Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QR Switch A350 Order To -900, -800 To Be Dropped?  
User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ps-a350-800-for-larger-900-378997/

After the Afriqiyah Airways order/switch a couple of days ago there is a serious possibility the A350-800 could be heading the same way as the 787-3.

US and Aeroflot now hold the largest orders with 18 a piece.

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Its hard to see the use of the A358 over the A359.

User currently offlinescouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

I think that it's likely to end up like the A388F which never officially cancelled just "delayed indefinitely" but this will simplify the build process for A now as the A358 will gradually fade and more resources can go on the A359.

I'd imagine that the possibility of some sort of A330neo might be stronger eventually though as without the A358 there's a big gap between the A321 and A359


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6870 posts, RR: 63
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1987 times:

Fascinating. The exit of the -800 seems only a matter of time. No problem. The -900 is a winner and I'm among those who believe that the -1000 is gaining traction.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):

I'd imagine that the possibility of some sort of A330neo might be stronger eventually though as without the A358 there's a big gap between the A321 and A359

Exactly my thinking too, a A330neo gets more realistic with any defection from the 800 backlog. The A358 is the least optimized model of that family, this is the downside of trying to cover your competitors 2 families with one family.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2949 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1981 times:

Not a surprise.

I'd put money on Airbus canning the A358. It's happened before in this size bracket with the 777-100, and A330-100.

[Edited 2012-11-14 07:48:54]

User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 4):
Exactly my thinking too, a A330neo gets more realistic with any defection from the 800 backlog.

I was going to agree with this but I often forget that NEO stands for "New Engine Option".
As has been mentioned before, I don't see any engine manufacturer signing up for this project.
What I do see is Airbus embarking on a improvement project for the A330 that does not require a new engine.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2202 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 5):
I'd put money on Airbus canning the A358.

Well I wouldnt say so yet, they still have a good amount on the books, 92 as stated by the FG article. If we see more conversions to the -900/-1000 then I guess it will be considered dead then...



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):

They could always go for the GEnx if it could be uprated in thrust. That is an engine in service and has quite good SFC compared to the current A330 engine. A 748 sort of update of the A330? Could be doable if the A358 gets cut


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1983 times:

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
I'd imagine that the possibility of some sort of A330neo might be stronger eventually though as without the A358 there's a big gap between the A321 and A359

Yup, A330NEO and throw a A350-1100 into the mix when Boeing decide to launch the 777-9.



BV
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 9):

Yeah I wonder if its better to grow the A350 upwards than it was to shrink it, probably better to do a 777-9X sized frame while they are at it. The engines could be of the same thrust class that the 777-X has on its list.

The A330neo could cover the lower market. GEnx2b engines should be about 13% more efficient than the CF6.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is not going to be an A330neo.

Airbus will follow Boeing's game plan with the 767 and sell it mostly as a freighter and military tanker/transport with top-up passenger frame orders to existing customers or to new customers who can't wait for or afford a 787-8.

The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage. So Airbus effectively has all the engineering work done already and therefore they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.

So I expect Airbus to continue to offer it, even if all the current customers convert orders to the A350-900.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1986 times:

With QR dropping the A358, it wouldn't surprise me to see a 787-9 order, they still have 30 options and even appear to be interested in the 787-10X.

Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter):
US and Aeroflot now hold the largest orders with 18 a piece.

I really wonder why SU still hangs on to the A358. They also have 789s on order, the A359 seems far more logical for SU than the -800.

US and HA probably don't want to switch to the -900, it's too big. If Airbus cancels the A358 I expect US and HA to be very tempted to switch to 787s.

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
The -900 is a winner and I'm among those who believe that the -1000 is gaining traction.

  



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,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5733 posts, RR: 48
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1987 times:

These guys at Strategic Aero have been predicting the demise of the A350-800. Looks like they're closer to being right.

http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/06/05/airbusa350xwb/



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1987 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
US and HA probably don't want to switch to the -900, it's too big. If Airbus cancels the A358 I expect US and HA to be very tempted to switch to 787s.

Aren't both US and HA's orders being financed by Airbus? I'd say that if Airbus wants to can the A358 their orders are as good as gone.


User currently onlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 581 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.

However, might Airbus defer the -800 so they can bring forward the EIS of the A350-1000?



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10807 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

I agree with Stitch.

There are still about 90 orders left for the -800. Looking at the small amount of work Airbus has to accomplish to certificate the -800, I don't see it getting canceled.

And there are more rumours:

Quote:
Source tells me Qatar Airways is intending to take more #Airbus A350-1000s as well as -900s, as part of -800 order conversion.
http://twitter.com/FlightDKM/status/268785502805692417



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

I think there is more value in growing that frame than shrinking it, it is too big to be a good A332 replacement. 900/1000 and a 1100 model would sell better IMO. Do a 748ish neo of the A330 on the lower end.

