A350 needs revision?

SAS_MD80 · Post by **SAS_MD80** » 14 Apr 2006, 08:00

@smokejumber

I think you're right, Airbus must do something more to the A350 to make it more attractive (though I must say I like the shining white late interior design).
As for your remarks about the limitations to stretching a fuselage, the A340-600's sheer length tends to show that the current fuselage structure of the Airbus widebodies can be stretched to a great extent.
Would that be possible with an Al-Li struture? I don't know.
In any case, it's probably time for Airbus to increase the fuselage section of the A350.
When Boeing was developping the 707 (then Dash 367) the original fuselage section only allowed for 5 seats abreats. Then Douglas introduced the DC8 to the airlines (at the time Douglas had a 60% + market share...) with a 6 seat abreast configuration.
This prompted Boeing to quickly redesign the 707 to widen its fuselage. Had Boeing not done so the airplane would surely not have been as succesful.
As for Airbus' funding via the European taxpayers, keep in mind Airbus is owed by EADS which in turn is owned by 4 European companies with some state shareholding (soon to be reduced to 3). The EU is made of 25 members...
So when EADS gets reimbursable advances for its development costs it's not by the "European taxpayer", it's by taxpayers of 4 countries within the European Union. Keep that in mind.
As for the repayments, as I have mentioned in other posts Airbus has already fully repayed the advances it got for the A300/310 and the A320 family. Repayments are on schedule for the A330/340 family.
Ask Douglas (who were forced to merge with McDonnell as they struggled with money issues during the final development stages of the DC8) if they were happy about the 707s development costs being almost entirely funded by the DoD through the KC-135 procurement... Reading about the history of Boeing and Douglas is very enlightening.
So why don't we stick to what this forum is all about (aircraft) and leave the subsidy issue to the arbitrators? I'm sure they are more qualified than you or me on those issues. At least than me.
Chris

CX · Post by CX » 14 Apr 2006, 11:05

But there is an advantage with Airbus' 2-4-2 configuration as it gives a higher % of either window or aisle seat which is an advantage.

The thing is Airbus has already done and spent a lot to make the plane more attractive, but still not attractive - although everyone would like to see a brand-new A350, in reality do you think they'll do it? The most they might do is probably heavily revise the plane, a modified fuselage and a pair of heavily modified planes and maximising the parts that can be kept from developments that has already been done..

cageyjames · Post by **cageyjames** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:20

CX wrote:But there is an advantage with Airbus' 2-4-2 configuration as it gives a higher % of either window or aisle seat which is an advantage.

That didn't seem to help the 767 against the 330.

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 14 Apr 2006, 15:48

CX wrote:But there is an advantage with Airbus' 2-4-2 configuration as it gives a higher % of either window or aisle seat which is an advantage.

Passengers might like that, but airlines probably won't pay any attention at it.

SAS_MD80 · Post by **SAS_MD80** » 14 Apr 2006, 22:24

I think the 330 (just as the 767) have a very pleasing seating configuration. In both cases there are no "double excuse" seats, whereas the 777, 787 (just as the DC10 and MD11) have that horrendous 9 abreast seating.
Unfortunately, I think fokker_f27 is right: airlines are focused on their financial results and don't care about passenger comfort in economy class.

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 15 Apr 2006, 02:57

When an airline buys a plane, it is generally a very long-term commitment, often 20 or more years. Unless something really compelling comes along, they will remain with the purchase until the next purchase cycle. Look at the list of customers Boeing has amassed with the 787; they are highly respected, quality, long-term airlines who are swayed by engineering (just as Airbus swayed customers with the A330 vs. the older B-767). I’m afraid that Airbus has missed the boat with these airlines for the next 20 years and is now in a box.

