A350 - First Pictures!

karan69 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:34 am

It looks like a Fatter twin of the A330 they should have called it a A330-800

DfwRevolution · Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:51 am

I think this is still the stupidest project Airbus have undertaken.. Why rename it? Its still an A330 just like the 747-400 was still a 747.

It's called product diversification. If Airbus called the A346 the A300-900 how modern would it seem?

Shame its not something new, but the A330 isn't broken

Uhhh.... it obviously is or Airbus wouldn't be revamping it Big grin

who the hell wants to spend 18hours in an aluminium tube? i can only think of one or two nutty posters on this here forum who would do it!

Who the hell wants to spend 9 hours on a plane, 4 hours on the ground, then another 9 hours in a different plane? Given most passengers' travel habits, they tend to sleep for longer periods on ULH flights anyway. Besides, the cabin will be configured accordingly... you won't fly 18 hours in RyanAir configuration.

Say it with me SST SST SST...

Wait two decades and you'll have your wish.

solnabo · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:00 am

I´ll go SST anytime, dude!!!

Big thumbs up

Micke

airliner777 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:13 am

Blah, blah, blah.... just another way from Airbus to keep up with the B777LR Family, and the new 7E7!

hahaha Big grin

j.mo · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:18 am

Nice pics, thanks . . . .

An A330 by any other name . . . . . . . . is still an A330 . .

I would say, "An A300 by any other name......can be an A330 or A350."

Jeremy

Springbok747 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:51 am

Looks like a slightly bigger version of the A330. But I guess Airbus will change their design before they settle on a final product.

As an aside, does anyone know how the B7E7 will look like? Have Boeing finalized the design?

richm · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:57 am

Nice A330 with winglets!
It doesn't look like they are putting in much effort in terms of design.

agill · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:01 am

RichM: Well this is hardly the final look, since they just started working on it.

aerlingus330 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:47 am

Everyone is critisizing Airbus, just because two of their planes look similar

The 767 looks a bit similar to the 777

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Bleus

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zak Economides

so why didnt everyone get on boeings back for that.

aerlingus330

aerlingusa330 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:59 am

I don't understand why Airbus doesn't do what they did with the A320 series with the A350. The A318/319/320/321 are all the same design but different sizes, ranges, etc. They could designate the A350 the A331 or the A335...using the prefix "A33__". I don't see a reason for using the "A350-800/900" besides trying to make it sound like they have a new aircraft as an answer to the Boeing 7E7.

Aerlingusa330

ariis · Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:34 am

Aerolingus330,

regarding the A330 and A350, in my opinion it is not a matter of similarity, but almost identity (at least that is my impression looking at these pictures above).

And if you say that B767 is similar to B777, then come on, go and look again.

Best regards
FAO

FriendlySkies · Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:29 am

so why didnt everyone get on boeings back for that.

Because the 777 was designed from scratch, and has absolutely nothing in common with the 767 (ok, there is a very (VERY) small part of the nose cone that is shared with the 767 if you want to get technical about it). Boeing didn't use drawings of the 767 to build the 777, they designed the whole thing on a computer, while the 767 was not.

The A350 is a DERIVATIVE, no matter what Airbus wants to say. They are taking a current design and using it over. They can do whatever the hell they want to it, but it will always be an A330 underneath. How do I know this? Because it isn't possible to SAFELY design, build, test, and certify a brand new design in 4 years (if they are staying with 2009 EIS). It's an A330, anyway you want to look at it.

CcrlR · Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:37 am

Still looks like the A330 to me. This is like Bombardier's C series looking like the Embraer 190. Well, I hope Boeing's 7E7 goes good since it looks nice and not like any other aircraft.

united4ever · Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:48 am

Will people please realise that aircraft are not designed to please the spotters, they are designed to please the airlines. The latter, in turn, are a little more interested in the economics and the views of those who see the planes from inside, not from the observation decks or outside the perimeter fences.

Additionally, out of the A350 and the 7E7 which one's going to have the lower development costs? This will help Airbus to keep the price down.

What does it matter if it's a derivative of the A330? The airlines don't care about that, thay care about the economics and performance.

Mike

CRPilot · Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:55 am

Very well said Mike! Unfortunetly it will fall on the deaf ears of those who see the world only throught the eyes of "A or B".

Anyways, it's so exciting to see the advances in technology that both the A350 and the 7E7 will bring to the table. Like very few here, all I care about is the final product of both manufactures and where they will take us.

Checo77 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:03 am

Oh God, what a boring, not-original and so awfull looking plane. Airbus really need innovation on their design, at least, Boeing made a new, fresh-looking desing with their 7E7. Don´t know, but Airbus will not impress any airline and/or passangers with this plane. I mean, airlines that posses 777, A330 and A300 will definitely not buy this plane. And most of today airlines operate these types.
Airbus will never convince me, I hate their A380 and now it lookes like their A350 as well.
Regards,
Adam

Rj111 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:04 am

I kinda think it sucks how every plane bar the A345/6 and A380 in production/has a future is now a twin jet. Of course what U4E said applies, its just a little boring.

2H4 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:09 am

Will people please realise that aircraft are not designed to please the spotters, they are designed to please the airlines.

Thanks Mike. I agree 100%...listening to people tout a given aircraft's superiority (or inferiority) based on appearance gets really old, really fast.

Could you imagine the chaos a manufacturer would have to deal with if aesthetics were a priority?

2H4

IAHtown · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:36 am

The looks of a plane do matter, even though they really shouldn't. For some airlines, operating a 747 has been more about pride than necessity. If Boeing is better at Airbus at one thing, it's PR. The 7E7 will get more attention because it looks more dramatic and new than the A350. It makes sense to release a "quasi-futuristic" image of a plane just to get more people talking at first. Then you can let reality gradually reshape the plane into something more practical (the auto industry has this routine down to a science). I'm sure the A350 will succeed regardless. Then again, maybe Airbus wants it to look like the A330 to assuage investors' fears that this plane will be too new and too costly.

chicago757 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:46 am

I got all excited for that! Sad

Looks like an A330..........come on Airbus, start thinking of something new!

BlueDuck · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:47 am

This was a "guess" illustration i had done last month. like the Airbus rendition, it's just a 330 with 10,20 and 80 winglets, powered by 345 and 6 engines.

I still wonder why it's called the 50 when it's clearly a 30 configuration.
I like it though.

united4ever · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:56 am

747 pride would still apply if it was one big ugly heap of metal - it would still have that magic imo.

Sadly, one thing Boeing seem to be good at over the last few years is releasing designs that are then toned down and sometimes even vanish - how I would have loved to see the Sonic Cruiser fly.

We've seen it with the 7E7 too - first it changed to a traditional-profile fuselage, now it looks like the shark tail has gone

Looking new is not important to most airlines, imho. An airline will always go for the aircraft that suits its operating needs best. Some will certainly go for the 7E7, there are other airlines, even in the USA, (such as NW, US) that I believe will certainly go for the A350 if they are in that market.

I also believe that being a derivative will benefit the A350 in some ways. Any airline that currently flies any Airbuses will have some relevent operating experience. If they fly A330s then there will be some fleet commonality. Maybe a captain with an A330 ticket will even be automatically qualified on the A350. These will help the A350 more than any individualistic design.

Mike

2H4 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:14 am

The looks of a plane do matter, even though they really shouldn't.

I should define my point of reference. Unless someone in the aircraft design/manufacturing industry can offer evidence to the contrary, I don't think the looks of a plane mean a thing...to those designing it.

That said, it would actually be really interesting if an insider could prove me wrong.

2H4

Rj111 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:20 am

I also believe that being a derivative will benefit the A350 in some ways. Any airline that currently flies any Airbuses will have some relevent operating experience. If they fly A330s then there will be some fleet commonality. Maybe a captain with an A330 ticket will even be automatically qualified on the A350. These will help the A350 more than any individualistic design.

Thats exactly what i've been thinking all along, if Airbus play their cards right the advantages that the 7e7 has, may be rendered irrelevant given that the A330 has found it's way into a lot of fleets, many of which are very new planes. Infact, in an extreme case, i believe a well designed A350, could completely anialate the 7e7. Realistically, though the performance advantages of the 7e7 will swing the pendulum back in boeing's favour but it will be interesting to watch.

