Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Should Airbus consider the Airbus 350-800 again ?
Mortyman wrote:Should Airbus consider offering the Airbus 350-800 again ?
Is there a new market for it after covid 19 ?
hitower3 wrote:I would be interested to know what you think Airbus should do next in the WB segment?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kent350787 wrote:Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?
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.
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.
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.
Kent350787 wrote:Can anyone think of shrink of a successful model that has been successful, ever in the commercial aviation market?
“The fact that from the very beginning they built weight into the airplane so they could do the -900 was a program mistake,” Leahy points out. “You just don’t build extra weight into the airplane so you can stretch it. You optimize the aircraft, and then you figure out how to stretch it by taking some of the margin that you did not need. When you build in the capacity for another 100 seats from Day 1, you are going to build a heavy airplane.”
Mortyman wrote:Should Airbus consider offering the Airbus 350-800 again ?
Is there a new market for it after covid 19 ?