PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:20 pm

Ok, ok. The A306-sucession topic obsesses me, but up to this day no thread has ever gone deeper than to say that the A306 is becoming old and the A330 is not an appropriate successor. And despite the fact that markets like Europe and Asia have a wide-body short to medium range airliner written all over them, the 783 as the only alternative at the moment is only slowly gaining ground. Very slowly.

The market might be smaller than one think on the first sight, but what could Airbus do in order to keep or even extend its market share? The questions is: Is there a reasonable, profitable approach to revitalise the A300 by using low-key, low cost improvements from the A350 development (wingtips, engines, cockpit, composites) leveraged by the unique strengths of the existing A306, which are versatility (air-frame, cargo space), weight (<90t OEW) and the short-haul set-up (rather small and light wings) ???

I am looking forward to your ideas, but please read the previous threads on this topic first and be ensured that I do not question that the B787 is the more superior airplane by definition . No A vs. B discussions, let alone wars ...

Thx & Enjoy!
Jan

[Edited 2006-02-22 09:22:39]
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:37 pm

So far NH & JL are the only carriers to commit to the 783. Those carriers weren't going to buy the A330 or A350 anyways.
What the future holds in the 783 are orders from possibly DL, AA, UA, LH, BA & Chinese carriers. If no 783 order materializes from this group then Airbus went down the right path offering no 783 competitor. The 783 will be the equivalent to the 747SR.
Check back in 2015 when surely AA has no more AB6s or Chinese market continues its unprecedented growth.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:23 pm

The A300-600 certainly is not the most modern jet around, but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Already now, the 'old' A300-600 still has a lower EOW as the new composite 787-3 and because of identical cross sections on the entire Airbus wide body range (except obviously the A380), the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure by making use of those lighter elements it has in common with the A350 and which are already under design.
Making use of GLARE could also be considered for plane-specific structural elements, although this would then obviously require some more serious re-design of the plane itself, rather than a simple modular change of exisiting structures, thus costing more.

Just as the 787-3, the A300-600 makes use of 2 high by pass turbofan engines of around 275kN each, yet on the A300-600 these are either the CF6 or the PW4150, 2 long-established engines. Certifying the A300-600 with a derated version of the the GEnx or Trent 1000, similar as for the 787-3 is thus possible. It is a safe bet that re-engining the A300-600 with the same engines as the 787-3 alone would already give it a similar fuel consumption at very low cost and using lighter cross sections from the A350 would give it even an FF advantage, again at a very modest cost (the cross section is there anyhow and the first build A300-600NG or whatever they'd call it can be sold to a customer after certification).

On the con's, maintenance cost of the A300-600 are much higher compared to the expected maintenance cost of the 787-3, although again, mostly because of its engines, so there too the gap could be narrowed quite easily, especially because the fuselage of the A300-600NG would still be made of more conventional materials, making it less vulnerable to unknown risk factors like structural damage during turn around procedures, which obvioulsy are a much greater risk on planes operating many sectors a day with relatively short turn around times as the A306 or the 783.

From all this it is clear a new A300-600 could materialize at extremely low cost (€300 million) somewhere around 2012 and would be a very good match for the 787-3, certainly if offered at low cost (remember the A300 program is fully amortized, the 787 just starting off). It would also be a very low risk project for Airbus, as all elements used on it are needed for other more important projects too and since the A300-600NG would certainly be launched with a freighter version too, it should increase its market potential.

In short: if Boeing proves there is still a considerable market for this type of plane with their 787-3, Airbus will say thank you to them, rework their A300-600 and take a serious share of it at low cost and low risk.

[Edited 2006-02-22 11:28:37]
 
breiz
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:12 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:49 pm

Airbus does not seem to prepare an A300-600NG beyond the improved so-called General Freighter.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a300a310/freight.html
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a300-600/
But of course, we never know.
 
brightcedars
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:18 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:42 pm

I don't agree to consider that there is a market in Europe for domestic wide-body short range service. The only routes that used to see wide-body aircraft are now much more often seeing narrow-body types. I think that an A321 gets close enough in terms of capacity and is more versatile to provide a capacity boost according to seasonality. An A300 sized aircraft on the other hand would be waste capacity a good proportion of the time.

Asia is a different story but there again we are witnessing a fragmentation of the market to different city pairs than that of capital A to capital B. There's also the distance factor as the average distance between two points in Asia is much more significant that in Europe. This would support the idea of real wide-body service between those further away points.
I want the European Union flag on airliners.net!
 
B742
Posts: 3559
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:48 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:54 am

I realy like the A310/A300 series!

I wish Airbus would make a smaller version aircraft that could cater for the market between the 737/A32S and A350/787!

I would like to see an aircraft that has similar capacity to the 757 series enter the market, maybe Airbus could jump in and cater for this market!

