Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1988 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 18213 times:

Tony Fernandes has made the following ( almost inflammatory ) statements in Twitter :


" The A330neo would be “a great plane” and a “perfect combination” with the A350-900. “I want that plane. Airbus don’t get it ." “I honestly don’t think the A350-800 is a good plane"

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine.../air-asia-chief-calls-a330neo-0123

Anyone with him on this one ????

G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 18192 times:

His airline is too successful for me to second-guess him.


Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 18103 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Anyone with him on this one ????

Many of us had said the same. Canceling the original A350 in favor of a new A350 that only addressed the A330 as an afterthought didn't make a lot of sense. But Airbus didn't want to go up directly against the 787, instead hoping to attack the 777 from below and the 787 from above.

But had Airbus instead canceled the original A350 in favor of an A330NEO + A359/10 it would have made more sense. The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays, and the A350 could be squarely focused on the the 777 rather than trying to also worry about the 789.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9652 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 18058 times:

The A350-800 has a 15% higher payload than the A330. Airbus was looking at targeting the 777 rather than the 787 capacity with the airplane. In order to get the A350-1000 to come close to the 77W, they had to push up the weights from where the A330 is at. The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787. I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market. By going higher in MTOW, they separated themselves from being a direct 767 & A330 replacement. If an airline wants higher payload, more range and more capacity, then the A350 is great.

If Air Asia is interested in an ideal A330 replacement without going up in size and performance, then they could always order the 787. However we know that Air Asia is interested in Airbus, so I’m not surprised to see them pushing for an efficient 787 competitor.

The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane. The revenue potential from an A330 NEO is low. It would steal orders from the A350 which doesn’t help the bottom line and not be a particularly effective competitor to Boeing. The CEO can ask for what he wants, but I doubt he’ll get it.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 18027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air Asia X doesn't need the 15,000 to 16,000km nominal range of the A350-800. The A350-800 also slots between the A330-200 and A330-300 in terms of available cabin floor area, yet offers only 2 more LD3 positions than the A332 and 4 less than the A333.

I do not believe the A350-800 OEW has been confirmed, but I've seen credible estimates of ~130t. That is 10t more than the A330-300 and 13t more than the A330-200 (all figures using Airbus OEM OEW). That being said, Airbus claims it will burn 23% less fuel per seat (at 270 seats) than the A330-200 will (at 240 seats). Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200, I would expect their A350-800 to be well over 300 seats.

If he's carping about he A350-800, I would think he'd also be carping about the A350-900 (which he has on order). He does not need that plane's range, either, and it's some 20t heavier than the A330-300 with about 7% more cabin area (allowing one extra seat per row in Economy) and 4 additional LD3 positions.

[Edited 2013-01-23 13:58:37]

User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 17736 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Considering Air Asia X seats 268 in their A330-200

They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.


User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2193 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days ago) and read 17638 times:

Quoting col (Reply 5):
They don't have any 330-200. The 333 seats about 377 from memory.

At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12569 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
The A330NEO would be in service already with GEnx bleed and likely T1000 bleed versions and 7000-7500nm range, hurting the 787 badly considering all the problems and delays

And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2116 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 17519 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

They ordered 3, two were canx from memory and one is becoming a VIP A/C? They have since ordered more 333's. They were initially ordered to do Europe, but that program was canx. They also had GE engines.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17240 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):
And yet, without spending a penny on the mythical A330neo, Airbus has somehow managed to sell 600 A330s since the 787 was launched.

I'm sure Boeing was saying the same thing in the 90s about the A330...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8548 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17221 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The problem is, I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO since all it would do is take orders away from the A350 or compete heavily on price with the 787 which is likely a better airplane.

Articulate statement. The A330 has been so good for Airbus. So much volume in that segment. Do they really want to give it all up? It would be great to see them spend a little money and dial in hard against the 787. Hasn't the A330 earned that courtesy? Maybe not...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17197 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus has little interest in the A330 NEO...

In addition to Airbus, I see little interest from the engine manufacturers.

