Airbus 350 XWB

I am interested in your argument that a smaller, lighter aircraft will be more maintainence friendly? Would you care to expand?

Not more easier to maintain but what I said was that a smaller aircraft is more inclined or has better chance to meet its goals as far as structural eff., weight and other goals are concerned. This in my opinion is due to the compllexity and its relative increase as size increases. My argument isnt with the size difference of the 787 and XWB but with just a a normal case where 2 aircrafts are being developed (not necc similar size) . As far as 787 is concerned it is running into weight issues . The last time I talked to my source it had reduced the overweight by .4- . 6 % and is now close to 2% over-weight with much of that weight increase being in the wings . The japanese sub contracters are working overtime to reduce those wing weights by enough so that other components can make up for the total weight . Even at current weight levels it is well within its range of weight which was quoted to the Airlines and would still offer 20% effeceincy even if no more weight is trimmed (it could have been close to 3% overweight and still offer the same level of effeciency as was quoted by boeing) . I guess this is why boeing is able to exceed its design requirments cuz they are not very optimistic going into a program.

bring_it_on, I think your outlook on the A350XWB being heavier than the B787 is a mute argument – as far as I can see the A350XWB is larger than it’s comparably B787 model, yet the MTOW is only one aspect. There are other things to consider how many seats can the airline fill, how much cargo can it carry, operating costs (crewing, maintainence, servicing, etc) compared to the B787. I can only speculate, I don’t have all the facts in front of me and neither biased to Airbus nor Boeing but the proof will be in the orders. I can see the B787-3 being a popular model, with which Airbus might just miss out on with their larger aircraft.

IT is wider (not heavier as we dont know the weights yet and the-10 weights that i had earlier mentioned were actually of the 787-9 so I had misinterpreted and comitted an error on my part) then the Competing Boeing Aircraft pitted against it . It would be quite a acheivment on the part of the Airbus people to make a bigger and wider aircraft lighter then its competing boeing version specially when the 2 aircraft are relying on same technology and I am really not aware of Airbus being ahead of boeing in the composite department. The no. of seats are more or less the same (10 more in some areas and 10-15 less in some areas) , the ammount of cargo should be comparable as the ranges,fuel and PAX no.s are more or less similar although the Airbus might just need slightly more fuel to go the same distance with the same engines (8500nm as compared to 8600-8800nm) . Again In my opinion a smaller and lighter aircraft will always be easier to make maintaince friendly then a bulky one although I believe that both 787 and A350XWB will set new standards as far as maintainability is concerned. The 787-3 actually isnt the one that has done the most selling (infact it has done the least as compared to the other s) . The 787-8 has sold some 230+ aircrafts , the 787-9 some 60+ aircrafts with the 787-3 selling some 40+ aircrafts however it is still something that Boeing feels is a profitable venture .

TOTORO –

I agree with you pretty much that atleast the A350-1000 puts some serious pressure on the 777 models it competes against however The 777 is still a healthy aircraft which continues to see good orders and growth . Boeing is all said to cut down the no. of Man hours required to produce it so over the next 2-5 years the 777 will be much cheaper to make then it is now . As far as CARGO carrying capacity is concerned I am not sure but as far as I know most of the airliners are carrying cargo to their fullest capacity (or want the capability to carry cargo as it generates some much needed revenue) even on passenger commercial flights (correct me If I’m wrong) . BOEING still is undecided weather it will go for a more powerful engine for the 787-1000 however one option is as you said is to make it wider,bigger and heavier to compete better with the A350-900 and competing 777 models . As long boeing does a good job with the 787-10 they should be just fine as Airbus would really have just the A350-1000 which they can really boast about (having a significant edge over the competing boeing aircraft) . My sources in Boeing aswell as Media reports seem to suggest that the 787-10 development question isnt a matter of if it would be developed but a question of WHEN it would be developed. Boeing needs to give a long look at what they want. They would definately see what the A350-900 has to offer and then try to acheive better economy and pit it against he 777 models and the 350-900.

