Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 47):
has any lessor firmed up orders for the NEW A350 (XWB)? I thought ALAFCO had?

I would expect leasing companies to be even more concerned with the maintenance issues of panels vs. barrels than the airlines, as they will have those planes for a long, long time. The lease rates they can charge will be what the market will bear; it will not factor in long-term maintenance costs. If the 787 and A350 have similar direct operating costs they will command similar lease rates; if the A350 has significantly higher long-term operating costs or a lower life expectancy that is the lease company's problem. In that case I would much rather have 787's in my fleet than A350's if I were leasing out aircraft.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 22):
I think he is referring to the existing one, so not an additional order from SIA.

It could mean either. I think you're probably right that it more likely means that SQ will firm their MoU into an order. However, they might just replace the outdated MoU with one specifying delivery later than 2012 and other new terms, possibly for more than 20 frames.
 
kaitak
Posts: 9933
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:24 am

Very interesting point, SEPilot; I hadn't thought of that.

I know many airlines lease aircraft for around 7 yrs, which is obviously much less than the total lifespan, so I see the importance to them of lower maintenance costs.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and how many lessors actually do plump for the 350.

It does seem, if you'll excuse the (not totally unintentional!) pun, Boeing has Airbus over a barrel, because it (Airbus) cannot afford the embarrassment of another major delay and yet, the barrel design adopted by Boeing seems to be a lot more efficient.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:25 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Leahy : "We have better range, better fuel consumption, a wider cabin, bigger windows — all the items where you say look at the competition, we can do better on this,"

An advance of being second I guess.

To paraphrase South Pacific,

What ain't we got? We ain't got planes.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 53):
What ain't we got? We ain't got planes.

I would rephrase that; we ain't got orders.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Shenzhen
Posts: 1666
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 12:11 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 50):
The lease rates they can charge will be what the market will bear; it will not factor in long-term maintenance costs

Generally speaking, an airplane leased long term would be returned with the airframe zero houred, If the airframe is not zero houred and engines overhauled, the airline would need to pay the lease company to compensate. If the airplane was leased again before the airplane was zeroed, the new operator would receive a maintenance credit towards the zeroing the airplane when they return.

If an airframe doesn't need to go thru this heavy maintenance until the 12th year, vs 8 today, there is a considerable savings in both the cost to the airframe, and of course, the loss of revenue due to the down time (6 weeks?).

Cheers
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 49):


Quoting Boeing7E7,reply=46:
If 3+3+3 is the game with a 17-17.5" seat, the 350 has better balance.

I assume you mean an 18' seat, because the 787 has 17.2' in 3-3-3, and the A350XWB is wider.

Per the Airbus A350XWB presentation, in 3-3-3 seating the seat width will be 17.5" vs. 17.2" for the 787 in the same configuration.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:10 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 41):
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 40):
One thing that John Leahy lacks is respect for the competition and if you don't have respect for the competition you get into trouble. It's already happened at Airbus, I think with the way he talks, it'll happen again.

Get over yourself - do you realise how pompous that sounds?

He's a salesman - thats what he does. Just because he isnt a Boeing cheerleader like you doesnt mean he is a complete buffoon - and FYI i'll be he has A GREAT DEAL of respect for what he's up against, its just that he thinks he's got a product that beats it, and he should say so.

Call me what you will but you can still mask the fact that it is arrogance is what got Airbus into trouble, arrogance and lack of respect for Boeing and what they can do. John Leahy embodies that arrogance and lack of respect at Airbus. I don't care if John Leahy is a lifelong member of the Airbus cheerleading squad in his skirt and pom poms he and the rest of Airbus grew too big in their own minds for their own good. Look at where Boeing is and where Airbus is.

How did it get to be...arrogance and lack of respect. Never thinking that your competitor, when he down, like Boeing was in the late 90s, can make it back to challenge you again. I dare you to refute that.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:18 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 55):

Generally speaking, an airplane leased long term would be returned with the airframe zero houred, If the airframe is not zero houred and engines overhauled, the airline would need to pay the lease company to compensate. If the airplane was leased again before the airplane was zeroed, the new operator would receive a maintenance credit towards the zeroing the airplane when they return.

I was not aware of that; thanks for the info. This does change the picture as to whether the A350 might be more of a disadvantage to lease companies, but it doesn't change the overall picture.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:34 am

Quoting PM (Reply 5):
Quoting Kappel (Reply 4):
I actually don't understand what is holding GE up for the -800 and -900, as they already signed up for the previous -800 and -900.

