Hi everybody!

I would like to talk about the A3XX a little bit.
I think it will be THE most spactacular commercial airliner when it has its roll-out.
What do you think, when will the first aircraft take the skys? And which airlines will order it? Where will it be build (Toulouse, Hamburg, Rostock... Sevilla)?

I think that Airbus Industrie will formally launch the A3XX in late 2000 and will then give the plane the name A350. The most potential launch customer to me is British Airways (maybe together with Qantas). Maybe even United could be in front row (if there is not too much pressure from the US government).
There is also the possibility that Japan Airlines launches a "shuttle" version for the domestic market in Japan.

What do you think of the A3XX? What will Boeing do? (they can't compete with an aircraft concept from the sixties...)

I think the A3XX will be a big success in the coming decades (when the Asian crisis is over) and will shape air travel as the 747 did.

Hope to get replies...

Regards,

The WorldTraveller

I think that the A3XX is as potentially dangerous a project as the Concorde was for BAC/Aerospatiale one reason:

The increasing viability of two engined, lower capacity aircraft on longer and longer routes would allow direct service between many international city pairs. Thus, eliminating the need for large 747 aircraft for "hub to hub" service. Why operate one Chicago to Hong Kong flight on an A3XX when you can fly several 777-200X flights and offer greater flexibility in schedule.

The only thing that could make it truly viable would be severe slot restrictions at airports, which of course could be remedied by increased airport infrastructure construction and air traffic control modernization (such as further adoption of GPS on-board ATC systems).

I think that Boeing was smart not to pursue the 747-500X or -600X, just to stick to a slightly stretched 747-400. They have got the right idea to focus on the 767 and 777 series.

I do love the idea of the A3XX, but I think it is way to ambitious a program. I hope Airbus Industrie is right or Boeing might be on the way to hegemony!

I agree with you TranStar. I also think that plane will be in major trouble if it ever crashes and takes 600 people with it.

The trouble is the same as with a plane carrying 100 people. Air safety is about knowing the reasons of air disasters and solute them for the future, not a question of more or less lifes lost.

About the A3XX I don't see a big market for it but sure it's a change in air transport like the 747 was in the 60's and Airbus ahead in this change. Also I would love to see it flying.

Luis, Faro, Portugal

The A3XX will probably be renamed the A350, due to thats the pattern Airbus has been doing with the naming of the jets. The A3XX is due out in late 2005 for its first flight and its launch customer will be an airline that needs a large jet, like British Airways or American.

Jeff

My thoughts on the A3XX. 1. If its built, I want a ride. 2. It will be built, but not for profit. It will be built for pride. 3. There is nothing revolutionary about it. Its a tube with wings and four engines, a concept wel-known now for 40 years. the 20% gain in seat costs/mile is on paper only. More conservative estimates predict as low as 8-10% greater than a stretched 744. What happens when the plane takes off with less than 90% capacity? The accountants jump out the window. 4. Why hasn't Airbus launched already? Not just the consortium issue. Its obvious the airlines are afraid to commit and Airbus doen't have near enough interest to break-even yet. Wondering about the lack of risk-sharing partners so far? Financial analysts are the most heartless and objective people on the planet. If they don't like it then something ain't right. 5. Airbus will never collapse. Europe will prop this puppy up no matter what the A3XX does to the bottom line. The US will bitch and moan, but when was the last time Europe paid any attention to the US? Another case for the WTO that Europe will choose to ignore. First bananas and beef, now BUFFs.

I am not going to turn into a Boeing vs Airbus thing,but let me say this,last year an aircraft manufacturer garnered 50% of the airline orders and it was NOT BOEING. Enough said on that subject.

When Boeing was building the 747 the same arguments were made,about being to big,no one will buy,yada,yada,yada. There is a market,because Asian airports are not only slot controlled,but timed controlled with wee hours operations curtailed. Airports such as the one that serves Tokyo,is still fighting to open a 2nd runway,so increase capactiy is not coming anytime soon. Do we forget what it was like before the Asian Crisis,when 747s were flying sold out across the Pacific? So yes there is a market,how big? Thats anybody's guess.

Regarding safety, The A3XXX safety should be a non issue. Have we forgotten the Japan Airline 747 crash in the Japanese mountains. It was sad,upwards of over 500 people killed on ONE plane. I think the cause was do to a bulkhead literal blowing part of the tail section off. I am more concerned,about flying over stretches of the Pacific Ocean on 2 engines!! Thats what you need to be concern about,for all of you aviation enthusiast know full well,if a 777 is lost over the Pacific,and the press rattles on and on, that will be end of 2 engine flying over the Pacific at for awhile.

