Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QR CEO Says Airbus Is Dropping A350-800  
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28199 times:

According to some news wires, QR CEO Al Baker says Airbus has told him they will drop the A350-800.
This has already been speculated about on this forum, but it is the first time someone is his position says it straight out.
I find it very interesting that AAB cites Airbus in this matter. Will anyone ever tell AAB something in the future? Seems to be the worst place to hide a secret.
Why is even AAB spreading this type of rumor?

"Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker, who recently cancelled an order for the A350-800 and upgraded orders for sister models, said the 270-seater would not appear in service.
"They (Airbus) are not going to make the -800. This is what they told us," he told reporters at a trade fair."

Airbus of course officially denies this rumor.
"Airbus said it was sticking by the USD$254 million model.
"The A350-800 is a key member of our next-generation A350 family," spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said."

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1362614264.html


SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28168 times:

Maybe room for a A330NEO.

User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1043 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 27811 times:

It's about time that man knows what confidentiality and diplomacy is. It's not his business to broadcast what Airbus or Boeing plan to do with future new models.

User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 574 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 27742 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 1):
Maybe room for a A330NEO

Yesss, bring on the widebody GTF and the sharklets!
  


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 27657 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 1):

Maybe room for a A330NEO.

No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....

The A359 completely negates the market for the A358. The costs of the A358 development is too high for the number of frames that could be justified by its minor reduction in fuel burn for those airlines not needing the extra capacity, flexiblity, and lower per seat costs.


User currently offlineunityofsaints From Ireland, joined Nov 2011, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 27401 times:

Smart decision, if it's true. Could the engineering resources made available by this move push forward the A320 NEO EIS, or is the bottleneck engine development time?

User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 27069 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....

You mean the HGW 330?


User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26502 times:

Quoting unityofsaints (Reply 5):
Smart decision, if it's true. Could the engineering resources made available by this move push forward the A320 NEO EIS, or is the bottleneck engine development time?

They might be used to help make sure the NEO is on time, but unlikely that the NEO EIS will be moved forward. Throwing more engineers at a project doesn't necessarily make the project move any faster.

Most of the resources would likely be used on making sure they get the A350-1000 right.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26248 times:

I wonder if AA/US is about to switch its 358s to 359s?

User currently offlinemicstatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 26250 times:

Why doesn't this guy ever shut is mouth? He will know he is a player when he doesn't need to use the media.


S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25895 times:

It does look as if Airbus has tried to hit too many targets with the A350. The A358 seems to be the 736 or A318 of the type, ie too heavy to make up for seating loss.

One hopes from their point of view that they did not sacrifice A359/10 optimisation to fit in the A358.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....

Would that be the plane that is currently banned from flying?


User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 386 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25686 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....
Would that be the plane that is currently banned from flying?

Probably it's forthcoming big sister (-9). Looks like XT6wagon is right:

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/20...3/03/a-new-chance-for-a330neo.html


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25576 times:

Quoting sirtoby (Reply 11):
Probably it's forthcoming big sister (-9). Looks like XT6wagon is right:

The calculations made by ferpe are showing something different:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/333neo332neovs3583597887897810FL370_zps8a2b1176.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25434 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 8):
I wonder if AA/US is about to switch its 358s to 359s?

Or switch to a Boeing product, could be the excuse AAL may have been looking for to standardise long haul.


User currently onlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3064 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25350 times:

...except that it is Cactus buying AA, not the other way round.

Seems US's relationship with Airbus is pretty robust.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 25350 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 13):
Or switch to a Boeing product, could be the excuse AAL may have been looking for to standardise long haul.

I don't see them cancelling the A350, but I would be shocked if they didn't switch to the A350-900. With 20 788s/22 789s on order they really have no need for the A358, while the A359 can easily be used for expansion or replacement of older 777s depending on how things are going at the time of their delivery.

The question is what are some airlines like HA going to do if Airbus cancels the A350-800. The A359 would be a huge jump in capacity for them versus their A332s.

[Edited 2013-03-07 05:58:37]

User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 673 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 25110 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 14):
...except that it is Cactus buying AA, not the other way round

Not true... It is a proper merger, not a buyout - and yes, there is a difference.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is not a surprise. Too many seats cut for a trivial drop in cost per flight. This is like the 77W vs. 77E. The larger frame that costs little more per flight will eventually dominate.

I'm excited for the A359 and A350-1000. I never saw the business case for the A358.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
The A359 completely negates the market for the A358. The costs of the A358 development is too high for the number of frames that could be justified by its minor reduction in fuel burn for those airlines not needing the extra capacity, flexiblity, and lower per seat costs.

Agreed. The lower per seat cost certainly helped kill off the A358.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
The calculations made by ferpe are showing something different:

I respect Ferpe's calculations, but I just do not see that much of a weight difference between the A358 and A359. Thus the cost difference per flight will be low. Besides, fuel is 40% of the flight cost for long haul*7% means that the A358 only costs about 3% less per flight than the A359 with Ferpe's numbers. Thus, were is the market?

Quoting 76er (Reply 3):
Yesss, bring on the widebody GTF and the sharklets!

I wish... but unlikely.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3064 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24751 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 16):
Not true... It is a proper merger, not a buyout - and yes, there is a difference.

Thanks; I'm well aware of the difference.

Doesn't change the fact the guy at the top of the pyramid is going to be US not AA.



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3845 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 24437 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
I'm excited for the A359 and A350-1000. I never saw the business case for the A358.

True, the problem being that the A358 was factored in from the start, and that I believe Airbus aimed too low, size wise, due to that.

Had it not been for the -800, the -1000 would have been the sweet spot of the family, allowing for an interesting -1100...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3379 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23680 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 18):
Doesn't change the fact the guy at the top of the pyramid is going to be US not AA.

We thought that about Smisek being CEO of UA and yet UA still has its A350 order. Granted, the relationship between (old) UA and Airbus was formed only when UA decided to go with A32Xs and then later with Tilton's order for A350s. Doug Parker might have the opportunity to test Boeing products and, since US will no longer exist, might jump in bed with Boeing as well.

AA has already ordered plenty of A32X and NEOs. The real challenge will come when it is time to start replacing US's A32Xs which I expect it to do so at the beginning of the next decade. Will Parker be impressed enough with the 737s to keep ordering some?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 1):
Maybe room for a A330NEO.

Never going to happen, IMO. Airbus is (eventually) ceding the low-end of the widebody market to Boeing's 787, but the real future growth is likely in the middle and upper ends, where they are very well-positioned with the A350-900 and A350-1000.



Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):
It does look as if Airbus has tried to hit too many targets with the A350.

