I agree on the general verdict here: Airbus New Long Range plane is most likely not going to happen any time soon, although Airbus has a very big gap in its product portfolio in 400-500-seaters.

A new clean-sheet widebody development would take 7 years and $15 billion USD at a minimum. If the NLR were launched in 2018, the earliest possible EIS would be around 2025. If Airbus indeed launched the NLR, it would kill both the A350-1100 and the A380 the same way B777-9X killed B748.

In the article, a wing span of 80 meters from the NLR study is specified. That would have to change to 65 meters, as otherwise the NLR would be limited to the A380 gates making it a disadvantage against the B777-8X/9X with the folding wingtips.

It is much more probable that Airbus lauches A380neo or A380-900neo, with development costs of a few billion USD and a few years development time.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 43): Huh? 777X design work began in 2010 with customer visits the same year.

The NLR project came to an end in 2012. One would expect it lasted longer than 5 minutes, OldAeroGuy.........

Rgds

Quoting jayunited (Reply 49): the 773ER has outsold the A35J and continues to this day to outsell the A35J

Net A350-1000 sales last year were 59. 777-300ER sales were 45.

The 77W has indeed outsold the A350-1000 in recent years, but the trend IS changing

Rgds

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40): It not only ended Boeing's dominance in the VLA market, but effectively knocked them completely out of it. And as I am very confident that each of those 300+ A380-800 sales would have instead been a 747 or a 777, Airbus successfully denied Boeing tens of billions in potential revenues.They also forced Boeing to spend billions of dollars and significant engineering resources on a failed response - first Sonic Cruise and then the 747-8 - when that money and time could instead have been applied to the NSA (Y1) and NLA (Y3), putting Boeing in a stronger competitive position against the A320neo and A350 then they are now with the 737 MAX and 777X.So yes, I think it really did help Airbus.

Help to Airbus is based on Airbus making a profit, and nowhere did you state profit in your post. I hope Airbus does not make descisions based on things out of their control such as, "what a competitor may or may not do".

If the truth be told, I imagine in Toulouse there is a big argument on how to move past the A380. Because if this new project is competitive it will hurt the A380. The A380 proved Airbus technical might, and was the aircraft the ME airlines needed. Four engine aircraft is not the future and Airbus knows that, the question is when do you or how gracious you pull the plug.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 51): One would expect it lasted longer than 5 minutes, OldAeroGuy.........

I guess so.

The mega-twin is a very nice story, but I do not think it is a very realistic story when it comes to dates. This one we might see in the late 2030's or early 2040's. But until that time the newly launched B787's, A350's, B777-X's and the for sure to be improved A380 will do their jobs just fine, and will continue to get better.

But maybe in 20 years time, when these programs are coming up age, such a new concept might be very interesting.  

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 18): FWIW all I expect is a simple stretch of the 3510 initially and, if that works, a follow-on LR version, like Boeing did with the 773 and later the 773ER,

Except that won't be a "simple stretch" - a term bandied about here quite often. The -1000 is already a stretch of the base model, going further starts to impinge on the outer portion of the envelope for the type. It's been noted on this forum many times by others wiser than I that you start to run into problems when you try to cover too much ground with a single aircraft family. That, IMO is what Airbus would find it they built the -1100. If they are going to market a plane in the capacity range discussed in the article it will be a new aircraft, not a 350 derivative - just my   

Quoting ER757 (Reply 55): The -1000 is already a stretch of the base model, going further starts to impinge on the outer portion of the envelope for the type. It's been noted on this forum many times by others wiser than I that you start to run into problems when you try to cover too much ground with a single aircraft family.

Tell that to Boeing who are double stretching the B777 and are making the fuselage thinner to create more interior space. And that is the same company where they are going from the B787-8, via the -9 to the -10. It is a double stretch too though it could be argued that the B787-9 is the baseline model, which I do not really believe since so much redesign has gone into the B787-9.