Well, the XWB is a bigger plane and GE need to redesign the GEnx accordingly. They must be deciding whether or not it'll be worth it. My guess is that it will be (so they will get on board) but only powering two (or one?!) of the three models puts them at an immediate disadvantage (see the QR RR order) so they have to factor that in too.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Leahy : "We have better range, better fuel consumption, a wider cabin, bigger windows — all the items where you say look at the competition, we can do better on this,"

An advance of being second I guess.

I would like to point out that Leahy said those same words about A330-lite, A350 mk. 1 and and A350 mk. 2, and so far it hasn't been true yet. If they aren't switching to barrel construction, I can't imagine that being true, and if they are, more delays. The simple fact is, the fact that A350 is coming out later than 787 is less that they wanted more time to make it more advanced than it is they were years behind Boeing in composites because while Boeing worked on their technology for SonicCruiser and 7E7, Airbus just shrugged the technology off and continued on happily selling A330s. As it stands, A350 might not even incorporate all of the advances of 787. They are second because they were late to get started all together and were caught with their pants down. A350 will be a fine plane I'm sure, but this isn't like where Boeing waited for new engines to make 777 a twin instead of coming out against A340 as a quad, this would be like waiting until A340 had sold 400 planes before Boeing really started to design 777 in earnest.

Quoting Columba (Reply 21):

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7):
Very interesting given the situation at US.

I keep my fingers crossed for US staying with A350 !!!!!

At least one of the major US carriers has to buy A350, I want to ride on one! Sadly though, it'll mean I have to fly on US... I'm sure A350 will be a fine plane for US and they'll do very well with it.

Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 28):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the A350 still narrower than the B777, the plane it's really competing with?

It is narrower by I believe 5 or 6 inches.

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 35):
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16):
And does it really matter?

In my view, no. Wing mounted camera's could supply a superior panorama via the seat back video system.

Now that is some thinking, but I don't think they'll necessarily replace windows.

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 38):
According to WIKI ( i know not totally reliable ) 787-9 seats 263 in 3 class , whereas the 350-8 seats 270 . Both fly equal distance , and both have same MTOW . So where is the dramatic difference?



Quoting A342 (Reply 49):
I assume you mean an 18' seat, because the 787 has 17.2' in 3-3-3, and the A350XWB is wider.

The question is, is 787's 263 passenger figure for 2-4-2 while A350's 270 pax figure is for 3-3-3?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Per the Airbus A350XWB presentation, in 3-3-3 seating the seat width will be 17.5" vs. 17.2" for the 787 in the same configuration.

That's the thing, A350's fuselage is round, 787s is not, being more of a 'double bubble' - making it taller than it is wide, somewhat like the 707/727/737/757 fuselage (if you look at a 737 head on, you can tell it's taller than wide), so while A350XWB has a wider fuselage at its widest point, at shoulder level, it's the same as 787, and at some points, 787 may even be wider - so 787's fuselage shape offers more usable space per its width than A350's round design, thus a minimal difference in seat width, only 787 was designed as an 8 abreast aircraft, so if carriers pack it 9 abreast, that extra seat in each row is a bonus, where A350 is designed as 9 abreast.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 57):
Call me what you will but you can still mask the fact that it is arrogance is what got Airbus into trouble, arrogance and lack of respect for Boeing and what they can do. John Leahy embodies that arrogance and lack of respect at Airbus. I don't care if John Leahy is a lifelong member of the Airbus cheerleading squad in his skirt and pom poms he and the rest of Airbus grew too big in their own minds for their own good. Look at where Boeing is and where Airbus is.

Airbus was beyond arrogant and they certainly have paid the price for that. I really want to see Leahy's quote "The 787 will merely catch up with A330, we don't need a new plane" engraved somewhere.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Per the Airbus A350XWB presentation, in 3-3-3 seating the seat width will be 17.5" vs. 17.2" for the 787 in the same configuration.

Please enlighten me, I haven't seen this presentation yet. But if the A350 has a 17.5" seat in 3-3-3 config, how would it be possible to fit 10-abreast (according to Airbus, this seems to be possible). Narrower aisles?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 60):
But if the A350 has a 17.5" seat in 3-3-3 config, how would it be possible to fit 10-abreast (according to Airbus, this seems to be possible). Narrower aisles?

Mostly for charters !
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:20 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 61):
Mostly for charters !

Sure, but you can't reduce seat width even more! How wide are the seats on those 8-abreast 767s?
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19175
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 60):
how would it be possible to fit 10-abreast (according to Airbus, this seems to be possible)

Has Airbus actually said this, or was it just part of the "ATW conspiracy"?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:34 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 63):
Has Airbus actually said this, or was it just part of the "ATW conspiracy"?
So ATW's report is conspiracy? Sorry, didn't know that.

Edit: No, the information is from this FI report!

[Edited 2007-05-31 22:46:10]
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 57):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 41):
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 40):
One thing that John Leahy lacks is respect for the competition and if you don't have respect for the competition you get into trouble. It's already happened at Airbus, I think with the way he talks, it'll happen again.