I would assume that thw wingspan for the 3 airbus models would be same?? Airbus has released wingspan figures for the -900 at 64m according to wikpedia . So it will have greater wingspan (greater by 4m) as compared to the -787 .

Well, no info has been given but i’d be very surprised if wingspan ends up being same for all models. Differences in size and with that weight are too big for the same wingspan being efficient, even when taking into consideration extra money spent on development and production of 3 different variations of the same design. Also, 787-3 for example has smaller wingspan and weight than other 787s. I would also be surprised if -10 model didnt have bigger wings since it’s definitely going to be some tons (tens of tons?) heavier. Of course 900 versus 8 and 9 still has 4 m longer wing which does offer the possibility that they overengineered the wing on 900 on purpose, and they intend to use same wing on 1000 while they will make a shorther wing for 800, trying to make that plane as efficient as possible – since that model is gonna have to cope with 787-8, however hard that mission seems now.

Again using the 777 analogy that we have both used in the past – Why would an airline want to take off with extra weight (i suppose the -800 will be heavier then the 787-800) , larger aircraft , bigger crosssection and wider wingspan ? When it can acheive its economy with the 787-800 which fits in the PAX no.s that they are looking for .

Of course it will go with cheaper plane in the long run. Even if airbus ends up being marginally cheaper at sale price, if its not as efficient during use, airlines would prefer boeing. It is interesting though that airbus claims that 6% or whatever despite all these things. Sure, it compares to -8, having 20 pax less but still, 20 pax alone cant seem to justify it for me, cause each row of pax more also brings quite a weight penalty with it. They’re either just doing usual marketing talk or they got a hold of some kind of UFO aerodynamics tech, seeing how their weight is still more than boeing. It’s really hard to make any sensible analysis yet, i can’t wait for industrial launch.

OR the notion of classes of planes according to pax numbers are gone. Maybe that’s what airbus is thinking. That airlines wont think in terms of: 200-250 class, 250-300, 300-400 class but that those ‘classes’ are much more precise and more varied in light where each new row of passengers is basically another class. Like i was saying, it is just too suspicious that airbus 350 series seems to be position more or less exactly in between of 787 and 777 models for that matter – in terms of pax numbers. Obviously diff airlines will need diff planes – and airbus may be thinking those differences may be small enough that 20 pax more or less WILL make a difference. Actually, i think that’s pretty good for competition overall, as both boeing and airbus would find a nice market for themselves if such thinking is true.

One another interesting tid-bit that I had overlooked in the past is that according to Airbus’s released information the A-350 – 900 weighs in at 265t (MTOW) with 315 passengers (again in standard class configuration) with a bigger cross section then the dreamliner. The 787-10 is rumoured to have a MTOW of 245 T therefore being lighter by 20 T aswell as being smaller in cross section . SO again the same problem – the Dreamliner -10 is lighter (for the same no. of passengers) and has a narrower span with the same engines!!!! However we still have to wait until the -10 is officially launched.

245 tons is official boeing data for -9. Seeing how there’s natural progression of weight with 787 series, -10 will definitely be heavier. Difference between -8 and -9 is some 30 tons for some 40 more pax. Now if we use that logic, however oversimplified it may be, we get 290 + 25 = 315 pax that 350-900 carries. 25 * 0.75 tons = 19 tons. 245 + 19 = 264 tons, pretty much the quoted 900 mtow figure. One ton discrepancy can easely be accounted with various combination of bigger fuselage, wings and more composites. Problem of course is – thats mtow figure, not empty plane figure which would be much more useful.

In my opinion I want boeing to change the specs of the -10 and offer more then what it is rumoured to be offering . I want a slightly bigger airframe , a little wider but with similar or marginally higher take of weight (250-255 T as compared to 245 currently planned) And Rather then competing with the 777-200 i want them to put it smack in the middle of the 2 777 varients and make it much much more flexible (290-350 PAX) but with an airframe that is smaller then both the A350-900 and A350-1000 and lighter then both these vareints (255T would make it 10 T lighter then the A350-900 ) and still be willing to compete with the two varients (although -1000 would offer the capability to expand it even further ).