  

The A350 family is the replacement for the A330-200, A330-300, A340-300, A340-500 and A340-600 airframes as well as the competitor to the 787-8. 787-9. 777-200LR and 777-300ER (and likely soon the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9).

Thats asking a lot from one family, IMO.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 18):
Doesn't change the fact the guy at the top of the pyramid is going to be US not AA.

And he must have signed-off on the 787 order AA recently firmed, so... *shrug*



Quoting francoflier (Reply 19):
True, the problem being that the A358 was factored in from the start, and that I believe Airbus aimed too low, size wise, due to that.

The A350-800 was larger than the A330-200, so making it even larger would have just left more of the lower-end of the widebody market to the 787-8.

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
The question is what are some airlines like HA going to do if Airbus cancels the A350-800. The A359 would be a huge jump in capacity for them versus their A332s.

If the trip costs between the A350-800 and A350-900 are close enough, then empty seats won't really hurt HA. Where HA could be hurt is if they were planning non-stop EU to Hawaii operations as those might have needed the range of the A350-800HGW.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22699 times:

If I was Airbus and my launch was broadcasting to the media what my long range business plan was, I don’t think I’d ever want to work with them as a launch customer again. We all know how vocal Airbus’ sales chief Leahy is. I’m very surprised this is coming from Bakar. It doesn’t sound very professional of him to do that. There is a lot of proprietary information that you get to know as launch customer that shouldn’t be broadcast out to the media.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8660 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22667 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
The question is what are some airlines like HA going to do if Airbus cancels the A350-800. The A359 would be a huge jump in capacity for them versus their A332s.

Without knowing what HA's configuration will be it may be as much of a capacity jump as the A332's was from the 763's.
The A332's are still very new and will be around for a long time. I can see HA delaying delivery of the A359's to a later time when they will be ready to absorb that capacity increase. At the rate HA is growing in the Pacific it may not take that long.

HA reminds me a lot of TP, as far as equipment choice. TP used to operate a fleet of A310's and when they decided to replace those with A340's and A332's everyone said it was too much capacity, and somehow they managed to make it work. Then came the A358 order and again, people were saying the plane was too big. They have since switched the order to the A359. Only time will tell but I think HA will do just fine with the A359.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
If the trip costs between the A350-800 and A350-900 are close enough, then empty seats won't really hurt HA. Where HA could be hurt is if they were planning non-stop EU to Hawaii operations as those might have needed the range of the A350-800HGW.

  


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....

Presumably you mean the A350-900....

however, if Airbus were to tailor it more, it would be a very effective airframe - more effective than any A330 derivative is likely to be

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Thats asking a lot from one family, IMO

Does the A350 in reality cover any more ground than the 787?
The spread in cabin size from 787-8 to 787-10 is quite similar to that from A358 to A3510

As for what it competes with or replaces, that's a picture that will unfold with time.
It won't be the first time a manufacturer has had line-up "gaps" for a while..

Rgds


User currently offlineAY-MD11 From Finland, joined Feb 2001, 472 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22971 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
The question is what are some airlines like HA going to do if Airbus cancels the A350-800. The A359 would be a huge jump in capacity for them versus their A332s.

I think if the -800 is canceled then for HA the A330NEO with Trent1000 would be perfect.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
Does the A350 in reality cover any more ground than the 787?

Well if we assume Boeing will launch a 75m 787-11 as well as increase the MTOW for the 787-9, 787-10 and 787-11 towards 300 tons, then no.   

Effectively the 787-8 replaces the 767-300ER and competes with the A330-200. The 787-9 replaces the 777-200ER (though only in 6-abreast Business and 9-abreast Economy) and competes with the A330-300 and A340-300. The 787-10 effectively creates her own niche within the Boeing family hierarchy - she's sized between the 777-200 and 777-300 families. However, it should be large enough to replace a 777-200 that is configured in seven-or-eight-abreast Business and 10-abreast Economy.

In terms of competition to Airbus, the 787-10 is closest in size to the A340-500, though it offers nothing close to the range, so it's not really a competitor to that product, IMO.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
The spread in cabin size from 787-8 to 787-10 is quite similar to that from A358 to A3510

Yes. The difference between the largest and smallest variant is about 30% for each family.

[Edited 2013-03-07 08:48:42]

User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 22210 times:

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 25):
I think if the -800 is canceled then for HA the A330NEO with Trent1000 would be perfect.

Not if they want to fly non-stop to Europe.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21768 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 19):
Had it not been for the -800, the -1000 would have been the sweet spot of the family, allowing for an interesting -1100...



Could the 350 be stretched to an 1100 - perhaps with a highly modified or even new wing? It will be close to 80 meters long (the 1000 being 74,3) and might seat as many as 400 pax in Airbus' standard configuration.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7681 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21604 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Thread starter):
I find it very interesting that AAB cites Airbus in this matter. Will anyone ever tell AAB something in the future? Seems to be the worst place to hide a secret.
Why is even AAB spreading this type of rumor?
Quoting TC957 (Reply 2):
It's about time that man knows what confidentiality and diplomacy is. It's not his business to broadcast what Airbus or Boeing plan to do with future new models.

AAB is a known entity to Airbus, so my question would not be why he is talking but why Airbus is providing him with informattion over and above what their order entails.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.............


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20701 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
Presumably you mean the A350-900....

I don't know where anyone got the idea I was suggesting anything different. I certainly only mentioned the A359 and A358 in my post.

The 787 doesn't really factor into how good the A358 is, if the A358 is dominated by its bigger brother in such a complete fashion.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
however, if Airbus were to tailor it more, it would be a very effective airframe - more effective than any A330 derivative is likely to be

I agree, but again, is the market there to pay for it. I think its allways going to simply be easier to spend the same money to make the A359 better than to make a optimized A358. So in 10 years or so when they will be looking at the viablity of a A350 2.0 project... which would you put your limited time and money on?


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20347 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Airbus is (eventually) ceding the low-end of the widebody market to Boeing's 787, but the real future growth is likely in the middle and upper ends, where they are very well-positioned with the A350-900 and A350-1000.

  

If the A359 will have only a marginally higher trip cost than the A358, why bother with A358? Not much point in offering something that won't sell just for the sake of covering the market, is there?


User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 713 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19976 times:

Quoting art (Reply 31):

If the A359 will have only a marginally higher trip cost than the A358, why bother with A358? Not much point in offering something that won't sell just for the sake of covering the market, is there?

However, isn't the same true for 787-8 and 787-9? I believe -9 will be more popular one and the trip cost is not that much more for -9...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19820 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 32):
However, isn't the same true for 787-8 and 787-9? I believe -9 will be more popular one and the trip cost is not that much more for -9...

We've seen this before with the 767-200 and we are seeing it again with the 777-200ER. I can see a future where the same will happen with the 787-8 once the huge backlog has shrunk (somewhere around the end of the decade).