The truth is we do not know how the A3XXX is going to influence future travel,all the Boeing supporters are hoping it will fail,all the Airbus supporters are hoping it will succeed. I wish Airbus will cancel the project,and bring out a plane that would really show its technical prowness,a successor to the CONCORDE, then discussions on which is better,747 or 777 will become a mute point.

I don't think the A3XX will ever be built. No airline (especially in the current 'high frequency' schedules) needs that kind of capacity on any route. You will never see AA or QF or BA or UA fill up a plane with that many passengers...it just won't happen! I do agree with whomever said that it will only be built for pride...that way, Airbus will have 'one up' on Boeing.

Yes, we do remember when the 747's were flying full across the Pacific, and now we look and see the airlines plans for -mutiple- (much smaller capacity) 777's plowing across the Pacific in a higher frequency schedule...so long, 747!

Safety wise, 600 people in one crash is a lot, yes, but what about the 'other', longer versions of the A3XX that Airbus has on the drawing board...the 900-seat plane? I sure would hate to have to see an airline deal with that problem! Can you imagine 900 people (or families) sueing an airline for oh...at least $1 million each for some fault with that airline's A3XX? How about each of those families sueing Airbus for...oh...$10 million each if the A3XX was at fault in a crash?!

It just won't be built...if Airbus made it a little smaller, it might fare better in today's market...

FLY777UAL

[email protected]

I definately agree with William, up until he wished they would cancel the project. I personally would love to see it fly, and it will. Asia will be back on thier feet soon, and thats who really needs the A3XX. Asia doesn't need a modest yield speed increase(new concorde), they need massive uplift. When their economy gets back on track, they will commit, then Airbus will, and soon enough, other global airlines will follow suite.

Wingman,

I really can't hear your cries about bad bad Europe any more. Yes, we are independent over here, we are no playing ball of the US and we can find our own decisions.
You talk about the WTO and Europe's behaviour...and the US getting so hard attacked by bananas and beef...oh my god.
Wasn't and isn't it the US who always tries to be the "World police", being everywhere, from Paris to Timbuktu, and tell people what they have to do?
"Keep the embargo against Iran or we'll enter a trade war, keep the embargo against Ching-Chang-Chung and Chung-Chang-Ching or you'll face problems..."
We can do what we want and we don't have to pay attention to anybody. US should care about own problems before giving us advice. That reminds me on the house which burns and whose owner tells other people how to prevent a fire...

Regards
Udo

All the Americans on here don't want to see the A3XX cos they know that it will decisively end America's domination of commercial aviation. All their "world police" antics have helped to create such a big market for Airbus cos so many countries are resentful at all of America's cruel and inhumane trade embargoes and order European on principle whether Airbus is a better product or not (I like to think it is). America's arrogance is partly to blame for their own loss of prestige, but what can they expect when they berate other countries over human rights records while bombing everyone else, often for no discernable reason? As for the A3XX, it will definitely be built, airlines can hope for high frequencies between city pairs and it may be possible between DFW and Miami or Newark but Tokyo, Heathrow - most of the important international hubs - are completely full and anyone who wants more uplift need something bigger than the 747. And there are a lot of airlines who could use it. Finally, whoever said it would be built "out of pride" couldn't be more wrong - Airbus are intended to make a profit for their owners, and I believe they already do. At least, they have started paying back significant amounts of the initial outlay lent to them by the governments. Europe doesn't need to prove anything, we've already pioneered twin-widebodies and succesfully introduced FBW before anyone else and sold more than a thousand A320s (I'm not counting the crappy and horribly expensive Eurofighter here - as one American observed at Farnborough, "Well, you've got to give it to them, they've finally perfected the F-102"). I can't wait to see an A3XX, let alone ride in one. And unless it has some horribly symbolic accident (like on it's first commercial service), it should be another well-thought-out Airbus success story.

l hope they wont built it in Germany ore France, that would cost to much. They should built it in Spain, way not in Holand ?

>What do you think of the A3XX? What will Boeing do? (they can't compete with an aircraft concept from the sixties...)

Thats a very good Question !!!!
l hope they not make something new and stick to the old ugly B747, this way Airbus can show that they have something new and good.

l wonder if airlines like Lufthansa ore Air France would be the Launching customers ??
Maby you are right abou BA and Qantas ! its sound pretty good, even if l would rather have some US airline.