I for one think 787 is very well positioned when it comes to fuselage width. Airbus may or may not have gone too wide with 350, depending on wether airlines will find those extra few inches enough to justify a comfortable 9 abreast even for long hauls. If they won’t put 9 abreast more often than airlines with 787 will for the same long flight, those extra inches are just a waste of efficiency. Which is why i think 777 is a screwup in width, at least when it comes to long flights. Its too wide for pax version. I know boeing made it wide enough so one could cram 10 abreast in it, but as longer and longer flights were possible, it became evident that its just too uncomfortable, and airlines just kept using less pax in a row for long flights.
It may be that is was on purpose, being a bit less inefficient in pax version but having a very fine freight version. Back then they knew even with too wide of pax plane they’re better positioned against 4 engined 340 so they didn’t think it’d matter. Now that next gen planes are to come out, that extra width may harm the pax versions of 777.

Like i said, 245 is not the -10 figure. With more pax and more weight, probably even longer wings, it is likely to go to 285-290 tons for 350 version. Just like 350-1000 will likely be over 300 tons. Again, these are mtow figures, assuming proportionate increase in fuel and other weigth for every pax, even if range plane needs to cross is the same – which while clearly a bit flawed logic can still be illustrative enough. The way -10 is designed now, it still leaves breathing space for 777-300. If it was made any bigger, it might kill 300 too, not just 200. Now, while airbus is positioned well enough to endanger 300, there’s always politics in some sales. Certain customers may be inclined to go for boeing no matter what – thus negating the 350-1000 advantage and boeing can afford to simply offer 777-300 to such customers.

What would be interesting is to see how much Cargo the 787-10, A-350 900’s and 1000’s will be able to carry as compared to the much larger 777’s and what effect the difference has on revenues for airlines and its effect (overall) on the airlines choosing one with the other.

Also, to continue my thought from previous paragraph – it’d leave more breathing room for freighter version of 777. Even if freight version continues to sell well – which it will i believe, since cargo versions of new planes will be last to be developed, overall numbers are still far less than pax needs in the market, which may make it hard to justify having a whole production line running just for a freighter. That is why even an odd pax version sold here or there may be very desirable, and why boeing chose not to impose on 777-300 with its 787-10 model.

So, like said, i don’t see 777 cargo being threatened head to head at all. Unless both boeing and airbus base their cargo planes on biggest versions the -10 and -1000. But that’s unlikely i’d say, as history has shown us cargo planes are almost never longest versions of pax model. Must be not adequate enough strength in the added pax section. 777’s width does make a difference in cargo, plus i would imagine it can carry bit more weight too, despite its size and older heavier materials its made of. But since most of the cargo business seems to go to specialized cargo airlines, i don’t think we’ll see too much of a influence in the sense that one airline might decide for pax 787 or 350 because it already has the cargo version. Such situations will be rare, i’d say. being slightly wider and carrying more weight, i’d guess 350-1000 is better positioned for cargo than 787-10, but there’s still 777 out, which many cargo airlines already have in their inventories.

However, if structure allows for -10 and 1000 versions of cargo – current freight 777 will fall behind, despite its wider fuselage. But i guess then boeing can also try to turn 777-300 into cargo version. It really depends, would aluminium be better posed to withstand extra structural pressure or are composites better for that? If i remember correctly, some article said reason why 787 isnt considered for next gen tanker for USAF is precisely because of it relatively weak structure due to composites – while perfectly good enough for weight density of pax, it is not enough for much higher weight densities.

I think 350 has bigger wingspan than 787, so that’s more drag too… but we’ll know for sure when 350 gets launched properly in some months time.

