Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Discussing A330 Improvements With RR & GE  
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1188 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20296 times:

Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...t-range-or-passengers-carried.html

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20198 times:

This is not about a NEO, but about incremental improvements (more PIPs) and a MTOW boost to 240t. It only slightly mentions that AirAsia's CEO would like to have GEnx on the A330. Airbus had also stated in the past that they were studying the possibility of sharklets.

To me the MTOW boost is all but a given (let's wait for Farnborough). PIPs are always welcome if the engine manufacturers see they can get a good ROI. Sharklets... I think Airbus engineering resources are busy enough already, I don't expect a decision on that before next year. What is clear though is that Airbus is not giving up on the A330 despite 787 EIS, they still want to introduce incremental improvements. This IMO casts further doubt on the A350-800...


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20053 times:

Quoting Chiad (Thread starter):
Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency


IMO

Incremental aerodynamic, engine, MTW improvements   

Half-baked A350 Mk1   

"Airbus has won 1,199 orders so far for the A330, and delivered 871. The planemaker had originally expected the plane to be slowly phased out as the competing Boeing 787 and Airbus’s own A350 came into service. A three-year delay in 787 production has boosted demand for the A330, with the plane winning 758 orders alone since the 787 first went on offer."

Interesting to see that the A330 has secured almost as many orders as the 787 since the 787 was launched!


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19699 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 1):
What is clear though is that Airbus is not giving up on the A330 despite 787 EIS, they still want to introduce incremental improvements. This IMO casts further doubt on the A350-800

A NEO might cast doubt on the A350-800. An A330 PIP casts doubt on the 787-8's ability to capture more than 50% of the 230-250 seater widebody market.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19683 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 1):
To me the MTOW boost is all but a given (let's wait for Farnborough). PIPs are always welcome if the engine manufacturers see they can get a good ROI.

   Every couple of years they seem to slightly increase the MTOW (for airlines who want the extra range). I don't see why this shouldn't happen once more.



First to fly on the Boeing 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE; NZ103, AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19665 times:

Suggestions of an A330neo are misleading - during the Airbus briefing in Toulouse last week, Leahy said the engine discussions are about improvements "in the 1%, 2%, 3% category" and "not a new engine". The sharklets idea is still being tossed around, but not everyone at the top of Airbus is convinced there's a business case.

User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19444 times:

I don't see the A330 improvements as casting doubt on either the 787 or the A350. What I do see is Airbus getting all it can out of an already very successful program. It makes good business sense. The A330 has its place in the airline world, as does the A350 and the 787. Each will succeed or fail based on its merits or problems.

Frankly it's way too soon to be judging the A350 and the 787 is still very new in service. Time will tell whether these airplanes will truly make a name for themselves. As is clear, the A330 has already made a name for itself and Airbus has good reason to be very proud.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19314 times:

Until 787 production can catch up with demand (i.e. an airline can get one in the same time frame as an A330) there will be demand for the A330. The more Airbus can improve the A330 the more attractive it will be, as it will retain more value once 787's become plentiful. But doing a full NEO would only be economically feasible if the resultant plane was fully competitive with the 787, and I do not believe it will be. That is why it won't happen. Don't forget the 787 will not be standing still, either.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8517 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 19217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 6):
I don't see the A330 improvements as casting doubt on either the 787 or the A350. What I do see is Airbus getting all it can out of an already very successful program. It makes good business sense. The A330 has its place in the airline world, as does the A350 and the 787. Each will succeed or fail based on its merits or problems.

Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ? The A330 is lighter and better for short and medium haul flights, the A350 is a better long haul plane. The A330 program is one of those planes that was in the shadow of its more capable twin, the A340, now it has grown to become a long haul plane making the A340 obsolete. The A330-300 is great for 12 hour flights, the A350-900 will go until about 16 hours. Now Airnus has two decent twin programs.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4884 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
The A330-300 is great for 12 hour flights, the A350-900 will go until about 16 hours. Now Airnus has two decent twin programs.