BY !

I do think that there is a market for a larger aircraft than the current 747-400. I don't think it is large enough to warrant an all new aircraft. If Airbus launches the A3XX Boeing will most likely counter with the 747-400Xs (2 Models) these aircraft will garner orders away from the A3XX due to their 747 "Family" heritage. There has also been word that the new 747s cost only 2-4% more to operate than the A3XX. This is only from wind tunnel tests.

Wingman, fly777ual, you guys dont want to see Airbus building that plane. But contrary to what you say fly777ual, UA, BA and QF are one of the airlines who showed interest in the project and will be involved in its development. What are you complaining about? Do you know how many American jobs will be created by building that plane? Think about the avionics, the engines (except for RR), parts etc....You guys are not thinking global, you are stuck in this narrow minded Airbus-Boeing quarrel...and by the way Wingman think about your comment "aircraft is a tube, wings and engines, nothing revolutionnary..." I am not even going to argue that, the irrational speaks for itself.
Happy flying eveybody!

The topic says it all. Udo and Cedar, does my post say anything bad about Europe? Of course not, I simply make a sarcastic comment about the recent WTO rulings which Europe chose to ignore. Udo, the then leader of the WTO was Renato Ruggiero. I hate to tell you this, but he is from Europe, Italy to be precise. Do you know who Javier Solana is? He's a Spaniard who directed the "policing" of Kosovo, leading a NATO force consisting of over 90% European "police" forces and the US. Please chill out guys, I'm ot insulting anyone. I said I want to ride the A3XX when its launched. But I seriously doubt that Airbus will make any money from it. There's no monopoly such as the one that existed with the 747. To A340, where exactly is the revolution? To be a revolution you have to do something extradonary to radically re-shape the industry. Think 707, a milestone. Think 747, a milestone. Both led to monopolies and extraordinary profits. The A3XX will offer, 2-10% savings over a stetched 747 and up to a 100 more pax in later versions, almost none in the first version. There is absolutely nothing revolutionary about it. It just flies a few more people. This is why Airbus is dragging its feet. The nightmares about a $10-15 billion screw-up must keep Pearson up all night.

As for how many American jobs Airbus provides, that is nothing compared to the amount of European jobs that Boeing provides. I apologize for forgetting the stats, but when BA ordered their A320s they went on about how this would help Europe and keep Boeing honest. Well when the stats came out for how many jobs Boeing provides compared to Airbus in England it was hilarious. Now these numbers are not correct but you get the drift. Airbus provided something like 10 jobs while Boeing provided 200.

.....but of course you would not say it. This is where I dont agree with you sir. You know very well the easy way out saying : "did I say anything bad about Airbus or Europe? "Even if you do not say it in a specific post, we all know where you stand in these issues. By the way I totally agree with the fact that the 707 (the aircraft which made jet travel safe) and 747 (speaks for it self) are milestones but you have to give as much credit to Airbus --- being the first wide body twin jet in the world --- and with your permission it took Boeing until 1979 to fly its own version: the B767.
About your earlier post about the communality issue on the narrow-wide body in Airbus, you have to take into consideration Swissair for example which will take advantage of the economics of operating a similar cockpit across the line...Just because BA did order A320s does not mean that they have to order 340s in order to take advantage of communality, they already have some communality between the 767 and 757...Sometimes it is worth the move sometimes it is not. With your subjective views only crediting Boeing you are far from being appreciated from people like me who respect, love flying both Boeing and Airbus and think that both companies have their own merits. Thank you.

I had to delete a few posts here that turned ugly starting with a post by CX747 and a few replies. People, please don't turn this into a US vs Europe discussion.

Thanks,
Johan

I have seen a computer generated version of the interior and exterior of the A3XX (www.airbus.com) and it looks very interesting. It will definatley put a new view on air travel for lots of people. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think many companies will have a huge need for them. When you think about it, flights are almost never fully booked, and the airlines are only REALLY busy in the summer months. So the airlines can only use the A3XX for 2-3 months of the year. The big international companies could use them though (Canadian, British Airways, American, Quantas) as they have 5-7 flights a week to one destination. With the A3XX, they can cun that to about 2 flights a week.
One more thing to consider, is the A3XX going to be more economical (in terms of fuel comsumption) than the current aircraft, or are we just as better off flying th 5-7 flights a week.
Well, that's my opinion on the subject.