With composite construction, bleed-less engines, etc. Boeing has taken the technologically high road; Airbus must now race to catch up and develop a totally new plane to compete. But, now comes the question, what kind of new plane? New light-weight construction? Advanced new generation engines? Greatly improved economics? Hmmmmm, this sounds like the B787. All that effort to catch up to a product that will be in service in 2.5 years, and those customer who have purchased the B-787 won’t be in the market.

SAS_MD80 · Post by **SAS_MD80** » 15 Apr 2006, 11:03

You're right. But remember that most airline operate a "roll over" rejuvenation of their fleets over long periods of time, others (SIA for example) replace them after 8 years max ans some order competing aicraft from both manufacturers.
So the market is never really "dead" for one the manufacturers.
But in my opinion Airbus definitely needs to go back to what it built its success during the first 25 years: innovation. In the past years they have given a rather conservative image of themselves, starting with the plain, boring new corporate colors.
So let's wait and see what they come up with, I'm rather confident that they will find their way.

CX · Post by CX » 16 Apr 2006, 04:15

It is a cycle, but question is the period of the cycle. Of course if suddenly the aviation market picks up the demand for A380 might be sky high and will end Boeing's ultimate shine now, but on the other hand if the mid-size/long range planes still dominate, it'll take Airbus more time to recover... I mean if they are not spending some extra billions on the A350, do you really think they are spending tens of billions developing something totally new in the very near future?

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 16 Apr 2006, 05:13

Im not so sure the A380/B747-8 are the way of the furture. I think the future will be more of the B777 B787 A350. While the super jumbos are lovely, im not so sure the future will support them in mass like the others i have mentioned

......

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 16 Apr 2006, 14:44

There will always be a requirement for very large commercial airplanes (A380 / B747), but the question centers on whether the requirement is for a sufficient number to be economically viable for the plane manufacturers. Large planes offer efficiencies of scale (low seat miles), long range (they carry lots of fuel in their large wings) and, reduced air traffic control issues into airports (although terminal crowding is an issue). However, in order to be attractive to an airline, there must be a sufficient number of routes and passenger demand to fly between points A and B. New York to London, London to Hong Kong, Singapore to Tokyo, etc. are some examples.

On the other hand, there is a greater demand for travel between less dense cities, such as Paris to Warsaw, Bogota to Johannesburg, etc. The need for efficient, smaller (less than 300 seat) planes that can profitably carry 200-300 passengers long distances is greater than for 500-600 seat planes. Smaller planes permit an airline to offer multiple flight per day between city pairs, thus making service more convenient (attractive) to the traveler.

An extreme example of this philosophy is Boeing’s recently announced B-737-700ER. This plane (ordered by All Nippon Airways) will profitably fly 126 passengers in 2-class service for 5,510 nautical miles (10,200 km). This will permit airlines to serve long range, low-density routes.

CX · Post by CX » 16 Apr 2006, 15:27

The point is we dont' know how things will evolve in the next 20 years or so.. I mean if Airbus knew the aviation market would be like today's 10 years back, they probably wouldn't build the A380.

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 16 Apr 2006, 17:45

CX wrote:The point is we dont' know how things will evolve in the next 20 years or so.. I mean if Airbus knew the aviation market would be like today's 10 years back, they probably wouldn't build the A380.

Nah, i still think they would have built the A380. Its a mans world, and in a mans world, it means something to have the biggest toy on the block:):):):):):)

.......

smokejumper · Post by **smokejumper** » 18 Apr 2006, 21:51

CX wrote:The point is we dont' know how things will evolve in the next 20 years or so.. I mean if Airbus knew the aviation market would be like today's 10 years back, they probably wouldn't build the A380.

CX – I agree. No manufacturer deliberately embarks on an expensive project unless they foresee a profitable market. Markets do change and both Airbus and Boeing have market analysts who spend heir days “reading the tea leaves. The best of predictions and analyses can be overwritten by events (e.g., 9/11, a war, high fuel costs, etc.) that just can not be foreseen.

Has Airbus foreseen the market we have today, they might have done something else.