Do you think recent orders such as Etihad's will be converted into A350 orders?

Boeing Nut · Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:31 am

Leskova,

Awww man!..... thought I had him one that one!

Gotta give you that one though. Big thumbs up

corey07850 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:40 am

The looks of the aircraft matter... not that the A350 is ugly, but it is showing that Airbus isn't thinking outside of the box. Instead of coming up with a revolutionary new design to compete with the 7E7, they are relying on their tried and true methods.

In the automotive industry there are often cars called "parts-bin cars." They refer to designers taking multiple parts off of different cars to create a new car. Slap on a new body and you have a "totally new design"... The new Jaguars, as well as that Pontiac Solstice come to mind.... Airbus is simply doing the same thing here.

777ER · Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:58 am

Why the hell is it designated the "800/900", what ever happened to the good old traditional naming method of starting with 100? Because Airbus won't be building any more 'better and more advanced models'. Same goes with Boeing, B7e7-8 and B7e7-9. Not sure if Boeing plan on building a better B7e7-3 thou. Maybe BCAinfosystems can confirm.

flymia · Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:22 pm

I have a good feeling Boeing is going to beat Airbus in the 7E7 A350 battle. But I dont have much info on the A350.

StickShaker · Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:27 pm

They can do whatever the hell they want to it, but it will always be an A330 underneath. How do I know this? Because it isn't possible to SAFELY design, build, test, and certify a brand new design in 4 years

Isn't that what Boeing is doing with the 7e7 ?

In the automotive industry there are often cars called "parts-bin cars." They refer to designers taking multiple parts off of different cars to create a new car. ......and you have a "totally new design"... .. Airbus is simply doing the same thing here.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that how the A332 came into being ? A derivative for sure - but a very effective one.

I think the delay in releasing A350 pictures is telling us something here - that pictures are not really that important at these early stages in the development cycle. Neither the 7e7 nor the A350 have had their designs frozen yet so appearances may change. Airlines will be more interested in seeing performance data, weights, capacities etc.

Cheers,
StickShaker

FriendlySkies · Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:08 pm

Isn't that what Boeing is doing with the 7e7 ?

No.

Boeing first announced the 7E7 nearly 2 years ago, and has been designing it for a much longer time. How do I know this? Because Boeing actually knew what the airplane would do when they announced it. They said how many it would seat, how far it would go, what market it would target, what types it would replace, and how it would compare to current types similar to its mission. Airbus, when announcing the A350, did just that. Announced it. Nobody knew what it would be, what it would target, how big it would be, anything. Of course, we all speculated that it targeted the 7E7, but wasn't it Airbus who had been saying for the past two years that the 7E7 was the wrong aircraft for the future? Of course, now Airbus has given us a little more info, and it's starting to look more like a 777 competitor (A350). This lack of knowledge on the part of Airbus tells me that they don't know what they are doing yet. It also tells me they are rushing this project because they see that the 7E7 IS the right aircraft. Boeing has not designed a new aircraft since 1995, and for all we know, the Sonic Cruiser was just a hoax to keep Airbus from finding out what the true new Boeing would be until it put them in the situation they are now...rushing to come up with something to compete with it.

AA777 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:09 pm

Lol... it looks exactly like an A332.... craziness... this thing will have to perform MUCH better than the A330 does, in order for anyone to merit buying it. It really doesnt seem to replace anything.... Interesting. They should have called it the A330-100 /800....etc. I like that it has winglets though.... We shall see..

-AA777

FriendlySkies · Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:11 pm

I like that it has winglets though.... We shall see..

It doesn't surprise me. Every single Airbus to date has had winglets (I think the only one not to was the A300B1, and only like 2 of those were made).

HlywdCatft · Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:28 pm

It looks like an A300 with tall winglets, there's a 30+ year old design right there.

**""Every single Airbus to date has had winglets (I think the only one not to was the A300B1, and only like 2 of those were made).""**

Actually the only A300 that had winglets was I believe the A300 B6. All of the others didnt

Also the A310-200 did NOT have winglets

There is also an A320-100, the earliest A320 that came out in the late 80s without winglets. I don't think more than about 20-30 were made and I believe they are flying with BA and AF.

