Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Mortyman
Topic Author
Posts: 6010
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:29 pm

Should Airbus consider offering the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Is there a new market for it after covid 19 ?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3299
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:35 pm

No, it would be way overbuilt for that capacity range. There is a reason it doesn't exist anymore and the A330neo exists today.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22917
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:03 pm

To add to Ikolkyo's response, what market would the A358 serve that isn't already competitively served by the A338, A339, A359, or A35K? It would not be competitive with the 787-10 or even 787-9 within those planes range and only Project Sunrise and the ME3 are likely to buy ULH aircraft. Most Airbus customers are adequately served for ULH by versions of the existing aircraft and with QF having flown ULH PER-LHR with the 789, I believe they need more capacity.

It would be a heavy plane for the capabilities as already noted.

With the A321xLR, the small widebody market will, in my opinion shrink. While a new optimized small might do well, it needs narrowbody costs in my opinion. That stifles range (weight must be reduced).

Airbus will develop future new product, the A358 will be like the 783, A389, and many other paper studies.

Lightsaber
 
LSZH34
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:33 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:23 pm

They should have nerfed the A358 down to the level the 330neo is today. I still think it would have had the benefit of commoniality with the 359/35K and the newer technology. But that is too late now...
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:32 am

Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?


Isn't the A330neo the answer to that question?
 
Strato2
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:54 am

A350-800 is like 778X. Too heavy for it would do.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12603
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:13 am

Mortyman wrote:
Should Airbus consider offering the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Is there a new market for it after covid 19 ?


Agree with the others, and Airbus could better invest in A350-1100 than in a shrink. More market potential, although also limited. My two cents.
 
hitower3
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 9:55 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:24 am

I would say no as well.
A 358 would find itself in the same black hole of the market like the 319-NEO. As other said, there are plenty of offerings that cover this market segment in the form of the 359 and 330 NEO.

I would be interested to know what you think Airbus should do next in the WB segment?
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:04 pm

hitower3 wrote:
I would be interested to know what you think Airbus should do next in the WB segment?

That would be the A350F.... There is also the A350Neo. Still lots of life left in the A350.

A350-800 is a no go as economics dictate that A350-900 to be the minimum size for this kind of aircraft.
 
DCA350
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 1:31 pm

Perhaps the fuselage could form the basis of a future small WB, but it would need an entirely new wing to be competitive.. Airlines, especially the US3 want a 767 replacement but it's too small of a market to justify a clean sheet solution. They will just have to settle for the XLR and abusing 787s and A330s.. At least until BA launches the NMA, but who knows when that will be and what it will look like..
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:12 pm

I can see Airbus using the A350 fuselage in an eventual replacement for the 330neo, but it would not need the A350 wing etc for optimum capability in the role. I doubt if it would be named A350 800
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20122
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:18 pm

DCA350 wrote:
Perhaps the fuselage could form the basis of a future small WB, but it would need an entirely new wing to be competitive.. Airlines, especially the US3 want a 767 replacement but it's too small of a market to justify a clean sheet solution. They will just have to settle for the XLR and abusing 787s and A330s.. At least until BA launches the NMA, but who knows when that will be and what it will look like..


I think the A350 fuselage is too wide to be a viable 767 replacement - it would be way too stumpy.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12216
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:28 pm

scbriml wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Perhaps the fuselage could form the basis of a future small WB, but it would need an entirely new wing to be competitive.. Airlines, especially the US3 want a 767 replacement but it's too small of a market to justify a clean sheet solution. They will just have to settle for the XLR and abusing 787s and A330s.. At least until BA launches the NMA, but who knows when that will be and what it will look like..


I think the A350 fuselage is too wide to be a viable 767 replacement - it would be way too stumpy.