Get over yourself - do you realise how pompous that sounds?

He's a salesman - thats what he does. Just because he isnt a Boeing cheerleader like you doesnt mean he is a complete buffoon - and FYI i'll be he has A GREAT DEAL of respect for what he's up against, its just that he thinks he's got a product that beats it, and he should say so.

Call me what you will but you can still mask the fact that it is arrogance is what got Airbus into trouble, arrogance and lack of respect for Boeing and what they can do. John Leahy embodies that arrogance and lack of respect at Airbus. I don't care if John Leahy is a lifelong member of the Airbus cheerleading squad in his skirt and pom poms he and the rest of Airbus grew too big in their own minds for their own good. Look at where Boeing is and where Airbus is.

How did it get to be...arrogance and lack of respect. Never thinking that your competitor, when he down, like Boeing was in the late 90s, can make it back to challenge you again. I dare you to refute that.

Arrogance yes, I'd go along with that to a point, but then Airbus were the leading airliner producer a few years back so a little bit of arrogance is not unexpected. I think what got Airbus into trouble was the age old thing here in Europe - everyone not really communicating effectively, and things getting lost in the translation - there is the issue of national pride and protectionism for each country's own interests - something we are very accustomed to here. I think its fair to say that in the past Airbus have UNDERESTIMATED Boeing and in particular the 777-300ER, but its also safe to say that Airbus learned that lesson a long time ago and its one they will not forget in a hurry. I think you are seeking to make things personal, as if it were one sports team or one boxer against the other, and contrary to the beliefs of many on here, thats not how Europeans do business.

You say nobody in Airbus thought Boeing would come back as strongly as they did? I'd respectfully suggest you pulled that out of nowhere - you dont get to be running a massive multinational by being that way - at least not in Europe. Everyone connected with this industry, including your good self I have no doubt, knows that things are cyclical - it is the way of the world , the way of big business and it is most definitely the way of the airline business. Nobody thought Boeing was dead and buried - you wont be able to find me a quote. I think in your eagerness to engender some form of macho/nationalist competition you are perhaps wanting to see things that simply were not there. There's no doubt that Airbus have been naive, and in some cases incompetent in the way they have handled things, but to say they were arrogant enough to assume Boeing was down and out and no longer a threat etc - well thats just silly, and I think you know this.

My last point is this - what exactly is it that you think Airbus has become?

They have the absolutely dominant narrowbody market share and the vastly successful A32X series still doing tremendously well.

They have, despite some very costly and embarassing delays, the flagship A380 about to be delivered to airlines offering a step up to a new level (pun most certainly intended) of customer space, prestige, and CASM - Airbus has the best CASM product flying at the moment, regardless of whether you like it or not. It is trouncing the nearest competitor and will probably see another surge of orders once EIS goes off - its a new plane with vast potential for future variants, and should see Airbus cinched in the VLA market for the foreseeable.

They cannot build A330s fast enough and although Boeing's success with the 777-300ER and 787 variants has been hugely positive for everyone in the industry, Airbus has its A350XWB gaining momentum and is gaining important orders as well - the 787 has got a worthy competitor and thats good for everyone too.

Airbus is in a right pickle - on the egde of collapse and a total sham from top to bottom with no prospects in the short, medium, or long term whatsoever huh? Yes things have not gone to plan but lessons have been learned and things have been changed - its not like Airbus lost the farm to Boeing is it? I know many people on here wish that were so, but it just is not the case.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:42 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 46):
The 787-9 seat count of 263 assumes 2+4+2 in coach, with 3+3+3 the -9 seats 280 with less range (about 7,000 vs. 8,500 with 263).

I highly doubt that 17 extra passengers can reduce the 787 range by 1500nm. If that was true, a 787-10 with same MTOW as the -9 and ability to carry 330 passengers would only be able to fly 2500nm...

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
so while A350XWB has a wider fuselage at its widest point, at shoulder level, it's the same as 787, and at some points, 787 may even be wider - so 787's fuselage shape offers more usable space per its width than A350's round design, thus a minimal difference in seat width

When the XWB was presented at Farnborough 2006 the fuselage was 5" at eye level, 4" at shoulder and 3" at armrestlevel wider than the 787. This has now evolved to 5"-5"-5". The statement quoted above is very untrue.

Now, if we assume that the 787 in a 3-3-3 config will really have 17.2" wide seats, then:

5" divided by 9 seats gives us 0.55" extra per seat. Based on that simple calculation, the A350 seats in economy should be 17.75" wide.

[Edited 2007-05-31 22:53:40]
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:52 am

Quoting PM (Reply 10):
But check out those windows! Not quite Vickers Viscount but wow!