747-600X · Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:06 pm

For the life of me, I cannot see one single difference between the pictured aircraft and an A330.? ??

gigneil · Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:09 pm

So what?

filler.

N

DCAYOW · Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:12 pm

This design is not revolutionary. In a sense, it is strange to wonder if this aircraft will really compete against the 7E7. It is a 1980-90s design.

The 7E7 is a revolutionary aircraft borne out of the competitive fire between Airbus and Boeing. Boeing is scared and I am glad they are scared because out of this fear they will develop a truly unique aircraft.

By developing this A330 derivitative Airbus is saying they have nothing to worry about...

HAWK21M · Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:55 pm

Externally it looks like a A330.
Whats the difference Externally & Internally from the A332.
regds
MEL

burnsie28 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:05 pm

Externally it looks like a A330.
Whats the difference Externally & Internally from the A332.

Different wings, bleedless engines, pax of a 777, and airbus keeps flopping on its range, range of 777, to 9500nm,

Way to go Airbus, you took a pic of a A332, and slaped A350-900 on it, im not impressed, and have a feeling with their current success, the plane will have the range of no more then a 772ER

N328KF · Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:07 pm

Bursnie28:

For the 1000^th time, the A350 will not be using bleedless engines.

burnsie28 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:24 pm

For the 1000th time, the A350 will not be using bleedless engines.

Guess i missed when they changed their mind on that, the A350, what a POS

Rj111 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:39 pm

Guess i missed when they changed their mind on that, the A350, what a POS

What kind of BS statement is that? You degrade this site.

solnabo · Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm

I strongly doubt the interior is the same as 332/333, wings/engines etc.etc.

If its not broken, why fix it!

Heard that about 747 since the 1st take-off 1969.....

"C´mon Airbus, give us something new!!"

Anybody seen a doubledecker 4-holer 555 paxer until now?

Era dönickar!

Micke//SE Insane

ZKSUJ · Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:09 pm

So it's basically an A333 with A320 winglets.

na · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:13 pm

There is zero interesting about this aircraft, visually. Another me-too twin-jet, a pretty one, agreed. But can there be more boring news in aviation than "another twin-jet"?
The A350 has absolutely nothing of the novelties of the 7E7. At least nothing you can see. Thats too bad.

aerosol · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:21 pm

Excuse me, but as far as I know, nobody on this forum knows how the 7e7 will look like, so how are these two to be compared?

AFAIK there hasn't bee a design freeze yet (7e7), so do not start throwing stones at the 350.

Planesmart · Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:56 pm

Bankers, leasing companies and most airlines actually prefer derivatives.

While new might = interesting to many on this site, in the industry it translates to a greater degree of risk for those with the chequebook.

And greater risk = higher interest rates / cost of funding.

Thats why deposits for totally new models are generally lower as a % of the total price, compared to existing and derivative models.

When the A38 & 7e7 start test flying, and performance data becomes available, funding costs will track down (relative to prevailing mkt rates) if they perform to expectations.

qr332 · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:09 pm

Why is everyone on here hold it against Airbus that their initial design looks very similar to the A330? People already mentioned how boring the initial designs of the 7E7 looked, and the same might apply here.

Plus, the 7E7 might end up to be another aircraft with more traditional designs; just because they released a graphic of how they want it to look doesn't mean it will end up looking like that. Yes, the 7E7 kicks the A350's ass in looks, but they are still not finalised and there is a big possibility we might not see the Shark tail.

(PS this isnt an anti-Boeing post, I am just pointing out it is unfair to attack the A350 when the 7E7 still isnt finalised and had initial designs just as boring.)

flygaz · Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:53 pm

So what if the A350 looks like the A330! Its a new plane with new technologies designed not to be appealing to the eye, but to be appealing to the airlines! Personally I like it - way to go Airbus

manu · Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:09 am

A lot of people seem to be saying that Airbus is naming their aircraft as a new variant for marketing purposes. I don't think airlines buy aircraft on impulse. It's not like the corner store where they put the milk at the back to make you walk though the store! Or do A/B do this? I suspect not, but I could be wrong!

N328KF · Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:21 am

Manu:

Well, it's the A300/A310 trick. Change the name and people think it's an all-new aircraft.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net