Does anyone fly a A333 12 hours routinely?? Maybe an A332. A333 is more a 5000nm/10 hr beast for real world operations.


User currently offlineZKCIF From Lithuania, joined Oct 2010, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18618 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 9):
Does anyone fly a A333 12 hours routinely?? Maybe an A332. A333 is more a 5000nm/10 hr beast for real world operations.

per great circle mapper,
SVO (55°58'22"N 37°24'53"E) LAX (33°56'33"N 118°24'29"W) 340° (N) 5281 nm

but the actual route SU fly with a 333 is something like 5700-5900nm, i believe. of course, their 333 are mostly brand new, older ones don't have this range.

as the majority of 333s don't have the range, their operators do not consider 12-hour routes.
when more so capable 333s are around, there might be more operators doing such long flights.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7201 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 18452 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ?

They can, but the fuel burn per seat of the A330 is what will push it out.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 18252 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why can't the A330 and A350 co-exist ? The A330 is lighter and better for short and medium haul flights, the A350 is a better long haul plane.

Airbus said, a couple of years ago, that the A350-800 will be 20% more fuel efficient per passenger that the A330-200 on 4,000nm flights. Anything below 4,000nm is becoming A320NEO teritorry.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17157 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With Boeing improving the 787-8 with every block-point, Airbus has to keep pushing the A330-200 as far as they can to secure sales while Boeing is only capable of delivering 787s in fits and spurts. Boeing has already stated they intend to go beyond 10 deliveries per month and once they can open up delivery slots again, interest in the A330-200 will weaken.

A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately. The A350-800 is suffering a bit from the same issues the A350-1000 is: the A330-200 and 777-300ER are so good that operators continue to take them, which pushes back the need for the A350. Airbus pushed back the A350-800 to 2016 because none of their customers want one before then and a better A330-200 and 787-8 are likely not going to encourage operators to clamor for an A350-800.

That being said, I am positive the A350-800 will make it into service. As panais noted, the A350-800 will offer a double-digit fuel burn advantage over the A330-200 and will haul more payload farther. Once Airbus gets A350 production to 10+ a month, the A350-800 will become the natural choice for A330-200 operators who are not going to the 787-8.

And at that point, the A330-200 becomes a freighter and an MTOW boost and engine PiPs will be very welcome there.   


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 16844 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
With Boeing improving the 787-8 with every block-point, Airbus has to keep pushing the A330-200 as far as they can to secure sales while Boeing is only capable of delivering 787s in fits and spurts. Boeing has already stated they intend to go beyond 10 deliveries per month and once they can open up delivery slots again, interest in the A330-200 will weaken.

A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately. The A350-800 is suffering a bit from the same issues the A350-1000 is: the A330-200 and 777-300ER are so good that operators continue to take them, which pushes back the need for the A350. Airbus pushed back the A350-800 to 2016 because none of their customers want one before then and a better A330-200 and 787-8 are likely not going to encourage operators to clamor for an A350-800.

That being said, I am positive the A350-800 will make it into service. As panais noted, the A350-800 will offer a double-digit fuel burn advantage over the A330-200 and will haul more payload farther. Once Airbus gets A350 production to 10+ a month, the A350-800 will become the natural choice for A330-200 operators who are not going to the 787-8.

And at that point, the A330-200 becomes a freighter and an MTOW boost and engine PiPs will be very welcome there.

Think that sums it up nicely Stitch. Take Sunday off.  


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do not see the business case anymore for a re-engined A330. I just do not see the ROI for customers to wait the years or the engine vendors to invest the billions. (For there is no 'plug and play' engine.)

I agree with Stitch. The A332 eventually becomes a freighter and we see how well winglets, weight reduction and other features keep the A330 selling in PAX duty.

Quoting panais (Reply 12):
Airbus said, a couple of years ago, that the A350-800 will be 20% more fuel efficient per passenger that the A330-200 on 4,000nm flights. Anything below 4,000nm is becoming A320NEO teritorry.

That is an important item to note. Anything below 4,000nm is heading towards 737MAX/A320NEO competition. As much as we love widebodies, economics rules the market.

WN, FR, and others are unlikely to buy widebodies. But with longer range narrowbodies, they *will* enter new markets enabled by the greater range. The A350 will be *far* more efficient than the A330 for 5000nm+. The A330 won't compete once there are 500+ A350s in the fleet and a similar, if not greater, number of 787s. Even with a re-engine. The A330 was *really* strong on the short-TATL market. I see that market going to narrowbodies. So there is less market to capture for a re-engine.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
A stronger A330-200 and 787-8 don't help the A350-800's case, unfortunately.

Agreed. I enjoyed your post, but I am a bit more pessimistic on the A358 as the cost per flight of the A359 will be barely anything more. In particular if the A359 hits targets. I see a market up-gauging a la WN from the 73G to 738.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 15665 times:

For a 5,000 nm trip:

A358 burns about 2,500 gallons less fuel for a saving of $7,500 over a hypothetical A332NEO
A358 may earn additional $15,000 in revenue for the 28 extra seats at 70% load factor.

So even if the extra seats are not needed on a route, A358 saves around $2.6 million in annual fuel cost. If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

The above savings at a cost of capital of 10% is worth about $60 million to an airline assuming a 15 year life for the aircraft. I don't think Airbus would sell A332NEO at a net price that is $60 million lower than A358 to make it competitive.

If one assumes that the extra seats of A358 will go unused on some routes, then the PV of fuel advantage of A358 over 15 years is about $20 million. So for some routes, an A332NEO priced $20 million less than A358 may be preferred.

Currently, A358 is priced about $45 million more than A332 at list. One would expect this spread to shrink between A358 and A332NEO to $30 million.

Comparing the A358 to the current A332HGW for a 5,000 nm trip:
A358 burns about 3,800 gallons less fuel for a saving of $11,500 over A332.

If one assumes that the extra seats of A358 will go unused on some routes, then the PV of fuel advantage of A358 over 15 years is about $30 million. So for some routes, an A332 priced $30 million less(net) than A358 may be preferred.

In summary, A332NEO is unlikely to be competitive against both A358 and B788 unless heavily discounted.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15464 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
I enjoyed your post, but I am a bit more pessimistic on the A358 as the cost per flight of the A359 will be barely anything more.

I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

The 787-8's lighter weight (both empty and full) should result in lower fuel burn and it looks to only come up a few tons short on payload (and then only against the A350-800HGW, which will weigh even more empty and full).

The 787-9 should have a not-insubstantial payload advantage in terms of weight and a substantial one in terms of volume while being similar in weight full (and probably lighter in weight empty). The A350-800HGW will have a range advantage, but ULH is not a niche that makes money anymore with fuel prices the way they are.

And then, as you noted, her big sister offers more payload weight, more payload volume and likely very similar trip and operating costs.

Because it is a straight shrink, there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it. But I do not see Airbus using the time gained by pushing back the EIS to spend any money or effort on optimizing the frame as I don't believe it would result in substantial new sales.


User currently offlineairboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 15170 times:

Quoting Chiad (Thread starter):
Bloomberg reports that Airbus is talking with Rolls-Royce Plc (RR/), General Electric Co. (GE) and Pratt & Whitney about incremental improvements to engines and is considering other improvements including measures to reduce drag on the wing and boost fuel efficiency

According to Leeham's reporting from "Airbus Innovation Days", this is how they see it:

"A330neo: Forget about it. Not any time in the foreseeable future."

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...opsis-of-a-lot-of-stuff/#more-6101

I guess their hands are full with A359 and A351, - and of course the NEO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

I agree. Really can't see who it is appealing to.

+++



keep it free of the propellers
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14559 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I do agree the A350-800 is in a weak position in the market.

Think of the A350-800 as the A319 of the family.
Airbus is creating families. They have the A320, which is working very well for them, and they want to repeat this with the A350. Does it make sense for them to design the A350 for a segment, the 220-240 seat widebody, that is already sold out with 787-8, which by the way many were mostly sold at a loss?

Airbus has probably designed the A358-800 for the next size of the segment which might be what airlines will be asking for in 2025.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting panais (Reply 19):
Airbus is creating families.

Indeed. Which is why I believe there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it since it's a straight shrink. I just don't think Airbus would gain much from investing any serious time or money in it. Like the A319 and 737-700, the bigger sisters in the family tend to be close enough on trip costs that their greater size doesn't impose any real penalty if not used, but does offer benefits if you can.

I expect to see more conversions of the 787-8 to the 787-9, as well.


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 317 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13878 times:

Why is Airbus trying to re-engine the A330 when the A358 is supposed to be the replacement?


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2374 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13861 times:

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 21):
Why is Airbus trying to re-engine the A330 when the A358 is supposed to be the replacement?

They are not. They are pushing for RR, GE, & PW to make slight improvements to their existing A330 engines to make them even better.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13840 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 16):
So even if the extra seats are not needed on a route, A358 saves around $2.6 million in annual fuel cost. If the extra seats can be filled at 70% load factor, then the total annual operating benefits for A358 are higher by about $8 million per year.

Thank you for the numbers. Always appreciated.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
Because it is a straight shrink, there is no reason for Airbus not to offer it. But I do not see Airbus using the time gained by pushing back the EIS to spend any money or effort on optimizing the frame as I don't believe it would result in substantial new sales.

That we can agree upon. Between the 788/789 and the A359, I'm just not seeing much of a niche for the A358. Then again, as a 'straight shrink,' there isn't much cost either (besides the flight testing, in particular the rudder). Then again, I'm trying to find what market niche it would excel in.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13663 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 23):
Then again, I'm trying to find what market niche it would excel in.

A340-500 replacement.   

Actually, I am kind of serious as I could see it being employed like the Middle Eastern carriers are using the 777-200LR - to open new long-haul routes with no payload hit and then growing them to larger aircraft.

I could also see it being used to open routes where there is significant competition, but enough of a loyal O&D demand to fill a smaller plane. Much like AS has done in the United States, launching select services out of SEA to destinations their partners already have significant capacity on but utilizing the loyalty of customers to AS (and the AS Mileage Plan) to fill those single flights.


25 panais : If you have a number of A359 and there are some routes where because of traffic or seasonality, you cannot fill them, then you order a small number o
26 KC135TopBoom : Why? Do you think Boeing will never have PIPs for the B-787? Not to mention the A-380, the sharklet A-320 (non-NEO), and the A-400M.
27 lightsaber : I could see that. But only with a carrier who had other A350s in their fleet. Ok. That makes sense. But what would the market be. 60 to 100 airframes
28 DocLightning : Especially if available as a retrofit, I can't see why it wouldn't be a reasonably safe bet. They might not do that well, but surely there's not THAT
29 sweair : The 748 engines should fit like a glove? Would it be much rework to re engine a A330? Heavier engines I am sure. Some 10% more efficient than the CF6?
30 RubberJungle : The issue is whether an A330 sharklet would produce effects significant enough to make the retrofit modification economical for the airlines. It alre
31 PM : Pace the thread title, Airbus are talking to all three engine manufacturers. Which of the three is in a better position to improve their current A330
32 imiakhtar : You would think, given RR's healthy market position on the A330 and their very large customer base, they would require the least incentive. Where the
33 Stitch : I would have said GE, but they evidently sneaked a PiP in that addressed their woeful performance in high ambient temperatures.
34 Post contains images lightsaber : Here is my 'game theory' test if this will happen. Neither Pratt nor GE has an engine, yet, for the A350. Would it be better for either of these two t
35 goosebayguy : Tweaking engines is all very well but why not change the wings to all composite? Surely the weight saving would give a huge boost at a relatively low
36 tdscanuck : Because that's the complete opposite of "tweaking"...changing the wing is about the biggest single possible upgrade while still having the same basic
37 panais : Of course they will have PIPs. I am simply questioning whether the airline industry needs the 787-8. I am of the opinion that the 787-8 will barely s
38 lightsaber : I disagree. I suspect as the A358/A359 definition has matured that more than a few airlines will upgauge due to A358 delivery delays. Financing an A3
39 Stitch : The A350-800 delivery delays are customer-driven, not production driven. With no customers wanting the plane before 2016, I wonder how many of those
40 Wisdom : I must disagree with your assessment. First of all because of your comparison between the A358 and A332NEO. To compare like for like, I find it more
41 Post contains images lightsaber : Fair enough. The same point happens, very few A358 deliveries. However, I see the A359 out-prioritizing the A358 rather than A358 customers wishing f
42 Wisdom : I think that it's fair to say that anything up to 7000km will, at least in the Western hemisphere, progressively be operated by narrowbodies. I think
43 Post contains images Hamlet69 : By no means does it "have" to be more, tho it certainly could. Looking at the orderbook today, yes. They have 118 orders for the A358. BUT, look at t
44 AngMoh : I think you are off by a couple of thousand km. 7000 km is solid A330/767/777 territory. Early A333s and non-ER 767s will struggle with such a distan
45 XT6Wagon : Using that logic there was no reason not to develop the 736 since it was a straight shrink of the 73G. However history has proven it was pretty much
46 poLot : 7000km is only about 3780nm. It might be a struggle for non-ER 767, early A333s, and 757s, but not by much. It is not solid A330/767/777 territory (I
47 AngMoh : Here I don't agree. The A333 is perfect for 4-8 hours (which is less than 7000km) high volume flights and there are lots of these. There is no need t
48 lightsaber : I think we agree. Oh, maybe we could debate a little on the exact range, but in concept we agree. Agreed there will be a decline, but I think Airbus
49 XT6Wagon : Sure, Cheap upgrades will pay thier way onto the frame all the way till Airbus has the time and money for an all new frame way down the road. People
50 Post contains images astuteman : Mmmm Airbus ultimately HAS to have a widebody "something" in the 225 - 250 seat/225-250 m2 size range. Today, it has the A330-200, A330-300 and A350-
51 Post contains images lightsaber : I'm curious as to your thoughts as to why the A358F is unlikely to become a freighter. Not me. The planned weight removal, engine pips, sharklets?, a
52 Post contains images PM : If the A358F isn't going to be a freighter ... what is it?!
53 Post contains images ferpe : If one put sharklets on the 330, PIP the engines 1% and raise the MTOW from 235t to 240t it goes from a 6000nm frame to a 6500nm frame. It also comes
54 Post contains images astuteman : And yet Boeing have a backlog of 850 frames in this very segment.... I'd suggest that Airbus need to be in it. As you say the A330-200 and -300 put t
55 Post contains images Wisdom : I have to ask what software you use to make these calculations. The B788 is the direct competitor of the A332 and in real life terms, burns approxima
56 lightsaber : Agreed. But that doesn't mean the A350 cross section/wing/engine has the best economics. In my opinion it must be more like the original Boeing 720,