And even better, check out how vertical the cabin walls are! To me, that is huge!

Quoting CygnusChicago (Reply 24):
I don't really get the benefit of big windows. Sure, as a passenger it will be nice, but doesn't it add additional weight?

You got it, it's for the passengers' benefit at a price in weight. With a composite fuselage, the weight penalty for bigger windows isn't so bad.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19175
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 64):
Edit: No, the information is from this FI report!

Ah, OK. Thanks.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27231
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:00 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 60):
Please enlighten me, I haven't seen this presentation yet.

I believe it was the presentation given at the launch of the A350XWB. It is titled "Taking the Lead" and the page in question is page 15.

Also, if you look at Reply 9by Shamrock in this thread, that image is from Page 15 of the presentation and in the upper left corner you can see where it says "17.5" seat width".
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):
Also, if you look at Reply 9by Shamrock in this thread, that image is from Page 15 of the presentation and in the upper left corner you can see where it says "17.5" seat width".

Ok, thanks.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:16 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
That's the thing, A350's fuselage is round, 787s is not, being more of a 'double bubble' - making it taller than it is wide, somewhat like the 707/727/737/757 fuselage (if you look at a 737 head on, you can tell it's taller than wide), so while A350XWB has a wider fuselage at its widest point, at shoulder level, it's the same as 787, and at some points, 787 may even be wider - so 787's fuselage shape offers more usable space per its width than A350's round design, thus a minimal difference in seat width, only 787 was designed as an 8 abreast aircraft, so if carriers pack it 9 abreast, that extra seat in each row is a bonus, where A350 is designed as 9 abreast.

It is truth side wall shapes made a difference at different height for the passenger. In this specific situation however, the A350XWB vs 787 cabin width comparison it seems the A350XWB is simply wider at all heights, so no more useable space.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
HughesAirwest
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:28 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:22 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
It competes with both, as well as replacing the A330 and A340 - a real "Jack of all Trades" plane.

Oh, yeah sure. Lets be real, the A350 is no more a jack of all trades than the T7 which competes with the A333 and the A340 family.
"One man practicing Teamwork is far better than fifty preaching it."
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Shenzhen (Reply 55):
If an airframe doesn't need to go thru this heavy maintenance until the 12th year, vs 8 today, there is a considerable savings in both the cost to the airframe, and of course, the loss of revenue due to the down time (6 weeks?).

But who's decision is it to approved a reduced maintenace schedule? Is it the manufacturer, the airline, or the federal body that regulates airline safety? My guess is the later. If that's the case, what makes you think they will change the rules on maintenace schedules that easily? My guess is these aircraft will have to be in operation for a few long years until you can convince these guys to approve the reduced maintenace schedule.

Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 45):
Totally agree but if Boeing can keep keep the windows I should hope Airbus can. It wont sway airlines to order the A350 but it's just an added bonus as it is to the 787.

Boeing didn't keep that either, at least not as initially envisioned. See reply 43.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:43 am

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 66):

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
so while A350XWB has a wider fuselage at its widest point, at shoulder level, it's the same as 787, and at some points, 787 may even be wider - so 787's fuselage shape offers more usable space per its width than A350's round design, thus a minimal difference in seat width

When the XWB was presented at Farnborough 2006 the fuselage was 5" at eye level, 4" at shoulder and 3" at armrestlevel wider than the 787. This has now evolved to 5"-5"-5". The statement quoted above is very untrue.

Are you going with external or internal fuselage width on this? Excuse my reluctance to believe Airbus marketing material with absolute faith. My apologies if I am wrong, but my understanding had always been that the double bubble shape of 787 rendered more usable space compared to its width than did a round design.

If the XWB fuselage is, in fact, only 5" wider, and the XWB is a 9/10 abreast aircraft, and 787 is an 8/9 abreast aircraft, it sounds like airbus is putting an extra seat in an aircraft only 5" wider? I know a number of airlines are planning to use 787 8 abreast. XWB I think has always been planned as 9 abreast, and all of its figures assume it is 9 abreast, so comparatively, it would offer less seat width at 9 abreast than 777 and less than 787 at 8 abreast, and in high density, 787 would offer more width per seat at 9 abreast than A350 would at 10, correct?
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:56 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):

They have, despite some very costly and embarassing delays, the flagship A380 about to be delivered to airlines offering a step up to a new level (pun most certainly intended) of customer space, prestige, and CASM - Airbus has the best CASM product flying at the moment, regardless of whether you like it or not. It is trouncing the nearest competitor and will probably see another surge of orders once EIS goes off - its a new plane with vast potential for future variants, and should see Airbus cinched in the VLA market for the foreseeable.