Yes, they would just use the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:46 pm

Polot wrote:
scbriml wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
Perhaps the fuselage could form the basis of a future small WB, but it would need an entirely new wing to be competitive.. Airlines, especially the US3 want a 767 replacement but it's too small of a market to justify a clean sheet solution. They will just have to settle for the XLR and abusing 787s and A330s.. At least until BA launches the NMA, but who knows when that will be and what it will look like..


I think the A350 fuselage is too wide to be a viable 767 replacement - it would be way too stumpy.

Yes, they would just use the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage.


The cross-section of the aircraft you mentioned is still way too large for a 7 abreast cabin.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10476
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:27 pm

lightsaber wrote:
To add to Ikolkyo's response, what market would the A358 serve that isn't already competitively served by the A338, A339, A359, or A35K? It would not be competitive with the 787-10 or even 787-9 within those planes range and only Project Sunrise and the ME3 are likely to buy ULH aircraft. Most Airbus customers are adequately served for ULH by versions of the existing aircraft and with QF having flown ULH PER-LHR with the 789, I believe they need more capacity.

It would be a heavy plane for the capabilities as already noted.

All that makes sense from a customer point of view but I don't think Airbus is happy maintaining 2 distinct production lines. After an initial flurry of orders the A330neo isn't exactly selling like hot cakes. And while in many aspects the 789 is a better choice than the A358, there are likely a number of customers for whom a dual OEM fleet is not appealing. The A350 is Airbus' future widebody platform. There will come a time in the not too distant future when maintaining the A330 production line is not viable anymore and Airbus will be left with a gaping hole between the A321 and A359. It will be interesting to see how they fill that void.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12216
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:13 pm

airbazar wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
To add to Ikolkyo's response, what market would the A358 serve that isn't already competitively served by the A338, A339, A359, or A35K? It would not be competitive with the 787-10 or even 787-9 within those planes range and only Project Sunrise and the ME3 are likely to buy ULH aircraft. Most Airbus customers are adequately served for ULH by versions of the existing aircraft and with QF having flown ULH PER-LHR with the 789, I believe they need more capacity.

It would be a heavy plane for the capabilities as already noted.

All that makes sense from a customer point of view but I don't think Airbus is happy maintaining 2 distinct production lines. After an initial flurry of orders the A330neo isn't exactly selling like hot cakes. And while in many aspects the 789 is a better choice than the A358, there are likely a number of customers for whom a dual OEM fleet is not appealing. The A350 is Airbus' future widebody platform. There will come a time in the not too distant future when maintaining the A330 production line is not viable anymore and Airbus will be left with a gaping hole between the A321 and A359. It will be interesting to see how they fill that void.

Just because they build it doesn’t mean customers will come. Killing the A330neo and building the A358 won’t suddenly mean they have a viable product that fills that void.

It’s also expensive. Have to cancel contracts (with suppliers, etc) with the A330 program and go through the expense of developing and certifying the A358. You also need to find a use for the old A330 facilities.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:29 pm

VV wrote:
Polot wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I think the A350 fuselage is too wide to be a viable 767 replacement - it would be way too stumpy.

Yes, they would just use the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage.


The cross-section of the aircraft you mentioned is still way too large for a 7 abreast cabin.

But is 7-abreast the right number? The 767 is the only aircraft with that dimension, so it proves not to be the best one; the 8-abreast section of the A300/310/330/340 is more appropriate.
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:21 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
VV wrote:
Polot wrote:
Yes, they would just use the A300/A310/A330/A340 fuselage.


The cross-section of the aircraft you mentioned is still way too large for a 7 abreast cabin.

But is 7-abreast the right number? The 767 is the only aircraft with that dimension, so it proves not to be the best one; the 8-abreast section of the A300/310/330/340 is more appropriate.


It is the right number and that is why there are so many 767 that have been delivered so far.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:22 pm

Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:45 am

VV wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
VV wrote:

The cross-section of the aircraft you mentioned is still way too large for a 7 abreast cabin.

But is 7-abreast the right number? The 767 is the only aircraft with that dimension, so it proves not to be the best one; the 8-abreast section of the A300/310/330/340 is more appropriate.