User currently offlineHmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

I don't see the A330NEO being competitive enough to warrant the investment. With the more modest improvements upcoming, I agree with earlier posters that the 330 should still be able to get some occasional orders like the 767 has and it should be allowed to gracefully wind down. If the 350-800 goes away, which I am starting to think as a possibility has inched across the 50% likelihood line, Airbus should really start thinking about launching an A360 (mid-size, mid-range frame) program in the middle of this decade for approx. EIS 2022. This would eliminate the current gap in the product line, and if done correctly not be a direct compete against the 787. The frame should be optimized around 5000 nm, 190-240 passengers, with an ER version to later follow that could stretch out to 7000 nm.

This would primarily go after the replacement market for 762, 763, 332, and even longer 757 routes. While those markets appear to be pinched based on recent ordering (and retirement) patterns favoring the larger 333 and 787 frames, that is in large part due to the fact that the larger frames can now give relatively equivalent trip costs with more revenue capacity. However, applying new technologies without the constraints of allowing for long range operations (as the 787 and 350 provide) the new A360 frame should be able to lower trip costs and, therefore, CASM, to a point where if the route does not support the need for larger capacity the better financial option is to go with the smaller/more optimized frame. The new plane is likely to meet the needs of any customers that would still be on the order books for a 358 and a delay of a couple of years may not hurt Airbus that much because customers may not have any other options (assuming by that point 787 backlog will have reached a point of being roughly similar to 360 EIS)

By mid-late decade Airbus should have plenty of resources to launch a new program. The 350 and 320 NEO will be in or moving to production status, narrowbody replacement has been pushed out, and all other parts of the product catalog will be fully competitive and not needing anymore attention than regular updates. Boeing will have its plate full with 777X to respond to 350, and finishing up 737MAX, so probably could not immediately respond (not to mention the fact that given the size of the 787, Boeing will probably have to respond to this segment from below with the 737 replacement which is pushed due to the MAX).

These are just my musings, but would love to hear viewpoints if I am not seeing this clearly. Better for Airbus to steal a whole market segment than trying to force a frame that nearly no one seems to want.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 18):
These are just my musings, but would love to hear viewpoints if I am not seeing this clearly.

Airlines have clearly decided that they're willing to accept more capability than they need if the trade-offs are acceptable.

Boeing launched the 7E7 sized around the 767 and A330 because they didn't want to impact the 777. In negotiations with airlines, they wanted larger planes with greater ranges because doing so didn't significantly increase trip costs while decreasing CASM.

We've also seen Airbus push the performance of the A330 family to keep it competitive with the greater performance of the 787 and Airbus has also had to improve the A350-1000's performance to close the gap to the 777-300ER even though the A350 offers much better operating economics.

So I just don't see much of a market for a widebody twin sized around the A300-600 / 767-300ER. The 787 and A350 will offer more capacity and capability and even if their trip costs are lower, so will the CASM and I believe that too few airlines could take advantage of it to make it worth the effort.


User currently offlineHmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Airlines have clearly decided that they're willing to accept more capability than they need if the trade-offs are acceptable.

Boeing launched the 7E7 sized around the 767 and A330 because they didn't want to impact the 777. In negotiations with airlines, they wanted larger planes with greater ranges because doing so didn't significantly increase trip costs while decreasing CASM.

I totally agree. However, my thought is that technological changes between the launch of 7E7 and when the new frame would launch (approx. 15 years) have made it such that a properly optimized plane could significantly reduce the trip costs such that the 787 would have a higher CASM than the new plane, to an extent that the trade-offs were so acceptable. Is the issue that the technology isn't there for that to happen? I totally understand why your point has been correct in recent times, but its seems that there should be a shift at some point that allows airlines to right size again at a financial advantage.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

If no A358 is sold the gap between A321 and A359 is huge! Certainly there is room for an optimized frame in that space, if not Airbus would give up a lot of market for Boeing to grab.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 21):
If no A358 is sold the gap between A321 and A359 is huge! Certainly there is room for an optimized frame in that space, if not Airbus would give up a lot of market for Boeing to grab.

Boeing's doing just fine with a large gap between the 737-900ER and 787-8 while producing a dozen to a score of 767's a year.

Airbus have done very well with the A330-200 over the life of the program and freighter and military sales will support a production rate of a couple a month for some time, I imagine. So they should do fine, as well.

[Edited 2012-11-14 13:42:19]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PM (Reply 3):
Fascinating. The exit of the -800 seems only a matter of time. No problem. The -900 is a winner and I'm among those who believe that the -1000 is gaining traction.

Regarding the -1000 I am in that "camp" too!  . I am not sure they will cancel the -800. Especially in the light of what Stitch is saying:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage. So Airbus effectively has all the engineering work done already and therefore they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.

