amirs
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:20 am

Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:43 am

Can someone please explain to me why Airbus starts its new model numbers with -800 and -900 (A350-800, A350-900, A380-800)?
Doesn't it make more sense to start with -200/-300/-400?

I noticed also 7e7, already has -800 and -900!!
I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives.
 
sevenair
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:46 am

Not sure why, in this case, maybe its like software-its bad marketing to have 'version 1.0', always 1.2 or even 4/5/6/7 and so on-if you have version 1.0-people think it is untried, untested and not to be relied upon
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8590
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:57 am

I noticed also 7e7, already has -800 and -900!!
I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives.


It isn't likely that the 7E7 will have too many more stretches, and if they do, they would fall in the category of a 777 replacement. This isn't the 737 which runs through nine sizes and generations...

Can someone please explain to me why Airbus starts its new model numbers with -800 and -900 (A350-800, A350-900, A380-800)?

Could be a marketing move to associate the A350 variants with the 7E7 variants... or perhaps continuing the same vouge as the A380-800.

I think Boeing picked the 7E7-3/8/9 based on the range and payload of the variant...
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:56 am

It's called "endowment" wars. Once started, hard to stop.

Coming out is a -100 would be, well, puny these days.

Perhaps Rekkof can indeed jump in with the F70-4000 just to mess with Airbus and Boeing  Smile  Smile  Smile

Steve
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:03 am

"This one goes to 11"  Laugh out loud
 
alphafloor
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:36 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:29 am

"I would think they would save those for later more advanced or larger derivatives."

...I think that this is the point here. Starting by a number of -800 would announce that there will be no such derivatives for these aircrafts...

-Al-


[Edited 2005-01-22 19:30:00]
Whatever
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:37 am

In addition to the thinks mentioned above, I also think they are trying to lure large Chinese orders by jumping strait to -800. 8 is a lucky number in Chinese, I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
trex8
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:19 am

its simple, they are planning a whole family to replace all their other products
800-500 seats
700- 400 seats
600 - 300 seats and replace A346
500 -250 seats and replace A343/333
400 -200 seats and replace A300
300 - 150 seats and replace A320
200 - 100 seats and replace A318
100 - 50 seats and compete with RJs.
the latter 2 will be a flying wing! Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
amirs
Posts: 1184
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:20 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:46 am

yeah, but everything you guys speculate could have been reached with even using -500/-600.
I just find it WEIRD, does anyone have the precise reason???
 
alphafloor
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:36 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:34 am

"The -700, -800, and -900 designations were chosen to reflect that the A380 will enter service as a "fully developed aircraft" and that the basic models will not be soon replaced by more improved variants"

This explanation comes from airliners.net aircraft data&history (before updating).

-Al-

[Edited 2005-01-22 22:35:05]
Whatever
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:45 am

and Airbus will do what they did with th A300 and add a B or something onto it so eventually we could see the A380-800B69
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:03 am

>This isn't the 737 which runs through nine sizes and generations...<

Actually, 3 generations and 5 sizes  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Boeing's reasoning for the 7E7 numerology is actually a hodgepodge of reasons. The 7E7-3 (not 300) is a 300 passenger aircraft (in 2 classes) with a 3500 nm range, the 7E7-8 (not 800) is an 8000nm (actually more like 8300) aircraft, the 7E7-9 is a bigger version of the -8. And yes, the Chinese 8 had a lot to do with it. Airbus kind of had to do the same thing
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PyroGX41487
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:06 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:57 pm

They did it to show that there would be no upgrades and that they were putting out a fully developed product.

Think of it as the 747 skipping from -100 right to the current -400 status. They're simply saying that the plane won't need it.

Pretty clever marketing if you ask moi..
 
Aviationhack
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 10:52 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:21 pm

I wonder who will come out with the -1000 version first  Smile

Has there ever been a commercial airliner with a -1XXX suffix?

 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:24 pm

Actually, I've heard it's a marketing thing. In China, 8 is considered a lucky number, thus A380-800 as the standard version, same with 7e7 and A350.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:37 pm

How about less "I heard..." or "I think it's..." or "My guess is..." and more "Stonecipher said" or "Leahy said?"  Big grin
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
mdl21483
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:53 pm

Posted Sat Jan 22 2005 18:56:30 UTC+1 and read 2186 times:
It's called "endowment" wars. Once started, hard to stop.

Coming out is a -100 would be, well, puny these days.


Oh Gawd! I hear enough about "endowment wars" everywhere else, I dont think I really need to hear that being applied to some big, long, Jet-setters!  Big grin

first the 737's get branded as "pocket rockets", and now this!  Yeah sure

I guess it was to be expected from a XXX-large aircraft!

that or, just blame it all on Virgin for saying "Mines Bigger Than Yours!"


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson - AirTeamImages



*sighs* Men...  Insane


~Melanie~
From the shores of the sea we have come afar, we have risen high, among the stars.
 
nucsh
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:29 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:57 pm

"This one goes to 11"

 Big thumbs up

"My fingers go to 11..."
If landing is about "kissing" the ground, you just about raped it.
 
User avatar
posti
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:51 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:37 am

I think naming airplanes with an 8 for the Chinese is a little ridiculous. My number is 8 also, but I don't go out and buy a Dodge Ram V8 or a Cessna 182 just because it has an 8 in the title, I'd get the best product on the market no matter what the name was. I say go back to the -200, -300...

This proves the west is willing to do anything to make as much yuan as possible.
LGW via RAC, LAF, & SEA
 
dazeflight
Posts: 481
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:18 am

Posti,

esotheric stuff like the lucky numbers is much mor wide-spread and serious in Asia than in the west. Considering that most of the traffic growth of the future is going to be in Asia, where's the problem.

And, would anybody in teh west buy a plane with a 13 in it? After all, there are hardly any row 13's in western planes...

ciao
Daniel
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:59 am

Those numbers are to indicate a final product, one where there is no plan for follow-on derivative. With the A380 I suppose they only planned for the stretch version is the market asks for it sometime in the future, perhaps its only replacement. With the 787, same case, I'm sure Boeing will claim to have researched all the possibilities against what they can offer with current models and even their potential derivatives of derivatives and came to the conclusion that there are so few options left. Big grin

Of course markets change, which WILL add new dimensions of products that we have yet to see or even make up to ourselves.

[Edited 2005-01-23 23:02:36]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
AirEMS
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 am

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:02 am

This might be a little off subject but I thought I would ask anyway...... Would Boeing ever if they were to design a totally new plane give it a number that they had ceased program on i.e. 727, 757, 717 etc etc.... I know when Boeing was doing something with a SST I want to say in the early 90's maybe they called it the 2707 (I think I saw it in a book) any thoughts?


Fly Safe
-Carl
If Your Dying Were Flying
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Why -800/-900 And Not -200/-300

Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:51 pm

The number "4" in Chinese and Japanese means "death."
It's sad the 747 wasn't successful in China, especially Japan.  Sad
Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.