Did you really just say the A380 is trouncing its competitors? Wow, let's make some additional outrageous comments like how the 717-200 has blown the C-Series out of the water.  Yeah sure
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:17 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 75):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):

They have, despite some very costly and embarassing delays, the flagship A380 about to be delivered to airlines offering a step up to a new level (pun most certainly intended) of customer space, prestige, and CASM - Airbus has the best CASM product flying at the moment, regardless of whether you like it or not. It is trouncing the nearest competitor and will probably see another surge of orders once EIS goes off - its a new plane with vast potential for future variants, and should see Airbus cinched in the VLA market for the foreseeable.

Did you really just say the A380 is trouncing its competitors? Wow, let's make some additional outrageous comments like how the 717-200 has blown the C-Series out of the water

Its VLA competitor? I think its fair to say the A380 is troucing the 747-8I yes - granted they are not direct competitors but the jumbo is as close as there is at the moment - and the A380 is destroying the (pax) 747-8I at present.

If an airline is in the market for a VLA passenger carrier then its those two frames he is looking at - unless you know something I dont?

I fail to see what is so "outrageous" about that.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:27 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 76):
I fail to see what is so "outrageous" about that.

Because it is a disingenuous statement. The A380 orders have been dismal despite record orders for nearly every other wide body in production, and the program is a financial disaster. To claim that the A380 is "trouncing" anything has no place in honest discussion.

It's just as dishonest as saying the 717 has trounced the E195 156-36 when the 717 program was a financial loss for Boeing and the E195 has been available for a much shorter period of time.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 77):
To claim that the A380 is "trouncing" anything has no place in honest discussion.

In the passenger VLA business 160 A380 vs 20 748i could legaly called trouncing.

I guess fall back scenarios will be on the table in Chicago if BA, CX, JAL or UA doesn´t order soon.

Not the stuff you would see speculation on in the US Aviation press but none the less..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:54 am

Oh come on Dallas i expect better from you. From some spotty 13 year old armchair CEO fine, but not from you mate.

It has long been a standard argument from your Boeing cheerleader buddies that the A380 is a dinosaur and that the market for VLAs is not large enough to support such a massive waste of money, that point-to-point is where the game is etc, and in some respects you are right at the moment. How long that is going to hold true is a discussion for another thread.

But now you say:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 77):
The A380 orders have been dismal despite record orders for nearly every other wide body in production, and the program is a financial disaster.

Yes, the widebody market is massively on the up, and that is driven soley by the meteoric rise of the big twin - your own cheerleaders have said the VLA market is tiny and the A380 is wrong plane wrong time etc - 163 orders with follow ons likely at some point - well thats not too shabby for a plane that is a dinosaur and the complete antithesis of all intelligent airline planning/strategic thinking (apparently). Nobody was expecting the A380 to sell like the 787, and neither were you so why compare them? Its a totally different sector and you know it. Why are you being so argumentative?

You are seriously trying to compare A380 sales to that of the 777, A330, 787 etc - and that it is therefore somehow an inferior or lesser product? Come on fella you are better than this. A380 sales v 748I sales thus far? Would you say they are dismal as well, despite the tiny market niche your cheerleader buddies and Aboulafian-ites have been at great pains to point out ad nauseum on here? Sure about that one?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 77):
To claim that the A380 is "trouncing" anything has no place in honest discussion.

I'll say it again for the sake of the argument - in the VLA stakes (and you could argue the relative merits of this term all bloody night) the A380-800 is trouncing the 748I - simple as that. As things stand thats the case. 163-24.

This thread is about the A350XWB - if you want to see one design completely trouncing another competitor as things stand - look no further than the 787 and its much-debated Airbus counterpart.

Anyway getting back on topic - does anyone have the numbers as to EXACTLY how much the increased sized windows increase OEW in each type?

Also - will the A350 have the same dimming technology in the windows as the 787?

[Edited 2007-06-01 00:58:07]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:04 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):
They have the absolutely dominant narrowbody market share and the vastly successful A32X series still doing tremendously well.

What do you mean by "absolutely dominant"? Do you mean installed base of narrow-bodies? No, probably not, because Boeing has a wide lead considering the installed base of all 737, 717, and 757 models currently operating.

Do you mean deliveries? And over what period of time? Because over the past 6 years, 2000 through 2006 Boeing has delivered 1982 narrow-bodies (55% market share) versus 1537 for Airbus (45% market share).

Do you mean orders received? Again in that same time frame Boeing has 2543 narrow-body orders (53% market share) to 2268 (47% market share) for Airbus.

Perhaps you are referring to 2006 only. In that case Boeing outsold Airbus by 739 to 653, but Airbus led in deliveries by 339 to 302.

In view of the above, your statement seems to be completely in error.
 