This puts the -800 development in another daylight. So it seems the -800 is hardly a big development and could be easily derived from the -900 version.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 16):
And there are more rumours:

Quote:
Source tells me Qatar Airways is intending to take more #Airbus A350-1000s as well as -900s, as part of -800 order conversion.
http://twitter.com/FlightDKM/status/...92417

More and more airlines are starting to show their interest in the-1000 version of the A350-XWB. As predicted, now the market becomes more clear, and the delivery time starts to become overseeable, it is gaining more and more traction from blue chip airlines. And just recently here on A-net many were still calling the plane a dog. Things can change over time.........  


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

In one sense, pressure on the A350-800 is reduced when people like Al Bakar vacate their interest in the model. I am sure Airbus feels the order struggles of the A358 keenly, but I actually see this a positive for the A350 program and future of the A350-800. Here's why:

Airbus' original plan was to introduce the three models (A359, A358, and A351) in rapid succession, each about 1 year after the preceding model. This aggressive scheduling meant there was not time in the development plan to let the A358 design loads benefit from flight loads survey on the A359, as A358 parts would be fully sized and possibly even entering production before Airbus would have A359 flight loads survey data available. Airbus acknowledged the A358 would be developed as a "simple shrink" of the A359, and has been beat up pretty soundly for that original program strategy.

Since the original plan was laid out in 2007, a few important things have happened to the A350 program:

1. The A351 and A358 have swapped order.
2. The schedule for successor models to the A359 has been made less aggressive
3. The majority of the A358 order book has evaporated

I am convinced the A358 will be built, but I expect to see it completely redefined first. I believe Airbus will revise the program schedule one more time in order to permit the A358 to be developed as a fully optimized minor model of the A350 family.

The alternatives to this (as has been noted in posts above) is to compete in the market space between the A321 and the A359 with...

1. An incrementally improved A330 (will slowly become like the 767 has been versus the A330 over the next 6-7 years)
2. A non-optimized A358 (already tried and not successful to-date)
3. A re-engined A330neo (the finished product would still fall short of the 787 and likely more costly than optimizing the A358)

Since Airbus really needs to look at how they will compete in this space for the next 30 years, alternatives to a fully optimized A358 all seem like poor choices to me. I expect to eventually see a refined A358 offered with an EIS in the 2019 timeframe.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 24):
I expect to eventually see a refined A358 offered with an EIS in the 2019 timeframe.

Didider Evrard has in the last month said Airbus would like the -1000 and -800 to swap order. Now what technique can Airbus use to keep those happy who have early -800 slots, those Airlines have already suffered about 2 years delay to their plans and would suffer another 2-3 years, that is a lot and they can claim substantial compensation money. Of course they would get very attractive -900 offers but what other tricks are there in Lehays sleeves?



Non French in France
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First: I'm a HUGE fan of the A359 and A350-1000, so read my comments below understanding that.

Quoting Bthebest (Thread starter):
After the Afriqiyah Airways order/switch a couple of days ago there is a serious possibility the A350-800 could be heading the same way as the 787-3.

Agreed. There will be little to know resale value of the A358. It will be the 762ER... Nice idea, but may I have a 763ER please.

Quoting sweair (Reply 1):
Its hard to see the use of the A358 over the A359.

I haven't really found a niche a higher MTOW A359 wouldn't fill. There isn't a real cost per flight advantage for the A358.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
I think that it's likely to end up like the A388F which never officially cancelled just "delayed indefinitely" but this will simplify the build process for A now as the A358 will gradually fade and more resources can go on the A359.

I think it will be outright cancelled.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2):
I'd imagine that the possibility of some sort of A330neo might be stronger eventually though as without the A358 there's a big gap between the A321 and A359

Or Airbus lives with the gap. I simply see no business case for an airline to buy the A358 after the first A359 MTOW improvement. Why does't Airbus fun that enhancement instead?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage.

I agree the engineering is simple. The flight testing will cost a bit, but that isn't the issue. The issue is an airframe with poor residual value and the burned leasing companies. I believe the A358 will be canned to keep Airbus from having another plane with a poor aftermarket a la the A345/A346 and A318. Its not the engineering, but the confidence of the financing community that Airbus needs to be concerned about.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 26):
I believe the A358 will be canned to keep Airbus from having another plane with a poor aftermarket a la the A345/A346 and A318. Its not the engineering, but the confidence of the financing community that Airbus needs to be concerned about.

I think CMs reasoning is very interesting, if you can gain the benefit of coming after both the -900 (flight loads) and the -1000 (engine improvements) you can probably lower the OEW to be just a tad heavier then the 789 instead of being around the 40 pax larger 7810 and you would gain another 3% in TSFC. If I put this in my model the -800 would be a long and thin route replacement for the 777-200LR with a fuel burn per seat and nm of the 789. On a trip equal in length to the 789 it would burn 5% less fuel per seat.

