A350 to be redesigned again

but of course……:)

I hope you realise I am just jesting 😉

yes, that was just too easy…….

lol Airbus have the first aircraft entering production, and Filton has the wing equipping hangar nicely underway……it’ll be here soon enough, might not do what it was sold as being able to do, but it’ll be here!

Well at least Airbus is keeping consistency through its military and commercial products 😉

Sorry… that was handed on a silver platter and had to be used :diablo:

Or was he referring to the A???M four turboprop thingy that the RAF are supposed to be buying when (if) it ever becomes a reality?

lol Airbus have the first aircraft entering production, and Filton has the wing equipping hangar nicely underway……it’ll be here soon enough, might not do what it was sold as being able to do, but it’ll be here!

We both know that – care to let go of it now and move on?

The incident that stands out in my mind is the USAF DID pay for the study that lead to the 747 in a round about way. They paid several companies to come up with proposals for a new cargo aircraft. Lockheed won and produced the C-5, Boeing “lost” and produced the 747 with a developemnt of their entry. So while the government didn’t pay for developement or anything they did at least fund the initial study. There wasn’t anything underhanded about it it just worked out that way. Now if we’d gone forward with the Boeing SST there would be a perfect example of American subsidizing. Just because a commercial aircraft happens to be used by the military after the fact doesn’t make it subsidizing. Nobody would argue that the US paid for the developement of the DC-10 because they use the KC-10. The BWB/X-48 is a gray area. However it isn’t a specific aircraft the government is funding but a technology. It would be interesting to see if Lockheed could make the claim of “the governement paid for it so we want the data too” even though the concept was originally a McDonnell Douglas design.

The market is so big that even an investment of several billions is worth it. The often announced A320/B737 successor is not due for arrival before 2012-15, even than it will not outclass its predeccessor. Here the same applies: Being second on the market is only a disadvantage if you deliver a worse product. Potentially the second always has the advantage of knowing the competitor’s product.

E.g. Boeing 777

The A330 based tanker/refueller, still being discussed by various parties I understand.

Or was he referring to the A???M four turboprop thingy that the RAF are supposed to be buying when (if) it ever becomes a reality?

How often do people need to be told that the 737NG is about as 1960s as the A340 is 1970s!

Just wanted to point out, that the cry for technology is sometimes misleading. A future single aisle aircraft does not bring extreme beneficials in cost, at least not by just cutting 10% of the fuel bill. The biggest problem for such a market is the definition of the aircraft (so it is marketing). A320 and B737 were defined by the big line carriers. Possible that this changes and the next B737 is defined by RyanAir and the new A320 by EasyJet. So it is a question of available (and proven) technology and the right definition.

The problem with the A350 is that Boeing melted the demands by some big customers in their B787. Airbus now has the pieces with sometimes colliding requirements of the airlines. If Singapoor wants 8.000nm, but Lufthansa not more than 5.000nm range, than you run in serious problems. Airbus solved their problem by simply copying the specs of the B787. As we know now that is not sufficient.

I couldn’t care less about your comments on the funding. I’m more interested in your claim that the government paid for the construction of a prototype. How ’bout backing that up or at least admitting that it’s bullsh!t? Specifically which “prototype” did the US government pay for?

For nitpicking; I’ve done my homework now. And you know what – there was no prototype so you are perfectly right on that one. My bad.

However, this does not change the fact that still remains; both Airbus and Boeing are throwing stones in a glass house if they speak about unright funding. May it be launch aid, indirect subsidies or by bribing people responsible for tenders. We both know that – care to let go of it now and move on?

sferrin, US Agent:

The reason to why I don’t want to elaborate on my former post about Airbus / Boeing funding.

I couldn’t care less about your comments on the funding. I’m more interested in your claim that the government paid for the construction of a prototype. How ’bout backing that up or at least admitting that it’s bullsh!t? Specifically which “prototype” did the US government pay for?

…………..Remember that Boeing offered a mid 60s design in the 90s against the all-new A320 and actually had quite a lot of sales.

How often do people need to be told that the 737NG is about as 1960s as the A340 is 1970s!

If the A400M achieves commercial success many folks will be astonished, Airbus included given that it’s military aircraft.

As for a new 737 replacement stopping A320s sales, given the rather large number orders + backlog for the healthily profitable A320 (including plenty of new customers), I would suggest Airbus would be able to focus on both the A350 and a A320NG as the A380 starts to generate profits; remember that they are expecting just a single new customer for the A380 each year over the next few years so the breakeven figure may well be acheived within 5 to 7 years (dependent on what discounts, if any, are given).

Right so. The A320/B737 replacement discussion is pointless at the moment, actually testified by both manufacturers. If someone is second on the market, he will not be doomed by that. Remember that Boeing offered a mid 60s design in the 90s against the all-new A320 and actually had quite a lot of sales.

Boeing has the upper hand right now, but it certainly shouldn’t think that it has regained the outright lead. As much as Airbus is in a little bit of trouble, Chicago shouldn’t just think they will just roll over and play dead.

In terms of cash-flow, sales and profit it doesn´t have. It is just expectations of an unflown aircraft. Not to say that it is a bad one, but just adapt your post to the facts and not the marketing department releases. You serve your credibility by that.

sferrin, US Agent:

The reason to why I don’t want to elaborate on my former post about Airbus / Boeing funding is that this will become yet another one of those A vs. B threads occupied by a frenzie of geniuses (fan boys and armchair experts that is) supporting their favourite. And to be quite honest, I’m dead tired of that discussion.

The only point I would like to make is that I would keep my mouth shut about how A or B got their funding. They’re just as good.

I would suggest Airbus would be able to focus on both the A350 and a A320NG as the A380 starts to generate profits; remember that they are expecting just a single new customer for the A380 each year over the next few years so the breakeven figure may well be acheived within 5 to 7 years (dependent on what discounts, if any, are given).

Of course, it doesn’t hurt having that sweet loan program in place freeing up funds for future projects. :rolleyes:

If the A400M achieves commercial success many folks will be astonished, Airbus included given that it’s military aircraft.

As for a new 737 replacement stopping A320s sales, given the rather large number orders + backlog for the healthily profitable A320 (including plenty of new customers), I would suggest Airbus would be able to focus on both the A350 and a A320NG as the A380 starts to generate profits; remember that they are expecting just a single new customer for the A380 each year over the next few years so the breakeven figure may well be acheived within 5 to 7 years (dependent on what discounts, if any, are given).

Boeing’s corporate HQ is, in fact, in Chicago. 🙂

Chicago?

Seattle, surely.

I’ve seen it on Discovery Wings :rolleyes:

Boeing has the upper hand right now, but it certainly shouldn’t think that it has regained the outright lead. As much as Airbus is in a little bit of trouble, Chicago shouldn’t just think they will just roll over and play dead.