If it can be done on the B777, there is no reason why it could not be done on the more CFRP-based A350-fuselage.  . Just my   

[Edited 2014-01-27 12:36:20]

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 33): make the 350-1000 fuselage diameter just wide enough to handle 10 abreast

That's easier said than done, a wider fuselage won't fit inside the Beluga.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 51): Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 43):Huh? 777X design work began in 2010 with customer visits the same year. The NLR project came to an end in 2012. One would expect it lasted longer than 5 minutes, OldAeroGuy.........

Then you shouldn't leave the impression that the 777X design life cycle began with its launch in 2013, after the conclusion of the NLR study in 2012.

It seems that at least some of the 777X and the NLR design investigations were being done concurrently.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 58): It seems that at least some of the 777X and the NLR design investigations were being done concurrently.

I believe the point here is that this case study is not a "marketing ploy" as suggested in reply #8.

Thi reminds me again on the very old A340-double fuselage... like this O-O
But cannot find any pics (link) so quickly... maybe they have an idea that the fuselage will finally give some lift to make a smaller wing...

Then they really put a 18-to20 seats in a row... 
I already miss the chance to get window seats in the future..

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 58): It seems that at least some of the 777X and the NLR design investigations were being done concurrently.

Which nicely demonstrates the point that I was making - that this isn't a marketing ploy.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 59): I believe the point here is that this case study is not a "marketing ploy" as suggested in reply #8.

It was.

rgds

The way some users interpret the moves of the 2 rival manufacturers sometimes feels like watching an episode of Glee  

Poor little Airbus stays at home in TLS crying over why EK ordered 150 777X's from the mean popular Boeing, or the guys in Chicago gossiping about the fat chubby shiny airframe that everybody loves to hate (the A380). 
People it's just business.

One company fills the gaps the other leaves in order to secure the money and the market share.

Reply #48 by mjoelnir is exactly what I was thinking exactly. the A350 is positioned just fine where it is and so is the 777X for the time being (it's still some time till we have the final specs I assume). Trends favor both manufacturers at one point or the other and as stated again no one company (or even two) can occupy ALL of the market all the time.

Per current events Boeing is getting ready to claim back some of the the lost ground above 77W size and Airbus having a pretty good grip on the narrows, aggresively tries to move on the medium to large widebodies that Boeing secured again with the 777. It was a different landscape 5 years ago and probably will be 5 years from now.

The real interesting question for me is exaclty what do you do besides just producing multiple variants of already sucessful frames. Any new concepts? Fuel technology? Any daring new shape to gaze at? As much as people love the 777 or the 330 or the 787 or the A380 and praise the durability of the two narrows (320+737) I frankly am getting a bit bored.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 61): Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 58):It seems that at least some of the 777X and the NLR design investigations were being done concurrently. Which nicely demonstrates the point that I was making - that this isn't a marketing ploy. Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 59):I believe the point here is that this case study is not a "marketing ploy" as suggested in reply #8. It was.

The only way we'll know that it isn't a marketing ploy at this stage is if Airbus tenders it to the customers.

Remember, a lot of serious design work went into the Sonic Cruiser. Was it a marketing ploy or not?

Quoting CiC (Reply 60):

I think this is what you are looking for:

http://kaktusdigital.blogspot.gr/2009/08/airbus-p500-concept.html

 

Quoting airbazar (Reply 47): That all depends on how you measure a VLA.

I measure it the way Boeing and Airbus measure it - "747 sized and larger".

For sake of argument, let us say larger than 400 seats in a three-class OEM configuration, which would include the 747-400 (416 seats), 747-8 (467 seats) and A380-800 (525 seats).

Quoting william (Reply 53): Help to Airbus is based on Airbus making a profit, and nowhere did you state profit in your post.

Because it is too early in the program to determine if the A380 will make a profit.

At the moment, the A380 is not profitable. Neither is the 747-8. Nor the 777X. Nor the 787. Nor the A350. Nor the 737 MAX. Nor the A320neo.

