As noted above, the airframe industry is cyclical; manufacturers play leap-frog in developing new aircraft. Boeing is now on top with the 777 (most efficient mid-large plane), the 787 (most efficient mid-size plane), 747-8 (claimed lowest seat mile/trip costs - wait and see) and, the 737NG (still competitive).
Airbus is still competitive as existing customers can realize financial advantages through standardization with current fleets. Other carriers conducting detailed economic tradeoffs, seem to be selecting the 787. The 777 seems to be crushing the A-330/340.
The A-380 is still a big question. Airbus previously estimated that they need to sell about 300 to break even; they are now at 116 and development costs are continuing. The plane may reach the break even point or be mildly successful, but I doubt that it will reach the longevity or 1600 sales of the 747. The 747 was the "right" plane for its time; now people seem to want to travel directly to their destination, thus making the case for mid-size planes. Remember, the 747 was largely bought for its range, not its capacity. With very long range mid-large capacity planes available (A330 and B777) that can fly directly to smaller destinations, I am not sure of the market for super large planes.
In any event, Airbus will eventually develop a new plane to replace the A330/350 and gain the top dog status - but Boeing will not stand still. Boeing lost its vision in the 90's as CEOs Phil Condit and Harry Stoneceipher spent money and management attention diversifying Boeing into other fields. With the current management, I don't thin this will happen again.
A350 needs revision?
Moderator: Latest news team
Even with more direct flights, there will always be hub-and-spoke models of operation. I doubt that most city pairs have enough traffic going between them to warrant a (frequent) direct connection. It could end up being a choice between a direct flight once every two weeks, or a daily flight to the nearest hub airport, and either a direct flight from there (if the destination is popular enough), or a flight to another hub, with yet another flight from there to your final destination. Or the other way around, a direct flight to a distant hub, and a second flight from there, because there is not enough traffic between origin and destination for a direct flight.
I share earthman's opinion.
Look at the order book for the A380. Most machines have been bought by Middle East airlines based on the hub and spoke model such as Emirates (and Qatar or Etihad), who use their 6th freedom rights.
In a recent interview to Flight International, Mr Udvar Hazy, who runs ILFC (one of the world's major aircraft leasing companies) declared that in his opinion the A380 would book a flurry of orders after the first 2 years of revenue service. Because the top airlines would want to match the competition with that aircraft, and because of the expected traffic expansion.
He added that in 15 years the highest sales wouls be achieved by the -900 version (which in fact is the "real" center version with capacity for 650 paw in 3-class config, the -800 being a shrunk A380). That opinion is also shared by Emirates.
It will be interesting to see what if the future proves Mr Udvar Hazy right, but something tells me he might be right.
Look at the order book for the A380. Most machines have been bought by Middle East airlines based on the hub and spoke model such as Emirates (and Qatar or Etihad), who use their 6th freedom rights.
In a recent interview to Flight International, Mr Udvar Hazy, who runs ILFC (one of the world's major aircraft leasing companies) declared that in his opinion the A380 would book a flurry of orders after the first 2 years of revenue service. Because the top airlines would want to match the competition with that aircraft, and because of the expected traffic expansion.
He added that in 15 years the highest sales wouls be achieved by the -900 version (which in fact is the "real" center version with capacity for 650 paw in 3-class config, the -800 being a shrunk A380). That opinion is also shared by Emirates.
It will be interesting to see what if the future proves Mr Udvar Hazy right, but something tells me he might be right.
The A380 is far too early to judge on, but a scenerio is that the A380 will simply be an air 'bus' for domestic flights.. I mean at the moment in China, from Shanghai to Beijeng, I'm sure the volume will keep on increasing (as with other domestic routes connecting major cities in China), and probably it'll be like a bus where there will be higher volume in the 'going to work' hours and 'back to home' hours, and the A380 might just fit for those... And that is already what it is planned to be used for in Japan...