In fairness I should put the T1000-TEN on the 789 which would lower the 358 advantage to some 3% and the 789 has more cargo space. But the -800 would be competitive on cost on 789 routes with that 1200nm extra range as an upside and it's unique feature to claim it's space in the market. One can argue there is no market for these 18 hour frames, well the 358 would burn a whopping 40% less fuel per seat and nm then the 777-200LR so I think that would make some new ULH routes feasible.

[Edited 2012-11-14 23:08:07]


Non French in France
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 24):
3. A re-engined A330neo (the finished product would still fall short of the 787 and likely more costly than optimizing the A358)

I do not really agree with either of these points, when you factor in purchase cost the A330neo will be using an engine 8 years younger that the 787 it may be quite competitive with the 787 series. Killing the A358 and selling slots off as A359, A3510 will make Airbus far more than it costs to develop a A330neo, if the engine weight remains constant there really isn't really that much to do structurally.



BV
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 28):
if the engine weight remains constant there really isn't really that much to do structurally.

This is your problem, you can't have an engine weight like a Trent 700 (4800kg) and a TSFC like a T1000-TEN (-10%) for nothing. The latter weighs some 1t+ more without the larger nacelle, further you would need to find place for a fan/nacelle which has some 15 inch larger diameter. You would easily look at 3-4t more OEW just for the engine swap.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 783 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

The A330 wing has been built to be strong enough to carry four engines.

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
This is your problem, you can't have an engine weight like a Trent 700 (4800kg) and a TSFC like a T1000-TEN (-10%) for nothing. The latter weighs some 1t+ more without the larger nacelle, further you would need to find place for a fan/nacelle which has some 15 inch larger diameter. You would easily look at 3-4t more OEW just for the engine swap.

Yet again I don't agree. Modern materials are lighter and if RR moved from a titanium fan to a composite fan they would save about 500kg per engine/nacelle.

Also doesn't the T1000 have a whole bunch of electrics hung onto it that a bleed engine doesn't need?



BV
User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

More on the conversion and the possibility of -1000s:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...pped-to-include-more-1000s-379015/


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 635 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

As QR were to take the first A358 deliveries, there is likely to be a deferral of EIS, even if only by default.

I am sure Airbus would prefer to devote all spare resources to getting A3510 EIS as early as possible, and Leahy hinted recently that it might be brought forward.

This will create some space to re-think / optimise / decide formally to cancel the 358,


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

What is wrong with the 748 engine, it is a bleed version of the GEnx? 13% more efficient than the CF6 it replaced? Too heavy? This engine will get a PIP maybe a thrust boost and could be further enhanced. There is no Trent1000 bleed engine in the market, it would have a much longer way to market.

Give GE a call for the 2B model and say they need 72K thrust, that would add some booster stages like the 1B got.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 31):
Also doesn't the T1000 have a whole bunch of electrics hung onto it that a bleed engine doesn't need?

Nope, and the T1000 is designed with the Ti fan, this is something you don't change easily. CFRP is already available in the 70klbf segment with the GEnx but it still weighs 1t more then the T700 (the most popular 333 engine). So CFRP is there and you are still 1t up per engine less nacelle, pylon and wing reinforcements. Even though the 330 wing share structure with the 340 it did not hang a 5.8t engine on those positions, it was 4.8 or less. You would need to increase the torsional stiffness of the wing to cope, it increases the stress with 20%.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 34):
Give GE a call for the 2B model and say they need 72K thrust, that would add some booster stages like the 1B got.

The GEnx-2B is the most suitable replacement for the T700/CF6-80E but it is still some 7 to 12 inches larger then these engines and 0.8t heavier, so not big gain on your reinforcements. You also need to bump the power some 5klbf.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 753 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2297 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage. So Airbus effectively has all the engineering work done already and therefore they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.
Quoting CM (Reply 24):
I am convinced the A358 will be built, but I expect to see it completely redefined first. I believe Airbus will revise the program schedule one more time in order to permit the A358 to be developed as a fully optimized minor model of the A350 family.
Quoting CM (Reply 24):
Since Airbus really needs to look at how they will compete in this space for the next 30 years, alternatives to a fully optimized A358 all seem like poor choices to me.

Can someone enlighten us as to how much more complex the engineering challenges would be to fully optimise the A358 as opposed to just modifying the vertical stabiliser for a staight shrink.

In terms of where Airbus sink their R&D dollars I suspect they will also be thinking ahead as to how to counter the 787-10.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineBthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

On a slight tangent - what's the ICAO designator for the A350-1000 going to be? A35X? A351?

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
You also need to bump the power some 5klbf.

There was an article about the 748 linked the other day and it said the 748 is getting more thrust for hot and high performance, so that engine has some margin in thrust. The somewhat larger 1B model is aiming for 76-78K thrust for the 7810 model.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 35):
Nope, and the T1000 is designed with the Ti fan, this is something you don't change easily. CFRP is already available in the 70klbf segment with the GEnx but it still weighs 1t more then the T700 (the most popular 333 engine). So CFRP is there and you are still 1t up per engine less nacelle, pylon and wing reinforcements. Even though the 330 wing share structure with the 340 it did not hang a 5.8t engine on those positions, it was 4.8 or less. You would need to increase the torsional stiffness of the wing to cope, it increases the stress with 20%.