Quoting william (Reply 53): I hope Airbus does not make descisions based on things out of their control such as, "what a competitor may or may not do".

It will not be the only criteria, but it will be one. Just as it is for Boeing, Bombardier, SuperJet, Mitsubishi, Embraer, COMAC and others.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 33): I admit to not knowing how difficult that would be, but it can't be a big challenge because Boeing did offer a wider 737 fuselage to Southwest, and also was forced to widen the fuselage of the original 707 concept.

Changing the fuselage diameter is a huge deal. That is what made the change on the 707 such a gutsy decision, one that put the development costs of the plane more than the total net worth of the company at the time. But it was also the decision that caused the 707 to beat out the DC8.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45): Quoting Stitch (Reply 40): So yes, I think it really did help Airbus. I would be comfortable saying that it hurt them less than not doing it would have. I am still on the fence in terms of how much it may have helped. I am optimistic about the future but up to this point it can't be viewed as a great success....yet.

I think they could have found a project that would have helped the company, not just one that "hurt them less" than not doing it. For instance, I do think they could have done a twin larger than the 777 that would have really killed off the 747. Assuming that they were not ready to go all CFRP it would have been aluminum, but it would have also stolen the march on the 77W and all of those sales could have gone to Airbus.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 66): I think they could have found a project that would have helped the company, not just one that "hurt them less" than not doing it.

In hindsight yes, I agree. The largest possible twin that could have entered service in 2007 would have been much more successful than the A380. The A380 is well positioned when the industry eventually gets up to that size so I am not discounting it yet. The same could be said for the 748. Resources could have been better spent.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 56): Tell that to Boeing who are double stretching the B777 and are making the fuselage thinner to create more interior space.

I never understood the logic on the limitations of stretches. Maybe with the same fuse there is a limit to how far it can be stretched but once an OEM goes back in and redesigns the fuse can't we assume that they have made the appropriate adjustments for strength/weight optimization? The 737 has been stretched 7 times since the 737-100 but they have done full redesigns multiple times and its still competitive with the A320.

tortugamon

I think the selling of a mega twin-jet will be rather hard for Airbus because this proposal would be perhaps close in size to the A380 and with several already made, are priced about $400 million apiece and the planes are rather young plus the talk of stretching the A350 even more, it would be a hard sell, and thats from the home side. From the Boeing side you have the 777-9 at 250 feet in length nipping at the butt of the new proposal.

Outside of Emirates with it's relationship with Airbus and and a like of large twin-jets, who else will order in significant numbers?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67): I never understood the logic on the limitations of stretches.

As I understand it, tortugamon, the problem is that any stretch inevitably adds weight and increases wing loading - thus reducing performance. 'Double-stretches' increase this effect - so that it looks as if the 'double-stretched' B787-10, as one example, will inevitably have considerably less range than its smaller counterparts?

There are various ways round this problem. Airbus, in the case of the A350, solved it by 'starting in the middle' - developing the A359 first. That appears to have worked in one direction - the A350-10 will have as good a range as the A359. But it appears on recent evidence that the A358 'shrink,' due to being a bit overweight for its size, looks like failing to perform adequately in its size range.

So both manufacturers appear to have their 'wins and losses' when it comes to 'stretches and shrinks.'

It appears that Boeing are taking a different approach with the upcoming 778X/9Xs; stretching the basic 777 fuselages (and increasing internal width by thinner linings) whilst, at the same time, introducing composite wings to increase lift and reduce overall weight. Remains to be seen how well that approach works - my guess is that it'll work quite well.

[Edited 2014-01-27 20:36:00]

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 69): As I understand it, tortugamon, the problem is that any stretch inevitably adds weight and increases wing loading - thus reducing performance.

Agreed and that is why when people say that the 779 is a double stretch I scratch my head. Its having a redesign with a new wing and that is why I don't discount the concept of a 777-10 simple stretch if the market warrants it. As is the case with every large aircraft it would have to be something that the ME3 were interested in.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70): Its having a redesign with a new wing and that is why I don't discount the concept of a 777-10 simple stretch if the market warrants it.

I'm guessing - hoping, really - that the 777-9 is 76.5m in length because that is the limit it could be stretched (I'm guessing for tail-strike / rotation angle reasons) as, IMO, it should have been 79m long if that was possible / practical.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 70): Agreed and that is why when people say that the 779 is a double stretch I scratch my head. Its having a redesign with a new wing

100% agree - on the face of it it looks like being a 'world-beater'............

Quoting ER757 (Reply 55): Except that won't be a "simple stretch" - a term bandied about here quite often. The -1000 is already a stretch of the base model, going further starts to impinge on the outer portion of the envelope for the type.

As is the 779 or 787-1000

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71): I'm guessing - hoping, really - that the 777-9 is 76.5m in length because that is the limit it could be stretched (I'm guessing for tail-strike / rotation angle reasons) as, IMO, it should have been 79m long if that was possible / practical.

There is no doubt that it would have better economics but do you think that a 79m 777 would sell more units than a 76.5m one? Would EK have bought 250 instead of 200? I think Boeing wants to appeal to all 773/77W/A346 operators with the 779 and I don't think a high percentage of 9-abreast 77W operators and A346 operators can handle the jump from 365/380 seats to ~437 seats even if the economics are better. I don't think Boeing would want to give the A351 that much space.

tortugamon

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 2): It's pretty clear that Boeing are planning thinner fuselage linings for the 777Xs, so that they can if necessary accommodate 10-across seating.

If necessary? I believe the 779X would sell very few units if only a 9 abreast aircraft. It is definitely necessary to accommodate 10 across seating.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 49): I believe that Airbus has made a mistake as well because although the A35J is better than the current 773ER it is not better the the future Boeing 777x.

I don't know what criteria you are using but clearly the A350-1000 is superior to the 779X for some.

-Dave

I can not see the point in doing a new large twin, when you can have A350-1100 and A380NEO. People need to wake up. Airbus and Boeing avoid being in direct competition to each other. They try to avoid overlapping their product lines directly. If they do a new product they aim for the old product of the competition.

I know this is not a popular opinion but I don't see why a 777-10 doesn't become a real option if the 779 sells well and if demand for the A380 picks up. If a simple stretch of the 779 to about 82m could be completed without adding too much additional structure beyond the stretch itself (same MTOW) then on a 6knm mission block fuel burn should be about 90t (vs 84t on a 779) for about ~460 seats compared to an A380 with 525 seats burning 150t. This hypothetical 777-10 would then burn 18%+ less fuel per sq m of cabin floor space per km than an A388 with ~50% more cargo volume. It should have enough range to do 4knm missions at full MTOW with about 54 LD3s so ideal for high density flights between Asia, Europe and the Middle East as well as European TATL flights or ideal for A380 route structures for AF/SQ/LH/MH/KE/CZ/BA/TG/QR.

It would be great to get ferpe's view on these fuel burn figures because by my count this 777-10 would burn 5% less trip fuel than a 77W while carrying 75 more passengers and would burn 24% less fuel than a 748 with the same number of seats. Rotation angle would be more difficult and it would be a category F aircraft because its 2m over the 80m limit in length but I could see Boeing getting on-off approval like they did with the 748 to open up category E airports potentially going places an A380 cannot.

Do these VLA's really need 8knm range?

I did an analysis of active A380 routes. The average route is 3,909nm and there are only 8 of the active 78 routes (10%) that are over 6knm in length and only one above 7knm and these 8 routes apply to only three A380 operators. 76% of these routes are under 5,500nm.

I put all of the routes into GC Map to give a visual display of every A380 route as well as the actual trip length:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DXB-ZRH...Adisc7%2B%22%25U%2212&MS=wls&DU=nm

Routes Source: http://www.flya380.net/en/routes/a380-routes

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67): The 737 has been stretched 7 times since the 737-100

.....but the 731 length was surely a shrink of the 707!

Looking at the idea, it strikes me that Airbus would have been better planing the 350 based on the -1000 size at which point a shrink would give them the 900 filling the hole from the 333 and a stretch would then fill the hole to the 388. which would then have left them with full market coverage if they went with a 330NEO.

With the range debate looking at gcmap, and the longest flights I can think of are :-

SYD - LHR 9188nm
AKL - LHR 9910nm
CHC - LHR 10246nm
PER - JFK 10104 nm

and from the looks of it, 10750nm will cover the whole surface of the planet. so there is not much more in the way of range that we need if you are prepared to sacrifice some cargo room for extra fuel to make these runs.

but if you look at it from an ME3 point of view only areas you cant reach with 8knm from DXB are the largely uninhabited areas of the south pacific, so with the already said assumption that if you aren't selling to ME3 you aren't making money, any aircraft designed for this range is only going to be niche at best.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65): I measure it the way Boeing and Airbus measure it - "747 sized and larger". For sake of argument, let us say larger than 400 seats in a three-class OEM configuration, which would include the 747-400 (416 seats), 747-8 (467 seats) and A380-800 (525 seats).

Fair enough but we're falling into the marketing hype again. while the 744 does have 11% more floor space, in a realistic configuration (one that maximizes profits for the airline), the 77W carries about the same or more passengers plus more cargo than a 744. There's a reason why airlines like SQ, CX and many others have replaced their 744's with 77W's. Personally I would listen to the airlines more than B&A's marketing and put the 77W in the VLA segment and with that picture I wouldn't say that Boeing has lost the VLA market. Far from it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 74): I think Boeing wants to appeal to all 773/77W/A346 operators with the 779 and I don't think a high percentage of 9-abreast 77W operators and A346 operators can handle the jump from 365/380 seats to ~437 seats even if the economics are better.

I see the 777-8 as being aimed at 9-abreast 777-300ER operators and 8-abreast A340-600 operators as it will hold about the same number of folks when configured at 10-abreast. That being said, it's only going to really appeal to 9-abreast 777-300ER operators who are hitting payload limits, but the performance could make it usable for A340-600 operators out of hot and/or high airports.

I do not believe the 2.5m stretch is sufficient to attract 9-abreast 777-300ER operators away from the A350-1000. That would need the full 6m (of a 79.5m stretch) to provide a sufficient capacity gain, IMO.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 80): Personally I would listen to the airlines more than B&A's marketing and put the 77W in the VLA segment and with that picture I wouldn't say that Boeing has lost the VLA market.

But airlines have differing configurations. All Nippon Airways, for example, configures some of their 777-300ERs with 213 seats. That's hardly representative of a VLA in capacity.

I suppose we could go by cabin floorspace, but if we wish to include the 777-300ER (at ~330m2) then we also should include the A350-1000 (at ~318m2) since it can hold as many people as a 777-300ER when configured at 4-abreast First, 6-abreast Business and 9-abreast Economy.

So if we set the minimum threshold at 300m2, that would make the following VLAs:

777-8 (~313 m2)
A340-600 (~314m2)
A350-1000 (~318m2)
777-300ER (~330 m2)
777-9 (~360m2)
747-400 (~372m2)
747-8 (~445m2)
A380-800 (~600m2)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81): All Nippon Airways, for example, configures some of their 777-300ERs with 213 seats.

Not since the upstairs pianos in the 747s has an airline done such a poor job of using floor space. And it is not about the relatively large business cabin. But it is that it is chunked into three sections and the Y cabin has a 2-row appendage right behind premium economy. I can tell this thing was not designed in space-at-a-premium Tokyo.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 77): block fuel burn should be about 90t (vs 84t on a 779) for about ~460 seats compared to an A380 with 525 seats burning 150t. This hypothetical 777-10 would then burn 18%+ less fuel per sq m of cabin floor space per km than an A388 with ~50% more cargo volume.

I had another look at my numbers and I think 18% is dramatically understated. 90t of fuel for the 777-10 for 460 seats on a 6knm mission is .1956t per seat. The A380 at 150t for 525 passengers is .2851t per seat or 31.4% lower fuel burn per seat on the 777-10. I assume further A380 advancements and maybe 10-abreast will change the numbers but in the mean time these figures have to be appealing to anyone looking at a VLA.

I have isolated existing A380 routes for European carriers here:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-hkg...Adisc7%2B%22%25U%2212&MS=wls&DU=nm

As you will see the longest European operator A380 mission is 5,553nm and the average is 4,400nm. Clearly all of the European A380 missions would be well within a 777-10s range.

Here are ME3 A380 routes:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DXB-ZRH...Adisc7%2B%22%25U%2212&MS=wls&DU=nm
As you will see there are four routes that a 777-10 would not be able to do but outside of those routes the ME3 have a shorter route structure than the European carriers. I have a hard time picturing EK buying a simple shrink but if they already are operating the 778 and 779 I don't see why they would be against bringing on a 777-10 for missions outside of Australia and the Western half of the US where they want to send A380s anyway. On the rest of these missions they could haul a tremendous amount of cargo with a 777-10.

Once the 748i is wound down I am sure Boeing will want to have something within 15% capacity of the A388 and I wonder if this 777-10 could be it. Could you see Boeing going forward with it?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81): I see the 777-8 as being aimed at 9-abreast 777-300ER operators

But I don't see that as very realistic. Your average 9-abreast operator is not looking for the 9knm aircraft so they will be looking at the -9.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81): I do not believe the 2.5m stretch is sufficient to attract 9-abreast 777-300ER operators away from the A350-1000. That would need the full 6m (of a 79.5m stretch) to provide a sufficient capacity gain, IMO.

I think it is sufficient if they are willing to make the change to 10-abreast which I see many doing. With the CX's purchase marking their choice to go to 10-abreast in Y, I have a hard time seeing other operators not making a similar change when the 777x comes. In that case, going from 9 abreast to 10 abreast and adding 2.5m in length is a significant increase in capacity and if the 779 was stretched much more I wonder if these other operators would be interested in such a large capacity jump.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 83): But I don't see that as very realistic. Your average 9-abreast operator is not looking for the 9knm aircraft so they will be looking at the -9.

Of course, Boeing does not require customers to purchase the 777-8 at the maximum certified operating weights...  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 83): I think it is sufficient if they are willing to make the change to 10-abreast which I see many doing.

Indeed it should be, as that would give the 777-9 a not-insignificant capacity edge over the A350-1000 at 9-abreast.

Which probably explains why Airbus is pushing 18" wide seats as a new standard.   

It will be interesting to see how the numbers compare between the A350-1000 and 777-9 for those operating both models and how they choose to deploy them within their route system.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 13): I think this is another important sentence from the article: "An NLR project would also likely end any A380 reengining effort, which is seen internally as extremely challenging in terms of engine/wing integration and aerodynamics." I wonder if this is because likely engine replacements are bigger and therefore more difficult to incorporate?

Yes, that would be my guess as well.

We know of at least one existence proof:



but perhaps the data they gathered showed the mating was not very good.

That's another complication of the four engine a/c, any mistake you make in this space gets multiplied x4 instead of x2.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 56): Tell that to Boeing who are double stretching the B777 and are making the fuselage thinner to create more interior space. And that is the same company where they are going from the B787-8, via the -9 to the -10. It is a double stretch too though it could be argued that the B787-9 is the baseline model, which I do not really believe since so much redesign has gone into the B787-9.

It has been said that a lot of the changes from -9 will flow back to -8 so IMHO it is accurate to call it the new baseline.

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 62): One company fills the gaps the other leaves in order to secure the money and the market share.

I'm not so sure about that. Clearly the narrow bodies overlap each other a lot. The 787-8 was aimed squarely at the A330 IMHO. I think the A350 was aimed at the gap between 787 and 777. It's clear to me 777X had to be a growth derivative because they are keeping the original fuselage so the only way to utilize the better wing and engines is to grow the fuse, so it ends up being aimed at the gap between 777 and A380 but there really was no other option.

I wonder of when Airbus will release the visual concept of the mega-twin as we know from the article that the MTOW is just shy of 892,000 lbs.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 48): Why should Airbus spend billions to "kill" a competition?

Why? Maybe the same tilted logic that pushed them to build the whale jet. Which not only has does nothing but cost them money but put them (4) years behind Boeing in the 787/350 battle. Boeing will eventually have a 400 frame lead they will probably never lose.

Airbus spent many billions just to beat out the 747.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 63): The only way we'll know that it isn't a marketing ploy at this stage is if Airbus tenders it to the customers

???
This was a research exercise with 2 universities. It may end up being nothing more than an interesting project for some engineering grads ...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85): but perhaps the data they gathered showed the mating was not very good.

Or perhaps it showed it was awesome ... who knows?

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 86): I wonder of when Airbus will release the visual concept of the mega-twin as we know from the article that the MTOW is just shy of 892,000 lbs.

It's entirely possible Airbus may never release anything. At this point this is nothing more than an academic exercise

Rgds

Quoting racercoup (Reply 87): Airbus spent many billions just to beat out the 747.

Which makes you wonder why Boeing lost billions trying to prevent the 747 being beaten out.   

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 86): we know from the article that the MTOW is just shy of 892,000 lbs.

Thanks for pointing that out, 2707200x; that'll teach me to read the whole article every time!  

Given that the B779X is currently being planned to have an MTOW of 'only' 775,000lbs., that strongly suggests that Airbus intends to 'do the right thing' - go for a bigger twin-engined 'flagship' and keep the lead in terms of aeroplane size. Which further suggests that Airbus already realises that increased engine power, allowing over-400-seat 'big twins,' is likely to 'obsolete' not just the B748 (except maybe freighter versions), but also the A380.

The only thing is, Airbus had better do it quickly. With over 1,000 B787s already ordered, and an apparently pretty solid 'market welcome' for the '777xs,' it's increasingly puzzling that Airbus has allowed a situation where even the very first version of the A350 won't be flying in service for quite a few months yet?

[Edited 2014-01-28 22:43:30]

Quoting racercoup (Reply 87): Boeing will eventually have a 400 frame lead they will probably never lose.

If you'll see historical year end totals over the past few years for the 787 vs the 350, you'll notice the difference has been coming down to just under 200 currently. So once Airbus got over their earlier dithering, I'd say they've sold the XWB version of the 350 just fine.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90): that strongly suggests that Airbus intends to 'do the right thing' - go for a bigger twin-engined 'flagship' and keep the lead in terms of aeroplane size.

I am not sure if you can draw any conclusions from Av'week's interpretatiom of a university project.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90): Which strongly suggests that Airbus already realises that increased engine power, allowing over-400-seat 'big twins,' is likely to 'obsolete' not just the B748 (except maybe freighter versions), but also the A380.

See above. It's an analyst's interpretation of what some students produced during their wet dreams (just kidding, of course it was a serious study). Whom do you trust more, Airbus' CEO or the analyst? ... (I think I shouldn't have asked this question, I already know the answer...  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85): but perhaps the data they gathered showed the mating was not very good. That's another complication of the four engine a/c, any mistake you make in this space gets multiplied x4 instead of x2.

So why is EK asking RR and EA for an improvement of up to 10%?

Quoting racercoup (Reply 87): Boeing will eventually have a 400 frame lead they will probably never lose.

Did you consider the A 330s delivered in that comparison?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 84):

Personally, I do not see too many derated 778s being sold.

I think we will see very few 9-abreast 777Xs. CX is the first to drop. I think BA will make the order and change as well. Even ANA has 787 & 777s with 17.4 inch seats so they can keep those seats and go 10 abreast with no loss to comfort. I think Boeing sized the 777x with this in mind and didn't want to be too big so as to lose out on this market.

Plus, it opens the door for a 777-10  . One ULH, one hong haul, and one 'regional' stretching from 350-460 seats.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 85):

This was the first I heard about the problem. I though weight was the primary issue. Interesting.

I no longer see the a350 as in between the 787 and the A350. It's only viable models are identical to the length of the 777.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 87):

I have the production advantage of the 787 over the A350 going over 600 units by 2020.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 90):

If this big Twin does get launched I do have a hard time seeing a viable market for the A380. One if the reasons why I don't think it will happen any time soon.

tortugamon

No matter how much capacity you make it, and no matter if it is a twin or not, nothing over 400 seats will sell anymore.

It simply cannot make money for the airline. The only reason that NH and JL have 500 seat 773s because those are for high-density, high-rotation domestic routes (largely between Osaka and Tokyo).

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 94): No matter how much capacity you make it, and no matter if it is a twin or not, nothing over 400 seats will sell anymore.

So no more sales for the 779?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 94): It simply cannot make money for the airline.

You know that this is not correct and I really wonder why you posted it (I usually read your contributions with attention). So you have knowledge that airlines such as SQ, LH, BA, KA, EK etc are loosing money with their 748i's and 380's?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 52): Net A350-1000 sales last year were 59. 777-300ER sales were 45.

Conversions included, net A350-1000 sales last year were 79.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 84): Of course, Boeing does not require customers to purchase the 777-8 at the maximum certified operating weights...

Indeed. However, the airframe is believed to be heavier and less fuel efficient than a A350-1000 on similar routes.

Quoting racercoup (Reply 87): Which not only has does nothing but cost them money but put them (4) years behind Boeing in the 787/350 battle.

More like 3 years.

It amazes me how people keep blaming the A380 for it, A380 development started long before the 787 and Boeing was working on the Sonic Cruiser during that time. Airbus started working on the (original) A350 in 2004, even before the first A380 finished final assembly.

It is very easy to be wise in hindsight.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 95): You know that this is not correct and I really wonder why you posted it (I usually read your contributions with attention). So you have knowledge that airlines such as SQ, LH, BA, KA, EK etc are loosing money with their 748i's and 380's?

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 95): So no more sales for the 779?

Ah therein lies the exceptions.
I'll give KE as an example.

KE's unique market almost requires these big planes.

But do you expect these bigger planes to work in the rest of the market?

I won't see this huge thing that Airbus is planning selling well in the states.

I won't see this selling well in Japan.

QF Is struggling with their huge planes; what makes you think they're gonna sell there?

SQ, EK, they are those kangaroo routes, right? Of course that is high capacity.

BA I really wonder how successful they will be with their A380. But remember, the A380 and the 748i have been really underwhelming in terms of sales. The only thing I have to wonder is how the heck EK can pull off a fleet of 90 A380s. It is astounding to me, but I guess if that market works, it will work.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 97): I won't see this huge thing that Airbus is planning selling well in the states. I won't see this selling well in Japan

No - and these two countries are propperly also amogst the least significant when it comes to anything larger than NBs.

If Airbus, by ways of aerodynamic and engine optimization (supposing one can still extract a few more tonnes of thrust from the Trent XWB) can get a 350-1100 to carry 380 pax in 3 classes across 8000 nm, without losing too much commonality,
this study will go directly to the dustbin.

In fact, should Airbus be able to reach those numbers, without needing a full blown re-engine, it is Boeing that should be worried, since it would be the perfect 10-across 77W replacement...