Rob!  wave 
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:35 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
The A300-600 certainly is not the most modern jet around, but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

What dead weight? The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it. The fuselage is thinner and lighter, as are the wings. Engines are possibly (probably) derated compared to the -8.

I'd also argue that it'd cost a hell of a lot more than €300 million to completely overhaul the structural materials used on the A300, modify the engines, most likely the wings, upgrade the flight deck...not to mention recertifying it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:53 am

I do think Airbus' lack of a true 787-3 competitor is why most of the domestic US airlines will choose the 787 family, as the 787-3 is a nice replacement for their domestic 767-300ER fleets that fly high-density intra-continental runs and US Mainland to Hawai'i' flights.

An A330-200 is just too much plane, I imagine.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:58 am

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 1):
The 783 will be the equivalent to the 747SR.

767-300, 767-400, 767-200 (as a growth bird) - Domestic hub jumper from large markets to the hubs (i.e. LAX-ATL, LAX-ORD, LAX-JFK etc...)

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Dead weight? You must be joking.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
What dead weight? The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it. The fuselage is thinner and lighter, as are the wings. Engines are possibly (probably) derated compared to the -8.

Same engines (-9 thrust available for a wacked out bean counter wanting the option to fly Orange County to New York fully loaded). Killer airfield performance (max range with a balanced load from 8,000' and 5,000' landing on a wet runway with the -8 engines) and a 15% trip cost improvement on a 1800nm trip vs. the 767-300 carrying more pax. Hmmm...

[Edited 2006-02-22 20:16:08]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
The 783 has been designed from the start as a short-range aircraft, not a "spin-off" as you call it.

That's just not true. Its a derivative of the 787-8. It is MANY tons heavier than an A300-600R and a 767-300.

Sure, its fuselage is not as thick and the gear is simpler. It has a larger rudder. But it is still a 787.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 8):
Dead weight? You must be joking.

See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

N

N
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:28 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
but it has one single advantage over the 787-3: it is no spin off of a long range project and thus does not need to fly around with dead weight coming from the longer range versions of the 787, as will the 783.

Jeez, how did you pay for the 16 RR?? That statement is wildly wrong, a little study might educate you some. Now you are essentially claiming that Airbus could redo the A300 and it would compare to the 787??!! What happened to the 350??

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure

Again, this indicates a complete lack of understading of structures and engineering, airplanes are not built like lego blocks. If this was so easy to do, manufacturers would constantly improve the weight of their airplanes. But it is not easy and there are a lot of factors involved in structures, remove a little here, and the structure is affected in other ways.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:13 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 10):
That statement is wildly wrong, a little study might educate you some. Now you are essentially claiming that Airbus could redo the A300 and it would compare to the 787??!! What happened to the 350??

Everything about his statement is absolutely correct. We're talking specifically about the 787-3 and the A300-600R. We're not talking about the A350 and the 787-8 and -9.

Read again.

N
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:47 am

"It features a wing and structure optimized for shorter-range flights"

That comes from Boeings 787-3 data, so I stand by my post. However, I do have to say that I was surprised how the 783 and 306 compared quite nicely, for some reason it was the first time I had seen that data.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:52 am

Its marketing.

Yes, the wing is shorter. Yes, the fuse is not as reinforced as the 787-8. But it is still a very heavy plane.

It benefits greatly from the next generation of engine technology, yes. But Airbus could easily A350ize the A300-600, move to a new generation of engines, and cover that gap.

I'm not saying they will.

N
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:55 am

Gigneil

I cant find the empty weights for any 787 version, do you have that data??

And I agree, Airbus could certainly update the A300.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:56 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

Wow, I did not think it would be so much heavier, thats nearly 120 kg heavier per passenger! How big do you think the market for an A300NG is? I think they could sell quite a few to sun charters. It might (along with the 783) might make a good 757 replacement also. And there is AAs old A300s to replace eventually also, but I still think both they and DL will go 787 if not this year then next year.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:04 am

I think the 787-3 is probably going to be great for AA.

For one thing, its bigger than an A300-600R and AA would no doubt put 9 abreast seating to the Carribean. That will yield an amazingly low CASM and a huge cargo capacity.

Plus, we know AA would rather a Boeing product.

As for the OEW of the 787 variants, I need to search. There is a Widebodyphotog chart he created at my request to compare the 767-300, A300-600R, and 787-3 that had the information relevant to this conversation.

Sure, we concluded the mission fuel and costs for the 787-3 were better. But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

N
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

How things change, but you are right, scary to me as a BA shareholder.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:17 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
How things change, but you are right, scary to me as a BA shareholder.

Are you kdding? Boeing stock is at historic levels  Yeah sure

I doubt the fate of the 783, niche-market extrodinare, would change much.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
There is a Widebodyphotog chart he created at my request to compare the 767-300, A300-600R, and 787-3 that had the information relevant to this conversation.

Taadaa  Smile

http://theaviationspecialist.com/787_family.gif

(OEW)
783 - 223,100 lb (101,197 kg)
788 - 239,200 lb (108,500 kg)
763 - 190,000 lb (86,000 kg)
A306 - 198,000 lb (90,000 kg) *approx*

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
But the plane is definitely vulnerable to an updated A300.

A lot would depend on how much an upgraded A300 would beat the 783. If the new A300 only marginally beat the 783 (say under 5%), then an opperator like AA would struggle to justify an entire fleet type.

If the A300 owned the 783 to a simmilar extent of the 772LR/A345, then perhaps the economics would overcome the lower overall cost of a 787/783 subfleet.

Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:42 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?

I think your estimate of how much it would cost to develop (A350ize) the A306(X) is a lot more realistic than the 300M Euros suggested earlier.
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:50 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Are you kdding? Boeing stock is at historic levels

Yes I know!! I bought low, but you know the trick is sell high, wherever it might be. So I have to be careful because now I see how the 787 might not be that hot.
 
PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:08 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
the A300-600 can quite easily undergo a considerable weight reduction of its structure by making use of those lighter elements it has in common with the A350 and which are already under design.
Making use of GLARE could also be considered for plane-specific structural elements, although this would then obviously require some more serious re-design of the plane itself, rather than a simple modular change of exisiting structures, thus costing more.

I am concerned that the redesign of the hull und the use of new materials could increase the effort for re-certification and development to a point beyond feasibility ...

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
From all this it is clear a new A300-600 could materialize at extremely low cost (�300 million) somewhere around 2012

300mn might be a little less. The mere costs for the prototype can easily be higher. And you have not started testing and certification yet ...

Quoting BrightCedars (Reply 4):
I don't agree to consider that there is a market in Europe for domestic wide-body short range service. The only routes that used to see wide-body aircraft are now much more often seeing narrow-body types. I think that an A321 gets close enough in terms of capacity and is more versatile to provide a capacity boost according to seasonality. An A300 sized aircraft on the other hand would be waste capacity a good proportion of the time.

I don't know if the European undergoes the same structural changes as the North American market, namely a shift from high capacity to high frequency, but up to now there are quite a few carriers using widebodies on their european trunk routes (LH, BA, Turkish ... and some tourist/charter airlines ...)

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
I'd also argue that it'd cost a hell of a lot more than �300 million to completely overhaul the structural materials used on the A300, modify the engines, most likely the wings, upgrade the flight deck...not to mention re-certifying it.

I second that ...

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

that was my thought. There must be a reason that it did not materialize. Either the market is too small or dev costs way too high ...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
Then we are back to resources. Is there a big enough global market to justify $1-2 billion in upgrades?

Could be become a self-fulfilling prophecy and a dejavu of the A318/B736 story, where the market is too small to profitable feed two products. But there's one difference, both the A318 and B736 are not competitive as compared to the Embraers while the potential A300NG and the 783 do not have any competitors ...




What are remains to be solved are questions of market size and dev costs. But I think with costs estimated at 1bn and a market price of 100mn a piece break-even could be reached at only 100 frames ...

Great thread so far ... carry on!

Jan
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 18):
(OEW)
783 - 223,100 lb (101,197 kg)
788 - 239,200 lb (108,500 kg)
763 - 190,000 lb (86,000 kg)
A306 - 198,000 lb (90,000 kg) *approx*

That's sure not 30 tons of difference. How 'bout 12.5 tons difference? That's still a lot, though.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:56 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
That's just not true. Its a derivative of the 787-8. It is MANY tons heavier than an A300-600R and a 767-300.

Sure, its fuselage is not as thick and the gear is simpler. It has a larger rudder. But it is still a 787.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 9):
See above. The plane is a full 30 tons heavier than the A300. An A350'ed A300 would be competitive.

No, it is only about 25000lbs heavier, that's just 12.5 tons. Don't forget, the B-787-300 is still in the design phase, some of that weight could be shed before it gets built.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
there is AAs old A300s to replace eventually

No, AA believes the A-300-605Rs they have now are pigs. Why would they want an updated version?

This whole string seems a waste of time. I can't believe I'm even posting here. Airbus, like Boeing has to many big projects going on now to worry about updating an old design. This is like Boeing offering a B-767-800ER, it just isn't going to happen. Airbus does not have enough engineers just sitting around with nothing to do to begin another project. They are still working on the A-380 and the A-400M, next is the A-350, and after that they will probably start on the A-320 Series replacement. The same with Boeing with the B-777-200LR/F, B-747-800I/F, B-787-300/800/900, then the Y-1 project to replace the B-737NGs. Both manufactures are going after the USAF Tanker project. There just isn't anyone left to work on an A-300-800.

Updating a 30 year old design, give me a break.
 Yeah sure
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20):
I bought low, but you know the trick is sell high, wherever it might be. So I have to be careful because now I see how the 787 might not be that hot.

In about 18 months, Boeing has sold as many 787 as Airbus sold A332 from 1996-present. The launch of the 787-10 is looking more and more likely, Boeing will continue making front page news with the 787 for some time. It is the definition of a hot product.

Not to mention, you should hardly base your investments around a single product. Boeing is an incredibly diverse company, the 787 is just one of many revenue streams. Boeing sold 100+ B777, 500+ 737NG, 40+ 747, and launched a new 747 variant. Boeing has a healthy defense division with big dollar space launch, military aerospace, and military technology contracts.

Do not let a purely hypothetical discussion phase your investor confidence. Airbus has made no indication that they are seriously considering a modernized A300 in the near term.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13754
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:14 pm

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 2):
Just as the 787-3, the A300-600 makes use of 2 high by pass turbofan engines of around 275kN each, yet on the A300-600 these are either the CF6 or the PW4150, 2 long-established engines. Certifying the A300-600 with a derated version of the the GEnx or Trent 1000, similar as for the 787-3 is thus possible.

But aren't the GEnx and/or Trent 1000 a lot heavier than the CF6 or PW4150? Won't there be 'knock on' effects of the weight, i.e. needing stronger pylons and reinforced wings?
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
No, AA believes the A-300-605Rs they have now are pigs. Why would they want an updated version?

Updates as discussed here would eliminate many of the "pig-like" properties of the A306 (engine maintenance etc). Also the concurrent thread about AA's A300 is not so clear about the qualities of the A306 as you seem to be ...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
This whole string seems a waste of time. I can't believe I'm even posting here.

So what? Why are you posting here then ...?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Airbus, like Boeing has to many big projects going on now to worry about updating an old design. This is like Boeing offering a B-767-800ER, it just isn't going to happen.

Finally it is about making money, and if you can make money from a relative small investment you should do it. A B767-800 IS NOT an analogy to a potential A300NG, because there is already an successor which certainly is superior in all aspects ... namely the 787-8/9!

Sorry, I don't get your point here ...

cheers,
Jan
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:22 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):

Understand, I'm not afraid now, but its something that has to be thought of for the future, this market being so cyclical. I see myself buying and selling Boeing for a loooooong time.
 
skymileman
Posts: 577
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2001 2:32 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:33 pm

You know, I'm not a big fan of Airbus. In fact, I cannot stand Airbus, but I think the A300/A310 are outstanding airplanes. They are of an extraordinary quality and are nice to fly. Past that series, I wouldn't give you a nickel for one of their planes, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
 
PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:53 pm

Quoting Skymileman (Reply 28):
You know, I'm not a big fan of Airbus. In fact, I cannot stand Airbus, but I think the A300/A310 are outstanding airplanes. They are of an extraordinary quality and are nice to fly. Past that series, I wouldn't give you a nickel for one of their planes, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Ehhhmm, ... ehh ... OK!  scratchchin  Terrific! Thank You! ... ???

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 27):
Understand, I'm not afraid now, but its something that has to be thought of for the future, this market being so cyclical. I see myself buying and selling Boeing for a loooooong time.

Your post lead me to another reason why the A300NG might be necessary or least useful in the short to medium run:

Especially in Asia many operators use the A330 (or 777) for short-haul high capacity flights. Five years ago when these might have been procured the A330 was the best available, but when the 783 appears economics might favor the A783 to an extent that it might conquer this market without the A350 being able to respond (timely and economically).

What I mean is: The A300NG might not only help to secure market shares of existing A306s, but also those of A330 currently flying short-haul routes.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8544
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:54 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 26):
Updates as discussed here would eliminate many of the "pig-like" properties of the A306 (engine maintenance etc).

The alure of the 787-3 is the complete commonality with the other 787 variants. If fully adopted by AA, the 787 could replace the 767, 777, and A300. That's three fleet types to one.

AA doesn't need that many regional widebodies. To overcome the penalty of opperating a completly unique fleet type, Airbus would have to offer dramatically lower opperating cost compared to the 787-3. The 783 itself won't be a slouch, it just isn't the optimzed member of the 787 family, thus there is room for improvement.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 26):
Also the concurrent thread about AA's A300 is not so clear about the qualities of the A306 as you seem to be ...

Don't kid yourself, the second those lease expire and AA is in a position to order new aircraft, the A300-600 are gone. They are some of AA's oldest widebodies, they are not remembered well for their dispatch reliability, and there are more modern aircraft available.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 26):
Finally it is about making money, and if you can make money from a relative small investment you should do it

Who said anything about a relativly small investment? Sabenapilot arbitrarily picked about $400 million, buying little in terms of large aircraft upgrades. MD bragged about how the MD-95 (B717) cost $350 million and look where it went. MD bragged about how cheap and quickly they produced the MD-11, look where it went.