I feel that you are missing the point... GE won't gain from a carbon fan as they already have it but the T700 can. GE have used the weight somewhere else whereas RR has had to make weight savings because it still has a Ti fan so it would gain.

RR could increase the size of the fan convert it to carbon fibre and still be ahead on weight.



BV
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2581 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 15):
However, might Airbus defer the -800 so they can bring forward the EIS of the A350-1000?

From a purely sales point of view, it would make sense to swap EIS of both models. But there is (very) high engineering risk in doing that, because the A358 is a copy-paste straight shrink whereas the A351 is getting a lot of specific features. I don't think Airbus can realistically EIS the A351 any earlier.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage. So Airbus effectively has all the engineering work done already and therefore they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.

This is the indeed the main factor working in favor of the A358, Airbus can always offer it for a very low incremental cost. But that is also the main factor hurting its sales, as being a non-optimized frame it will remain a niche model - it could be a good ULH plane, probably get some VIP sales too, but no more.

In any case, the current status quo is not acceptable IMO, Airbus has to truly adress the huge gap between the A321 and the A359 with an optimized model - be it an optimized A358 or an A330NEO, which I still don't rule out. Otherwise that market will belong exclusively to the 788, as the pax A330 will eventually enter a 767-like production rate and the A358 would be a niche product.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 41):
Airbus has to truly adress the huge gap between the A321 and the A359 with an optimized model - be it an optimized A358 or an A330NEO, which I still don't rule out. Otherwise that market will belong exclusively to the 788, as the pax A330 will eventually enter a 767-like production rate and the A358 would be a niche product.

My old A322 idea seems the obvious answer here, invest some in the A321 frame, do a real 757 replacement frame of the A321. New wings, engines and UC. A middle size NB 50% of the OEW of the 788 and up to 240 seats. Could beat the snot out of any WB on the lower end of these routes. And Stitch would have to eat humble pie  


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage.

Then complete a 6 month test campaign write up the certification documentation... Not small jobs



BV
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Reply 2.
there's a big gap between the A321 and A359

Yes and much bigger than the gap between the 739MAX and the 788. And that is the critical difference.

It may well be worth Airbus dusting off the A322 work for yesteryear and applying it to the NEO.It won't bridge the bap completely but it will help.

Re the 332/3 As people have stated Airbus is not going to re engine they have said so. But they may (as they have said) tweek the wing. They have knowledge from their AWAITOR programme.They have also stated that their knowledge from the new blended sharklets could be applied to the 330 wing, I would imagine that they would do this plus look for one final set of improvements to the existing engines.

Further down the line they will need to consider this whole market area. Either with a re winged 350 (a la 310 programme) or a completely new aircraft.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 37):
Quoting CM (Reply 24):
Since Airbus really needs to look at how they will compete in this space for the next 30 years, alternatives to a fully optimized A358 all seem like poor choices to me.

Can someone enlighten us as to how much more complex the engineering challenges would be to fully optimise the A358 as opposed to just modifying the vertical stabiliser for a staight shrink.

IMO CM is right and StickShaker asked the right question.

I would not be suprised, if Airbus one day, less than 10 years ahead, would launch a A350 version that would be optimized on the size and range of roughly the today A330. Sort of the inverse, that they did to create the A330 from the A300.

Such an A350 could get somewhat smaller wings, restructured gears, new engines, but keep the fuselage cross section and the tail. This obviously would require much effort (but still less than e.g. for the 77X just to get a feeling about the dimensions), but matching whatever the 787 offers seems like a compelling business case to me.

Such an A350-downgrade would require Boeing's attention about the same as a comparable 787-upgrade (to match 77W) would require Airbus' attention...

A A330NEO would play into Boeings hands about the same as the 77X would play into Airbus' hands...


User currently onlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 10
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 45):
Such an A350 could get somewhat smaller wings, restructured gears, new engines, but keep the fuselage cross section and the tail.

So, an A350 LITE? Where have I heard that name before? 
I'm not disagreeing though.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 43):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage.

Then complete a 6 month test campaign write up the certification documentation... Not small jobs

That additional time frame and certification documentation would pail in comparison to doing a A330 neo.

Airbus is already on record as saying that doing a A330 neo would be far more complex then the A320 neo.

To my knowledge there have been no requests to the engine manufacturers for a suitable replacement engine? So you are looking at 6-8 year development cycle? (the LEAP program was started in 2008 for example.) With a EIS of 2019/20 the A330 neo makes little sense to me.

As sweair suggested above, A modified GEnx-2B would likely be the only real choice if one needed the engine in 3-4 years (a guess?). You seem keen on this engine being form RR?? Maybe our engine guy's can provide more info, but it looks like alot more work to convert a T-1000 then the GEnx-2B?