NYC777
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:00 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):
My last point is this - what exactly is it that you think Airbus has become?

A company run by the Euro govt. bureaucrats. Airbus is forever tied to them and will not be able to implement the hard decisions that need to be made.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):
You say nobody in Airbus thought Boeing would come back as strongly as they did? I'd respectfully suggest you pulled that out of nowhere - you dont get to be running a massive multinational by being that way - at least not in Europe.

Nope I didn't pull it out of thin air.....their reaction to Boeing's product line, particularly the widebody products shows that they didn't really think Boeing could come back. If they truly think Boeing had therewherewithall to make a strong comeback then they would have made a better effort vs. the 777 and 787 and not the half hearted responses that they present to customers.
That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:12 am

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 80):
In view of the above, your statement seems to be completely in error.

The A320 series has outsold the 737 since it came out has it not? I'll admit I dont have the numbers handy, but I've always understood that to be the case. Living in Europe it isnt difficult to see why.

I believe the A320 series has been the dominant narrowbody since it came out, but granted, I'll concede, "absolutely dominant market share" is probably overstating it - fair enough. I'll admit when I'm in error.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5286
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:14 am

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 47):
These, as I understand from Manni's post above, are for the OLD A350

Er, yes, and that was what my post was about. (You did read my post, didn't you?)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14000
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:23 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 79):
Anyway getting back on topic - does anyone have the numbers as to EXACTLY how much the increased sized windows increase OEW in each type?

I think composite structures around the windows created the weight reduction to allow bigger windows. There is not really an increase because no reference exists for a350 and 787. The XWB windows are 2 inch wider the a330 windows which is a lot IMO.

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 80):
What do you mean by "absolutely dominant"? Do you mean installed base of narrow-bodies? No, probably not, because Boeing has a wide lead considering the installed base of all 737, 717, and 757 models currently operating.

Do you mean deliveries? And over what period of time? Because over the past 6 years, 2000 through 2006 Boeing has delivered 1982 narrow-bodies (55% market share) versus 1537 for Airbus (45% market share).

Do you mean orders received? Again in that same time frame Boeing has 2543 narrow-body orders (53% market share) to 2268 (47% market share) for Airbus.

Perhaps you are referring to 2006 only. In that case Boeing outsold Airbus by 739 to 653, but Airbus led in deliveries by 339 to 302.

 biggrin  Typical a.net statistics chosing the right brackets, working around the fact Airbus has a bigger backlog.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:25 am

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 81):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):
My last point is this - what exactly is it that you think Airbus has become?

A company run by the Euro govt. bureaucrats. Airbus is forever tied to them and will not be able to implement the hard decisions that need to be made.


Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 65):
You say nobody in Airbus thought Boeing would come back as strongly as they did? I'd respectfully suggest you pulled that out of nowhere - you dont get to be running a massive multinational by being that way - at least not in Europe.

Nope I didn't pull it out of thin air.....their reaction to Boeing's product line, particularly the widebody products shows that they didn't really think Boeing could come back. If they truly think Boeing had therewherewithall to make a strong comeback then they would have made a better effort vs. the 777 and 787 and not the half hearted responses that they present to customers.

Do you have a quote for this perceived thinking?

With all due respect, Airbus are not complete numpties (although some decisions can seem that way sometimes, especially to the Boeing crowd) and only a total idiot would have regarded Boeing with the contemptuous dismissiveness you illustrate. As I said before, thats not how we do business and the problems with the A380/A350/A340 etc basically stem from Airbus not being quick enough on the draw to the changing market forces - they were perhaps victim of some bureaucracy stemming from nationalism/politics/protectionism/over-complicated management structure etc - and it made them slow to react. The market moved too fast for them, and so did Boeing. The aforementioned problems not only slow the company down in addressing changing market trends they also encumber the decisionmaking process as regards what to do about it - the pressure to catch us is intense, and things get rushed out half baked. I think many Americans see the French as these aloof, snotty arrogant people - and some view Airbus in the same light - not sure why.

As for your comment at the top - yeah, fair enough - Not to the extent you think but there is or has been a percentage of truth in this. This experience should ensure this will not last much longer - we live in hope anyway!  Wink

[Edited 2007-06-01 01:29:33]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:30 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 82):

I believe the A320 series has been the dominant narrowbody since it came out, but granted, I'll concede, "absolutely dominant market share" is probably overstating it - fair enough. I'll admit when I'm in error.

The A320 was the dominant narrowbody until the 737NG came out; since then any reasonable assessment has to be that they have been close to equal, with the 737 having a slight edge in recent years.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
dhefty
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 8:04 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:39 am

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 82):
The A320 series has outsold the 737 since it came out has it not? I'll admit I dont have the numbers handy, but I've always understood that to be the case. Living in Europe it isnt difficult to see why.