I would assume that thw wingspan for the 3 airbus models would be same?? Airbus has released wingspan figures for the -900 at 64m according to wikpedia . So it will have greater wingspan (greater by 4m) as compared to the -787 .

I would think that small discrepancy is due to the fact that each airline does in the end decide how many seats it will cram in their planes. Maybe air new zealand will have a row more of first class instead of economy class, compared to boeing’s predictions.

I think 280 is the most prefered seating configuration and most probably 2 or 3 class. Every airline seats between a range of seats depending upon the no. of classes the airline wants and how many abreast. The -900 seats between 259-290 (remember boeing added a few seats to the -900 a few months back ) Also Randy Beasler the head of sales on boeing talks of the 280 and so does AN therefore it looks like that it is only something that was acheived with the class change (2 or 3) rather then adding extra seats abreast. Similar to this A-350-800 will also most likely have a range of PAX it can accomodate depending upon the class configuration.

agree that airbus doesn’t seem to have as much to offer in 200-250 range

They have nothing in this category .

Unless it plans to give out 800 series at discount prices.

Again using the 777 analogy that we have both used in the past – Why would an airline want to take off with extra weight (i suppose the -800 will be heavier then the 787-800) , larger aircraft , bigger crosssection and wider wingspan ? When it can acheive its economy with the 787-800 which fits in the PAX no.s that they are looking for .

Then it’d be down to price of airplane. If you can get same efficiency per seat while having few more seats extra – all for the same price, of course you’d go with boeing. Still, i imagine the efficiency AND price margin to be so similar that it will be, not unusually, politics that will decide some purchases. Or maybe some airlines will already have some boing or airbuses in other classes, so similar types fleets would be cheaper in the end.

boeing has some 200+ 787-800’s allready on order and plann of going past 350 -800’s by the time the aircraft takes of for its maiden fllight . Boeing has also goten effecient in their production (“something that could not be said for them in the past) and the 737-NG clearly shows this as it is competing very well with its Airbus counterpart so we cant really take airbus selling its aircraft cheaper as a given. Furthermore boeing is only developing one aircaft whilest Airbus is locked in a 10-12 billion Euro Super-jumbo in addition to nearly 10 Billion euro A-350 project therefore boeing has more leverage interms of money liquidity on fancy production facility enhancments in addition to being 2 years ahead of the A350 giving them 2 years to get their production to more effecient=cheaper standards.

One another interesting tid-bit that I had overlooked in the past is that according to Airbus’s released information the A-350 – 900 weighs in at 265t (MTOW) with 315 passengers (again in standard class configuration) with a bigger cross section then the dreamliner. The 787-10 is rumoured to have a MTOW of 245 T therefore being lighter by 20 T aswell as being smaller in cross section . SO again the same problem – the Dreamliner -10 is lighter (for the same no. of passengers) and has a narrower span with the same engines!!!! However we still have to wait until the -10 is officially launched.

In my opinion I want boeing to change the specs of the -10 and offer more then what it is rumoured to be offering . I want a slightly bigger airframe , a little wider but with similar or marginally higher take of weight (250-255 T as compared to 245 currently planned) And Rather then competing with the 777-200 i want them to put it smack in the middle of the 2 777 varients and make it much much more flexible (290-350 PAX) but with an airframe that is smaller then both the A350-900 and A350-1000 and lighter then both these vareints (255T would make it 10 T lighter then the A350-900 ) and still be willing to compete with the two varients (although -1000 would offer the capability to expand it even further ).

What would be interesting is to see how much Cargo the 787-10, A-350 900’s and 1000’s will be able to carry as compared to the much larger 777’s and what effect the difference has on revenues for airlines and its effect (overall) on the airlines choosing one with the other.

[B]The 787-9 will have a range capability of some 13,000 km with 280 seat capacity compared to the 787-8’s range of 11,900 km and 230-250 seats.

The 290 figure I believe is in a single class arangement .

Well, boeing.com says 787-8 and 787-9. I would think that small discrepancy is due to the fact that each airline does in the end decide how many seats it will cram in their planes. Maybe air new zealand will have a row more of first class instead of economy class, compared to boeing’s predictions.

290 and 250 limits definitely are not single class arrangements. Not only do various sources explicitly say it’s 3 class arrangement but if you look at the length times width of the passenger deck, its clear that 787-9 for example, could host over 350 passengers if it crammed all in economy seating, 9 abreast.

Only uptil the 787-10 comes out . I agree with the fact that boeing is going to kill some versions of the 777 with the -10 but as the quote said it is better to do so yurself then let your competitor do it for you. Airbus has come out with an aircraft which puts itself between the 787 varients and the 777 varients and tries to compete with both . They are comming out with -R varients of the -1000 to further compete with the LR varients of the 777 which is what really makes me think as to the fact that can one aircraft do all this and still be more effeceint at both ends of the spectrum??

Here we’re comparing 350-1000 and 777, right? With 200 model, we have a plane that has some 10% more frontal cross section area while carrying less passengers (if we use 9 abreast seating in 777) or about same number (for 10 abreast, which almost no airline uses, certainly not for long haul flights). It may have same tech engines but there’s also more weight meaning more power needed at takeoff. So that’s clearly inferior. 300 model does offer about same number or more passengers for 10 abreast, but more weight and more drag are still there. Similarly, 787-10 will beat 777-200 and get dangerously close if not matching 300 efficiency in 9 abreast configuration.

Now airbus through their media reps at farnborough claimed that when compared to the 787-8 the a350-800 is 6% more economical on PAX per mile no.s however what would happen if you compare it to the more appropriate 787-9 ?? the PAX no.s are in favour of boeing with the 787-9 being smaller in crossection and using the same engine. SO what revolutionary technolgy will be required to offset the fact that the boeing aircraft houses 10 more passengers and has narrower cross – section???

I agree that airbus doesn’t seem to have as much to offer in 200-250 range. Unless it plans to give out 800 series at discount prices. Maybe they’ll play the card of comfort. 8 abreast in economy would be superb at the given cabin width. Still, i’d say it aws a consciouss decision on airbus behalf – better to go for bigger than smaller. Not necesarrily that there’s more money to be earned in bigger but maybe they calculated their own chances are better.

Also, i would agree that if one compared 800 to -9, boeing would fare somewhat better, or in worst case (if airbus tech indeed turns out to be superior as they claim, more composites or whatever) on par with airbus. Then it’d be down to price of airplane. If you can get same efficiency per seat while having few more seats extra – all for the same price, of course you’d go with boeing. Still, i imagine the efficiency AND price margin to be so similar that it will be, not unusually, politics that will decide some purchases. Or maybe some airlines will already have some boing or airbuses in other classes, so similar types fleets would be cheaper in the end.

I wonder what is the height of the fuselage – i doubt airbus fuselage is circular, and 787’s might not be either. I think only plane with perfectly circular fuselage is 777. Also, what are weights of planes mentioned here? We dont have those figures either. I think 350 has bigger wingspan than 787, so that’s more drag too… but we’ll know for sure when 350 gets launched properly in some months time.

We seem to be using different data then. I just re-checked mine at boeing.com site and it still says 787-8 carries up to 250 while 787-9 up to 290 passengers. Where did you see your data published?

The 787-9 will have a range capability of some 13,000 km with 280 seat capacity compared to the 787-8’s range of 11,900 km and 230-250 seats.

http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/aboutus/mediacentre/pressreleases/new_boeing_787_9_aircraft.htm

The 290 figure I believe is in a single class arangement .

350 family is clearly designed, from the beginning, to be slightly bigger than 787. So while it may not compete well with smallest 787, the more passengers we’re talking about, outlook for 350 is looking better.