I do think that there is a need for an aircraft like the A3XX but I don't think the investment in a new aircraft 12-15 billion dollars can be recouped. Any move that Airbus makes can be countered by Boeing with the 747-400Xs or they could all of the sudden think that a 600 seat aircraft is needed and make their own. I think the future lies in the 747-400X, 777-200X and the A340-500/600.

Do not equate my strong opinions on Airbus with a hatred for Europe. Furthermore, my opinions on Airbus have nothing to do with their product, they have to do with what I believe is an unfair competitive advantage. Can someone not have opinions without being labeled in this forum. You surprise with your lack of tolerance and understanding of the concept of free and INTELLIGENT debate. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but I hate to be labeled by anyone, especially someone who doesn't know the first thing about me. I grew up in Europe, I'm fluent in two European languages and conversant in two others. I love Gouda cheese and Italian white wine. I've requested a transfer to Europe because I would love to see my children grow up there. I love so many things about Europe, but Airbus' Modus Operandi simply isn't one of them. I also dislike liberal US gun policy. Udo and 340, nNow how will you label me?

If Airbus could find a way so that cargo companies can easily load and unload off the double decks,then this aircraft has the possilbility of becoming the favorite of cargo companies. Think about it,if this aircraft can carry 1 1/2 times the cargo of an FEDEX MD11,yet on the same or lower operating cost of an MD11,cha-ching,you got FEDEX's attention. The same with DHL,UPS,ATLAS and so on.

If this plane is built,it will not be built in great numbers,but it would fill an important segment. Asian countries except for a few are not in a hurry to build bigger airports,and their operation restrictions necessitates LARGE aircraft,be it 747 or A3XXX. Heck,look at London Heathrow,they are operating at full capacity now,and with no future plans of expansion,except for a new BA terminal.

But let me you with something else to think about. Imagine a lowfare airline flying one of these,be it coast to coast or across oceans with 1 or 2 flights frequency. With 600 or plus seats,and plenty of revenue generating cargo space this could, I do say could,change air travel in the future.

I have been well aware that UA, BA, QF, etc. have been involved with the A3XX development ever since Airbus launched the program. I do want to see it built...I think it will be an excellent airliner! If I did have an airline, the (smallest version) A3XX would be my flagship plane for international routes! Just the sheer space inside, and the possibility of making it into a "FLYING BOAT" with the lounges, double beds, etc....it is AMAZING! I just don't see that large of a market for the plane...as I said before, the airlines are all going for the 'smaller plane more flights' philosophy (unfortunately...), with BA, UA, etc. switching orders from the 747 to the 777. I believe that the new A340-500/600 and the new 777-200/300ER (and a little larger planes) will now be the mainstay of the airlines' overseas flights...400-450 seat planes, yes...600-700 seat planes, no.

FLY777UAL

[email protected]

God that plane looks nice on the inside!

FLY777UAL

Can anyone give me exactly one route (IE:JFK-CDG), flown by one airline that carries such capacity (1200+) daily that it can employ the A3XX without losing the value of Frequency? Please back this up with facts.

I believe as always in the longrun, Boeing will survive, as it survivied McDonald Douglas. I can see it now, the A360 is now the 797! Lets all face the truth, Airbus will build A3XX, financial departments will laugh in Airbus's face, and Boeing will survive.

Jay
LAX--MIA-JFK--HTW-MAD

Here are some routes: London - Sydney, Sydney - Los Angeles, London - Tokyo, London - New York, New York - Tokyo (in fact Tokyo to just about anywhere), Singapore - London. It'll be mainly ultra-long haul stuff where the actual frequency isn't important, the only reason there are three Qantas 747s a day to LA is cos you can't fit 1200 people in one. It's such a long flight that it doesn't matter to the customers what time it arrives, they're not going to be doing anything for 24 hours after arrival anyway. Same with London - Sydney (2 BA 747s, 2 QF 747s), all four flights are practically flying in formation, all arriving at Heathrow within two hours. BA can use the uplift on some routes even if they are slightly reducing capacity on others. Thing is that the economics of operating one of these things competely rammed with economy seats will be so amazing that there may be radical changes to the whole air transport map as low-cost carriers offer fares on high-density low-yield routes such as New York - San Juan, New York - LA, trans-Atlantic (Oakland or Newark - London Stansted for instance) at third of the current fares (and make a huge profit). It'll make a great freighter, but as with the 747, industry observers will expect it to become mainly a freighter once the new SSTs kick in. It'll fly really empty for the first few years of service with bars, bedrooms and a gym, poor loads maybe compounded by a heavy worldwide recession that I expect in the first five years of the next century (as was the case in the early to mid 70s as the 747-100s came along). The SST will never materialise and the air travel market will adjust to the new scale of the A3XX, coinciding with a recovery of the world economic situation, and the aircraft will be as revolutionary as the 747 and be the perfect size for the market by 2008 and sell more than 1,000. If it has The Airbus Cockpit then Boeing-centric airlines like BA can still have commonality with it's A320 crews, and still keeping the 747s and 777s which won't be the flagships anymore, just footsoldiers like McDD often were in mixed fleets before the merger. By the way, the bars, gym and smoking lounge will be history as soon as the loads pick up. Many airlines couldn't fill the 747s in the 70s and American Airlines actually had all of Zone E as the coach class lounge, with an aluminium piano and everything. When the loads were better, that thing was ripped out faster than you can say "Play it again sam". The same will happen with the A3XX. Just cos a plane is bigger doesn't make it more luxurious.

