dark light

Airbus Launches A330neo at Farnborough

Airbus kicks off the Farnborough Airshow with the A330 neo launch…

http://www.airportsinternational.com/2014/07/airbus-launches-the-a330neo-at-farnborough/15781

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,151

Send private message

By: Amiga500 - 23rd March 2015 at 17:41

This has got to be seriously painful for Boeing – as well as being a real wakeup to the big 2 airframers:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]236204[/ATTACH]

A what, $30 billion dollar investment translates into a ~50 order lead vs the A330 ceo and neo (with the neo having a… somewhere around ~$4 billion dollar investment).

Ouch. Which more or less goes to show – engines are virtually the be-all and end-all* on airframes these days.

Any and all new airframes off the design board really need to allow for at least one, if not two, straightforward** engine upgrades throughout its service life.

*assuming a half-decent design
**no landing gear changes needed, straightforward strengthening of wing structure and no engine ground clearance issues.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,151

Send private message

By: Amiga500 - 14th July 2014 at 16:57

Interesting. Where does that leave the A350-800?

Dead.

Realistically speaking, the market segment guys at Airbus have totally f**ked up the past 20 years or so.

Looking at it broadly, the following markets exist (3-class config and rough passenger boundaries):

<200 passengers; range < 3000nm
200-300 passengers; range < 6000 nm
300+ passengers; range 9000 nm+

Now, you use a single-aisle/narrowbody to tackle the <200 pax segment – A320/B737.

The 200-300 passenger class was tackled by the 767/757 and 330-200.

The 300+ class is too wide for one airframe, Airbus had the 330-300 and 340 series, Boeing the 747.

Then in the mid-90s, Airbus planning fell to crap. Boeing built the 777, Airbus decided to go one bigger than the 747 with the A380 without thinking how the rest would cascade down from it.

Boeing decided to fill the gap below the 777 with the 787. This has worked well.

Airbus, because of the size of the A380, should have realised two separate frames were needed, one which was 777X sized another a more direct replacement for the A330 (maybe a touch smaller).

The A350-1000 should have been fit for 400 passengers in roughly 3-classes. -900 fit for 350 and -800 for 300.

The A330 could then have been re-engined or replaced. We wouldn’t have had the XWB fiasco and Airbus would have a proper product in every market segment.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

100,651

Send private message

By: Arabella-Cox - 14th July 2014 at 12:29

Interesting. Where does that leave the A350-800?

Sign in to post a reply