Only uptil the 787-10 comes out . I agree with the fact that boeing is going to kill some versions of the 777 with the -10 but as the quote said it is better to do so yurself then let your competitor do it for you. Airbus has come out with an aircraft which puts itself between the 787 varients and the 777 varients and tries to compete with both . They are comming out with -R varients of the -1000 to further compete with the LR varients of the 777 which is what really makes me think as to the fact that can one aircraft do all this and still be more effeceint at both ends of the spectrum??

Another thing that I feel airbus has done is given up on the 200-250 passenger market . there are 1200-1600 legacy aircrafts in this range that need replacing over the years and as far as the last few years have shown the airlines do want these aircrafts as is evident from the fact that close to 86% of the Dreamliners ordered fit between the smaller category of 200-250 PAX thereby suggesting atleast now that the airlines want a new effecient aircraft at that size and of that PAX capacity. So far atleast for airlines boeing has been talking to Emirates and a few others (only a handful though) want the 787-10 however boeing thinks that it will have a market (they will definately not develop it had it not had the market) . So i see the dreamliner not being contested in its best area that is the 200-250 capacity market , contested in 250-300 market (270-280 for both A and B) and airbus being the lone star at the moment as far as the market for the 2 higher end aircrafts are concerned -900 and -1000 with the dreamliner -10 when launched being a competitor to the -900 airbus. Now airbus through their media reps at farnborough claimed that when compared to the 787-8 the a350-800 is 6% more economical on PAX per mile no.s however what would happen if you compare it to the more appropriate 787-9 ?? the PAX no.s are in favour of boeing with the 787-9 being smaller in crossection and using the same engine. SO what revolutionary technolgy will be required to offset the fact that the boeing aircraft houses 10 more passengers and has narrower cross – section???

I think they have willingly let boeing a certain market with smallest 787 so they could focus on battling 777 and largest 787.

They’d still have to compete against th 787-10 when it is announced and now that boeing knows for sure that one of the 777 is going to be attacked they have more of a freedom to themselves overlap capability thereby leaving Airbus with some advantage in the -1000 which has no dreamliner competitor.

How so it seats 270 whilest the 787-9 seats 280 a ten seat diffrerential only , whereas the 787-8 seats 240 which is a 30 seat differential and is in the category for airlines wanting between 200-250 seats rather then the category of airlines wanting 250-300 seats in which case they can choose between the 350-8 , 787-9 .

We seem to be using different data then. I just re-checked mine at boeing.com site and it still says 787-8 carries up to 250 while 787-9 up to 290 passengers. Where did you see your data published?

I Think the point he is trying to make is that the A-350 which would have to compete with both the 787 sized aircraft aswell as 777 aircraft (as airbus has done by going after the markets) has to make certain compromises which boeing needent as they dont intend on replacing the 777 with the 787.

Thing is, 787 will also hurt 777 sales. even 787-9 version is dangerously close to 777-200, while probably being a lot more efficient. 787-10 will also be very close to 777-300. Not to mention that it holds more than 200 while being just as or slightly more efficient. Sure, new engines for 777 will help but still, we’re talking about just 10-30 seats more. However great width of 777 is, seems airliners are just not using 10 abreast seating that much. Same reason why we’re seeing so relatively few people in a380 even though theoretically it’d go over 800 people.

350 family is clearly designed, from the beginning, to be slightly bigger than 787. So while it may not compete well with smallest 787, the more passengers we’re talking about, outlook for 350 is looking better. Keeping in mind what i said in paragraph above, about even 787 threading on 777s ground, a350 seems to be even better positioned to battle 777. I have been saying that in my first posts here, when rumours bout new 350 began – airbus needs 777 competitor as much as it needs 787 one. I think they have willingly let boeing a certain market with smallest 787 so they could focus on battling 777 and largest 787.

350-800 is smack in the middle of 787-8 and 787-9, seat number wise.

How so it seats 270 whilest the 787-9 seats 280 a ten seat diffrerential only , whereas the 787-8 seats 240 which is a 30 seat differential and is in the category for airlines wanting between 200-250 seats rather then the category of airlines wanting 250-300 seats in which case they can choose between the 350-8 , 787-9 .