I am not trying to label you. I am just asking a question: do you think the A300 was a milestone or not? You always mention Boeings achievements like the 707 & 747 and I just was not surprise you did not even mention the A300s....that is it...and by by the way I am not American nor European and I have no interest in defending one or the other....

Why would you purchase the A3XX if their is an aircraft that costs THE SAME to operate carrys 20-40 fewer people and has commonality with existing airframes and cockpits along with fleets?

What is the aircraft that costs the same as the A3XX (as if it was possible to know, since the A3XX is not yet in operation...) and carries 20-40 less passengers?
Are you sure it exists/will exist?

Remember this: 747s carring 500 paxes have an all-Y and reduced number of galleys/WC configuration, while the A3XX-100 would carry 600 (therefore, 100 more instead of 20-40...) in an 3 classes arrengement, including high-luxury F and C-class facilities.

Please, don't compare Japanese Domestic 747 with Intercontinental long-haul high-confort A3XX.

And also remember Boeing is showing itself very reticent about launching or not new B747s. They are not convicted about the existence of a market that allows 2 similar planes (the A3XX and the Boeing product).

Now, talking about the plane, I'd give it A360 name, because the A350 could be a new A310 family (or some other product as well of course).

Best Regards for you all,

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.

The aircraft I am talking about is the two 747-400X models. They cost the same as the A3XX or 2% more carry the same amount of pax and have commonality with the 747-400, 777-200, 767-400ER along with the 737NG.

I thought that there is to be commonality between: 777/7674 and *similarity* between the 737NGs and the 717 but not 'commonality'. am I wrong?

P.S. Totally unrelated, what might we look for in a 757 replacement from Boeing down the road?

Lance

I have read on the Boeing website that a B757-100 is in the works. It will be the same size as the 757-200 but have a new flight deck and other improvements.

The A3XX should be built. Passenger demand will recover in Asia. Lack of slots, limits on operating hours and the preference of flyers for preferrred departure and arrival times for flights over 8 hours means that most major long distance city pairs already have flights bunched in a 2-3 hour slot.

As Latin America recovers, does it not make sense to operate a couple A3XX from Sao Paulo to JFK and replace the many flights all of which leave between 8 pm and midnight?

Cargo Capacity: Right now my customers are experiencing cargo constraints from Taiwan and Hong Kong to the US. Planes are full and urgent cargo will sometimes wait 2-3 days for space--A 3XX could increase capacity using same number of slots.

Rgds

About the new B747-400X, don't forget that Boeing is just considering these planes as probable response to the A3XX, but Boeing hasn't plans to build it because themselves assure that there isn't market for it (therefore, they are always talking about city-pairs operations with medium size planes such the 777: it's their propose; they don't admit market for 600 seaters on hubs. If you don't believe, check the Boeing' and then the Airbus' global market forecast section on their sites: Airbus supports hubs and high-capacity operations while Boeing doesn't agree with this).

About São Paulo - JFK, I think that Star Alliance and oneworld could both buy the plane (yes, the planes belong to the alliances) and then TAM+American and VARIG+United could offer the service. It would be at least curious! And this could also happen worldwide: CX and BA could operate A3XXs together on London - HK services, LH and Singapore on SNG - FRA,... we would fly on a plane belonging to an alliance and not to a particular airline. Just thoughts!