I just don't see a A330 neo on way...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 4):
a A330neo gets more realistic with any defection from the 800 backlog. The A358 is the least optimized model of that family, this is the downside of trying to cover your competitors 2 families with one family.

Airbus tried to avoid a head on contest with either 787 or 777, didn't they? They pitched their design between the 2 different aircraft.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
What I do see is Airbus embarking on a improvement project for the A330 that does not require a new engine.

PIP's to bring the A330 within a few percent of A330NEO suffice to keep orders coming in (commonality advantages, competivity over short ranges, relatively quick delivery).

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 18):
I don't see the A330NEO being competitive enough to warrant the investment. With the more modest improvements upcoming, I agree with earlier posters that the 330 should still be able to get some occasional orders like the 767 has and it should be allowed to gracefully wind down.

With development costs long amorticised, Airbus can offer A330 where its price/performance/availabilty make it attractive enough to keep a customer in the Airbus camp.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 3
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 47):
As sweair suggested above, A modified GEnx-2B would likely be the only real choice if one needed the engine in 3-4 years (a guess?). You seem keen on this engine being form RR?? Maybe our engine guy's can provide more info, but it looks like alot more work to convert a T-1000 then the GEnx-2B?

I think that the weight problem could be more easily solved with an engine from RR, and solving the weight issue solves a lot of wing strengthening issues. The problem for RR as you imply is that their 'next gen' medium fan the T1000 is bleedless so not really suitable for an A330neo application where as the -2B could be but the extra weight causes issues. I don't think that the development cycle for a standard turbofan engine would be as long as for the GTF but no, there is no suitable engine for the A330neo as we stand today.

A simple re-fanning of the T700 and increasing bypass ratio would give you a fair few percent gain but I'm sure that Lightsaber will say that you would have to rebuild the whole thing if you refan it.



BV
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 25):
Didider Evrard has in the last month said Airbus would like the -1000 and -800 to swap order. Now what technique can Airbus use to keep those happy who have early -800 slots, those Airlines have already suffered about 2 years delay to their plans and would suffer another 2-3 years, that is a lot and they can claim substantial compensation money.

No A350-800 customer is in a hurry to get their frame. Airbus pushed the EIS back from 2014 to 2016 not because of design issues, but because no A350-800 customer wanted delivery in 2014 or 2015. So I expect Airbus could push it back even farther (to 2017 or 2018) and all the customers would be okay with it and Airbus would therefore not need to compensate them.



Quoting Bthebest (Reply 38):
On a slight tangent - what's the ICAO designator for the A350-1000 going to be? A35X? A351?

I do not believe one has been designated. Until it is, I'm using A35J, as "J" is the 10th letter in the Roman alphabet.



Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 43):
Then complete a 6 month test campaign write up the certification documentation... Not small jobs

No, but there should be little risk since they're building on the A350-900's cert.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 24):
I am convinced the A358 will be built, but I expect to see it completely redefined first. I believe Airbus will revise the program schedule one more time in order to permit the A358 to be developed as a fully optimized minor model of the A350 family

I'm in complete agreement with this.

The A350-800 could then be re-defined as you described, being much more optimised around lower weights and thrust. It should be extremely competitive.
Perhaps one day they might even go to the extent of offering 2 sizes pretty much directly competing with the 787-8 and 787-9, with commonality between them, but not so much with the bigger two.

Which would also return Airbus to having a range of widebodys all based on a common cross section.

I actually think that Airbus might well at some time in the future end up "standardising" the A350-900 and A350-1000 (they could perhaps do something about optimising the engine better between these 2 models too).

Who knows?

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
This is your problem, you can't have an engine weight like a Trent 700 (4800kg) and a TSFC like a T1000-TEN (-10%) for nothing. The latter weighs some 1t more without the larger nacelle, further you would need to find place for a fan/nacelle which has some 15 inch larger diameter. You would easily look at 3-4t more OEW just for the engine swap

The only issue I have with that is that the original A350-800 and -900 had these very engines, and wasn't meaningfully heavier than the current A330's despite having a higher MTOW.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
You also need to bump the power some 5klbf.

Again, the original A350 didn't seem to need to do this either

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 51):
he only issue I have with that is that the original A350-800 and -900 had these very engines, and wasn't meaningfully heavier than the current A330's despite having a higher MTOW.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 36):
You also need to bump the power some 5klbf.

Again, the original A350 didn't seem to need to do this either

You forget that the original A350 had a CFRP wing in those lovely days of 2005 when CFRP was the new mantra and "at least 20% lighter" then anything made of metal atoms       ...



Non French in France
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
There is not going to be an A330neo.