The Trent 700 is already the powerplant of choice on the A330, so why would RR spend money resurrecting the Trent 1700?

GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine, so they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Pratt can only offer the GTF and after the PW6000 (A318) and PW8000 (A340 Superfan) issues, I expect Airbus would not be comfortable with choosing an engine that needs to scale by a factor of three in terms of power above what it's currently planned to operate at.


User currently offlineairbusa322 From Australia, joined Apr 2009, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16958 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 6):
At least not yet, they have several on order. Wikipedia says they will seat 288, but I don't know how accurate that is.

Looks like it needs to be updated. They cancelled the A332 small order.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10046 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 11408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
The result is that the A350-800 will not have that good of fuel burn numbers compared to an A330-300 or a 787

I don't know how this continues to quietly become A-net fact,when it is eminently possible that it will have a pretty competitive fuel burn.

Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel, in this thread

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

at the bottom in post # 65, Ferpe calculates specific Breguet air ranges in nm/tonne of fuel of

95.9 Nm/tonne for the 787-8
90.9 Nm/tonne for the A350-800
88.6 Nm/tonne for the 787-9

Again, he's not a gospel, but his model is pretty well thought out and critiqued in the thread.

The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

As the A350-800 sits neatly in-between the 787-8 and 787-9 in terms of capacity, then it shouldn't be too far away from being competitive.
Is it over-engineered in its current form, and therefore not optimised?
Almost certainly.

My view is
a) The A350-800's biggest problem in its current form is the A350-900
b) that should Airbus ever get round to "optimising" the A350-800 as it was originally intended, it should be eminently competitive.
I could be wrong though ..  

Rgds


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10200 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
GE demands a strong RoI before they will build an engine

Everyone does, not just GE.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
they'd demand exclusivity before they resurrected the GEnx-1A72.

Why not a slight thrust bump on the existing GEnx-2B67? Or does that also degenerate into a nine-figure engineering effort?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
The numbers indicate the 787-8 having a 5% fuel burn advantage over the A350-800 and the A350-800 having a 2% fuel burn advantage over the 787-9

These numbers must be adjusted by the seating capacity to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison of fuel burn per seat mile. The A358 and 789 are significantly larger than the 788. In the end it's basically a wash, so your point stands that the A358 is a fine player at least on paper.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8933 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
Whilst accepting that he is absolutely not the gospel

absolutely not, but as OldAeroGuy would say "it is better then handwaving"  . As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one       and pitted against the A350-800 and the others on a 5500nm ESAD leg:





The fuel flow is the average fuel flow on the leg, the fuel per pax or more correct per m2 take it per 1000nm and you have 41 vs 45kg in the -800 favor over a 333neo. For those that think I have a to heavy A333 realize that the 120t OEW was a long time ago, it is more like 125t today and that 2 GEnx-2B67 ads 4t to the OEW. I added the sharklets as well (did not increase the OEW for them). The 242t spec range goes to 6500nm for a 333neo.

So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.



Non French in France
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
As I can make an A330neo in 5 minutes I made one

You are too kind!   

Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
So there you have it within say 3-5%, now your comments if it will be worth it.

A very compelling overview which to me is close enough to discuss about. So the A330-NEO is quite good, but at this range of your example, can not beat the A350-800. Of course on shorter routes the picture might look slightly different again, but this is highly informative.  .


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 621 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day ago) and read 8674 times:

Thank you Ferpe
I think that the Genx2b are not so heavy

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hnical-description-cutaway-378866/

4% more that is : 70100 lbs et 60840 lbs resp for take off and maximum continuous

For comparison

T772C-60: 71 100 / 63 560 / poids 11653 lbs (without reverse : 1800 lbs)
PW4170 : 70 000 / 59 357 / poids 12 888 lbs (without reverse : 1716 lbs)
CF6-80E1: 68 530 / 60 400 / poids 12 337 lbs (without reverse: 1550 lbs)

On the EASA TCDS, the GenX is 12400 lbs
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?
The GenX as a larger fan, a smaller core, a composite fan and fan belt....low stage count vs the Gen1B... so I think it's not that heavy.
I might totally wrong indeed... just tell me

And the Genx2b is not going to sell by thousands... and it will be a slow seller... 2 747-8 per month...is 4 A330 per month engine wise... and i'm pretty sure that an A330NEO will sell more than 4 per month et for the next 8-10 years...