57 Post contains links astuteman : As the cross section is within 5" of that of the 787, I don't see it as a major issue. I agree that the wing makes it somewhat heavy, and yet Ferpe's
58 Post contains images lightsaber : That would be impressive economics. As Ferpe noted in your link: "Also look at the 358 vs 789, they haul 270 vs. 280 Pax but the 358 who has a shorte
59 SEPilot : The underlying truth of this is that every airframe has an optimum size; and as efficiency becomes more and more critical it will become more and mor
60 Post contains images mariner : IMO - the A350 Mk 1 was always a great idea. mariner
61 lightsaber : At the time I agreed. Once Airbus committed to the A350, the market changed. Lightsaber
62 mariner : I think perceptions changed. I'm not sure that the actual market changed. mariner
63 BoeingVista : It was a good idea but it wouldn't have addressed the A340 replacement / 777 2nd gen competition issue, in hindsight looking at A340 sales it was a g
64 mariner : It's been thrashed out endlessly here. I'm one of the (very small) number that believes Airbus should have stuck to its guns rather than being spooke
65 Aircellist : Well... Most of Montreal to Europe, and a fair share of Boston and New York to Europe are shorter than that. I'd be surprised to see most of it becom
66 Wisdom : It will become a narrowbody market. Once the transatlantic gets partial radar coverage, which with modern day technologies is becoming more and more
67 Flighty : Minor point but: a more realistic assumption for the final 2 dozen seats would be 30% load factor.
68 Aircellist : It will become a narrowbody market. Once the transatlantic gets partial radar coverage, which with modern day technologies is becoming more and more
69 Post contains images airbazar : You guys have got to be kidding! So you see demand shrink so much and airport slots increase so much that narrowbodies will take over this market? Un
70 flyingAY : There's a huge demand inside US, yet you see narrowbody planes to same destinations taking off with 30-60 minute intervals. Why not replace them with
71 Post contains images scbriml : Little things like the fact that the No1 European destination from the US is totally slot constrained. You think the likes of AA, UA, US and DL repla
72 Post contains images 76er : Bring on the A305.. On the freighter side, AFAIK Airbus has so far only considered the A359F (mainly as a direct MD11F replacement) but has been very
73 airbazar : Like what? Give me an example of a single domestic route that is as long as the shortest TATL route (BOS-DUB). There isn't one. Yes, I know that US-K
74 Post contains links and images lightsaber : I see the market fragmenting that much. There are plenty of slots at IAD, CLT, BER (eventually), MUC, and other potential hubs to fragment the market
75 airbazar : I see anything but fragmentation. It looks to me like we're heading towards consolidation. In a few years you'll have only 3 or 4 intercontinental ca
76 Post contains images lightsaber : Why wouldn't B6, WN, AB, or others enter the market? The legacies will consolidate. But B6 will have gates at BOS, could prioritize JFK, and perhaps
77 Post contains images LAXDESI : My calculations suggest that an all new 8-across Y airframe competes well against B788( 9-across) upto 240-250 seats(3 class marketing). Beyond that
78 astuteman : There are operational advantages to Airbus in sticking with the XWB fuselage, too Rgds
79 sweair : I think Airbus more than Boeing could reap more benefits doing a true 752 replacement model. They have a larger gap than Boeing in the future. It wont
80 panais : You are referring to the A300 which can carry about 260 passengers in 2 class configuration. There are some benefits to maintaining the A330 line to
81 poLot : I thought they already tried to market a smaller A330 once (or maybe it was a slightly larger A300) but there was little interest. The problem is that
82 airbazar : Not gonna happen any time soon, even if there was a capable narrowbody. The long haul low cost model has not proven to be a profitable one for reason
83 Post contains images aerlingusa330 : I'll go ahead and put in my request to Airbus & GE... GE-90s for the A330!!!
84 sweair : Airbus will leave a huge gap when the last A330 gets delivered, that's what I see. The A358 is too big to be a good medium haul frame. Either grow the
85 trex8 : How much traffic can there be to PDL?
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...
Qantas 767 With RR,PW,GE posted Fri Sep 1 2000 14:09:11 by Oxygen
Flightglobal: Airbus Not Concerned With NEO Impact posted Mon Jan 10 2011 11:13:22 by Renfro747
500 A330/A340 With RR posted Wed Dec 22 2010 21:05:48 by PM
What Will The "New UA" Do With CO's GE-fleet? posted Mon Nov 22 2010 14:26:10 by Northwest727
FI-Airbus To Continue With Tianjin Ramp-up posted Tue Jan 20 2009 10:47:06 by Astuteman
Should Airbus Tweek A320 With A P&W GTF? posted Fri Feb 22 2008 07:14:33 by Tangowhisky
A330 Operators With RR Engines posted Wed Dec 12 2007 04:17:47 by Don
B707-400s With RR Conways - Lifespan? posted Thu Sep 20 2007 15:38:48 by Irobertson
Airbus NOT Going With Full Composite Barrels posted Thu Feb 1 2007 00:51:32 by EvilForce
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:06:13 by 1337Delta764