Quoting abba (Reply 28):
Could the 350 be stretched to an 1100 - perhaps with a highly modified or even new wing? It will be close to 80 meters long (the 1000 being 74,3) and might seat as many as 400 pax in Airbus' standard configuration.

John Leahy already explained there will be no further stretch.

[Edited 2013-03-07 11:18:36]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Well if we assume Boeing will launch a 75m 787-11 as well as increase the MTOW for the 787-9, 787-10 and 787-11 towards 300 tons, then no
Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
The difference between the largest and smallest variant is about 30% for each family

Make your mind up....  

Like I said ....

The only thing "wrong" with the A350-800 is its a straight shrink of the A350-900.
The decision to do that added some 5t - 6t to the OEW by my calculation, based on fuel load and range/payload.

Hence the relationship is akin to the 772LR and the 773ER.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 30):
I agree, but again, is the market there to pay for it. I think its allways going to simply be easier to spend the same money to make the A359 better than to make a optimized A358

  

There is a lot more opportunity to "improve" the A350-800.

The current A358 will have advantages over the A350-900 at very long ranges due to its payload/range ability, much like the 772LR has relative to the 773ER.

The A350-800 even "sub-optimised" as it is today sits neatly between the 787-8 and 787-9 both in terms of capacity and operating cost
A more optimised A358 would cost a lot less than the A350-900 to operate and almost certainly challenge the 787-8's operating costs whilst offering more capacity.

I don't know how robust AAB's information is, but I predict we'll see an -800 size variant of the A350 at some point, even if its deferred for now  

Rgds


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
The only thing "wrong" with the A350-800 is its a straight shrink of the A350-900.
The decision to do that added some 5t - 6t to the OEW by my calculation, based on fuel load and range/payload.

And straight shrinks tend to have lower resale value later in a program. I just do not see a 'strong niche' for the A358. Even if far improved.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
There is a lot more opportunity to "improve" the A350-800.

Agreed, but I do not see the ROI as the costs won't be 'that much less' than the A359. My friend, I too would let the A358 fade to black and would spend the money on A359 PIPs. It will be a fine plane that sells well in the two currently discussed lengths.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinehawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19328 times:

EIS'ing in 2022 a A330NEO with a 130" BPR16 GTF with a >20% SFC improvement over current A330 would make a very nice B787-8/9 replacement!  
If that is the plan it's not going to be announced until 2017-2018 to save sales.

Speculation - it's fantastic!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 19312 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
Make your mind up....   

 

I am looking beyond just cabin floor area, however.

The A350-800, A350-900 and A350-1000 all have nominal design ranges at or beyond 8,000nm at 9-abreast. This means that not only does the A350 have the cabin floor area to replace the A340-500, A340-600, 777-200LR and 777-300ER, they also have the range to do so (the A350-800HGW for the A340-500 and the A350-900HGW for the 777-200LR).

The 787-10 can neither match the capacity nor the range of the A340-600 nor the 777-300ER and while the 787-9 can match the capacity of the A340-500 and 777-200LR (the latter at a lower seating density than a 77L can accept), it cannot match their range.


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 18869 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 15):
The question is what are some airlines like HA going to do if Airbus cancels the A350-800.

Hopefully jump to the 787. HA would be so much better off with the 787 family. -8 is great for CONUS routes. And -9 for long-haul and high demand routes. The A350 family is just too big for them.


User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17957 times:

I don't understand why there's this discrepancy between AAB and Airbus' statements. If Airbus really has cancelled the 358 then I am sure that everyone involved would already know about it. Why just tell AAB and not inform the other airlines that also have orders. In which case let it be made known to the public.

Is it common for this industry to work this way? Try to keep everything as close to the chest as possible to stop the competitor from getting the jump? I suppose it is but in any case its not as though Boeing is going to be rushing to design something else to fill the gap the 358 leaves behind, they already have the 789 and 7810 in production and on the drawing board respectively. And in any case until Airbus comes out and confirms this rumor I wouldn't be taking AAB as a source, let's not forget the famous "We are not joining Oneworld" comment made one week before he joined Oneworld.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17983 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 22):
If I was Airbus and my launch was broadcasting to the media what my long range business plan was, I don’t think I’d ever want to work with them as a launch customer again. We all know how vocal Airbus’ sales chief Leahy is. I’m very surprised this is coming from Bakar. It doesn’t sound very professional of him to do that. There is a lot of proprietary information that you get to know as launch customer that shouldn’t be broadcast out to the media.

Baker is always saying things. Last year he would buy up to 15 A330's due the 787 delays. Right.

I don't expect Airbus to make any final decisions on the -800 before they have gathered flight data from MSN001.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17512 times:

Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 36):
EIS'ing in 2022 a A330NEO with a 130" BPR16 GTF with a >20% SFC improvement over current A330 would make a very nice B787-8/9 replacement!

Too bad in 2022 most operators will not be interested in replacing 787s...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 39):
I don't understand why there's this discrepancy between AAB and Airbus' statements. If Airbus really has cancelled the 358 then I am sure that everyone involved would already know about it. Why just tell AAB and not inform the other airlines that also have orders. In which case let it be made known to the public.

Per statements by Airbus, QR was the earliest customer asking for A350-800 deliveries and they chose 2016. With them converting their order to the larger models, that pushed back the A350-800's EIS even farther. Depending on when the next A350-800 customer wanted their deliveries, Airbus may have decided that it was better to free up those slots for potential A350-900 and A350-1000 customers.

Also, even if AAB is correct, Airbus may be following the same decision they did with the A380-800 freighter and rather than formally cancel the program, just indefinitely delay it.


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10243 posts, RR: 97
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17140 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
I just do not see a 'strong niche' for the A358. Even if far improved.

The difficulty I have with this is that it seems to me that the A358 even in its current form will be quite competitive with the 787-8 and -9.
In an improved form it will be very competitive.

So I don't understand why the 787 can have one of the largest "niches" we've ever seen, but the A358 can't.

And the argument that the 350-900 "undercuts" it doesn't really wash in this particular sense either, otherwise the A350-900 would surely be strangling the 787-8's and -9's market too...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
I am looking beyond just cabin floor area, however.

In terms of the stretch on the airframe, that surely is either measured in size, or weight.
Size, we've established is a 30% variance for each frame.

In terms of weight, you're right that the A350 has a 19% spread (259t to 308t) whilst the 787 only has an 11% spread (227t to 252t).

Rgds


User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16889 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 42):
Also, even if AAB is correct, Airbus may be following the same decision they did with the A380-800 freighter and rather than formally cancel the program, just indefinitely delay it.