As for that article about the A350, well Airbus MUST say they dont' have plans for a huge revision or else their orders will surely halt...
As for that article about the A350, well Airbus MUST say they dont' have plans for a huge revision or else their orders will surely halt...
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
In order to be competitive with the 787, Airbus does not need to redesign the A-350; rather it needs to develop an entirely new plane, the A-360. The current A-350 has composite wings and lithium aluminum fuselage skins. It will be lighter than the A-330, but also will use the many of the same technologies as the 30 year old A-300.
I am not sure as to how a new A-360 will be an advance over the 787. What new technologies (that are not presently being incorporated into the 787) can Airbus employ? Major advances (really revolutionary advances) don't come along very often. Is Airbus holding an unknown card?
I'm afraid that Airbus has missed the train and can now just play catch-up and match what Boeing has done, only 5-6 years later. Perhaps they should just keep working on the A-350, improving it as they go along, and compete on price. The European governments and their taxpayers will stand to pick up the tab
I am not sure as to how a new A-360 will be an advance over the 787. What new technologies (that are not presently being incorporated into the 787) can Airbus employ? Major advances (really revolutionary advances) don't come along very often. Is Airbus holding an unknown card?
I'm afraid that Airbus has missed the train and can now just play catch-up and match what Boeing has done, only 5-6 years later. Perhaps they should just keep working on the A-350, improving it as they go along, and compete on price. The European governments and their taxpayers will stand to pick up the tab
-
fokker_f27
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
- Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium
I totaly agree. Plus, if Airbus were to redesign the A350, they would run the risk of loosing existing customers. The customers that have all ready ordered the A350 might loose confidence in the program and order the 787 instead.fokker_f27 wrote:But if Airbus will completly redisign the a350, then it will be even farther behind Boeing then it is now. I think Airbus is better off this way. It may not be able to beat Boeing, but at least it already has 91 orders, thats not too bad.
Onward and Upward...
Smokejumper,
please stop stating that the A350 is based on the old A300 of 30 years ago: anyone a little bit introduced to aircraft technology knows that the A330/340 was a completely new design: totally new wing, even new fuselage, totally new fly-by-wire technology, new cockpit, new interior. About all that was taken from the A300 was the ouside appearance of the nose section. Compared with its nearest (capacity) competitor,the B767-300, it was lightyears ahead on the technology.To be correct the A350 is indeed a derivative of the A330, although with about 40 to 50% new content (mainly wings and A380 cockpit).
please stop stating that the A350 is based on the old A300 of 30 years ago: anyone a little bit introduced to aircraft technology knows that the A330/340 was a completely new design: totally new wing, even new fuselage, totally new fly-by-wire technology, new cockpit, new interior. About all that was taken from the A300 was the ouside appearance of the nose section. Compared with its nearest (capacity) competitor,the B767-300, it was lightyears ahead on the technology.To be correct the A350 is indeed a derivative of the A330, although with about 40 to 50% new content (mainly wings and A380 cockpit).
Wings are of new materials but the shape of it is virtually unchanged, still not flexing backwards to bring speeds up.
I mean Airbus cannot delay their A380 (especially the -900) and the A320R where they have edge... But this potentially means there won't be resources to build a brand new A350...
Redesigning will cost Airbus a year or so, but not redesigning will put them furtherback, in fact maybe a full model-life back because they'll be trying to catch the 777-replacing plane, unless they have something on the cards that will beat the large 777s with big margin and replace the A345/6 not too far from now.
I still think they should redesign, which will put them in a very nice position once the brand new A350 goes into service, and an A340 replacing derivative should follow. But again that must not hamper the A320R and the A389.
I mean Airbus cannot delay their A380 (especially the -900) and the A320R where they have edge... But this potentially means there won't be resources to build a brand new A350...
Redesigning will cost Airbus a year or so, but not redesigning will put them furtherback, in fact maybe a full model-life back because they'll be trying to catch the 777-replacing plane, unless they have something on the cards that will beat the large 777s with big margin and replace the A345/6 not too far from now.
I still think they should redesign, which will put them in a very nice position once the brand new A350 goes into service, and an A340 replacing derivative should follow. But again that must not hamper the A320R and the A389.
I think Airbus has probably pondered the option of designing a new from scratch A350 instead of the currently proposed aircraft.
One should go back 20 years in time, when the A320 was 2 years before revenue service. The A320 boasted a range of innovations compared to the then 737 "Classic" range: fbw, brand new high tech wing, a wider fuselage section, glass cockpit and extensive use of composites, among others.
Instead of facing the A320 with a brand new airplane, Boeing chose to play catch up in reasonnable financial terms by developping the 737NG. Still no fbw, no improvement in the cabin width, etc.
Still, the orders came and quite matched those of the A320 during 15 years. The A320 only got an edge recently.
Airbus' position with the A350 is comparable to Boeing's at the time. I don't think it will prevent them from booking decent orders for their machine.
And please stop saying the A330 is an old design. It is not.
And also that the European taxpayers will pay for it. Airbus has now fully reimbursed the A300, 310 and 320 programs. Remember the US taxpayers also pay for their local companies through DoD procurements...
One should go back 20 years in time, when the A320 was 2 years before revenue service. The A320 boasted a range of innovations compared to the then 737 "Classic" range: fbw, brand new high tech wing, a wider fuselage section, glass cockpit and extensive use of composites, among others.
Instead of facing the A320 with a brand new airplane, Boeing chose to play catch up in reasonnable financial terms by developping the 737NG. Still no fbw, no improvement in the cabin width, etc.
Still, the orders came and quite matched those of the A320 during 15 years. The A320 only got an edge recently.
Airbus' position with the A350 is comparable to Boeing's at the time. I don't think it will prevent them from booking decent orders for their machine.
And please stop saying the A330 is an old design. It is not.
And also that the European taxpayers will pay for it. Airbus has now fully reimbursed the A300, 310 and 320 programs. Remember the US taxpayers also pay for their local companies through DoD procurements...
The 737NG isn't inferior. It's just less state-of-the-art a plane, less sophisticated, and is therefore priced slighly under the A320.
It attracted lots of offers thanks to a quite rugged structure and reputation for reliability, hence the fact that before Easy Jet ordered the A319 the 737 was alone in the low cost market.
As the older A320 airframes reached the age of 15, it proved to be a reliable aircraft and won more orders.
I'm not sure the 350 will simply be a runner up against the 787, and Airbus still has 5-6 years to refine its design in the meantime.
It attracted lots of offers thanks to a quite rugged structure and reputation for reliability, hence the fact that before Easy Jet ordered the A319 the 737 was alone in the low cost market.
As the older A320 airframes reached the age of 15, it proved to be a reliable aircraft and won more orders.
I'm not sure the 350 will simply be a runner up against the 787, and Airbus still has 5-6 years to refine its design in the meantime.
-
TESTBILD3D
:shakehead:
Hello,
First of all, my opinion is that the A 350 must be revised. You can turn it on all sides, but you have to agree that the A 350 will never be as capable with the "start from scratch" Boeing 787 (3-8-9-10).
Within Airbus, they know all to well that the current design is not the one that Airbus needs.
If Airbus proceeds with the current design
------------------------------------------------
Beside the proposed two versions that Airbus has on the drawing board, we can expect two other versions of the A 35O.
1/ A 350 - x1000x
2/ A 350 - x700x
The last one is maybe the most important of all. In we compare the (heavy) A 350 - 800 (8800 nm range) with the A 321 - 200, there is an enormous gap between the two aicraft. Airbus has to build somthing to compete with the 787-3.
Some kind of light version of their two heavy versions would be welcome to fill the big gap.
Remember the once by Airbus proposed A 330-500 that was intended to replace the A 300 / A 310 family. Airbus A 330 - 500 was offered to Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, ... , but there it would have the same wing as the other versions, it was found too heavy.
Do some other people expect the same as I?
Greets,
[/url][/list]
Hello,
First of all, my opinion is that the A 350 must be revised. You can turn it on all sides, but you have to agree that the A 350 will never be as capable with the "start from scratch" Boeing 787 (3-8-9-10).
Within Airbus, they know all to well that the current design is not the one that Airbus needs.
If Airbus proceeds with the current design
------------------------------------------------
Beside the proposed two versions that Airbus has on the drawing board, we can expect two other versions of the A 35O.
1/ A 350 - x1000x
2/ A 350 - x700x
The last one is maybe the most important of all. In we compare the (heavy) A 350 - 800 (8800 nm range) with the A 321 - 200, there is an enormous gap between the two aicraft. Airbus has to build somthing to compete with the 787-3.
Some kind of light version of their two heavy versions would be welcome to fill the big gap.
Remember the once by Airbus proposed A 330-500 that was intended to replace the A 300 / A 310 family. Airbus A 330 - 500 was offered to Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, ... , but there it would have the same wing as the other versions, it was found too heavy.
Do some other people expect the same as I?
Greets,
[/url][/list]
I quite agree with you on the fact that Airbus would be wise to target an airplane to the 200-300 passenger segment, which paradoxically is being neglected by both competitors.
In fact, the 787 is being pushed upmarket by the A350 and by some airlines like Emirates, who have insisted on Boeing launching the -1000.
This in turn is menacing the 772.
So in my opinion, Airbus would be wise:
- to anticipate the renewed need for a 200-300 pax aircraft optimized for short-medium haul. They can allways make it into a longer haul.
It would be the ideal replacement for the 310 and 300 which have not been replaced.
This would make it a contender for the lower capacity versions of the 787.
- To fill the gap between that aircraft and the 380. That means a larger aircraft than the current 340 (even the 346). With a wider fuselage, that aircraft would compete against the 777 and 748.
What do you guys think?
In fact, the 787 is being pushed upmarket by the A350 and by some airlines like Emirates, who have insisted on Boeing launching the -1000.
This in turn is menacing the 772.
So in my opinion, Airbus would be wise:
- to anticipate the renewed need for a 200-300 pax aircraft optimized for short-medium haul. They can allways make it into a longer haul.
It would be the ideal replacement for the 310 and 300 which have not been replaced.
This would make it a contender for the lower capacity versions of the 787.
- To fill the gap between that aircraft and the 380. That means a larger aircraft than the current 340 (even the 346). With a wider fuselage, that aircraft would compete against the 777 and 748.
What do you guys think?
Are we talking medium or long range?? I think Boeing has answered the 200 pax. market for medium range with the 737-900X.I quite agree with you on the fact that Airbus would be wise to target an airplane to the 200-300 passenger segment, which paradoxically is being neglected by both competitors.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
we're talking medium range. The 737-900X is more an answer to the A321-200. The shortcoming of the basic 739 is the lack of a 3rd raw of real emergency exits, which curbs its capacity to below the 322.
The 739-X fixes that, but there's still a huge gap between the 739X and the 787-3, just as between the 321 and 332 or current design of the 350. That's the segment we're talking about (basically the segment of the A300, A310 and 767-200)
The 739-X fixes that, but there's still a huge gap between the 739X and the 787-3, just as between the 321 and 332 or current design of the 350. That's the segment we're talking about (basically the segment of the A300, A310 and 767-200)
I don't know but if they shrink the A350 even more than the -800, then compared to the 787-3, it will even be heavier! IMO they'll probably build something 'lighter' with less seats or something to fly longer distances, but not exactly smaller. Airbus must stretch the A350 as much as possible to eat into the 777 market as a lot of the 772s out there now will need replacement soon..