The assumption yourself and Aspire have made is not correct. MZFW is a structural limit where and additional increase needs to be fuel, normally this fuel is in the wings. The fuel counters the bending moment generated by the mass in the fuselage. The additional mass in the pylon, engine, and wing extension counters this bending moment, it is like having the equivalent amount of fuel in the tanks. Where this is complicated is the wing extension will increase the bending moment as it is adding lift further away from the fuselage.
The best way to look at how much weight is involved is to take the percentage of additional fuel Airbus has attributed to the additional mass, not the increase in MZFW. Personally I think this aircraft will have more payload over the current A330.
Aspire is crap, they don't know wha they are doing.
The A340 centre gear is for a better term, a takeoff gear, it is not needed on landing. At light weights it sometimes does not even touch the ground. Currently the 343 can go to 276, they also have the a340-500/600 gear which has a much higher rating. Performance wise, the current A330-300 is good for around 255t.
They have not shown any pictures of the new gear, I would not be surprised with neo they will go with the A350 tilt, and with the lower induced drag better takeoff performance.
The original A350 had a new cfrp wing and al-li welded fuselage. This is a lot cheaper and much lower risk to do as it does not involve an all new wing, or a folding wing, or both.
Boeing designed the 787 as a long haul aircraft, it is pretty heavy for medium/short haul. We know on very short routes in Japan a 767-300ER with winglets has a lower block fuel burn than a 788. When compared to today's A332, the 788 lifts about 5t less payload.
This old slide shows the main cost and revenue differences between the a332 and the 788, on the cost side fuel was the main difference, Airbus also touched on the changes in the maintenance planning document and pneumatic control to reduce maintenance costs.
Everyone would be in agreement in saying the A330/340 program is fully paid for, a small investment of 2billion, if the take 10 million out of the first 200 sales, it will also pay for itself very quickly. Compared to the 15 billion spent on the 787, and 10 billion on the a350, it makes a lot of commercial sense. Also the OEMs generate more of their revenue from in service aircraft than from the initial sales.
The original A350 could meet and exceed the 787, just need to know what data point you were talking about. The current A332 will carry more over shorter routes, where the 787 excels is over longer routes. That is where you see the advantage of the engine, as you have to carry fuel so far, and that comes at a cost.
I have always maintained a well designed AL
component can be better, it all depends on the application. Airbus has not dismissed the 777 X as being warmed over, what they have said, which no one will dispute is the 777X has a much higher empty weight, and higher block fuel burn. The numbers Boeing are quoting are on a 400 seat configuration (and the freely admitted no one will configure it that way), at long range. Airbus is saying they have an aircraft that will not lift as much, nor as far, but at a much lower direct operating cost. Given realistic average load factors for passengers is at 80%, and cargo around 50%, you could fit that load on an A350-1000 at a lower cost.
We need to look at where the A330neo is realistically going to employed, it will be sub 4500nm routes (10 hour), if your business case is driven by mainly longer routes that that, the 787 is in a class of its own.
Boeing is not saying the 777X has lower fuel burn than the A350, they are doing the comparison on a per seat basis, if you were to ask Boeing they would freely admit the 777X has a higher block fuel burn.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949