Don't know whether this is clever or sinister, or both. Is this just Airbus' way of nudging customers towards other products, knowing full well that they will never manufacture this aircraft and as a result save themselves the cost of formally cancelling the program and paying whatever compensation is due.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16836 times:

If the 748 can live with the GEnx so can the A330?!

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9233 posts, RR: 76
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15890 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
The difficulty I have with this is that it seems to me that the A358 even in its current form will be quite competitive with the 787-8 and -9.
In an improved form it will be very competitive.

If they do cancel, in my view they would already have a strategy in place. I think that strategy would partially be based upon the work they did for the original A350, I heard numbers that they spent over a billion in development costs for that already, so they should have something they can show for that expenditure. I would think it will go along the lines of teh A320NEO project.

I would not be surprised if the 787 grounding means that Airbus can get away with an improved A330 before the revised A358 EIS for a lower cost. This would allow them to have increased output (and two "different" supply chains) of widebodies on two lines, A330/A350. When Airbus committed to the A358, the EIS and number of frames in service for the 787 was very different.

A lot of 787s will end up flying relatively shorter routes, with some aero improvements, A350 cockpit, and a modern powerplant, I see no reason why an A330 could not have lower direct trip costs over a 787 on shorter routes. The 787 would have the direct trip cost advantage long haul.

In my view, Airbus would probably conceded the 5-6000nm+ smaller widebody market, while competing with the larger aircraft which have better numbers anyway on longer sectors, and an improved A330 on regional/medium haul routes.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinejambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15816 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
The calculations made by ferpe are showing something different:

It would be interesting to know the 359 trip costs with the 788 payload as the delta would be significantly less then 10 % if she was loaded with 7 t less self loading cargo and the fuel reduced to match.

I guess the delta would be under 5% for the same payload, with the significant yield upside when demand was there.



Jambrain
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15374 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 8):
I wonder if AA/US is about to switch its 358s to 359s?

The A359 is a better 777 replacement. But considering AA is still taking 777s, it seems the 77W is a replacement for the 777 with them.

US's A350 order isn't that large. The deposits can be applied to firming up the A320NEO options outstanding. AA+US need never take the A350 at all. I'd see them with A330HGW/NEO first...

Quoting airbazar (Reply 23):
Without knowing what HA's configuration will be it may be as much of a capacity jump as the A332's was from the 763's.

Which is too much. HA isn't big enough to have 3 types/sizes.

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 25):
I think if the -800 is canceled then for HA the A330NEO with Trent1000 would be perfect.

That's not NEO enough. Maybe a Trent 2000 and/or GEnx3?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15263 times:

Quoting art (Reply 31):
If the A359 will have only a marginally higher trip cost than the A358, why bother with A358? Not much point in offering something that won't sell just for the sake of covering the market, is there?

What is miss in this discussion is the fact that there is one good reason for th A358 - range. The above argument is ths same as If the B77W will have only a marginally higher trip cost than the B77L, why bother with B77L?


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14884 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 32):
However, isn't the same true for 787-8 and 787-9? I believe -9 will be more popular one and the trip cost is not that much more for -9...

I'm not entirely sure myself which way to bet on the 788. Yes the 789 is all that, but its a terrifying gap between a A321NEO and a 789.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
There is a lot more opportunity to "improve" the A350-800.

I don't think so. Optimization would definitely work wonders on the trip cost difference, but we have seen in the 737-600 and 737-700 that optimization doesn't help when airlines are faced with the larger plane having benifits in every place but trip cost, and the trip cost difference being quite managable. Worse optimizing the A358 breaks commonality, with the better you optimize the more the commonality is broken.

I'm not sure Airbus can sell a family of planes where you have to deal with them like they are each their own type. Look at the battle Boeing has had with the 777-200LR. Lack of commonality makes it very hard for 777-200ER operators to justify its better operating economics. More to the point I'm sure the A340 to A340NG problems with commonality isn't forgotten quite yet at Airbus. Good many airlines were NOT happy to discover that the new A340 is not much like the old A340 and the bales of money that ended up costing them.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14570 times:

Al Baker might actually be working with Airbus on this. Nothing he announces is officially from Airbus so Airbus can deny it. At the same time, Airbus gets to gauge reaction without officially changing policy.

If Airbus did spill to Al Baker, then this is exactly what they expected to happen.



What the...?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 14403 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Never going to happen, IMO. Airbus is (eventually) ceding the low-end of the widebody market to Boeing's 787, but the real future growth is likely in the middle and upper ends, where they are very well-positioned with the A350-900 and A350-1000.

Will stretch airplanes totally dominate non-stretch airplanes in every sector? It kind of seems like that.

[Edited 2013-03-07 16:45:19]

User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14139 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 52):
Will stretch airplanes totally dominate non-stretch airplanes in every sector? It kind of seems like that.

Logically yes, as economies of scale reduces fuel burn per seat how more you can stretch a plane within its structural limits.
Accordingly stretches of smaller planes will cannibalise on shrinks or base models of larger models.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
The difficulty I have with this is that it seems to me that the A358 even in its current form will be quite competitive with the 787-8 and -9.
In an improved form it will be very competitive.

My math gives a slight advantage to the 789. I discount the 788 as in my book it is analogous to the 762ER. A great starter airplane that is quickly outdone by its larger sibling.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 43):
the A350-900 would surely be strangling the 787-8's and -9's market too...

It just might for airlines considering 8-across Y in the 787. IMHO, the A359 will force the 787 to 9-across Y for those airlines that haven't gone that way.

I'm very excited about the A359s economics. But the reality is that 'shrinks' generally get overwhelmed by the longer lengths as they mature. The sweet spot for the 787 will be the 789 and for the A350 the A359. I suspect airlines that want smaller will drift to the 787 and larger to the A359.

The cross section of the A350 is just going to be more optimal a little longer than the 787. The engines are sized (weighted) to be more optimal with the A359. While some weight can be removed in a shrink, I see more potential in optimizing the 789 weight than the A358 weight. For example, with the 737-7MAX, I'm not surprised to see zero orders. When an airframe is offered in 3+ lengths, we usually see the end of the sales of the shortest.

I almost can't believe I'm agreeing with AAB, but with the A358, I do. I'm happy to see Airbus focusing on the variants that make the most money. Its not that the A358 couldn't be a good plane. I see more profit with the A359 for Airbus and the airlines.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11931 times:

They could do the A322 a 752 sized version of the A321, higher thrust GTFs, a new optimum wing and stronger MLG. To combat the 787 on routes up to 5000nm. That would be one hell of an efficient plane.

User currently offlinePohakuloa From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11935 times:

Reading through the thread and replies herein it seems abundantly clear that most of this is unconfirmed at best. I had not been terribly attentive to AAB and his tendency to speak when he ought not to do so. Many of the other posts here though informative really don't concern me so much as a few key areas of which I will add my 2cents worth of opinion as well as my own thoughts in regards to them. Here we go.....

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 51):
Al Baker might actually be working with Airbus on this. Nothing he announces is officially from Airbus so Airbus can deny it. At the same time, Airbus gets to gauge reaction without officially changing policy.

If Airbus did spill to Al Baker, then this is exactly what they expected to happen.

I believe something to this extent might be the hammer hitting the nail on the head, though more so with the last statement. The saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. In this case AAB is the squeaky wheel, but instead of the aforementioned reasoning to gauge reactions, they have chosen to do so as a leverage against negotiations against AAB. If Airbus understands that AAB will almost assuredly convert 358s to 359s, why not use his enthusiasm against him and get him to convert early and commit to the 359 to get approx. USD$30mil extra per airframe (taken from wiki estimates) without extra pressure of negotiations at a later time. If AAB is so focused on jumping ship now, he may not be so focused on using the amount of 358's on order as leverage in the conversion negotiations. Perhaps a little far fetched to many who will read this, but if I have someone who can be, for all intents and purposes, a pain in some ways to my business model, why not use it to my advantage? In the long run this would add revenue with the sale of their larger model and if there is someone on the fence of whether or not to even seek out the 358, open up early in production slots for these potential buyers. Could very well be an underhanded win/win for Airbus.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 49):
What is miss in this discussion is the fact that there is one good reason for th A358 - range.

This I think is the key driver for the 358 model. I am not sure what the intentions are for the other airlines who have ordered the 358 in any amount of quantity (Aeroflot, Asiana, Hawaiian, & US Airways), but i have to imagine that the reason would have to be the distance/efficiency factor. I don't want to really give opinion for the others, but I will give my thoughts as to the 6+6 HA order.

Yes the plane is efficient and this is a large driver that any airline would be foolish not to consider. For HA, yes it's a larger aircraft than they currently operate. HA has been excited about their recent relationship with Toulouse and why shouldn't they be (all A vs. B aside). What HA has NOT said publicly is what destination(s) they may utilize these aircraft. All that has been said publicly is that "the 350XWB will provide the opportunity to expand to serve markets we could not serve currently." This statement from the airline alone and not the increase in size from the 332 to the 358 is what I believe is the selling point. Points not able to be served currently, in my mind, implies that the range of the aircraft is the sole purpose for the purchase of the type from the HA perspective.

All due respect to the person who stated that an airline the size of HA can't sustain operating 3 types of aircraft, they are currently doing it now, although I believe your intentions were to state operating 3 longer hail types of aircraft. I the near future, HA has the potential to be operating 5 different types depending on how swiftly the 767's will become part of HA's history. The potential to have 717, 763, 321, 332, and 358 side by side in any airline is a treat for spotters. Though I think the 767's may be gone before this scenario will happen. HA will have 4 types operating for the airline in the long term.

Regards and respect to readers and posters:
Pohakuloa



Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11896 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 52):
Will stretch airplanes totally dominate non-stretch airplanes in every sector? It kind of seems like that.

In the days of rising fuel costs, yes. The 8k nm range obsession for shorter models is somewhat overblown, and I suspect that CASM will trump range moving forward.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10500 times:

On the A358 offers extra range issue, how would range compare between the A358 with all seats taken and the A359 with the same number of seats taken? Disregarding cargo if that can be realistically disregarded.

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1664 posts, RR: 10
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10446 times:

To date all 350 performance numbers are based on computer predictions. In just a few months these will be replaced with 'real' numbers - facts. Only then will Airbus know for sure what they have got.From these -9 numbers totally accurate numbers will be generated for this 'straight shrink' -8. Then they will know one way or another whether they have a compeditive product or not. They would be totally mad to make any decision before then. And they are not mad.

User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10360 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 33):
John Leahy already explained there will be no further stretch


I know. However he has an opinion until he gets a new one... For the time being he will be more than stupid to say otherwise (and stupid is one thing JL is NOT)!

Who knows what will happen when the 777Ng is offered? Will the 350 be able to get a second stretch (just as the 787)? It might not get the range of the 777Ng - but potentially a much better CASM on perhaps as much as 80% of all routes for this size aircraft!?


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 10268 times:

Tom Enders: "There is no decision to stop the A350-800!"

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-of-a350s-paris-appearance-383184/



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8660 posts, RR: 10
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10048 times:

Quoting ytz (Reply 38):
Hopefully jump to the 787. HA would be so much better off with the 787 family. -8 is great for CONUS routes. And -9 for long-haul and high demand routes. The A350 family is just too big for them.

I'm afraid it's too late for that. Didn't the A358 deal include the current A332's?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 48):
Which is too much. HA isn't big enough to have 3 types/sizes.

Everyone said the A332 was too big of a jump and they seem to be doing just fine with them. Also, they were always going to have 3 types/sizes with the addition of the A358. Granted the A332->A358 is not that big of a jump size wise, but it's still a 3rd WB type for a relatively small airline.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 56):
If Airbus understands that AAB will almost assuredly convert 358s to 359s, why not use his enthusiasm against him and get him to convert early and commit to the 359 to get approx.

On December 17, 2012 QR converted all of their A350-800 orders to the A350-900 and A350-1000. AAB stated thus was due to EIS delays, but considering QR themselves did not want the plane before 2016 (and no other A350-800 customer wanted it earlier), that's a bit cheeky of him.


User currently offlinejdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 354 posts, RR: 7
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9254 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 12):
The calculations made by ferpe are showing something different:

IIRC Aeroturbopower used not standard seat counts (10 abreast) for concentrate in the medium range, very different assumptions

Cheers
JD


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9025 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....

Yeah and that plane was soo criminally good that the aviation authorities considered it dishonest competition and grounded the plane. But as in most fairytales it might just have a happy end!



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8992 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4):
No, Its that the A358 was completely and totally outclassed by another plane that arrives on the market before it....
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 65):
Yeah and that plane was soo criminally good that the aviation authorities considered it dishonest competition and grounded the plane. But as in most fairytales it might just have a happy end!


Please see Reply 30:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 30):
I don't know where anyone got the idea I was suggesting anything different. I certainly only mentioned the A359 and A358 in my post.

The 787 doesn't really factor into how good the A358 is, if the A358 is dominated by its bigger brother in such a complete fashion.


[Edited 2013-03-08 14:08:31]

User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8555 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 16):
Not true... It is a proper merger, not a buyout - and yes, there is a difference.

Not true. See the recent thread on this at America West Now The World's Largest Airline? (by sankaps Feb 25 2013 in Civil Aviation). In legal and shareholding terms, US (nee HP) is buying AA and merging the two carriers under the AA name. Just like HP bought US and merged the two under the US name.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 18):
Doesn't change the fact the guy at the top of the pyramid is going to be US not AA.

Frankly who is on top does not change who bought who. We could just as easily have had US buying AA, but choosing to go with the AA CEO for the merged entity. Has nothing to do with who bought who.

[Edited 2013-03-08 22:01:26]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8452 times:

One option would be to hang the GEnx of the 748 on the wings, this engine will be readily available and PIPed soon, 12% more efficient than the CF6-80. It still costs a lot to neo a plane look at the 748..

Or they could hit the market from below with a A322/752 sized NB with the latest NB engines and a CFRP wing for the next generation of NBs. At 200 seats and 5000nm maximum range this would be a serious contender for the 788 when the 767and/or the A330 is gone. A high density charter option at 240 seats would be possible as well. The trick is to stay below 50t on the MEW.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4873 posts, RR: 14
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
It still costs a lot to neo a plane look at the 748..

Aren't the 747-8 wings pretty much all new and not just tweeked a little, let alone a stretch?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12894 posts, RR: 46
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 8010 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 69):
Aren't the 747-8 wings pretty much all new and not just tweeked a little, let alone a stretch?

Exactly. The 748 development cost Boeing a pretty penny (and is in a forward loss position) because it was a lot more than a case of just "slapping on some new engines".   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7967 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 49):
What is miss in this discussion is the fact that there is one good reason for th A358 - range. The above argument is ths same as If the B77W will have only a marginally higher trip cost than the B77L, why bother with B77L?

Range is a key element for the A358 but how many airlines really need an airplane with a range of 8500 nm?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54):
My math gives a slight advantage to the 789. I discount the 788 as in my book it is analogous to the 762ER. A great starter airplane that is quickly outdone by its larger sibling.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54):
I almost can't believe I'm agreeing with AAB, but with the A358, I do. I'm happy to see Airbus focusing on the variants that make the most money. Its not that the A358 couldn't be a good plane. I see more profit with the A359 for Airbus and the airlines.

Keep in mind that these words came from AAB and not from Airbus directly.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54):
For example, with the 737-7MAX, I'm not surprised to see zero orders. When an airframe is offered in 3 lengths, we usually see the end of the sales of the shortest.

I agree. But the A358 order book still stands about 90 orders and I don't see Airbus throwing them away.

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 56):

Reading through the thread and replies herein it seems abundantly clear that most of this is unconfirmed at best.

  

Quoting parapente (Reply 59):
To date all 350 performance numbers are based on computer predictions. In just a few months these will be replaced with 'real' numbers - facts. Only then will Airbus know for sure what they have got.From these -9 numbers totally accurate numbers will be generated for this 'straight shrink' -8. Then they will know one way or another whether they have a compeditive product or not. They would be totally mad to make any decision before then. And they are not mad.

   Like said, I don't expect Airbus to make any final decisions until they gathered flight data from MSN001. So why is AAB saying these things? I don't know.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 69):
Aren't the 747-8 wings pretty much all new and not just tweeked a little, let alone a stretch?

The 747-8 wing shares much with the 747-400 wing as Boeing did not want to have to make changes to the center section, landing gear location and wingbox. The 747-8 wing does have a thicker airfoil than the 747-400's, but the structural arrangement is the same.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7669 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):There is a lot more opportunity to "improve" the A350-800. Agreed, but I do not see the ROI as the costs won't be 'that much less' than the A359. My friend, I too would let the A358 fade to black and would spend the money on A359 PIPs. It will be a fine plane that sells well in the two currently discussed lengths.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
Range is a key element for the A358 but how many airlines really need an airplane with a range of 8500 nm?

Would it be possible for Airbus to kill off the -800 as a formal offering (presumably offering the -900s at the same price, plus maybe some more concessions to cover the marginally increased trip costs), and then offer the straight shrink as a special order option a la the special "LR" QF 707s? There are probably a few bucks to be saved in standardizing 95% of the combined 358/359 orders on the 359, but you could still allow for production of a few special order 358s for those customers who would bolt without it. Or am I missing something about how that would still be too costly for Airbus to offer?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For customers who need payload-over-range, they could just wait for the A350-900HGW.

User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7465 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 54):
For example, with the 737-7MAX, I'm not surprised to see zero orders. When an airframe is offered in 3 lengths, we usually see the end of the sales of the shortest.

I agree. But the A358 order book still stands about 90 orders and I don't see Airbus throwing them away.

Customers have been throwing the orders away (by switching to A359). What does Airbus do if customers want to switch more A358 orders to A359? Do they embark on development of an aircraft when the market is telling them that a better Airbus alternative already exists? I don't see the point of Airbus making a shrink that very few will want to buy (unless the extra cost of developing the A358 is very low).


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
But the A358 order book still stands about 90 orders and I don't see Airbus throwing them away.

I don't see Airbus losing many (if any) if they go with the A359. The question is, how many wouldn't accept an A359 instead?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 73):
There are probably a few bucks to be saved in standardizing 95% of the combined 358/359 orders on the 359, but you could still allow for production of a few special order 358s for those customers who would bolt without it. Or am I missing something about how that would still be too costly for Airbus to offer?

Its a question of how many orders really want the A358. If the number is truly 30+ (its not all 90), then it could be cheaper to go forward with the type. If its less, it would be cheaper to shelve the sub-variant.

I'm trying to think of an A358 customer who wouldn't be better served with an A359HGW variant. I haven't come up with one yet. In particular if the A359HGW receives the A350-1000 engines...   

Hey, I'm a fan of the A345 and 77L, but I just do not see future sales for either.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
Like said, I don't expect Airbus to make any final decisions until they gathered flight data from MSN001. So why is AAB saying these things? I don't know.

I consider Airbus a competent airframer. If they aren't able to predict the flight performance within 2%, let me introduce them to a VIDEO GAME that beats that tolerance!

http://www.x-plane.com/desktop/home/

Seriously, that is the cheap and quick way to model the flight performance of *any* new design. If Airbus doesn't have better internal code, I'd be shocked. Ok, x-plane has its limitations, but the basic performance of the A350 doesn't push the limits. Most of the 'surprises' are known design misses. Ok, X-plane does not catch nacelle/wing shockwave interaction. But the A350 engines are suspended in a way to minimize that interaction and there are ways to trick the aerodynamics so that the flight model is accurate.

The era where one didn't know how a plane would fly prior to first flight are over. The software is that good. The only exceptions is where management and engineering were not communicating and that is a disaster waiting to happen. (e.g., the ARJ-21). Ok, we will still find flutter and shockwave interactions that impact control surfaces... But 90% of the issues we find in flight test were known by the system engineers ahead of time and their management just played 'range chicken' to look good. e.g., the PW6000 fiasco was known by *all* Pratt engineers well before 1st flight. The only surprises were in management as certain managers were doing a stupid CYA trick... since the worst offender was promoted, I guess not a bad strategy...

But my 'rumor mill' is *very* positive on the A350.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 71):
Keep in mind that these words came from AAB and not from Airbus directly.

I shall. When you get to know me better, you'll know I'm very skeptical of AAB's words.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6663 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
One option would be to hang the GEnx of the 748 on the wings, this engine will be readily available and PIPed soon, 12% more efficient than the CF6-80. It still costs a lot to neo a plane look at the 748..

Or they could hit the market from below with a A322/752 sized NB with the latest NB engines and a CFRP wing for the next generation of NBs. At 200 seats and 5000nm maximum range this would be a serious contender for the 788 when the 767and/or the A330 is gone. A high density charter option at 240 seats would be possible as well. The trick is to stay below 50t on the MEW.

I like that line of thought. The 757 series is coming up for replacement, so may a version of the A321 could meet the requirements. But i fear you might need a new wing.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6476 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
The only exceptions is where management and engineering were not communicating and that is a disaster waiting to happen. (e.g., the ARJ-21).


Sorry for going OT, but what is/was wrong with the ARJ-21? Thanks!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
If they do cancel, in my view they would already have a strategy in place. I think that strategy would partially be based upon the work they did for the original A350, I heard numbers that they spent over a billion in development costs for that already, so they should have something they can show for that expenditure. I would think it will go along the lines of teh A320NEO project.

The strategy could be to skip the 350-800 and attack the gap from 321 to 330-300 with a two model family based on the A350 design, kind of a A350 lite, that basically recycles the A350 technology as well as the manufacturing technology.

I guess that the Airbus management will not be willing to initiate a new program or pull the plug on the 350-800 until the A350 enters service next year.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6117 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 79):
I guess that the Airbus management will not be willing to initiate a new program or pull the plug on the 350-800 until the A350 enters service next year.

So far they have denied that they are planning to drop the A350-800. But all can change under different circumstances. Personally I do not think they will drop the A350-800, but time will tell.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 78):
Sorry for going OT, but what is/was wrong with the ARJ-21? Thanks!

Let's start with they entered flight test and found they had to re-design the wing due to failing the *static* test. When the A380 missed static test, Airbus fixed the issue with minor tweaks.


My rumor mill insists the flight testing didn't go well either (aero tweaks required).

Now the landing gear is having issues:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ns-point-to-further-delays-383095/

In a non-political program, issues are found early and fixed in parallel. I've never heard of landing gear issues not being addressed earlier in a program.

Its 2013 and the entry into service date was 2007 and the first customers now expected to receive the ARJ-21 in 2014! The MRJ EIS is 2015...

The MRJ is superior to the ARJ-21 in:
1. Lower empty weight (CFRP wing)
2. Far more advanced engines
3. Superior short field performance for the MRJ
4. More aerodynamic wing

Other than being politically forced to buy the ARJ-21, I fail to see a niche for the plane. There is no technical area where it is a more competitive airframe.

Which is the opposite of how I perceive the A359. It is being run as a competently managed program. The issues I hear about with the A350 are items that will be fixed before EIS. (e.d., sub-component durability). Why the difference? Planning ahead! Technical instead of political appointees. I should have been hearing about the ARJ-21 fixing issues in 2006 that they started addressing in 2012!   

The A350 is already 'flying' in labs at Airbus and some vendors.

I expect the A350 to be very durable. All indications are the ARJ-21 will "crack like an F-16." It is an art and a science to making an airframe durable.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5905 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 80):
So far they have denied that they are planning to drop the A350-800. But all can change under different circumstances. Personally I do not think they will drop the A350-800, but time will tell.

People use the argument against the A380-900 that if it is not launched nearly all potential customers will buy the A380-800 instead. Is there a parallel here with the A350 - if the A350-800 is dropped, nearly all potential customers will buy the A350-900 instead? (And nearly all existing customers switch to the A350-900.)


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5854 times:

Quoting art (Reply 82):
Is there a parallel here with the A350 - if the A350-800 is dropped, nearly all potential customers will buy the A350-900 instead?

Very likely yes, as Airbus would do all they can to keep these customers happy. Legally Airbus are obliged to deliver those A350-800 per signed contract.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1670 posts, RR: 7
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 81):
Lightsaber



Thanks Lightsaber, already found some info through Wikipedia but your expert view is always enlightening and appreciated  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8660 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5623 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 74):
For customers who need payload-over-range, they could just wait for the A350-900HGW.

  
Just look at what the A333 has become. No reason to believe the A359's range won't increase.


Quoting EPA001 (Reply 80):
So far they have denied that they are planning to drop the A350-800.

And yet, they have actively convinced airlines to switch and continue to pursue that strategy.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5591 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 77):
I like that line of thought. The 757 series is coming up for replacement, so may a version of the A321 could meet the requirements. But i fear you might need a new wing.

I've thought along those lines as well. I think it may be a decent market niche for them to hit. My take is that such a plane would be an A35J-type situation where you'd sacrifice some commonality with smaller/shorter-range variants (possibly up to even a new wing) in exchange for the necessary performance of somewhere around 170-200 pax in an intercontinental config with a range 5000mi or so. These advancements would also allow for that high-density version in the 220-240 pax range. The way I see it, this would be very expensive and complex, but I also don't see a real alternative without building a plane specifically for that niche, so they might as well leverage whatever they can out of the 321NEO.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5474 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A plane with the size and performance of the 757-200 is only of interest to UA, DL, and AA because they can use it to service secondary airports on TATL services with no competition from American LCCs, they can maximize the yields, which covers the higher costs. Even BA, a former large 757-200 operator, has retired the fleet with the exception of a handful sent to EC (openskies) and that only competes with the US legacies on Paris-New York.

The bulk of other operators have replaced them with the 737-900ER or the A321-200 as they can perform the same missions they were using 757-200s on with better economics. And the US legacies have placed orders for the 737-900ER, 737-9 and A321-200(neo) to replace the bulk of their 757-200 fleet for the same reason.

IMO, if either Boeing or Airbus offered a new-build plane with the 757-200's performance, I expect it would be a failure in the market. US carriers will move from the 757-200 to the 737-8 and A320-200neo for their secondary TATL missions, trading capacity for better yields.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12894 posts, RR: 46
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 85):
And yet, they have actively convinced airlines to switch and continue to pursue that strategy.

Can you provide any evidence to support the theory that Airbus is pushing its customers to do this?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineETinCaribe From Ethiopia, joined Dec 2009, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
AAB is a known entity to Airbus, so my question would not be why he is talking but why Airbus is providing him with informattion over and above what their order entails.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice.............

While we are at it, I will speculate as well. Perhaps Airbus does not mind AAB making this info public. He loves the attention, they stroke his ego, they get some bad news out, everyone wins. Sales gamesmanship at work IMHO.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 2):
It's about time that man knows what confidentiality and diplomacy is. It's not his business to broadcast what Airbus or Boeing plan to do with future new models.

Sure, they have an NDA in place but I say they will never go after him unless they want to let go of billions $$ of rev. They are happy to see him angry at Boeing with the 787 problems instead.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13149 posts, RR: 35
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4759 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
I consider Airbus a competent airframer. If they aren't able to predict the flight performance within 2%, let me introduce them to a VIDEO GAME that beats that tolerance!

I'm aware of the existence of that kind of software. But there must be a reason why Airbus is waiting to freeze the A358 and A3510 design until they have gathered real flight data.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 76):
I shall. When you get to know me better, you'll know I'm very skeptical of AAB's words.

Let's have a coffee sometime   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

I don't believe the A358 is dead (yet). But it is certainly locked away in the basement while Airbus decides what to do with it. From what we see, Airbus is dedicating all its A350 resources to A359 first flight and A351 development. The A358 is on stand-by and I don't expect any decision in the short term. Full -1000 design freeze will surely happen before any -800 design freeze.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 10):
The A358 seems to be the 736 or A318 of the type, ie too heavy to make up for seating loss.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 34):
The only thing "wrong" with the A350-800 is its a straight shrink of the A350-900.
The decision to do that added some 5t - 6t to the OEW by my calculation, based on fuel load and range/payload. Hence the relationship is akin to the 772LR and the 773ER.

The changes in -800 strategy (from optimized to straight shrink, later EIS etc show that Airbus is not completely sure either that it was the right trade-off to do. I expect they are still running numbers on the A358.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 50):
More to the point I'm sure the A340 to A340NG problems with commonality isn't forgotten quite yet at Airbus. Good many airlines were NOT happy to discover that the new A340 is not much like the old A340 and the bales of money that ended up costing them.

I fear I'm seeing that risk with the -1000... if it is customized too much it could end up being to the A359 what the A346 is to the A343 (not in terms of aircraft performance, which would be excellent for the -1000, but in terms of commonality - or rather lack thereof)


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 90):
But there must be a reason why Airbus is waiting to freeze the A358 and A3510 design until they have gathered real flight data.

The A350-1000 is pushing the wing loading. That is an aspect the software doesn't predict as well (drag at extreme conditions). In particular, the software doesn't catch the transition well (that has to be curve fit in). So I oversimplified some. But for the A359 for all but the most extreme missions, the software is ready.

How aircraft are designed and tested is changing quickly.

It is too early to freeze the A358 (or cancel it).

Quoting ETinCaribe (Reply 89):
Sure, they have an NDA in place but I say they will never go after him unless they want to let go of billions $$ of rev. They are happy to see him angry at Boeing with the 787 problems instead.

Effectively AAB has immunity.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 85):
No reason to believe the A359's range won't increase.

It is certain to. In fact, I expect to see the A350-1000 engines, gear, brake, and wing modifications on the A359 fairly soon after A3510 EIS.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4970 posts, RR: 40
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 92):
The A350-1000 is pushing the wing loading. That is an aspect the software doesn't predict as well (drag at extreme conditions). In particular, the software doesn't catch the transition well (that has to be curve fit in). So I oversimplified some. But for the A359 for all but the most extreme missions, the software is ready.

If we will ever see an A350-1100, we will see more wing modifications then we are now seeing being proposed for the A350-1000.  .


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 93):
If we will ever see an A350-1100, we will see more wing modifications then we are now seeing being proposed for the A350-1000.  

Or Airbus will not modify the wings and engines and just accept lower performance, which would not be a penalty for A-market and most B-market missions.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 92):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 85):No reason to believe the A359's range won't increase.
It is certain to. In fact, I expect to see the A350-1000 engines, gear, brake, and wing modifications on the A359 fairly soon after A3510 EIS.

That would be a nice (not so)little plane!


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 91):
I fear I'm seeing that risk with the -1000... if it is customized too much it could end up being to the A359 what the A346 is to the A343 (not in terms of aircraft performance, which would be excellent for the -1000, but in terms of commonality - or rather lack thereof)

I am too, but the A359 and A351 have the legs to stand on their own, and so it shouldn't prevent a buy. The 788 and 789 look to have a comparible if somewhat smaller problem with commonality.

So I'm not going to be entirely suprised if there is a A359 Mk 1.5 and a 788 mk 1.5 out a couple years after their bigger brothers are out where all the lessons and upgrades are put into the smaller frames. Perhaps not 100% commonality in subsystems, but better than the early frames.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 96):

So I'm not going to be entirely suprised if there is a A359 Mk 1.5 and a 788 mk 1.5 out a couple years after their bigger brothers are out where all the lessons and upgrades are put into the smaller frames. Perhaps not 100% commonality in subsystems, but better than the early frames.

Agree. Already Airbus are talking about production in batches. I can imagine that improvements built into the -1000 from the start would make their way back into later -900 production batches, thereby reducing commonality differences, except for the earlier -900 frames. But as things stand today (frozen -900 and ever-changing-1000), the models are drifting apart, so there will have to be some effort to bring them back together later (A359R?).


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...
Gecas CEO Says No Plan For A350 Order posted Mon Jun 18 2007 19:29:23 by NYC777
Airbus CEO Says Boeing Starting Price War: Report posted Mon Jul 16 2012 17:43:12 by eaa3
Airbus Is Working On Lighter A350-Structure posted Wed Jul 28 2010 23:47:10 by 328JET
Fedex CEO Says It May Buy Airbus A380s In Future posted Mon Dec 11 2006 10:58:09 by Columba
Yemenia's CEO Says They'll Buy 10 A350's. posted Sun Jul 9 2006 13:18:02 by Manni
Airbus Says 'Airbus Guessed Wrong On A350' posted Wed May 24 2006 06:48:43 by Elvis777
Airbus Should Redesign A350, SQ Says posted Fri Apr 7 2006 19:28:16 by Sq212
Eads CEO Enders: B787 A Good Plane, A350 Is Better posted Sat Mar 25 2006 07:12:28 by PlaneHunter
TAP Order Is For 12 A350-800's! posted Fri Jan 20 2006 22:16:25 by CV990
Airbus Says NWA May Purchase A350... posted Fri Dec 3 2004 10:35:56 by Kalakaua