Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- rotating14
- Posts: 1391
- Joined:
A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
As of recent, Airbus has come forward in the development of a Long Range variant of the A350-900 for the ULH ambitions of SQ to the US mainland. With that it made me think that if Airbus is going to exhaust the effort to make this variant for SQ, and it seems now others, does this end the their discussion for developing or any further discussions for a "Super Twin" jet to compete wit the likes of the Boeing 779? From what I understand, the new A350-900 LR variant will not be too hard to configure or develop since the A359 has had such a spotless development and entry into service. But I ask if this model gets more attention and further resources for manufacturing, would that commit Airbus into concentrating on this particular and abandon what it was conjuring as a "A350-1100/Super Twin"?? Thoughts and Opinions.
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
I guess it depends on what the market is looking for.
My feeling is that the market is looking for a 747-400 replacement and a larger 777-300ER with similar performance. With those two design criteria, I believe the A350-1100 with A350-1000 operating weights will come up short to the 777-9 in the latter criteria, at least.
Yes, Airbus can make the structural changes to the wing, fuselage and undercarriage to support higher operating weights and Rolls can make the changes to the Trent XWB to support higher thrusts and together they should be able to make an A350-1100 with similar capacity and performance to the 777-9. But it will enter the market years later and after Boeing has secured many hundreds of orders with many operators.
IMO, Airbus is better served to just concentrate on the A350-1000 as the real growth market, again IMO, is for a plane with similar capacity and performance to the 777-300ER with much better operating economics.
An area in which the A350-1000 excels.
My feeling is that the market is looking for a 747-400 replacement and a larger 777-300ER with similar performance. With those two design criteria, I believe the A350-1100 with A350-1000 operating weights will come up short to the 777-9 in the latter criteria, at least.
Yes, Airbus can make the structural changes to the wing, fuselage and undercarriage to support higher operating weights and Rolls can make the changes to the Trent XWB to support higher thrusts and together they should be able to make an A350-1100 with similar capacity and performance to the 777-9. But it will enter the market years later and after Boeing has secured many hundreds of orders with many operators.
IMO, Airbus is better served to just concentrate on the A350-1000 as the real growth market, again IMO, is for a plane with similar capacity and performance to the 777-300ER with much better operating economics.
An area in which the A350-1000 excels.
-
- rotating14
- Posts: 1391
- Joined:
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
I agree that the A35k is better served for the role of the comparable 779. I'm almost sure that if others have asked A for a plane of this type, they would be wise to follow through on the A35K as well.
-
- tortugamon
- Posts: 6795
- Joined:
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
I don't see why launching an A359LR will preclude an A350-1100? Surely they have resources to do both especially because the A359LR appears to be a minimal change variant if the rumors are true.
However, I don't think we will see an A350-1100 before 2025 as I think Airbus can sell all of the production slots it can produce up until at least then so why add costs and complexity when you don't have to? When demand lightens up a bit and with engine technology improving then maybe we will see something but I personally believe the market is too small for a 779-me-too! variant.
tortugamon
However, I don't think we will see an A350-1100 before 2025 as I think Airbus can sell all of the production slots it can produce up until at least then so why add costs and complexity when you don't have to? When demand lightens up a bit and with engine technology improving then maybe we will see something but I personally believe the market is too small for a 779-me-too! variant.
tortugamon
-
- WingedMigrator
- Posts: 1771
- Joined:
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): My feeling is that the market is looking for a 747-400 replacement and a larger 777-300ER with similar performance. With those two design criteria, I believe the A350-1100 with A350-1000 operating weights will come up short to the 777-9 in the latter criteria, at least. |
In the same way as the 787-10 with 787-9 operating weights "comes up short" to the A350-900? This doesn't seem to be stopping 787-10 sales.
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
| Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 4): In the same way as the 787-10 with 787-9 operating weights "comes up short" to the A350-900? This doesn't seem to be stopping 787-10 sales. |
The 787-10 does come up short to the A350-900 if you are looking for a larger A330-300 with A330-200 performance. It also comes up short if you want a 777-200ER replacement with B-market design range (beyond 6000nm / 10,000km). And if EK's comments are true, it also comes up short to the A350-900 if you are operating out of an airport with high ambient temperatures.
But if you want a 777-200 or A330-300 replacement for A-market missions (up to 5000nm/9500km), then the 787-10 is likely going to be the better choice because of it's lower empty and operating weights. And right now, that seems to be where the 787-10 is generating her sales.
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
IMHO Airbus should focus on the A35J now. It will do exactly that what the B77W does today.... but at much lower cost. Airbus is busy anyways: The A320neo EIS, A330neo, A35J Flight test and A350 Prdocution ramp-up. The A35J will gain more orders I'm very confident.
-
- SonomaFlyer
- Posts: 2234
- Joined:
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): But if you want a 777-200 or A330-300 replacement for A-market missions (up to 5000nm/9500km), then the 787-10 is likely going to be the better choice because of it's lower empty and operating weights. And right now, that seems to be where the 787-10 is generating her sales. |
We'll need to see some firm(er) numbers from Boeing but the 787-10 should fly missions such as SFO-LHR (4,664nm), SFO-ICN (4,917 nm) and SFO-NRT (4,453 nm) etc with out much in the way of penalties. Missions of that length are pretty common for long haul legacy carriers such as BA, UA, AA etc. There aren't too many missions out there that are 6,000 nm+ city pairs for these big carriers so factoring in the lower operating costs and larger cargo capabilities, the 787-10 should be a pretty sweet a/c for these carriers.
RE: A350-1100. To Be Or Not To Be?
| Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7): There aren't too many missions out there that are 6,000 nm+ city pairs for these big carriers so factoring in the lower operating costs and larger cargo capabilities, the 787-10 should be a pretty sweet a/c for these carriers. |
I agree, and I believe sales at the moment are hindered by availability and not desirability.
But the A350-900 has her areas where she offers superior performance over the 787-10 and that can win her RFPs against the 787-10.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: ABpositive, aerace, atrude777, avek00, CDG777FAN, CrisAA, davidjohnson6, DylanHarvey, EI320, ERJ170, ExMilitaryEng, flyCMH, flyingclrs727, FlyingViking, Google Adsense [Bot], gunnerman, hawaiian717, hOMSaR, intrepidflyer, Jaybekay, JayinKitsap, kiowa, lemondao, LFW, maverick4002, MIflyer12, mxaxai, OKCDCA, Pilotmansam15, PlaneAdmirer, ROSSIGNOL, SCFlyer, Skyblue39, SkySailor, SunsetLimited, Tack, TTailedTiger, winstonavgeek, zuckie13 and 297 guests