I believe the A320 series has been the dominant narrowbody since it came out, but granted, I'll concede, "absolutely dominant market share" is probably overstating it - fair enough. I'll admit when I'm in error.

Thank you for your admission. It's a common misconception on A.net that the A320 has a huge lead over the 737. It's just not true.

Since 1984 when the A320 series was introduced through April 2007, Airbus has sold a total of 5076 units. During that same time frame, Boeing has sold 5823 737's. Boeing also has sold an additional 1071 717's and 757's which constitute a large segment of the installed base.

From 1984 through April 2007 Boeing delivered 4379 737's and Airbus delivered 3060 A320 series units.

The point I am making is that the installed base of the Airbus/Boeing narrow-body market is made up of A320, 717, 737 and 757 models and it will take many years for parity to be achieved, even though Airbus has a slightly greater output of A320 series as compared to the 737. Also it seems that as the market shifts to composites , Boeing may have a huge advantage.
 
CHRISBA777ER
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 86):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 82):

I believe the A320 series has been the dominant narrowbody since it came out, but granted, I'll concede, "absolutely dominant market share" is probably overstating it - fair enough. I'll admit when I'm in error.

The A320 was the dominant narrowbody until the 737NG came out; since then any reasonable assessment has to be that they have been close to equal, with the 737 having a slight edge in recent years.

I'll leave you to argue this one with Keesje - I've already apologised for overstating things a bit. Easy mistake to make though - My office faces out over the City of London and last week I counted no fewer than 17 Airbus narrowbodies one after the other in a row making the turn onto finals for 27R in the afternoon. I fly approximately once or twice a month, and save for my long-haul trips, I believe my last non-Airbus short-haul trip was Ibiza in August the year before last on a Thomson 757! Frankly I'd LOVE more 737s and 757s etc - (and i refuse to fly with FR out of principle) the 'Buses are becoming boring! Anyway - moot point - im sure Keesje will provide you with a more robust argument than I can be bothered to - i'm off to bed, I have to be up in four hours!

Just like to say - good effort everyone.

Its been a pleasure debating things with you on this thread - i dont normally enjoy all that AvB rubbish but when its kept civil this place is a pleasure to spend time, so thank you everyone - keep it up. 

[Edited 2007-06-01 01:46:45]
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):

In the passenger VLA business 160 A380 vs 20 748i could legaly called trouncing.

Does it really make a difference what the customer uses the aircraft for? Just counting pax frames is both deceptive and pointless. In terms of total frames, 747-8 is not being trounced, and potentially, could come even or surpass A380. Bear in mind, the first A380 was scheduled for delivery last year (SQ is still waiting) and the first 747-8 is set for years later in 2009/2010 (cargo/pax versions). I believe since the A380's launch, it has been outsold by 747 (if you count all 747s purchased since the first A380 order). Also keep in mind that at this point, 747-8 development is costing what, 1/5 or 1/6 of A380 development? The 747-8 will very likely sell enough frames to be profitable, it is overwhelmingly unlikely the A380 program will ever come near profitability.

And Keesje, to my knowledge, there is no legal standard set for 'trouncing.'
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
racercoup
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:48 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:14 am

"He's a salesman - thats what he does. Just because he isnt a Boeing cheerleader like you doesnt mean he is a complete buffoon - and FYI i'll be he has A GREAT DEAL of respect for what he's up against, its just that he thinks he's got a product that beats it, and he should say so"

A top salesman once taught me something...."those who throw dirt, lose ground" knocking the competition is poor salesmanship, and Airbus has clearly lost ground the past two years. IMOGet over yourself - do you realise how pompous that sounds?

[Edited 2007-06-01 02:27:16]
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:17 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):
In the passenger VLA business 160 A380 vs 20 748i could legaly (sic) called trouncing.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 84):
Typical a.net statistics chosing (sic) the right brackets

Does anyone else see the rank hypocrisy here?

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 89):
I believe since the A380's launch, it has been outsold by 747 (if you count all 747s purchased since the first A380 order).

Since Airbus began taking WhaleJet orders (beginning 2000), it has been outsold by the JumboJet (202 to 160). Since the launch of the 747-8, it has outsold the WhaleJet 87 to 3 (counting both the recent AF and EK top-up orders, which I'm not sure have been signed).

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 89):
The 747-8 will very likely sell enough frames to be profitable

Already has.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 89):
it is overwhelmingly unlikely the A380 program will ever come near profitability.

 checkmark 
I'm hoping Airbus somehow manage to keep losses on the WhaleJet program below 10 billion euro.
 
manni
Topic Author
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:20 am

Quoting Racercoup (Reply 90):

I'm not disagreeing with the post you quoted, but it isn't mine. Please edit it while you still can. Thanks.
 
jdevora
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:41 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:42 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 74):
Are you going with external or internal fuselage width on this? Excuse my reluctance to believe Airbus marketing material with absolute faith. My apologies if I am wrong, but my understanding had always been that the double bubble shape of 787 rendered more usable space compared to its width than did a round design.

IIRC one of the features introduced with the A350 XWB was an non-round design, because the cargo haul is just fine with the A330 width. I saw a few pictures back then, but I'm not able to find them. The only reference that I saw recently is:

Quote:
Airbus is "very happy with the results", says Evrard, who says the latest tweaks to the double-bubble fuselage shape have seen a more rounded upper lobe be adopted.

These changes have increased the internal cabin diameter at shoulder and armrest height by 2.5cm (1in) and 5cm respectively, giving the A350 a maximum internal diameter of 559cm, further increasing the advantage it has over the rival 787, which Airbus credits with a maximum internal width of 546cm.

from FG:A380 inspires nose job for A350
Cheers
JD
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:27 am

Quoting A342 (Reply 49):
I assume you mean an 18' seat, because the 787 has 17.2' in 3-3-3, and the A350XWB is wider.

Nope. 17.5 in 3+3+3 and 19.75 in 2+4+2.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 63):
Has Airbus actually said this, or was it just part of the "ATW conspiracy"?



Quoting A342 (Reply 64):
Edit: No, the information is from this FI report!

Conspiracy. No way you get 10 across in that thing.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 66):
I highly doubt that 17 extra passengers can reduce the 787 range by 1500nm. If that was true, a 787-10 with same MTOW as the -9 and ability to carry 330 passengers would only be able to fly 2500nm...

I suppose you'll have to wait for the public charts then. The balanced (average load) range at 280 seats is 7,000nm and 5,500nm at max payload.
 
Aircellist
Posts: 1582
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:43 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:00 pm

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 88):
My office faces out over the City of London and last week I counted no fewer than 17 Airbus narrowbodies one after the other in a row making the turn onto finals for 27R in the afternoon.

Do you ever invite fellow A.netters to share a coffee at your ofice???  Wink
"When I find out I was wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" -attributed to John Maynard Keynes
 
astuteman
Posts: 7153
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:40 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
That's the thing, A350's fuselage is round

It is? The only presentations I've ever seen show the A350-XWB to be "ovoid", just like the 787.

Quoting Jdevora (Reply 93):
IIRC one of the features introduced with the A350 XWB was an non-round design, because the cargo haul is just fine with the A330 width. I saw a few pictures back then, but I'm not able to find them. The only reference that I saw recently is:

Try this one........

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...width-a350-xwb-special-report.html

Regards
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:39 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 16):
A few days ago there was a thread here that showed the 787 windows are exactly the same height as the 777.

Wrong. They are taller than the T7, but the same width.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
I would like to point out that Leahy said those same words about A330-lite, A350 mk. 1 and and A350 mk. 2,

Leahy says a lot, most of which is laughable... rotfl 

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 59):
As it stands, A350 might not even incorporate all of the advances of 787

And yet its lighter, carries more and uses less fuel. We saw the same meaningless propaganda from JL last year... Why would he change his colors now???

Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):
In the passenger VLA business 160 A380 vs 20 748i could legaly called trouncing.

In the Airplane business solidly (202 to 160) selling more that you competitor is "trouncing" and thats exactly what the 747 is doing to the 380.  Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 78):
I guess fall back scenarios will be on the table in Chicago if BA, CX, JAL or UA doesn´t order soon.

Yep. The fall back is to keep the 747 in the #1 VLA sales position... bigthumbsup 

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 82):
The A320 series has outsold the 737 since it came out has it not? I'll admit I dont have the numbers handy, but I've always understood that to be the case. Living in Europe it isnt difficult to see why.

The numbers do disagree with your office view of the airport (and jealous of that I am  Smile )

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 85):
With all due respect, Airbus are not complete numpties

Fine. So; name one good decision made by Airbus since 2000. EADS has been very bad for Airbus.

Fun thread.

iwok
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:00 pm

Quoting Iwok (Reply 97):
Fine. So; name one good decision made by Airbus since 2000. EADS has been very bad for Airbus.

A330F..... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
dank
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Mr. Leahy On The A350XWB, SQ And Others

Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:26 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 96):
It is? The only presentations I've ever seen show the A350-XWB to be "ovoid", just like the 787.

 checkmark  If I recall correctly, the bottom lobe shares a common cross-section with the 330/340/original 350, and the top is wider. This has the benefit of maintaining some commonality with older versions of the 350, and the loss is minimal since you aren't going to fit more pallets underneath anyway.

cheers.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos