Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A350-1000 Design Firmed Up With Larger Wing  
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 815 posts, RR: 8
Posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 46072 times:

Flightglobal reports that Airbus is nearing design freeze for the A350-1000. The design team has opted for a slightly larger wing, to be achieved through a trailing-edge extension. The wing will also be repositioned by one frame.

Remarkable in this article is also that the A350-1000 is suddenly referred to as a 369-seater. Thus far, it was always a "350-seater" (and it still is on Airbus' website). But the 350-seat specification always seemed disproportionately low relative to the much shorter -900 variant.

I'm curious to see whether Airbus will now release performance data in 369-seat configuration...



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...50-1000-through-trailing-edge.html

202 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 45960 times:

Good signs so far. Of course what everyone is waiting for is the performance data. It seems that the a350-1000 is the most eagerly awaited airline of it's time. Boeing are on hold till they know what it'll do, as are the airlines before they order. There can be no slip ups with this variant.

User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 days ago) and read 45742 times:

It looks like it will be a beautiful plane.

(Let's just hope it works...)


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 45177 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 1):
Good signs so far. Of course what everyone is waiting for is the performance data. It seems that the a350-1000 is the most eagerly awaited airline of it's time. Boeing are on hold till they know what it'll do, as are the airlines before they order. There can be no slip ups with this variant.

Agreed, Airbus seemingly decided to take no compromises and build a strong XWB subfamily (A350-1000, A350-900R and A350-900F) optimized for long heavy flights from hot places (to/from Asia).

It seems to offer similar performance to the succesfull Boeing 777-300ER at much lower OEW/Installed power. Boeing will have to react now & they will. GE will play no small role.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5297 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 45143 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
It looks like it will be a beautiful plane.

I think it will be the most stunning of the three variants. I'm not sure why, but I'm most excited about the -1000 of them all, probably because it's the one least defined and the one that is largest.

I also hope that the design freeze will allow Boeing to kick into high gear on whatever they choose to do. Might as well keep it exciting moving forward.  

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 45077 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 4):
I think it will be the most stunning of the three variants.

  

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 4):
I'm not sure why

Something to do with the proportions? Why is the 757-200 the most beautiful narrowbody? Why is the A340-500 so much more pleasing on the eye than the A340-300 or -600?

Get the balance between wing and body and engines right and it all just looks right.   


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 44970 times:

I think these design choices open the door for a further 5 meter stretch.

A A350-1100 would allow for an additional 40-50 seats in the back.

Narrowing the gab under the A380.


User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44748 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
It seems to offer similar performance to the succesfull Boeing 777-300ER at much lower OEW/Installed power.

I'm not technically-minded (though I did change a tyre on my car once), so I'll confess that I'm still a bit confused. Perhaps someone can explain it in simple terms.

As I understand it, the A350-1000 and 777-300ER are exactly the same length and have exactly the same wingspan. The 777 has a slightly wider fuselage and is heavier. It can carry more fuel and, if I remember rightly, haul more cargo. Both planes have much the same range.

The biggest difference is the engines. The GE90-115 is much more powerful than the Trent XWB.

Airbus seems to be designing a plane that can do pretty much what the 777-300ER can do but is lighter and more economical. (Have I got that right?)

Airbus's critics counter that the 777-300ER is actually more capable than the proposed A350-1000 even now and will be made more so. (Correct?)

In my mind I see the 777 as being conceptually 'bigger' and 'heavier' and potentially more capable but perhaps only at the margin (?). I'm think of a situation something like the 757-200 vs. A321. The 757 can carry more people further but if you don't need that ability then the A321 can do most of the 757's missions more efficiently. Hence, British Airways, for example, are now flying A321s where once they flew 757s.

Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

(I really would like those with more technical knowledge than I have to tell me ifI'm getting warm.)


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5297 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44704 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
Get the balance between wing and body and engines right and it all just looks right.

I agree 100%.

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
A A350-1100 would allow for an additional 40-50 seats in the back.

Narrowing the gab under the A380.

Not a bad idea if it works out that way. That'll keep the pressue on Boeing in the 777NG/748i arena. Ok, let's just throw the 748i out in that one.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 1):
It seems that the a350-1000 is the most eagerly awaited airline of it's time.

If by "of it's time" you mean this month, then I suppose you may be right. If you mean "the past few years" or "this generation" then I beg to differ.

I would love to see one in Qantas' colors, though.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44664 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 9):

I would love to see one in Qantas' colors, though.

I'd say there's a fair chance of you seeing your wish come true.  


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44412 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 2):
(Let's just hope it works...)

I'm sure it will. Maybe it won't be as capable as the 77W, but:

Quoting PM (Reply 8):
Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

sums it up nery nicely. And quite a lot more efficiently than the current 77W.

My main concern, and people will probably get tired of me repeating it over and over again: will they pull off EIS of within 2,5 years of the -900? With another variant (the -800) in between as well? Their resources are constrained as it is, and sure, the A380 and probably A400 situations will be resolved in a few years, but still...

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
Airbus seemingly decided to take no compromises and build a strong XWB subfamily (A350-1000

which sounds like trying to develop the A343 and A346 (or 77E and 77W) almost parallel.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm wondering how realistic their timeframe is. Boeing had to shelve the 787-3 (which didn't seem more complicated to develop than Airbus has to do with the A358), in order to get the 787-9 in the air 3 years after the 788. Time will tell I guess.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5297 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 44375 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 8):
my mind I see the 777 as being conceptually 'bigger' and 'heavier' and potentially more capable but perhaps only at the margin (?). I'm think of a situation something like the 757-200 vs. A321. The 757 can carry more people further but if you don't need that ability then the A321 can do most of the 757's missions more efficiently. Hence, British Airways, for example, are now flying A321s where once they flew 757s.

I know nothing more than you, and I get a similar sense from the programs. I think the key difference between the 777/3510 comparison and the 752/321 version is cargo. That might be what ultimately gives the 777 an edge that the 752 would not have had. Comparatively speaking. At 2am.  

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5326 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 44282 times:

I think the perception that the 772 is 'old tech' in comparison to the 350-1000 will ultimately lead to the 787-10. I suspect Boeing will have more luck closing the gap with the 77W, and I think a stretch of that is probably in the cards.

A longer 77W, (especially if they can keep the weight down), would be really tough to beat.

Perhaps one wing, (with appropriate mods), can be used for the -10 and 777ng's. The extra width of the 777 will always give it something of an advantage under the right circumstances.

Regardless, perception more than anything else is going to force Boeing's hand to match the 350 models with 787's, not 777's.

[Edited 2010-04-23 02:12:43]


What the...?
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4361 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 44203 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Regardless, perception more than anything else is going to force Boeing's hand to match the 350 models with 787's, not 777's.

Perception only exists in ideological groups lke A.net - I'm very sure the decision makers at airlines know how to calculate what an investment means, which risks are associated, etc. Maybe not all, those that only have the purpose to wash oil billions into deep private pockets will continue to spread perceptions very loud.


User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3365 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 44203 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 8):
Airbus seems to be designing a plane that can do pretty much what the 777-300ER can do but is lighter and more economical. (Have I got that right?)

That's my reading of it too - the engines are 15% less powerfull as it's more slippery and lighter .

If this works, she's going to be fantastic plane 


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8647 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 44125 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 8):
Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

As the A350XWB series is the Airbus replacement for the A340 series, I think they would prefer to think that the A350-1000 can do everything the A340-600 can do, however it is only 60,000 - 80,000 kg lighter.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6841 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 44070 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 12):
Comparatively speaking. At 2am.

"Comparatively speaking", your Friday hasn't started yet but I'm just about to have my first drink of the weekend! Cheers!


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4594 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 43760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 8):
Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

Nice posts PM. While we have not seen the performance data yet, I think it is safe to say that percentage might be around 90%. Cargo and number of passengers in a less comfortabel 10 abreast seating would still be the points where the B77W (revised or not) could have the advantage.


User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 43396 times:

That is not pretty. Hope it looks better than that.

Going to bed now.



B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 42737 times:

I see that the -1000 still only has four exits on each side, which limits it to 440pax. This should only be a limitation for charter and low-cost carriers. The hypothetical -1100 would surely need a fifth exit.


Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 608 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41648 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
I think these design choices open the door for a further 5 meter stretch.

A A350-1100 would allow for an additional 40-50 seats in the back.

Can anyone speculate what the range reduction over the -1000 would be?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5326 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41506 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 17):
Cargo and number of passengers in a less comfortabel 10 abreast seating would still be the points where the B77W (revised or not) could have the advantage.

This passenger configuration is becoming more common for 777 users. Soon, the exception might be 9 abreast.



What the...?
User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 319 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 41086 times:

Congrats to Airbus for getting that much closer!

If we read into what was said on the conference call earlier this week, a 787-10 is unlikely. Here's the link:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2011663067_boeing22.html
Later in the article is discusses the potential of a composite 777 but that seems a bit too much. Might as well launch a completely new plane then.

Will be quite interesting to see what Boeing decides to do.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineACES320 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 393 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 40921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 21):
I see that the -1000 still only has four exits on each side, which limits it to 440pax. This should only be a limitation for charter and low-cost carriers. The hypothetical -1100 would surely need a fifth exit.

These top of the range configurations tend to be a limit that network carriers seldom tend to use. For example, Qatar Airways current A346 comfiguration stands at 266 passengers. I assume with increased capabilities and as the A350 launch customer and one of the main clients, QR could draw the line of capacity a bit higher. They seem to be quite happy with the development of the programme so far. On the other hand in these days it is even difficult to spot a B77W configured at full capacity nearing the 400 pax tag. As you mention this could only be a handicap when later versions are introduced as charters or high-density conf. for LCC which I fail to see happening too soon.



LHR, BHX, EDI, BKK, USM, CNX, PHU, GRU,PEI, BOG, CTG, CPH, AMS, DOH, DXB, FRA, MAD and always PEI
User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 40364 times:

Have they indicated what the airfoil shapes are for the various wing sections?

25 seabosdca : Not a bad analogy. The length and span don't give the A3510 the same capacity as the 77W, because the 77W will be 10Y from here on out, something the
26 Post contains images mffoda : All this talk about seats.... Let hope they're not those Spirit Airlines new seats that don't recline...
27 cosmofly : It seems Boeing has forced Airbus to design a larger -1000 in the first place. Given all the noise about customers doubting the -1000 and considering
28 Aesma : Airbus can add a door and do the emergency exit certification for more pax if asked by a customer, they did it before. Seeing the image, I find it too
29 BoeEngr : Many congratulations and compliments to Airbus for your continued progress on the program. It always feels good and rewarding to pass a milestone like
30 A388 : I totally agree on this too. Good one and it reminds me of myself. Bummer, I thought the -1000 version would be a 1-on-1 replacement for the 77W but
31 Post contains images keesje : Compared to the A350-1000, I think the 777-300ER uses a lot of its power to carry it's own weight and fuel, instead of payload. An A350-1100 (was move
32 Post contains images BoeEngr : You might be surprised when you see what we have in store for the 777NG...
33 seabosdca : Although it worked for the A330-300, we see Boeing being very skeptical about that strategy right now. They keep looking at the 787-10 and then looki
34 Stitch : I expect they've jiggered the seat count to add more rows of Economy and less rows of First and Business. Within the same carrier, the 777-300ER will
35 Post contains links and images keesje : Not so long ago I looked at it & it seemed like a good idea. Don't have actual data though, maybe you can give some hints, apart from the more ob
36 Post contains images mffoda : Hint please.. please
37 BoeEngr : All I can really say at this point is that I, personally, have been astonished at the amount of weight we're finding that can be quite easily removed
38 parapente : Well it looks like the game of hide and seek is finally over! Airbus have been keeping Boeing guessing on what they are exactly going to do vis a vis
39 Aesma : Can it be done while not becoming a new aircraft (ie needing new certification) ?
40 Stitch : If they have the necessary resources, that would certainly be the best way for Boeing to proceed. Y3 would be more advanced than the A350 and the 787
41 Post contains images flyingAY : Is this something that could have been removed already originally quite easily, or has there been new leaps in technology since the introduction of t
42 Post contains images EA772LR : This is very exciting. Yeah and we're also hearing Boeing is getting some great feedback on the 787 and the 789 is going to be very capable, thus may
43 Post contains links and images NAV20 : No need for BoeEngr to go further. Boeing's basic strategy was outlined by the Boeing CEO, Jim McNerney, only a few weeks ago:- "As for the 777, Boei
44 Post contains links and images EA772LR : This is true to a degree. While Boeing have some time, they likewise can't wait too long to react to the A359/A3510. I believe both plane will be ver
45 keesje : I think the sweetspot of the market is ~300-320 seats. There's no 787-10 nor 777-200LRX to counter the hot selling A350-900 and A330-300. They must h
46 Post contains images seabosdca : You are very fond of splitting capacity hairs. The important part is CASM and profitability, not exact capacity. Airbus did just fine for a long time
47 EA772LR : Well the 789 is nearly identical size-wise to the A333, and can handle every mission the A333 can. It's the A359 that I think will need to address wh
48 hawkercamm : I think the best strategy for the B777 would be the following 1) Stretch the fuselage to 80m (+6m) to add 30-40pax 2) Thin the fuselage walls 2" each
49 Stitch : The 787-9 already matches the A330-300 on passenger capacity, significantly outmatches it on cargo volume, will probably match or exceed it on payloa
50 tistpaa727 : If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the 777 sort of rushed out to meet delivery deadlines even though Boeing knew they could make it more efficient
51 cosmofly : Ok, let's just throw the 748i out in that one. [/quote] Not if the 748i has the BCF capabilities built into it from day one. If Boeing can make BCF co
52 Post contains links Swallow : Quoting Scipio (Thread starter): Remarkable in this article is also that the A350-1000 is suddenly referred to as a 369-seater. 369 seats is a two-cla
53 Stitch : Ok. So that would put a 10-abrest two-class 777-300ER at ~416 seats.
54 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : I think "perception" drove a lot of the 787 sales, and that certainly wasn't A.net - those were airline exec's. By perception, I mean that it was per
55 Stitch : Yes. I believe it would require an update on the level of the 737 Classic to the 737 Next Generation to make the 777 family seriously competitive to
56 petera380 : If they cancel the B787-10 then the overall number of B787's sold will go down making the sales look average?
57 seabosdca : The 787-10 was never launched, so it never sold any frames, so there is nothing to cancel.
58 Scipio : These numbers do not quite add up. Going from three classes to two should free up more than 19 seats on a plane this size. Moreover, the Flightglobal
59 Post contains images EPA001 : This seems to be a very plausible explanation of the suddenly increased number of passengers the A350-1000 can handle. It sure looks like the continu
60 Post contains images BoeEngr : Oh well. You don't have to believe it. To assume in 20 years there've been no technological advances that can easily be incorporated and result in we
61 PlanesNTrains : Not if the 748i has the BCF capabilities built into it from day one.[/quote] I understand your point, but I don't have much faith that this capabilit
62 Post contains images allegro : First and foremost ... what a beauty! To me she looks just right with balance in length, fore and aft of the wing. And those wingtips/sharklets are so
63 indolikaa : I have to confess...as a huge Boeing fan (747 forever!) who had little interest in the A380 project...I've been following the A350 project with a lot
64 frmrCapCadet : A and B have their reasons, but it really would be helpful for us to define capacity in terms of sq meters. Number of seats by itself tells very litt
65 cosmofly : I would say a 748 combi offer and a 748i with low cost BCF options would create a space where there is no competitions. The fact that 748i lacks orde
66 ikramerica : Nope, because there are aircrafts with "extra" square meters like the A380 and A320, then there are aircraft with really cramped layouts that can fit
67 Post contains images EPA001 : Since there is no design freeze on the A350-1000XWB yet, how can it be a MK-II A350-1000XWB? Airbus is pushing very hard to get this airframe as capa
68 morrisond : Not if someone decides to build a double decker twin.... Stick an extra deck on the 787 and stretch the wing to 80m as an 777 replacement, use the sa
69 Post contains images EA772LR : The fact that Boeing seems so confident in upgrading the 777 to me signals they've got some secrets up their sleeve. Spoken like a true engineer!
70 PlanesNTrains : It's very reminiscent of the 787/350 heyday, when it almost seemed to me like Airbus kept throwing up proposals to create a contiinual reason to hold
71 keesje : The only weight savings I have seen were based on data gathered by monitoring existing fleets and being able (with additional testing) to show author
72 EA772LR : Let's be fair though Keesje. The 787 is a physically larger plane than the A332 (at least it's a wider fuselage), and nearly as long, with much large
73 JoeCanuck : In the end, they may not be that much lighter on the 350 either. Airbus is promising the 350 will be leaps and bounds lighter than the 777 using comp
74 Jacobin777 : A real-world example would be that of EK and their 2-class B77Ws with 427 seats. No wonder Clark loves the plane so much.... According to seatguru.co
75 frmrCapCadet : So what are the sq meter metrics? Cramped is not a measurement. "really cramped layouts that can fit more customers per area", which seems to make my
76 BoeEngr : So if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist? You need to think more than just load carrying structure for weight improvements. I really, really wish
77 Stitch : When Airbus launched the A350XWB, they claimed in their presentation that the A350-900 at 314 seats would be 16% lighter per seat than the 777-200ER
78 JoeCanuck : I agree I think they can get the 772 close but I have trouble seeing them getting more efficiency out of the 772 than they'd get from a 787-10 in the
79 XT6Wagon : The A350 is a smaller plane than a 777 and a 787 is a larger plane than a A330. Airbus has gone for 777 seating capacity, but not payload. This means
80 kaneporta1 : Are you sure about that? Maybe that's true for secondary structure, but when it comes to primary structure it doesn't work like that. For primary str
81 Post contains images dynamicsguy : You're such a tease From the little snippets I've heard of the 777NG I'm hoping we get involved once our 787 work is out of the way. Back on the topi
82 747400sp : It looks like the A350 1000XWB is going to be a very large plane.
83 Post contains images astuteman : The A350 is not as dependent on the delivery of CFRP weight savings for its overall weight reduction.. Correct. And with much smaller, lighter engine
84 Post contains links zeke : Airbus said it would do basically do the same to improve the A330 to make the original A350, it was deemed by many people on here like yourself as be
85 XT6Wagon : I was ignoring this as 10Y 777s when the A350 started down its road was unheard of, and was just getting its foot in the door when the A350XWB hit. I
86 Post contains images scbriml : Indeed. So much so that it was found necessary to create a "law" to describe such. It's interesting to see that while some are happy to apply that "l
87 keesje : The 747-400 has significntly more capasity, passenger as well as cargo, specialy from hot Asian placesand flies citypairs faster (non ETOPS) then the
88 parapente : It seems from the Flight/Boeing article that the "preffered" route for Boeing (as was illustrated) is a (heavily) revised wing.They have just done thi
89 justloveplanes : What new CFRP is in the 748 wing? Thought it was just reprofiled Aluminum....
90 Revelation : Agreed, presuming you have enough time and money to do the optimizations. It seems the later marks of 787 and A350XWB will be more optimized than the
91 Stitch : True, but if Rolls adapts the Trent XWB to replace the Trent 800 on the 777-200ER, that and a weight-reduction will certainly cut deep in to the clai
92 Post contains images NAV20 : Fair point in many ways, Zeke - I DID, quite early on, say that the 'old/new A330' wouldn't cut it. And now I'm saying that an 'old/new 777' could wo
93 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not sure I would go quite that far personally, but for what its worth, I personally think the A350XWB should have been around 6" more "XWB" than
94 Jacobin777 : ...but it did keep certain "key" carriers such as DL and CO with Boeing....that was probably part of the reason as well...of course, I'm sure Boeing
95 PlanesNTrains : I just don't see how this comment is productive in this thread? They have the A320 family going gangbusters, they have the A330 line going gangbuster
96 Revelation : I find him refreshingly direct, like Enders. The 1000 is a fact, so we must presume Boeing is looking very closely at a 777NG. It'll be very interest
97 Stitch : The 767-400ER's problem is that while it had the general passenger capacity of the A330-200 and claimed slightly lower operating costs, it still came
98 PlanesNTrains : This is my biggest concern. That Boeing isn't able to make the 777NG convincing enough for airlines to walk away from a fresh, clean sheet design lik
99 Revelation : Going back and rereading some of the earlier posts I skipped... I think so. Someone here on a.net (Lightsaber?) had some contacts who said they wish t
100 mariner : I love revisionist history - how was it about the A380? Airbus presented and sold more than 200 frames of the original A350, the souped up A330, and
101 Post contains images NAV20 : I think that's a integral part of the story, Mariner. Trying to be as brief as possible:- 1. Back in the '80s both companies were looking for a desig
102 Post contains images mariner : It explains why you see it that way, but that's no surprise to me. It doesn't explain why you think there was "indecision," nor does it explain how t
103 AFGMEL : I can understand that. Delaying the launch and having a problem with the A380 is a PR disaster. The A350 is another tube with two engines to the publ
104 mariner : They did delay, they had already delayed. They already had a p. r. disaster on their hands. But by that stage of the game, it seems to me that there
105 Post contains images Scipio : I have to side with Mariner on this one. Your interpretation of history is bizarre. The A380 was born out of Airbus' desire to complete its product r
106 ruscoe : OH fair crack of the whip it is an interpretation of events which is different than yours, and in no way bizzare, and one I happen to agree with. I a
107 Post contains images AustrianZRH : Plus, hypothetically, what would have happened if Airbus hadn't gone forward with the A380? Boeing had most probably not spent big bucks on the devel
108 mariner : So I guess you do believe that the A350 was transformed into the A350XWB in the space of a month. mariner
109 Post contains images PM : Just what was public knowledge in 2000 that made persevering with the A380 a "bizarre" decision? So much so that Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Briti
110 zeke : For how many years now have Boeing been riding the back of the 737 and 777 ? That is effectively saying that the 777-200/200ER is a dead product, the
111 Post contains images justloveplanes : I read an article where Airbus CFO basically said the same thing. He said in addition to every other justification for building the A380, they simply
112 astuteman : It was? Sorry. I don't agree. Up to 2004, the A380 sold as fast, or faster, than every other widebody in history. NOT continuing would have been biza
113 abba : It must alo be said, that at the time both the 767 and the 747 had more or less stoped selling. When the 787 was launced, Boeing was on its way to be
114 Post contains images EPA001 : Interesting numbers Zeke. I am curious how much weight can be shaved off the B777 in an NG-version. That said, also the B787 and A350 will continue t
115 Post contains images NAV20 : Happy to call them 'bad decisions' if that's preferable to you, mariner. But the problem may be that we are talking different decades to an extent. A
116 cosmofly : It was a disaster in that A ignored 77W ETOPS, failed to foresee the market force that drives the upcoming of 787 and its own XWB, but instead spent
117 Post contains images Stitch : It kind of helps that when Airbus launched their first model, Boeing already had four in service. Airbus launched the A330 because the A300 lacked th
118 frmrCapCadet : The 380 is a gret aircraft for those niches in which it fits. What I call a Gift to the Airlines. In this sense a great success. ROI - Most of us don'
119 abba : One has to remember that developing a new frame is imnsely expensive. Hence a new development must be able to carry quite a huge load of RD costs in
120 mariner : That's only if you consider the A380 a mistake, which I don't. I would rather live in a world with the A380 than in a world without the A380. Go ther
121 zeke : I think this is another "economical with words" moment. The A380 was clearly aimed at high capacity end of the market that Boeing and Airbus both say
122 XT6Wagon : You would rather live in a world where Airbus has burned all its accumulated worth in a program with no hope of returning those resources? You would
123 Post contains images mariner : Since, as I said, I don't intend to restart the A.Net A380 Wars, the short answer to your question is - yes. mariner
124 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, I'm aware of the TA9 (twin) and TA11 (quad) concepts, but I would think the A330 and A340 are not direct decedents of those designs any more tha
125 OldAeroGuy : Perhaps you can tell us how many 773ER vs A380 that CX has on order. Therein may be the answer to your question.
126 Post contains images zeke : TA9 : 326 to 410 pax, 2x60k engines, A306 fuselage, new wing, 30 LD3, 1500-3300 nm range TA11-100 : 230 pax, 4x34k engines, A310 fuselage section, ne
127 worldrider : ohh didn't know CX was THE reference!! higher level compared and for sure more profitable than SQ, QF, LH ..the same high level as JL, ANA, Air India
128 rheinwaldner : To me the 777 was always presented as the most modern, ultra optimized aircraft. If the 777 easily becomes a much better aircraft I have to ask why i
129 Revelation : And yet, we hear how great it was that they shipped on time, which usually means compromises were made. No real need to do so, it was already better
130 Post contains images Jacobin777 : >1,000 sales of a widebody is a "fatal flaw"?
131 pitingres : The 777 is what it is because of time and resource limits, surely. You spend a year or so designing (say) a wing, pushing the envelope of design or t
132 Post contains images PM : Good point but everything's relative. Personally, I rather like the 2-3-2 of the 767 but there's no denying that sales have slowed to a trickle. The
133 Post contains images Revelation : As above, the cross section is a fatal flaw in terms of longevity. Boeing could have chosen to give the 767 cross-section to the 787 but did not. The
134 BoeEngr : Of course it was presented as the "most modern, ultra optimized aircraft." We don't usually go advertise them as "the best we could do in the limited
135 Stitch : You could argue the same about eight-abreast, since nine-abreast aircraft have slowed it's sales where they compete (777 vs. A340 now and 787/A350 vs
136 Post contains images EA772LR : The same could be said for Airbus and their A320/A330, especially in the last decade. Their act together? The 748I has had some delays, but in no way
137 Post contains images EPA001 : That was never denied. It was mentioned by another poster that this was a weak point of Airbus compared to Boeing. Zeke replied to that and clearly t
138 Post contains images Jacobin777 : It is a bit of an "outdated" machine to a certain extent...that being said, adding winglets, "sunk costs" by the carriers does ensure the B767 will b
139 OldAeroGuy : I wasn't me that interjected CX into the discussion. See the comments of a previous poster.
140 kaneporta1 : I disagree here. The reason the why A330 has outsold the 767, has a lot more to do with a modern design and unparalleled capability than the cross se
141 BoeEngr : You bring up good points. Like I said, I wasn't a part of the 767 program, though I do wholeheartedly believe cross section did/does handicap the 767
142 seabosdca : For every 757, there is a 737-800. That "20 year old design" worked out pretty well.
143 Post contains links Jacobin777 : Of interest: "“Airbus is responding to the 787,” he says. “They’ll again be forced to respond to what we do with the 777.” McNerney (Boeing
144 parapente : Thank you Jacobin777 for the link.It says it all - esp' in the quote you pulled out.Well not everything of course.But clearly a heavily revised (new?)
145 rheinwaldner : I would not call the 767 as a failure in any way. I was only answering statements in the sense "any aircraft can easily be made much lighter" and too
146 XT6Wagon : I think the miserable range on the early A300 hurt them alot. Its hard to get people outside of europe to accept a plane with a range that tiny. The
147 rheinwaldner : Even if they can't economics per seat still matters most. I don't say that the 777 market will implode soon. It will dimish a little later than soon.
148 Post contains images EPA001 : You mean: If the B777NG can generate more profit then an A350-1000 XWB, why wouldn't it sell? . And there is the hard part, no matter how good it wil
149 BlueSky1976 : My money would be on all-new "maximum allowable span" composite wing and "GENxed" GE90-115s.
150 JoeCanuck : We also have to look at WHY the original 350 wasn't deemed acceptable to come to any logical conclusion. It wasn't just that that 787 was composite t
151 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...however the A350 program has to recoup R&D/production costs as well (don't forget, the first 100-150 or so A350's were sold at the original A3
152 NAV20 : Very good point, IMO, JoeCanuck. Most people think that weight is the main determinant of range/fuel economy - and often enough it is. But frontal ar
153 Post contains links and images zeke : That would be in the text I replied to. The 748i was already supposed to be in service earlier this year, and 748F last year. I didn't see too many l
154 EA772LR : Hardly a very troubled program. It seems Boeing does have their act together, to be fair, on this one. As you said yourself, there weren't many VLA o
155 zeke : That is your personal opinion, it is not shared by all those awaiting aircraft. You mean it was fortunate that the "terrible downturn" happened at a
156 Stitch : It does count, but is not the only decision point airlines use. If they had, the A330 never would have sold, as the 767 is more efficient, but it's l
157 NAV20 : I'm possibly the first A-netter to say this, but I keep wondering whether the B748 was a mistake. Sure, it just about 'murdered' the A380 programme, s
158 Post contains images EPA001 : Airbus put the A380-F on hold, and later shelved it, due to the enormous production problems they were facing with the passenger versions of the A380
159 EA772LR : I don't think it was a mistake. It kept Boeing's monopoly in the VLA freighter market, put additional pressure on the A380 program, and fills Boeing'
160 seabosdca : This approach makes sense for the A330, but not the 777. The A330's advantage is extraordinarily high payload capacity for its empty weight. It has a
161 zeke : My information is the A350-1000 will comfortably do JFK-HKG, which is almost exactly the same as DXB-SFO, it is designed as the A340-600 replacement.
162 panais : Your numbers are not reflecting the fact that airlines will fly the 787-8 in a 9 abreast configuration in economy. This will add another 20 seats in
163 Post contains images EA772LR : No way should an airline order the A358 if they need something the size of the 788. The A358 is substantially larger than the 788. I agree. How? The
164 Stitch : I've long been on record as saying it was not worth the effort. I never believed the A380-800F has any serious traction outside the package carrier m
165 Stitch : It might be a better plane than the 787-8, but the jury is still out on whether it will be a better plane than the 787-9 and that is the model it mos
166 panais : Define substantially. The A358 will have a higher OEW of about 2.5% higher than the 787-8. Additionally, they carry the same LD3 in cargo. What the A
167 panais : We are all speculating here with the crumbs that Boeing and Airbus are giving us to confuse us even more.
168 Stitch : The MEW for the 787-8 - per Airbus - is 100t. The MEW for the A350-900 - also per Airbus - is 116t. The A350-800 is just a shrunk A350-900, so I expe
169 Post contains links panais : Airbus claimed that the OEW for the A359 will be 115.7 tons. See the link below. Therefore the A358 I guestimate will be slightly less by about 2.5t.
170 Stitch : That figure is MWE - Manufacturing Weight Empty - which means an airframe with no seats, lavatories, galleys or fluids. It's many, many tons lower th
171 Post contains images astuteman : Because an A380 can make even more money than a 777? Horses for courses....... Rgds
172 panais : I am still not convinced. Somewhere, I fail to see that Airbus would build a plane the size of the A332 and the A333 and then have a higher empty wei
173 Stitch : The A350-800 is effectively a direct replacement for the A340-300. It offers similar passenger capacity (but lower cargo volume) and better range. Th
174 EA772LR : Easy really. Wider fuselage, much larger/heavier engines, much larger wing, and heavier duty landing gear. It's very conceivable that the A358 weighs
175 astuteman : The A350-800 is almost certainly 5t - 6t heavier in OEW than the A330-300. I'll add additional tankage to the list of reasons EA772LR gave. Rgds
176 panais : My point is not on the A350-900 but on the A350-800. Boeing still has orders because they have a product to seel that meets the needs of the airlines
177 EA772LR : And I'll add as well that because of this, the A358 is obviously a much more capable aircraft. But this is comparing apples to oranges. The A358 is d
178 seabosdca : What is wrong with that comparison? The two aircraft are nearly identically sized, along with the 787-9. All three aircraft are heavy long-haul aircr
179 Stitch : And my point is that if the A350-900 was as light as the 787-8, there would be no need for Airbus to have created the A350-800. The closest direct re
180 A342 : I'm not sure I'm following you there. Once you add the 15%, the calculation is finished. Why add more for the extra seats and galleys? After all, add
181 Post contains images PM : Even by your standards, this is an astonishingly inaccurate (optimistic?) claim. By 'snuffing out' the A380F the whole A380 programme was 'murdered'?
182 Post contains links Scipio : Meanwhile, Airbus is well advanced in building a good old-fashioned physical mock-up of the A350, in order to avoid the kind of surprises it experienc
183 XT6Wagon : Its certainly a large chunk of money and frame sales Airbus needs to make the break even point on the program. Even 2 frames a year over the life of
184 AFGMEL : Does anybody know if all divisions of Airbus are now using the same version of the software? It was a ridiculous situation.
185 Stitch : Working with two different versions of the software was not the mistake Airbus made. Not properly testing the program that "munged" the two datasets
186 Post contains links trex8 : interesting stats- comparing A332 to A358 "The A350-800 has got about 1,400nm [2,590km] more range with 30 more passengers, but it's burning less fuel
187 Stitch : From that same article: So much for the a.net opinion that Airbus should (or even will) re-engine the A330-200.
188 Post contains links Revelation : My understanding was that the attempt to write such a program failed. The following thread dates from that time period: A380 Debacle: It's The Softwa
189 mariner : I thought that concept died the day they announced XWB. mariner
190 Stitch : Not in the minds of many here.
191 Post contains images mariner : Ah well, I guess I have a different view of it all. mariner
192 astuteman : I'm not sure that the seat difference is that representative, mind you. The A350-800 only has about 6.5% more cabin area than the A330-200 - it's 2m
193 Post contains images EPA001 : Correct. I have always thought that this option might still be in the cards for the not so distant future. Now Airbus only mentions a further optimiz
194 Stitch : If Airbus creates a $191 million A330-200 that's "almost as good" as a $225 million A350-800, what incentive is there for an airline to buy the A350-8
195 LAXDESI : The extra 300mm width enables 9-across, and coupled with additional 2m length should easily enable A358 to offer 30 additional seats. Taking discount
196 Post contains images astuteman : Oh, I'm absolutely certain it can be done, my friend. I'll be interested to see if the average A350-800 seat-count is 30 seats higher than the averag
197 Scipio : I agree. To keep the A330 alive and profitable (from a product range perspective), Airbus should develop it as a clearly differentiated product from
198 Stitch : Personally, I don't think Airbus needs to do anything with the A330. Even if sales of the A330-200 and A330-300 dry up, the A330-200 Freighter and A33
199 astuteman : I'm increasingly inclined to agree with this, Stitch. The engineering resources may well be better applied elsewhere, in any event... Rgds
200 rheinwaldner : I don't see the world black and white AND I have not posted accordingly... Yes, efficiency is not the only decision point airlines use and I have nev
201 XT6Wagon : I agree. The time to do anything with the A330 sailed with the abandonment of the re-engine A330 proposals and the wandering down more and more expen
202 Stitch : Yes, but it's also the least-demanding on an airframe which is why FX and 5X operate so many passenger-to-freighter conversions because they can perf
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...
What's Up With Delta.com? posted Sat Mar 13 2010 16:07:23 by JBAirwaysFan
What's Up With N589NW? posted Sat Feb 20 2010 20:55:50 by ElBandGeek
So What Exactly Is Up With The Rumored AA Strike? posted Mon Feb 8 2010 13:56:55 by B6A322
What's Up With Virgin America These Days? posted Sat Feb 6 2010 00:12:33 by SurfandSnow
Whats Up With CO1990 Tonight? posted Fri Jan 15 2010 21:38:31 by COEWR2587
Whas Up With CO 32 Today 11/13 posted Fri Nov 13 2009 20:00:06 by Swacle
What's Up With EI's Website? posted Tue Oct 13 2009 13:55:00 by SK736
What's Up With Spanair's New Livery? posted Tue Oct 13 2009 12:55:49 by Vasu
MH16 KUL-AMS: What's Up With The Delays? posted Wed Oct 7 2009 01:06:38 by MacSid
Who Ended Up With The Aloha Name? posted Sun Oct 4 2009 10:43:32 by Ridgid727