  
Quoting art (Reply 48):
PIP's to bring the A330 within a few percent of A330NEO

This is the first reason there won't be a A330neo... PIPs to the current A330 can get you a good chunk of what you would gain from a new engine. The remaining gap will be easier (and cheaper) for Airbus to address in adjusting accquisition cost, versus stepping up to a new wing, and whatever other mission creep an A330neo would incur.

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 18):
I don't see the A330NEO being competitive enough to warrant the investment.

This is the other reason. While an A332neo with new wing and engines could address most of the fuel burn gap to the 787-8, it would remain at a disadvantage in several other areas where the A358 would be much better than a reworked A330 (maintenance, passenger experience, flight deck, etc)

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 45):
A A330NEO would play into Boeings hands about the same as the 77X would play into Airbus' hands...

The 777X will have an easier time competing with the A350 than an A330neo would have against the 787. It is not strictly because of performance, but also because of size. An A330neo, in place of an A358, would by design be intended to directly compete with the 787-8. Boeing has increased the size of the 777X above the A35J in order to use the seat count denominator as an additional tool to power the economics of the airplane. The A330neo would be abandoning the mission at hand if attempted the same trick.

Quoting art (Reply 48):
Airbus tried to avoid a head on contest with either 787 or 777, didn't they? They pitched their design between the 2 different aircraft.

Yes and no. They certainly targeted the gap between the 787-9 and the 777-300ER (a strategy which rightly recognized the opportunity to compete well against the 777-200ER). However, they also tried to compete downward into the 787 family below the 787-9 and upwards into the 777 family with a model large enough to compete with the 777-300ER. Filling the gap in the middle is easy, and the A359 looks to be well suited for that role. Spanning the A350 far enough up and down to more directly compete with the 787-8 and 777-300ER has been a much more challenging task.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 53):
Spanning the A350 far enough up and down to more directly compete with the 787-8 and 777-300ER has been a much more challenging task.

Especially down, there are some design decisions in the -900 that will make life difficult for any shorter variant, one of the major ones is how Airbus has utilized the area under the cabin floor. This has bugged me for quite some time until I finally scaled the drawings from the ACAPs and put them over each other. Here the 36 LD3 frames on top of each other:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A350vs789cargodimensions.jpg

Now everything would be fine unless this is a 280 seat/266m2 cabin 787-9 compared with a 314 seat/291m2 cabin A350-900, yet these frames has the same LD3 capacity.

We can see that A uses 16.2m to house 20 LD3s up front vs Bs 15.6m and 13.6 vs 12.8 in the rear to house the additional 16 LD3s. The wingboxes seems to be equally long but Airbus has a pipe routing area ahead of the wingbox stealing half a LD3 position from the forward bay, the lofty spacing between the LD3s then stops the 359 from taking one more LD3 row. Some goes with the rather short extension in to a longer tail and once again more space between the LD3 rows. With the 787 packaging the 359 should have had 40 LD3 positions, one more row in front and back.

Now these inefficiencies (for whatever reason) will make life difficult for any shortening of the active areas of the fuselage, the 10 frames that goes away are all situated in the active cargo area (the nose and aft sections gets cut roughly 1/3 into the cargo areas from the center ).

[Edited 2012-11-15 13:56:12]


Non French in France
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The saving grace for the A350-800 is that all Airbus needs to do is tweak the vertical stabilizer to account for the smaller moment arm of the shortened fuselage. So Airbus effectively has all the engineering work done already and therefore they do not need to cancel it or defer it for resources to commit to the A350-1000.

So I expect Airbus to continue to offer it, even if all the current customers convert orders to the A350-900.
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
US and HA probably don't want to switch to the -900, it's too big. If Airbus cancels the A358 I expect US and HA to be very tempted to switch to 787s.

Good points, both of you. I didn't know that the -800 development work was that minimal, so based on that alone, even if only a few customers' orders remain closer to EIS, the project could still seemingly justify its existence. Preventing two loyal customers from defecting to the 787 will no doubt add incentive, if as you say, US and HA don't want anything -900 big. Will be interesting to see what Airbus do with the -800 as the decade progresses, as it could go either way.

Speaking of HA, your mentioning it got me pondering something: Why do you think HA, specifically, decided to go with the A358, instead of the B789? If they wanted planes of that size, you'd think they would choose the option that is maximized within a family over another choice that's the shrink in it's family. I'm guessing there were some commonality reasons for the choice with HA's widebody fleet becoming A332-exclusive in the future, but I was unsure whether the A350 would be similar enough to be the determining factor.

Quoting Hmelawyer (Reply 18):
Airbus should really start thinking about launching an A360 (mid-size, mid-range frame) program in the middle of this decade for approx. EIS 2022.

Not a bad idea, but I'm not sure they'd have enough resources to pull off another new-build while trying to get the A350 and A320neo to market around the same time. An A330neo would be a much better option, not to mention less riskier, if that's an area Airbus feels they want to invest in.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 54):

As we've discussed before, the 787 design is remarkably compact, when you consider what it gets inside. Included in what's inside the 787 is an aft EE bay for electrical power management, which essentially takes up a pallet position in the aft hold. Still, somehow the 787 manages to look very strong on cargo volume for the external length of the airplane.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12903 posts, RR: 100
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 27):
if you can gain the benefit of coming after both the -900 (flight loads) and the -1000 (engine improvements) you can probably lower the OEW to be just a tad heavier then the 789 instead of being around the 40 pax larger 7810 and you would gain another 3% in TSFC. If I put this in my model the -800 would be a long and thin route replacement for the 777-200LR with a fuel burn per seat and nm of the 789. On a trip equal in length to the 789 it would burn 5% less fuel per seat.

It would be a very nice plane technically, but with too small of a market. Would you want your retirement savings invested into such a plane leased to an airline? The issue, as with the 77L, is that the slightly larger sibling will be far more economical on shorter runs. I would see demand for a high MTOW A359 for ULH. I know its splitting some fine numbers, but I'm just not seeing the case to finance an A358.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 54):
Now these inefficiencies

Thank you for taking the time to share the overlays of the cross sections and your brief on cargo volumes.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1359 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
No A350-800 customer is in a hurry to get their frame. Airbus pushed the EIS back from 2014 to 2016 not because of design issues, but because no A350-800 customer wanted delivery in 2014 or 2015.

You can push the A350-800 back all you want, but you can't push the A350-1000 forward much because of the engineering data needed from -900 tests.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 635 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 55):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 12):
US and HA probably don't want to switch to the -900, it's too big. If Airbus cancels the A358 I expect US and HA to be very tempted to switch to 787s.

If US merges with AA they will actively WANT to upguage to A359 / 10.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 635 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 54):
the lofty spacing between the LD3s then stops the 359 from taking one more LD3 row.

Very interesting. Has Boeing invented something new here in order to pack the LD3s closer together than current aircraft, 333, 777 etc Or has Airbus deliberately selected a less closely packed configuration than current aircraft - in which case why - there must be a very good reason!


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 635 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2037 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 51):
The A350-800 could then be re-defined as you described, being much more optimised around lower weights and thrust. It should be extremely competitive.
Perhaps one day they might even go to the extent of offering 2 sizes pretty much directly competing with the 787-8 and 787-9, with commonality between them, but not so much with the bigger two.

Which would also return Airbus to having a range of widebodys all based on a common cross section.

There is scope for a clever but simple "parts bin" approach. 4 or 5 fuselage lengths, from A306 equivalent to maybe above A3510, and two "core" wing configurations with minor variations (I am regarding the 359 and 3510 as having variations of one core wing here).

Then mix and match between shortest fuse + smaller wing and longest fuse + bigger wing to meet either long range or low CASM / regional needs at different capacities.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 53):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 45):
A A330NEO would play into Boeings hands about the same as the 77X would play into Airbus' hands...

The 777X will have an easier time competing with the A350 than an A330neo would have against the 787.

Granted. Therefore I said "about the same".

But I see the point especially about the size-aspect. In fact the 77X to be enlarged is mandatory, to minimize the efficiency per seat gap. And as a consequence the aircraft (with 10 abreast) will have so much more capacity, that Boeing will need to fish in quite different markets, than those served by the A351.

The A330NEO on the other hand would match the capacity of the Dreamliners very closely.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9978 posts, RR: 96
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 61):
There is scope for a clever but simple "parts bin" approach. 4 or 5 fuselage lengths, from A306 equivalent to maybe above A3510, and two "core" wing configurations with minor variations (I am regarding the 359 and 3510 as having variations of one core wing here).

That's sort of where I was going. But saw the 2 pairs also having distinct engines and landing gear

Just idle speculation

Rgds


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...
BI To Switch Order From 77L To 77W posted Tue Oct 19 2010 17:50:25 by KFlyer
United Close To 787 Or A350 Order posted Thu Nov 19 2009 19:44:08 by Zone1
Finnair To Reconsider A350 Order posted Thu Oct 5 2006 21:35:06 by Findigenous
Finnair, No Need To Review A350 Order posted Mon Jun 5 2006 17:24:35 by WINGS
CRJ700/900 To Be Offered As Bizjets posted Fri May 26 2006 09:59:15 by Flying-Tiger
Biman In Liquidity Crisis: FRA & ORY To Be Dropped posted Sun Oct 23 2005 21:42:25 by Planemannyc
Qatar Has Yet To Decide On 787/A350 Order posted Thu Jun 9 2005 21:47:44 by CXoneWorld
Leahy Has To Adjust Paris A350 Order Expectations. posted Thu Jun 2 2005 14:53:05 by Keesje
A350: Authorization To Offer To Be Approved In 2004 posted Wed Nov 10 2004 12:50:49 by Flying-Tiger
Is EC To LGA And DCA Be Possible W/ A Stop In YHZ? posted Fri Sep 28 2012 12:38:08 by TWA85