TP343, São Paulo, Brazil.

why don't we talk about it when it comes out or when we have the first costomer

You can't lower the frequency of flights. That is death to the accountants. The lower the frequency, the more the plane sits idle. When the plane sits idle we call that "opportunity cost" or the amount of profit we would have made had the plane been operational. The A3XX must fly, land and turn around FULL as often as safely possible to earn $$$ for the operator. That's all that matters. Slots are available. Do you think that gov'ts in Asia are afraid to exporpriate land if the demand is sufficient? We need to be realistic. Personal freedom is much less valuable than government interest in this part of the world, in part warranted by a much lower land per capita figure. If slots are needed, they'll be there.

Well I was some days off and it is really interesting to read all the posts here.

Ok, CX747, you might be right with your "B747X-is cheaper to buy" story, but I ask all of you now: What will you do in 12 years, or even later? What will you do in 2015, still flying around in 1960-planned B747s? Nobody knows if they can create a new supersonic transport till that date, but what I know is that air travel will increase in large rates and some day it must be possible to operate a 700-seat aircraft, otherwise flying gets something for the rich, as it was in the past. Why? Just think of already today crowded airports, crowded air space, crowded runways, taxiways and so on. Increase frequencies easily won't be possible any more one day, just because airports and air space have their natural deadlines. End of capacity means higher prices: many people can't afford to fly any more, very easy!
Routes like London-New York or Tokyo-Los Angeles will always be flown, and after the 30th daily Triple Seven left some may ask how to provide the twenty daily services to Boston? Streched B747s for 500 pax in three classes may provide a certain period of time, but after that period what will they do? They have to build a larger aircraft, why do you ignore the future after the year 2010?

Wingman, I really don't enjoy to attack you, I never have. But sometimes you wrote things which couldn't ce called "fair". And whenever I (or any others) answer in a similar way you always feel badly attacked, I wonder why. It was you who attacked us in a an absolutely dark way some weeks ago, I'm sure you knwo what I mean. Please check your comments before posting, then you won't always have to write that "I have never ...I didn't want" and so on.
We can read very well, and sometimes it gets clear what you wanted to express. So really don't wonder about our posts. It's not me how tries to start "fights" in that forum. I'm here to discuss, as most.
And please, do you really think Airbus is the only "bad guy" who gets support from the government? Boeing does also, and if you don't want to believe that, it's your own decision. Be happy with it.

Best Regards
Udo

I understand your arguement but just how many A3XXs can be sold. The developmental cost alone is 12-15 billion dollars. I think that operating a 747-XXX which is cheaper to purchase and equal in operating costs is a better way than the A3XX. Anyway the new 747-XXX will have a new wing and other improvements. Calling the 747-XXX a child of the 60s is truly irrelevant. While there are similarities to earlier model 747s it basically stops there. If it was such ancient technology then BA, SQ, UAL, JAL, ANA, QF and others would have made the 747-400 the best selling 747 of all time.

Hi all
It's nice to see that the A3XX provides so many stuff to discuss!
I think TP343 came up with a very interesting point by saying that in the future Alliances could own and fly a plane. I think in like 10 or 20 years this can actually be reality (think of the news today that KLM/ALITALIA will do a merger practically).
Alliances could really help the A3XX-program getting started!

What do you think?

Regards

Oh yes! The A3XX will certainly be a nice big aircraft for the major airlines, especially with the increasing traffic in air travel. Airbus seems to be working on it seriously. Air travel is expected to more than double in the next twenty years or so. If the A3XX becomes reality it'll be called the A350 I'm sure. I can see United, Lufthansa, Air Canada and Thai launching the A350 together next year for service entry in the year 2005, I imagine. The A3XX could be a replacement for the 747-400 in the 2010's. Maybe there'll be a new variant of the A3XX (A350-500 who knows?) that will replace the A340 in the early 2020's.
What will Boeing do?
I think that they are going to design the 787 to compete with the A3XX in the 2010's when the 747-400's will approach their replacement time. I imagine that the 787 will be a four engine double decker airliner with a capacity of up to 800 passengers, and a crew of 40 flight attendants and four pilots. The 787 will have a two cockpit crew similar to that of the 747-400 and 777, fly-by-wire controls and hi-bypass ratio engines generating over 100000 lbs of thrust. It'll be offered with Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric power plants. That'll be up to each airline of course.
So my conclusion is: The A3XX (A350 when it becomes reality) will be the right replacement for the 747-400 and A340 in the 2010's. But Boeing can certainly make a 787 to compete with it, a 787 and maybe a 747-500, 600 and 700 when the asian crisis will be finished. That is exactly what I predict for the next generation of wide bodies : the A3XX and the 787 being the two largest commercial aircraft ever built.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium