FCKC From France, joined Nov 2004, 2348 posts, RR: 4 Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 17332 times:
According to French economic newspaper "La Tribune" , Airbus has launched at Madrid during a meeting with airlines about A350XWB , a new Regional version.
Perhaps we can call it a A350XWB Light , since it is exactly the same version of the original A350XWB , with same number of seats , but with a lower MZFW.
It is a 5-6 hours flight version , vs 15 hours flight version of the original A350XWB.
I have a doubt about the sucess of this new version.See the order book of the 787-3 (Only JAL and ANA) .All will depend of the price of the seat mile.
Who can be interested in this new version ?
Is it a gap , where Airbus goes , in the case Boeing cancels the 787-3 as rumoured. ?
Is it to attract JAL and ANA if the 787-3 doesn't see the light ?
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 17315 times:
If it has the same wing as the other A350s, then I cannot see this version getting much sales success either... if they narrow the whole thing to fit at the gates that a B767/A300 can use, then just maybe...
Still, I agree - can't see this going far. Wouldn't mind to be surprised though...
WINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 17150 times:
Quoting FCKC (Thread starter): According to French economic newspaper "La Tribune" , Airbus has launched at Madrid during a meeting with airlines about A350XWB , a new Regional version.
Would be nice to see some more details regarding this latest version. I still fail to see a large market for this variant. It could be that with a increased range vs the 787-3, the A350 light might actually prove to be more atracive. It seems that the A350 light will be ideally targeted for markets such as Japan, US and Australia that currently require WB aircraft for domestic services. Considering that the A358 is larger then the 787-3/8 it could also be that the A350 might also offer a CASM advantage, if Airbus manages to shed off enough weight.(Pure speculation on my part)
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16951 times:
Quoting WINGS (Reply 3): Would be nice to see some more details regarding this latest version. I still fail to see a large market for this variant. It could be that with a increased range vs the 787-3, the A350 light might actually prove to be more atracive.
Given the lack of 787-3 sales, one would assume Airbus wouldn't go down this path unless several airlines had expressed an interest in such a plane.
Confirmation and more information would be good.
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
Globeex From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16930 times:
It isn't April's fools day, is it?
Well, personaly I don't think that this will lead somewhere. Who is going to order that plane?
LH won't. They still use the A300 on certain routes, but that is mainly, because it is cheap. It is an excellent plane and the most important part is simply that the A300 are already paid of. They simply won't order a similar Aircraft agian for their trunk routes in Germany as the fuel keeps rising. The highspeed train will simply become to competitive with high fuelprices. Don't see LH ordering such an aircraft just for a handfull of international routes.
Than who else? Well, the Japanese airlines. However, they already ordered the 783 and I think they will even figure out what I just wrote about LH. I think it still isn't a safe bet that they will operate B783s.
Than we have Austraila. Well a Maybe here, as it becomes quite obvious that Qantas is going to order the A350. But, well still a big question mark if they would really buy such an aircraft.
US: Can't think about an airline here who is going to order such an aircraft from Airbus. That something like that would happen, the need/desire for such an aircraft would need to be extremely big and in that case they would already have ordered the 783. AA won't order it, DL won't, NW has 787 on order---> no. CO (same as NW). US: A350 to big for the domestic market really.
UA would be the only carrier I could see it with but still less than 15%.
On what type will it be based anyway? Most probably 358?
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
DALCE From Netherlands, joined Feb 2007, 1725 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16906 times:
Does this sound like a solution for LH's problem???
This would be the ideal aircraft for them to operate on routes like ATH, IST or DME.
Of course all depends on the exact performance calculations of the aircraft, but I could see a nice order from LH for this machine.
GlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16849 times:
Quoting Sirtoby (Reply 10):
If it carries less fuel, then why is MZFW (Max Zero Fuel Weight) lower. MTOW should definitely be lower!
Because the MZFW is the more important part talking about the regional version.
When the MTOW is lower usually the MZFW should be lower as well. As the structure does not need to be as stable, thus saving weight thus lowering MZFW. And talking about the regional version it will be important for Airbus to make it as light as possible to give it a chance on the market.
[Edited 2008-06-12 04:26:27]
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
Art From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16731 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 5): Quoting FCKC (Thread starter):
I have a doubt about the sucess of this new version.See the order book of the 787-3
Depends how light. If it can get down to the weights of the A300 per seat it might be in with a chance.
How many sales would this and the 783 attract over 10 years - 200? 300?
Why don't A and B wait 10 years until they are less busy (post A350, A388+, 787 and 777+ designs) and then look to see what the market is for a short/medium range widebody? OK, they should be busy finishing a narrow body replacement by then but they can handle 2 overlapping projects, can't they?
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4360 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16412 times:
I am sure Thai Airways, Malaysian, Singapore, Cathay, China AL and some mainland Chinese airlines will be interested as well who now use A-300s and A-330s mainly and 777s substantially on flights of less then 5 hours
I imagine if they clip the wings a bit, make the structure lighter, it will be a great plane and worth it, even with max. 100-200 potential orders.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16413 times:
The enormous wingspan & still high empty weight of the XWB would prevent it from being usefull short haul. However Europe- North East USA is a kind of medium haul (4000-5000nm).
On the Atlantic e.g. a 777-200ER is often overkill compared to a better optimized A330-300. Maybe that is what they are aiming at. Intra Asia, US trans continental, Europe - MEA etc. I had something similar capasity/range in mind a few months back: A330-400 with GENX/Trent
maybe this indicates there is indeed a market requirement here. Decline in 777-200ER sales and recent demand for the A330-300 points in that direction.
PlaneWasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16391 times:
If the plane offers significant fuel savings per seat-mile over 737 and A320 I think it will sell very, very well. In this times with extremly high fuel prices it's time to sacrifice frequency for efficiency.
But maybe its purpose is just to steal all 787-3 orders.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16393 times:
This sounds to me more like an attempt to make an A330-300 replacement.
Based on the planned specs, the 787-10 is going to be an absolutely perfect 777-200 and A330-300 replacement, so Airbus likely doesn't want to hand Boeing 500+ orders (based on current 772+A333 sales trends) without a fight.
CYatUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16362 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 17): I am sure Thai Airways, Malaysian, Singapore, Cathay, China AL and some mainland Chinese airlines will be interested as well who now use A-300s and A-330s mainly and 777s substantially on flights of less then 5 hours
It appears to be a bit of a gap between A330 and A350 and carriers may not need very large planes for some operations.
CY and their A330s come in mind. Although a very small company (i.e. for Airbus to define a product just for them) they are very happy with the A330 as it offers the capacity required for their LHR operations. A350 would be too big and A321 too small for this particular route.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16276 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 15): I'm very convinced that the time of small regional jets started in 1997 and ended in 2008.
Exactly my feeling as well. It'll be like in the eighties were we had bigger aircraft but only two or three connections (one in the morning, one in the evening) instead of 10 like nowadays.
Right now there are 11 flights (correct me if I am wrong, I just made a quick check on the internet) with A 320, A 321 and some A 300 in the morning and in the evening. It's a "nice-to-have" for the business men as well as for tourist how will fly on from FRA. But to due increasing oil prices and increasing pressure to reduce CO2-emssisions wouldn't it be better to use bigger aircrafts with a lower specific fuel consumption? JL said something similiar about the poin-to-point approach versus the hub system.
And the business men that are missing the afternoon connections they can spend their time either behind the railway station in Frankfurt or on Reeperbahn in Hamburg. Without kidding - it's just a question of organisation.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16054 times:
Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 11): When the MTOW is lower usually the MZFW should be lower as well. As the structure does not need to be as stable, thus saving weight thus lowering MZFW.
That is the key. The 783 does not make use of that potential. The most important question now is: would this A355(?) experience a decent OEW reduction? If yes, the development effort is higher and the market prospects would be much higher!
That could be a real winner and very attractive offer to replace the remaining 767. Late EIS would probably be the main handicap. Other than the 777-fleets the 767-fleets are ripe for replacement (and many are already replaced by the excellent 787).
-> IMHO at least about half off all widebody flights are under 6000nm.
: I would estimate 90%. 50% to be below 4000nm, like FRA-ORD etc. What has gone away are widebodies below 3000 miles, and this project might attack thi
: Looking at 777-200 shuttling from SIN to Bali, Jakarta and other short haul destinations - not to mention Japanese domestic market - it is clear that
: Is this news online anywhere? With no confirmation from any other sources, especially Airbus, I wonder if the word "launched" is accurate? Is there a
: This is a fantastic idea for Airbus. I think market needs a true A300/310/767(non ER)/753 replacement, and the 787 was just too short ranged for the t
: This is a little confusing, what exactly is this thing going to be? Is it the same size as the current A350 just with less range since it carries less
: I agree, this seems a bit fluffy at the moment.