The scope of upgrades necessary to modernize the A300 would easily surpass $1-2 billion. For reference, the 777LR cost $1.5 billion and the A345/A346 cost $3.5 billion. Those were just growth derrivitives. The 747-8 "modernization" will cost around $3-4 billion while the A350 will cost $5.5 billion. You just can't do anything substantial for half a billion dollars.

You certainly can't apply light-weight materials, integrate more efficent systems, integrate Airbus FBW, improve aerodynamics, and offer new generation engines. In fact, the only available engines would be the A350 version of the GEnx/T1000 adding 2,000 lbs per ship set than previous engines.

It's anything but straight forward. Airbus simply doesn't have the resources to start development on such an aircraft. In all likelyhood, the 787-3 will be alone in its niche. Airbus and Boeing will likely offer higher performance 225-seat aircraft as part of their A320/737NG replacements.
 
PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:15 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
The alure of the 787-3 is the complete commonality with the other 787 variants. If fully adopted by AA, the 787 could replace the 767, 777, and A300. That's three fleet types to one.

AA doesn't need that many regional widebodies. To overcome the penalty of operating a completly unique fleet type, Airbus would have to offer dramatically lower opperating cost compared to the 787-3. The 783 itself won't be a slouch, it just isn't the optimzed member of the 787 family, thus there is room for improvement.

... to put it in other words: Much of the advantages of the 787 over the A306 at AA are outside the scope of the A306 ...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
Don't kid yourself, the second those lease expire and AA is in a position to order new aircraft, the A300-600 are gone. They are some of AA's oldest widebodies, they are not remembered well for their dispatch reliability, and there are more modern aircraft available.

No doubts about that .. but this is again very AA-specific, because the A306 is some sort of black sheep in their herd ... for AA the 787 is the better plane!

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
The scope of upgrades necessary to modernize the A300 would easily surpass $1-2 billion.

... you could at least read my post. I never adapted estimates from other people, but acted on the assumption of 1bn of development costs and then said that the break-even might be at 100 frames. In case we act on your estimate of 2bn break-even might be at 200 airplanes and even this makes it not infeasible.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
Airbus and Boeing will likely offer higher performance 225-seat aircraft as part of their A320/737NG replacements.

Your idea is inspiring and not fetched from too far, but the we are more talking of an airplane carrying 250-280 people.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
No, it is only about 25000lbs heavier, that's just 12.5 tons. Don't forget, the B-787-300 is still in the design phase, some of that weight could be shed before it gets built.

The 783 is heavier, but it is also larger: 2m longer cabin, 12in more usable cabin width, more cargo space, more payload capacity. All of these features allow the plane to carry a lot more passengers (in 2-class with 9 across economy, around 330), more cargo (28 LD3s), more payload (49,000 kg).

Also part of the weight increase comes from features that increase efficiency (winglets, very high bypass engines with larger fans).

What the 783 lacks is range at high payloads. And perhaps it is too much capacity for routes flown with domestic 767s and A300s.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
blue787
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:37 pm

Quoting B742 (Reply 5):
maybe Airbus could jump in and cater for this market!

What about the A321???
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13069
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:58 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Updating a 30 year old design, give me a break.

Tell that to Boeing and the 737.  Yeah sure They did upgrade the today over 40 year old 737 design several times and continue to upgrade it.  Wink So why would an A300 upgrade not be feasable?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6340
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:05 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
But aren't the GEnx and/or Trent 1000 a lot heavier than the CF6 or PW4150? Won't there be 'knock on' effects of the weight, i.e. needing stronger pylons and reinforced wings?



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 30):
In fact, the only available engines would be the A350 version of the GEnx/T1000 adding 2,000 lbs per ship set than previous engines.

Don't forget smaller GEnx's are already in dvelopment for the 747-8.

However, I suspect the biggest advantage that Airbus might have for an A300 development would come from the likelihood of the "Trent 1500" deriv. of the Trent 500 being proposed for the A345/6E, which could quite easly offer similar economics whilst being "right-sized" for the application.

As discussed in other threads, there are a number of potential markets for a 55 000lb - 60 000 lb thrust next generation engine.
A

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):
I'd also argue that it'd cost a hell of a lot more than €300 million to completely overhaul the structural materials used on the A300, modify the engines, most likely the wings, upgrade the flight deck...not to mention recertifying it.

Correct. If the model does get upgraded, then many modifications will get incorporated, as you describe. The bottom end of the cost range would have to be $2Bn.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Updating a 30 year old design, give me a break.

Not a fan of the 747-8 then, KC?  Smile
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:07 pm

@ OEW A300-600 : nearly correct, just take the same as the B763 has,then it is allright ( i have checked it in our manuals... Smile )


Isn´t that amazing?

Boeing is developing a new airplane which is between 12,5 and 15 tons heavier than the airplane it should replace..?!? Entry into service is 24 years after the A300-600.Where is the advantage? What a bad airplane:For me it sounds like shrinking the B737-700 to the -600 or the A319 to A318: An airplane which is developed for airlines which are to operate other versions, but not for airlines which are not.

Let´s wait about Airbus response.An A350 update of the A306 could be possible.But in this case i would assume different engines,because they are one of the main weight problems of the 783.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:13 pm

The A300-600 and 767-300ER share the same engine, which weighs in at around 9500lbs (ave).

A GE90 (first gen) weighs in at 16500lbs (min).

One can assume that the GEnx, almost as big as the GE90, but with some lighter materials, will weigh somewhere around 13000lbs min. I've looked for figures on it, but can't find them. I only read how much weight is "saved" by using composites in various parts. But my guess is the engine will really weigh more like 145000lbs or more.

That means that a big part of the "bloat" of the 783 comes from the engines. We are talking a minimum of 7000lbs (but likely more like 10000lbs). You must also increase the structure to support this weight, and that happens in the wing, in the gear, in the wing box, etc. You also have added weight of fluids for a larger engine, though not too significant. And the engine cowl will also be bigger, adding weight, though there may be some savings in the use of composites here as well.

One can assume 1/3 - 1/2 of the "bloat" of the 783 comes from the engines and supporting the engines alone. Add to that the increased SIZE of the 783 over the 763/306, and increased capacity, and this idea that the 783 is somehow an overweight whale is pretty ignorant.

To make a competing A300, it would need to be LONGER, and take on the same 5 tons minimum added weight from the GEnx engines and the structure to support them. It would need the 350 treatment just to keep from being a bloated aircraft, just like the 787 needs the composite technologies to reduce it's weight.

There are some pounds that come from commonality in the 787, but not nearly the pounds people seem to think. Just like there are pounds in the 73G/319 that wouldn't need to be there if designed from scratch instead of being familiar with the 738/320. But that hasn't stopped the 73G/319 from being economical and top sellers.

Now just like the 318/736, if Boeing were to try a 782, the economics might start to break down, but the 783 is a very capable, very competitive aircraft.

It would take a LOT of work to take the A300 to that point, to the extent that it would basically be a redesign (new wing, new structure, new gear, new engines, new cockpit), and at that point, why update such an old plane? Why not build a new plane?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
mrcomet
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:44 pm

Seems to me this plane is designed for a niche market in the US and Japan where there is high density flights over short distances. JAL ordered but the US carriers don't have the money to order in bulk. It makes sense that their money is best used on buying long range 787s where they get the most savings for their investments.

The 787-3 probably offer less gain and so the buying will pick up heavily in about 5 years if and when the US carriers recover.

However, the 787-3 may never sell as much as the A300/767s they are replacing. If Boeing is right about point to point, the sales of 737/A320 should cut into this market as legacy carriers lose out to LCCs or unless the LCCs like Southwest and Jet Blue start to buy bigger planes.
The dude abides
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:25 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 37):
It would take a LOT of work to take the A300 to that point, to the extent that it would basically be a redesign (new wing, new structure,

I would think that the wing might need a little tweaking, but remember that the 783 has a 'different' wing optimized for short distances, which is probably what the 306 has.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:14 pm

Quoting Johnny (Reply 36):
Boeing is developing a new airplane which is between 12,5 and 15 tons heavier than the airplane it should replace..?!? Entry into service is 24 years after the A300-600.Where is the advantage? What a bad airplane:For me it sounds like shrinking the B737-700 to the -600 or the A319 to A318: An airplane which is developed for airlines which are to operate other versions, but not for airlines which are not.

For the umpteenth time, the 783 is a larger plane than the A306, and it certainly isn't a shrink as it is the same length as the 788. The 783 has a 2m longer cabin. More of the cabin width can be used for seating, giving it a 11 to 12in advantage over the A300 crossection. As a result, it can seat 60 to 70 more people in a 2 class format using 9 across seating in economy with seats wider than a 737. It can carry a much larger payload, and more LD3s.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 37):
One can assume that the GEnx, almost as big as the GE90, but with some lighter materials, will weigh somewhere around 13000lbs min. I've looked for figures on it, but can't find them. I only read how much weight is "saved" by using composites in various parts. But my guess is the engine will really weigh more like 145000lbs or more.

I've been trying to find GEnx and Trent1000 weight info as well but have had no luck. Maybe Lightsaber has a good estimate. Or maybe Widebodyphotog has actual numbers.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:23 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 40):
I've been trying to find GEnx and Trent1000 weight info as well but have had no luck. Maybe Lightsaber has a good estimate. Or maybe Widebodyphotog has actual numbers.

someone above said 2000 lbs more than the CF6 on the 767/A300, but that seems very, very low. The GEnx/Trent1000 is much bigger, nearly as big as the original GE90.

GE's tables list the weights of all their engines except the GEnx, and a Google search didn't turn the weight up for me either.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4520
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:24 pm

Once the cost of development and upgraded engines are factored into the equation would a potential A306(X) be price competitive with the 783?
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
Johnny
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:38 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:24 pm

@ Atmx2000

The B783 is probably more airplane as the A306, but probably also more airplane as the airlines want to buy...

To repeat it another time for you.Most airlines are looking for a light and efficient airplane with 300 seats in one class ( or 2) with a range of 3000km (europe) up to 4500km (usa).this would give a really great shorthaul-airplane which does not carry any add overweight caused by a high and not optimized DOW for shorthaul flights.

A really more effiecient airplane would be a B787 with a reduced fuselage diameter to have the possibility to seat 8 seats abreast with the same seat width as in the B787 in their current config.It would have to feature a lighter wing structure,lighter and lower thrust engines,a different gear for lower weights and probably other changes.
Probably a fuselage diameter between the 763 and the A306-diameter could be possible.

In the moment the B783 is nothing more than a 788 with slightly changed wing and a thinner fuselage, which in my thinking is completely wrong.On shorthaul flights your fuselage will be stressed MORE than on longhaul flights because of more sectors and resulting landings and cabin compressions and de-compressions as well.

Johnny

P.S. Same would be for a derivative of the A358 !!!
 
HiJazzey
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:00 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:53 pm

The A300 was a great plane, and I always found it a shame that Airbus ignored the very market that gave it it's first break by not updating it after the A306R. But I think it is now too late to look at updates. Even a year ago they had a chance, had they integrated it within the A350 programme, but now... no.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783

Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:45 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16):
There is a Widebodyphotog chart he created at my request to compare the 767-300, A300-600R, and 787-3 that had the information relevant to this conversation.

I believe you meant these..

250-300 Seat Short/Medium Range Characteristics

250-300 Seat Short/Medium Range Design Mission Data

Quoting Johnny (Reply 43):
n the moment the B783 is nothing more than a 788 with slightly changed wing and a thinner fuselage, which in my thinking is completely wrong.On shorthaul flights your fuselage will be stressed MORE than on longhaul flights because of more sectors and resulting landings and cabin compressions and de-compressions as well.

Actually the specific differences 787-8 to 787-3 are reduced gauge wing spar materials and substitution of the 787-8 extended span and raked tip with a true high aspect ratio winglet. There are minor changes to undercarriage oleos and tire pressures as well. Save for those the 787-8 and 787-3 are he exact same aircraft...

For short range/high frequency operation the reduced OEW and MTOW more than compensate for the increased stress due to operational demand on the 787-3 undercarriage. Because of this the undercarriage sees reduced stress per cycle than the 787-8. The pressurized fuselage also undergoes less stress per cycle as short range missions operate at lower altitudes and lower differential cabin pressures.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 41):
someone above said 2000 lbs more than the CF6 on the 767/A300, but that seems very, very low. The GEnx/Trent1000 is much bigger, nearly as big as the original GE90.

That is about right as far as weight differential goes, but the GEnx will not be nearly as massive as the current GE90 engines. However in spite of its increased weight relative to old generation engines the GEnX and Trent 1000 offer dramatic advantages in fuel efficiency, lower operating cost, reliability, and time on wing.

Quoting Johnny (Reply 36):
Boeing is developing a new airplane which is between 12,5 and 15 tons heavier than the airplane it should replace..?!? Entry into service is 24 years after the A300-600.Where is the advantage? What a bad airplane:For me it sounds like shrinking the B737-700 to the -600 or the A319 to A318: An airplane which is developed for airlines which are to operate other versions, but not for airlines which are not.

The advantages over the old generation aircraft are quite clear. First and foremost massive fuel savings for any given range and payload, 20% or more depending on the aircraft in comparison. Secondly significantly improved passenger comfort in terms of cabin space and environment. Third, increased operational speed and flexibility of operation resulting from the integration of modular and simplified ancillary systems that improve reliability and lower operating costs...

Quoting Johnny (Reply 36):
Let´s wait about Airbus response.An A350 update of the A306 could be possible.But in this case i would assume different engines,because they are one of the main weight problems of the 783.

I would not be optimistic about Airbus developing a superior product to the 787-3 for a couple reasons. Number one the market is probably not big enough to warrant the development of a new airplane at this time. Secondly a "shrink" of the A350 will likely end up dramatically heavier than the 787-3, a-la A340-500. The A350-800 would only have to shrink 3-5 frames to match the capacity of 787-3. This would only amount to 8-9,000lbs in structural weight reduction if the A350 wing is maintained so you're talking about an aircraft that is more than 40,000lbs in the hole vs 787-3. This would dramatically lower its fuel efficiency relative to the Boeing and the span will be too large to use gates that the 767 and 787-3 can currently use. If you're talking about a smaller, entirely new wing then it is unlikely that it would be able to bring down that disparity by much more than half so still roughly 20,000lbs more structural weight than the 787-3 hypothetically.

This is the curse of shrinking an airplane design. It's much easier to add structure to and increase the capabilities of an aircraft when lengthening a fuselage than it is to "shrink" an airplane for missions it was not otherwise designed for. One has to remember that the 787 line builds on the basic architecture of the 787-3, which was designed to be as light and efficient as possible from day one. Its longer range and larger dimensioned siblings add structure only as it is necessary to increase strength for the designed missions. Doing it the other way round you end up with...well, an A340-500...

As far as "weight problems" for 787-3 are concerned weight is really not a problem for 787-3. The airplane does not have any new generation competitors and old generation aircraft are inferior in the ways I laid out. As long as Boeing gets within the margins they have specified debate is really moot as a potential A350 based competitor could not get close to the 787-3 OEW in my speculation. Structural weight is on target for the 787-3, and since the first Trent 1000 was lit up only a few days ago and the GEnX is not yet built, claims of overweight engines are pretty baseless...



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13754
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:37 am

Quoting Johnny (Reply 43):
To repeat it another time for you.Most airlines are looking for a light and efficient airplane with 300 seats in one class ( or 2) with a range of 3000km (europe) up to 4500km (usa).this would give a really great shorthaul-airplane which does not carry any add overweight caused by a high and not optimized DOW for shorthaul flights.

Call me skeptical, but if there were such a clear need, it would have been filled a while ago, presumably with a modernized A300. Note also the B787-3 isn't exactly racking up the orders.

The A300 was initially used as a 727 replacement in the 70s, but the market has changed a lot since then. Most of that flying is now done by planes with smaller capacities flying more frequently, i.e. A320 and B737NG. In the case where the capacity is needed, airlines find it more pratical to "abuse" larger aircraft such as A330, B767 and B777-200 rather than to maintain a fleet of shorthaul widebodies.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:16 am

Coming back to this topic, it seems quite a few people have had their eyes opened about the 787-3 and its so-called dedicated short haul design, which is far from light weight....

As to the cost of updating the existing A300-600, I'll stick to my estimation of roughly €300 ($360) million, because I would focus the redesign on 2 relatively SIMPLE things;
-) exchange a limited number of A300-600 fuselage segments by new A350 segments, i.e. only those 100% identical, thus creating a hybrid fuselage of old A300-600 and new A350 elements.
-) recertify the plane with new (derated) engines currently under development for the 787-3, the cost of which can be split between Airbus and the engine manufacturers (not an uncommon method BTW),
I'd keep the wing as it is and sell the 'test plane' to the launch customer to limit the costs even further.

It would not make the best possible update of the A300-600, but it would certainly be a very low cost update, more than enough to beat the bony 787-3 two fingers in the nose.

[Edited 2006-02-24 03:19:49]
 
PADSpot
Topic Author
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 47):
exchange a limited number of A300-600 fuselage segments by new A350 segments, i.e. only those 100% identical, thus creating a hybrid fuselage of old A300-600 and new A350 elements.

...at this point it starts getting infeasible. Changing structural properties are definitely the most expensive ones ... definitle 1bn at least then, more likely 1,5bn or more ...

Low cost improvement would comprise engines, larger winglets, new lighter cabin interior and avionics updates such as a full EFIS flightdeck, flybywire-controls etc ... at even these minor improvement would easily exceed 500mn ... the mere prototype would costs 200mn at least ...
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:51 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 46):
Call me skeptical, but if there were such a clear need, it would have been filled a while ago

Sabenapilot, this is a good quote, now I repeat what I previously posted with some added thoughts:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 43):
A really more effiecient airplane would be a B787 with a reduced fuselage diameter

Then it wouldn't be a 787, would it?

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 47):
exchange a limited number of A300-600 fuselage segments by new A350 segments

Easier said than done. I have these types of changes occur in my projects on a daily basis, where a person doesn't realize what their small change really means. This is called the 'ripple effect' because the change balloons into something that was much larger than imagined. A better question is, if changing fuselage (structure) characteristics of an airplane was so easy, it would have happened many times before.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 47):
recertify the plane with new (derated) engines currently under development for the 787-3

Again, easier said than done. After all, you will have ground clearance requirements and possible structural requirements to the wing due to increased weight.

So now you have a redesigned fuselage and wing, plus the avionics and electronics required for a newer airplane. If someone can do it for so little, I'll buy their stock.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 45):
As far as "weight problems" for 787-3 are concerned weight is really not a problem for 787-3

764 weight (empty) = 227,400 lbs
332 weight (empty) = 264,875 lbs

Which has sold more??