Can you give us the A330-300 figures in its 242 t current engine form ? and 787-10 figures also ?
What about sharklets only ? A330 ?

Thank you


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 8331 times:

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 17):
So how 2 GenX2b can be 4t heavier ?

It is not, I found the wrong figures, the GEnx-2B67 weighs 5626kg and the T700 4785kg. So that diff + a larger nacelle and a longer pylon (fan is 105'' instead of 97'', you need to hang the engine higher/longer forward) + sharlets and wing reinforcement makes for some 2.9t extra. For the 333sl I have assumed 2*300 kg extra as we now compare with 333 classic  as well, for the neo the sharklets only load with 200kg as they can share the reinforcements with the engines. Voila:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/330neovs3583597887897810_zps90e6f775.jpg

You gain some 1.5-2 % by going to sharklets.

[Edited 2013-01-26 00:12:29]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 8312 times:

The GEnx2 is about 12% more efficient than the comparable CF6-80 engine..low hanging fruit IMO, it will get PIPed soon and get a thrust boost for the freighter.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19734 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 8256 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3):
I think Airbus consciously made the decision to do this since the 787 had captured so many orders and taken such a large section of the market.

If they had done it, I bet that a good half of 787 customers would have canceled their 787 orders by now and ordered A330NEO models.


User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 7886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 7639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting india1 (Reply 21):
Wonder if a protracted grounding of the 787 will tip the balance either ways - 330 neo vs optimised 358? Your thoughts?

Such a grounding would have to go years and even then, the EIS delay of both the A330neo and optimized A350-800 would be such that the majority of customers who did cancel and seek replacement lift would have chosen A330s, 767s and 777s.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

So what is the verdict, can a 333neo replace a A350-800? To answer that one should perhaps also need the A330-200neo, I therefore did another 5 min design job    and here it is (click on the table to see better):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/333neo332neovs3583597887897810_zps7e4af6b8.jpg


As can be seen the A350-800 in a 130t empty weight version is almost on the 789 level of fuel burn per pax/cabin area, the 333neo is 15% worse and the 332neo 20% worse. Calculate the normal way and the 358 is 13 and 16% better then the 330neos. The OEW of the 350-800 I have put at 130t ie a 1t per cut meter of fuselage length. This is plausible for a DA frame which is a "cut and shut" shrink, ie nothing else gets reduced except for the fuselage length and some of the affected panels. Drive the optimization further to the typical 1.5t per changed meter and you are equal to the 789 in efficiency, more one can not ask for as the 358 flies 1 hour longer.


The A350-800 has become the present discussions ugly duckling, to a minor extent it deserves it but I venture that 95% of those who rhyme in have not done the numbers, they all assume someone else have and go along. I think people like HAL have done their numbers and for their needs a 350-800 that hits the spec and runs the long legs is a very good choice. The problem of the 358 is that the 359 is even better and come earlier, that is why people change if they have the loadfactors.

edit: did include the payload in the new table, it is the spec one I use ie nominal full mixed cabin with bags.

[Edited 2013-01-26 10:08:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 7510 times:

What engine does your A330neo have Ferpe?

25 ferpe : The GEnx-2B67, it is a modern bleed engine with a reasonable size fan (105'' or 0.12m larger radius then the 97'' fans the 330 has today) weighs "onl
26 Post contains images EPA001 : If the difference is 8 inches in diameter, then in metrics that should be 0.23 meters.
27 ikramerica : Something is amiss with your method. The numbers just don't seem right. The A330 looks like a dog by these numbers but in service it is not.
28 trex8 : I would hope the 787 and A350 are more efficient than the A330!! A has said the A358 is @20% more efficient than the A332 and that seems in the ballp
29 sweair : A A330 with 12% more efficient engines... Yeah I buy those numbers..
30 Aviaponcho : Thank you Ferpe I was just pointing that the GenX is not that heavier than the heaviest of the 3 engine that are currently powering the A330... there
31 Post contains images ferpe : Sure , half stick up in front of the wing and half reduces ground clearance, the latter was my point. The numbers are in the ballpark. GE has engines
32 flightsimer : You and everyone else seem to forget one very important thing when you make comments about an A330NEO. The engines weren't really ready at the time.
33 ferpe : Thanks Poncho, I initially did not check the weights other then the most popular T700 as that is the one model being by far the most popular engine o
34 Post contains links Aviaponcho : Thank Last batch off A330 at THY due to be delivered this yeat are CF6 powered http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf6/cf6_20121119.html SO we will see th
35 Post contains images astuteman : Even with the SFC miss, the 787's engines were a step change in SFC. That would have held equally true for the old A350. It would still have been dra
36 sweair : Maybe it really needs a new lighter wing to carry those GEnx2bs? IMO the A358 is too much airplane compared to the A332, how good is the A358 with 220
37 mariner : The great complaint at the time was that the original A350 was "just" a souped up A330 - and most everyone here and elsewhere crapped all over it. ma
38 astuteman : Something doesn't scan right though. You have the block fuel burn difference between the 787-8 and a330-200 as 25% (67.2t vs 54.1t). It is nowhere re
39 DocLightning : Ferpe, I always appreciate your charts when such questions come up. I wonder why the A330 performs so poorly in comparison. What other changes would b
40 sweair : As the A330 is lighter than the A350 it must mostly be aerodynamics and fuel burn. Maybe the old wing of alu is not ideal compared to the cfrp wing o
41 Wingtips56 : Yes, and as I recall, the airlines actually buying airplanes, not us sit-at-home-speculators, complained that it was just a 330 redux, and they wante
42 mariner : 200 of the original were sold, which ain't a bad start. The ferocity of the campaign against the original A350 had more to do with "the drug like rus
43 Aviaponcho : The original A350, with its new wing, it Al-li fuse and its GenX would have been, according to airbus, 8 t lighter than the corresponding A330 and wit
44 packsonflight : Possibly Airbus is planning on launching all new aircraft bridging the gap between the 321 and the 330-200 after they finish with the 350. This would
45 KarelXWB : There is plenty of potential work left after the A350-1000 EIS in 2017. For example: - studying the A350-900R (if ultra long haul still makes sense b
46 Scipio : The A330 will become a hard sell once the B787 and A350 programs are fully up to speed, i.e., sometime in the latter half of this decade. It is too l
47 sweair : It would have to be a gap up to the A358, a slightly smaller A332 made out of Al-Li, cfrp wing, state of the art engines, upgrade what is feasable on
48 Post contains images fruitbat : Finally the voice of sanity in this thread!! I firmly believe that an A330neo won't happen because its too late, too expensive, won't make money for
49 DocLightning : Everyone keeps on bringing up the idea of a new medium-haul optimized widebody and yet nobody seems to be doing it. Even the 787-3 never made it off
50 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks, I'll check it up. The excel is really large and as I run these different checks I have to change values to fit the trip at hand, I go over it
51 Scipio : Not necessarily. It could be about the same size as the current A330, with two similarly-sized versions. The key is that it would be designed for ver
52 flightsimer : But we are not talking about the old a350's we are talking about the A330 being fitted with the new engines, and pretty much just new engines. As in
53 DocLightning : BUT... it was superior to the 788 on short-to-medium haul flights. Yet the airlines must have decided that the decrease in operating costs did not ba
54 packsonflight : That is because the 787-3 never was a medium-haul optimized widebody. It was to heavy and the range was to short. I am talking about an aircraft that
55 packsonflight : This proposed aircraft could be the reason why Airbus is not interested in putting new engines on the 330
56 Stitch : Personally, I think DocLightning's suggestion is the correct one. As much as people disparage it, the 767-400ER is an excellent medium-range, medium-
57 sweair : Lets get back to this about abusing WBs when oil is $200, I think we will see greater demand for optimization for airlines. Boeing thinks the 788 can
58 DocLightning : I'm thinking about Boeing's elliptical fuselage 7-abreast twin-aisle design. It's like a 767-light and it would be made of CFRP. The additional cabin
59 Stitch : Considering how the price of oil impacts the price of just about everything, when oil is $200 a barrel we're going to see a contraction in air traffi
60 Post contains images sweair : When US finally gives in and builds the LFTR fuel wont be a problem
61 KarelXWB : Oil prices will never reach $200. I think the oil price will crash in the near future, and both Airbus and Boeing will have a big problem with their
62 Aviaponcho : The original A350 with Al-li fuselage, thinner wall have almost the perfect cross section for medium haul... So mate this fuselage with state of the a
63 sweair : Almost Soviet like the market will have 2 models in the end if people here will decide. Maybe the big airlines have too much power. Airbus 2030 1 NB a
64 KarelXWB : Developing a CFRP wing is not really 'low risk'. Even Boeing is not sure yet if they want a CFRP wing for the 777X because of the high(er) developmen
65 Post contains links and images ferpe : Thanks to Astutemans checking the figures we now have a better table. Normally this is due to me forgetting that I have changed things and don't chang
66 Post contains images astuteman : Many thanks for the excellent work my friend. I, like the others, am indebted to you for your efforts And I think your table shows why the A330NEO is
67 Aviaponcho : Thank you ferpe It's a tough reality for the A332, even NEO ... It's also a tough reality check for 787-9 and 787-10...
68 ferpe : I think they are doing just fine, they are 6 and 11m longer then the 788 with a start weight of +30t for the 7810, it should consume more trip fuel.
69 Post contains images airbazar : This discussion is just the old "757 replacement thread" with different semantics Personally I don't think narrowbody vs. widebody has any relevance.
70 Post contains links Aviaponcho : If you consider that for some legacies the 787 will never be a 9 abreast in the economy section... and that the A350 will always be a 9 abreast, Pers
71 rwessel : Part of the problem was that the efficiency cross-over point between the 783 and 788 seemed to be about 250 miles. That's too short to even make sens
72 Aviaponcho : I think that the real problem for the 787-3 / 787-8 was the weight creep during the design phase. What was possible at the beginning at a given OEW w
73 JerseyFlyer : Is he not planning to fit 10 abreast in his A359s? If so, he would do no doubt do the same if he had A358s.
74 Aviaponcho : In fact 9 abreast on the A330 is 16.7 seat cushion and 16.4 aisle What is 10 abreast in A350 ? We've not a lot of details... from what I gather it's
75 Post contains images EPA001 : I can only second that. . Which gives us a more factual base that the A350-800 is not the dog many here have claimed it to be. With the optimisation
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...
Not A Good Week For Aviation. Small Plane Crash posted Sat Oct 16 2004 02:33:26 by MNeo
Not A Good Day At BCN posted Wed Jan 2 2013 07:15:15 by 802flyguy
Southwest CEO Wants 737 Re-engined posted Thu Oct 28 2010 17:35:59 by cosmofly
The DC-9 And 737- Not Good Cargo Airplanes? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 10:41:34 by c5load
Southwest: A320 / 737 Reengining Not Good Enough posted Fri Jun 25 2010 15:21:47 by keesje
Easyjet: Re-engining A320/737 Not Good Enough. posted Mon Mar 22 2010 04:49:26 by keesje
Report: NW/DL Bomber Could Not Crash Plane posted Thu Mar 4 2010 08:38:20 by AirBuffalo
Not A Good Weekend For UK Flying. posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:58:44 by LHR380
Not A Good Day For Norwegian Air Shuttle posted Fri Oct 17 2008 07:25:11 by Scooter01
5th March Not A Good Day In Airline History posted Wed Mar 5 2008 11:52:58 by GDB