It is the right number and that is why there are so many 767 that have been delivered so far.

It's the right number? Are you sure? Let's see the sales:
- 767 pax: 974 frames, all delivered (0 backlog);
- A300-width pax: about 460 A300s (0 backlog) + 255 A310s (0 backlog) + 1,442 A330ceos (25 backlog) + 338 A330neos (275 backlog) + 375 A340s = 2,870 frames, 300 yet to be delivered;
- A350: 913 frames, 473 yet to be delivered.
- 787: 1,497 frames, 491 yet to be delivered;
- 777 pax: 1,469 777s (11 backlog) + 320 777Xs (320 backlog) = 1,789 frames, 331 yet to be delivered.

7-abreast doesn't seem to be THE perfect size. It had a more-than-decent run (974 pax frames is nothing to be ashamed of), but the 8-abreast section of the A300/310/330/340 wins hands down; and, it you add the 9-abreast section of the 787 and A350, and 10-abreast section of the 777, it's way behind.

The production of the 767 pax has concluded; it's obviously no longer the correct size for a pax airplane, airlines prefer going down to single aisle (A321LR/XLR mainly) or up to a "real" 2 aisles plane (A330 or 787, the 777 and A350 are, in my opinion, in a different category).
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:50 am

Kent350787 wrote:
Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?

The A310 had a decent run (255 frames) compared to the "original" A300 (about 460 pax frames).
The A330-200 sold 662 frames, compared to 780 for the A330-300; that's almost a 1-to-1 ratio for a shrink.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2039
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:36 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?

The A310 had a decent run (255 frames) compared to the "original" A300 (about 460 pax frames).
The A330-200 sold 662 frames, compared to 780 for the A330-300; that's almost a 1-to-1 ratio for a shrink.


True, but both also added capability not otherwise available, and then transitioned out (passenger service at least) when that capability became availability at a lower CASM. (and I admit I'd forgotten that the 332 was technically a shrink of the 333)

It hasn't worked for narrowbodies, and I really can't see a logical case for an A358.
 
User avatar
PolarRoute
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:56 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:10 am

The a339 is there to serve the role. In my view, the a339 has its range on the sweet spot. It can do majority of long haul flights, but not too excessive so that it can be 'abused' on shorter missions with reasonable resilience. Just a little shy of being a niche ULH plane.

Speaking of which, I'd be interested to know some fuel burn figures for the a339 on the edge of its envelope. Now that the 251t WV has entered into service, some data should be out there?
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:45 am

Kent350787 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Kent350787 wrote:
Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?

The A310 had a decent run (255 frames) compared to the "original" A300 (about 460 pax frames).
The A330-200 sold 662 frames, compared to 780 for the A330-300; that's almost a 1-to-1 ratio for a shrink.


True, but both also added capability not otherwise available, and then transitioned out (passenger service at least) when that capability became availability at a lower CASM. (and I admit I'd forgotten that the 332 was technically a shrink of the 333)

It hasn't worked for narrowbodies, and I really can't see a logical case for an A358.

Well, a shrink of a base version (A300 => A310, or A330-300 => A330-200) will always trade pax capacity for range when the landing gear is not changed (less OEW + less pax weight = more fuel usually = more range).
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4684
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?

Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:58 am

WayexTDI wrote:
But is 7-abreast the right number? The 767 is the only aircraft with that dimension, so it proves not to be the best one; the 8-abreast section of the A300/310/330/340 is more appropriate.


I don't think it is, after all it's only one seat more than a 6-abreast narrow body but it does mean an extra aisle. That's relatively much aisle room for little seating room. With the same number of aisles you can have much more seats on a wider fuselage.

It would be better to make the plane longer instead of wider so you can scrap an aisle, that's what the 757 was doing. I think the MoM aircraft will therefor essentially be a 757 replacement, a long narrow body.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wraine and 9 guests

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