: I think at least 3500nm with max payload is essential. So probably a 4500+nm max range. If it's less than this then i don't see any market for it. It
: I forgot to mention , this Regional version is proposed for all A350XWB versions , 800 , 900 and 1000. Also this version has been officially launches
: This is what I said Boeing should do, offer a 787-5, and people called me nuts. But there is a huge market for 5000nm midsized widebodies. It's called
: I applaud airbus if they follow through with this.. boeing if you are listening... can the 783 and go for the a.net 785... there has to be a huge mark
: I agree, but I think this news signifies that Airbus doesn't want to keep the A330 line open in this capacity forever. They want to move on with pax
: Ok, first, Airbus has not launched this aircraft, as in Industrial Launch. Airbus has thrown out ("launched" if you want) an idea to look for market r
: Why don't we call the a.net787-5 just 78a.net ? Seriously, I think that if Airbus can get enough weight off the A350 some versions might see some sale
: Of course. It won't be launched until there is a major launch customer in place. LH comes to mind. SQ as well.
: With the massive wing, optimised for long haul use, it will be difficult to create a competitive replacement for the curent short to medium haul wide
: Which is pretty much what I suspected when I said Excitement over.
: Could even be good for airlines like QF with lots of 767's and 743's on domestic flying and trans tasman flying .. Plus add in all the Inter Asian , R
: It would HAVE to be. The 783 sucks. Its too heavy and not capable enough. Perhaps they'll have fixed those issues in this plane. I haven't seen any e
: AA, are you listening??????????????????????????????????????????????? Let's hope!
: If Boeing was willing to design the 783 for JL+NH, they are certainly willing to design a 785 for AA+DL should they threaten to go to airbus instead.
: Id also add BA who currently use 763's for European routes. China could probably find a home for 50 or so between mainly CA, MU & CZ. Also QF & IB, n
: Exactly, Airbus can hit the 762, A300, SR A330 and 787-3 replacement markets all at once. Why NOT give it a shot... there are PLENTY of high traffic
: Sure. I was talking about a launch customer though. BA wouldn't be one (they don't want to be launch customers anymore, from what I understand). But
: While I expect the 787-3 was a "quick and dirty" job, I also expect that it is not a simple and easy thing to just knock 25% off the 787-8's OEW, whic
: Boeing doesn't need to match the 763 in weight any more than Airbus is trying to do with the A350X. Or am I missing something? I think the 783 was li
: What is it about this plane that will make it any better than the 787-3, just range? Personally Boeing and Airbus are a little lazy, Boeing needs to
: Bad people, that idea was really smart! The wing of an optimized short-medium-hauler must look quite different. There is the main development effort
: Even if this variant is launch, it wouldn't debut until the latter half of the next decade. If NH or JL is unhappy with the 783 or dropped altogether
: We have discussed 787-5 like variants for a year after comparing the 787-3 to A300 and B767. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/r
: SUH seems to see the weight of the 783 as major penalty too..
: It is my impression that the Airlines, among them the best clients, put strong pressure on Airbus and Boeing to come out with a really efficenet short
: But it can't be - a.net experts have told us it isn't heavy.
: Airbus struggled to create (and failed to launch) a true A300 replacement out of a lightened A330, so doing the same out of the larger 787 and A350XWB
: Appears that the "Lights" will be a paper-light version i.e. weight reduction on paper but structurally the same. The 10-abreat-version is now offered
: From this link: The lower weight will be achieved through paperwork changes and cockpit placards and will not affect the aircraft's structure. "An en
: It's not even a 787-3 - it's a 787-8 with a paper MTOW de-rate. Good news for Boeing and the ~255t 787-10, however.
: From Flight Global: Uhm, *fifth* door? So they aren't keeping the doors symmetrical then?
: Perhaps they're going to add a Type 2 door over the wing on one side to increase the evacuation limit?
: Not sure how this makes any material difference to a "255t 787-10" (if there is such a thing..) Presumably "per side".. ? Rgds
: Surely they'd have to do this on both sides since the certification requirement has to be met with half the doors inoperative? Yes they would, and st
: It would take little time to upgrade the 783 work they've done already to "785" considering the new schedule for the 783 (eventually, sometime after
: While I agree, if this really is just a paper derate then the additional cost to the program must be quite inconsiderable, so why not do it across th
: ... The world's largest airline will fly them, so yes that is how Airbus is fitting 10Y into the A350. I would argue there is no other way.
: Based on the specs Boeing has been showing airline customers the past six-twelve months, a 787-10 using all existing 787-9 systems with a 6m fuselage
: Agreed Stitch I still believe that Boeing ought to launch a 787-10 with a range of 8,000nm. This will require more work than the relatively simple st
: True. But the "original" A350-900XWB should..... Rgds
: The 77E replacement market is about 500 planes, which is about what the A33/772/773 is going to be. So if Airbus takes the lion share of the 77E repl
: And as I said, we'll see if they are proven a success of a mistake in service. And DL isn't the largest airline yet…
: Ok I am from car industry, but I may explain what airbus is doing now: They do a lot of structural tests, aerodynamics etc. and they are specifying th