makes you wonder if we should have two sub-forums 1. CA - wings. Interesting, all about change, new structures and wetted area, lift and vorti
101 Post contains images Astuteman : Indeed, many area advocating such a response to the runaway success of the A380..... Except on A-net, of course..... Regards
102 Scipio : Those who write off the A380 as a financial disaster for Airbus tend to take an overly narrow view, usually focusing on the profitability of the A380
103 Stitch : Not quite... There is a ~200-seat gap between the A340-600/A350-1000 and the A380-800. And with the demise of the A300 and A310, there is a 70 seat g
104 Post contains images Scipio : I said "more complete", not "complete" All of what you say is true, but many of the Boeing models you cite are old and on their way out. Looking forw
105 Post contains images Stitch : Well both manufacturers desire to not match each other across the board so as to keep from having to compete solely on price with RFPs. So that helps
106 Flipdewaf : Totally agree, I dont think there will ever be one company dominating the whole of one segment of the market simply because large civil aircraft take
107 Thegeek : I seriously doubt that the Y3 will ever be built. Boeing have been touting the small size of the VLA market sector for some time, and have sunk a mod
108 Stitch : It offers Boeing a more robust 25-year growth program then the 787HGW does. Having two less engines was not the only reason the 777 outsold the A340
109 Scipio : Over time, Airbus has gained in relative terms because it has developed more new models. All current Airbus offerings have been introduced over the p
110 Post contains images Stitch : Considering Airbus' first family was introduced after Boeing's fourth, is this a surprise? Boeing already had a short-haul narrowbody (the 737), a me
111 Tdscanuck : 737NG is ~10 years old (newer than the A320). 767 is on the way out, but 787 is already in the pipeline and effectively zero years old. 777 is ~10 ye
112 Scipio : This referred to the 767 and 747-400, including the freighter variants Stitch mentioned. It is not "newer than the A320". It is a 10-year old overhau
113 Tdscanuck : It's a *huge* overhaul. There is almost nothing in common other than the fuselage mold lines and the cockpit cosmetics, both of which have little-to-
114 Revelation : Lucas electrics on an airplane - ugh! I get images of Triumphs pulled over on the side of the roof with the hood/bonnet opened... How's that working
115 Abba : Which in turn will allow Airbus to offer a competotor to the 787. Newer technology and a somewhat shorter range (how many of the 787s are actually go
116 Stitch : That boat has likely sailed for Airbus as effectively as the VLA boat has sailed for Boeing. Airbus made a conscious decision to compete in the 250-3
117 Scipio : That is not the whole story. BA never bought an Airbus widebody before. Now they signed up for the A380, and they are considering the A350 to go alon
118 Post contains links Stitch : Maybe Boeing will beat them to the punch... Forget The 787-3. How About The 787-2? (by Stitch Dec 21 2007 in Civil Aviation)
119 Abba : With the 787 the situation is more tricky. Firstly, because the 787 fundamentally is a long range plane - with some mods. to allow for shorter range.
120 Rheinbote : Checked back with a Boeing source...the 787 cross-section is a three-lobe. Radii are 113,25in (top), 109,83in (bottom), and an 'intermediate lobe' wi
121 Stitch : I just do not think that you need a plane optimized for a medium-range mission profile if you can make one optimized for a long-range profile economi
122 Abba : The big question is, nevertheless, what does "efficient enough" mean? I have no doubt that fuel burn as an increasing component of CASM will push tow
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...
Lufthansa´s Mayrhuber On A380, 747-8 And B787/A350 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 10:54:16 by Keesje
A380 GP7200 To Make Maiden Flight In July. posted Wed Jun 21 2006 17:12:52 by WINGS
Will A380 Be In Virgin Colours On Heathrow Visit posted Sat Apr 29 2006 16:54:09 by HARLEYF150
Airbus Will Not Be Rushed On A350 Decision posted Thu Apr 20 2006 15:41:51 by Leelaw
Will A380 Ever Come To EWR Or PHL posted Wed Nov 23 2005 07:42:23 by Dallasnewark
A380 Spotting Help At SYD Tomorrow posted Sat Nov 12 2005 08:50:13 by KiwiTEAL
When Will A380 Visit Dubai? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 21:22:44 by OD777
Why Will BA Not Consider The A350? posted Sat Aug 20 2005 18:56:45 by Gilesdavies
When Will A380 Visit LHR? posted Mon Aug 1 2005 22:56:44 by BCALdavid
A380 Delay Help Airbus Sell More Planes To QF? posted Mon Jun 6 2005 16:12:25 by Jetfuel