I must say i don’t understand the wing being too small or too large talk. Just like with 787 and many other family of planes from both boeing and airbus, wing on the 350 series will probably differ in wingspan from version to version, even though core design of the wing will be same. 787 for example is covering from 160 to 240 ton max take off weight with same wing design.

I Think the point he is trying to make is that the A-350 which would have to compete with both the 787 sized aircraft aswell as 777 aircraft (as airbus has done by going after the markets) has to make certain compromises which boeing needent as they dont intend on replacing the 777 with the 787.

But as facts suggest it doesnt replace the 330!! What are they planning to do with the 330??

Airbus is quoted of saying that some airlines that signed on to the earlier A350 (330 on steroids) might leave due to change in the delivery schedules.

For me the most significant breakthrough will be seeing how Airbus will take a longer , wider and similar aircraft and make it more effeceint then the an aircraft that is shorter,narrower and uses the same engines.

Im not saying it is replacing the A330!!

The A330 is still a very good airplane in its market, to a certain extent Boeing was caught out, by the arrival of the A330, because it was reliant on its excellent 767 series. Boeing made a comeback with its 777 series, which we all agree is a fine airliner, and with it’s various models is designed for many differing markets.

The A350/370 was at the time, based on an improved A330,(making it lighter,improved use of carbon fibre, improved flight deck,uprated engines) for which airbus got slammed by there customers and press.

Now quite rightly they have eaten humble pie, gone back to the drawing board, and come up with a product that looks impressive.

While it is an artists dream at the moment, who knows what it will be capable of. It’s now upto the airlines to go to airbus and say what they would like incorparated and what they dont. It will only be when there is a design freeze and the engineers can get to work on computer modelling to find out what it is capable of. At the moment you can talk all you like about the A350XWB, as it is all truly speculation at the moment.

Boeing doesn’t know if its 787 will meet promises guarenteed to the customers, but History shows that Boeing will meet its promises and even possibly exceed them.

———————————————–

I must say i don’t understand the wing being too small or too large talk. Just like with 787 and many other family of planes from both boeing and airbus, wing on the 350 series will probably differ in wingspan from version to version, even though core design of the wing will be same. 787 for example is covering from 160 to 240 ton max take off weight with same wing design.

350-800 is smack in the middle of 787-8 and 787-9, seat number wise. Comparing it to any of the two would not be the wisest thing. Also, 1000 is, as has been noticed, in between of 777 planes. It can’t be just a random thing. When comparing seat numbers, every single 350 version is somewhere in the middle of 787 or 777 variants, including the 787-10. I would say airbus did that on purpose, making sure its planes are not going completely head to head with boeing. To me, they’re more complementing what boeing is offering. One can bet that airbus designers did far more work than you and i could ever do, and chose all the specifications carefully. I am guessing part of their reason is that they’re expecting bigger passenger increase in coming years, so those extra 15-25 seats per plane might actually be something that’d sell an airbus rather than a boeing – in certain cases.

A IBTIMES report raised this valid point(quoting the relevant part )

He suspects that the 700 and the 900 are either too small or too large, given the base they are built on, which is will cause problems in efficiency. The largest and smallest versions having “such a spread” with the same wing for each, means “you have got more wing than you need for the small one, and not as much as you should for the large one”, he explains.

Believing that the medium size XWB will compete against Boeing’s smaller plane already being produced, the 777-200LR jet, the new Airbus planes stand little chance when the new 787-10 Dreamliners arrive, he says. The “Airbus offering is a compromise”, where as the 787’s are designed to be a large plane.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060724/airbus-boeing-a350xwb-a350-787-dreamliner.htm

I would imagine part of that 10 % is just marketing talk, part of it might be real. Now, the real part could probably also be divided into advances in technology – probably a miniscule bit, while most of the efficiency would stem from the slightly larger size, since bottom line is cost per seat per km.

I can imagine it for the A-350-10 which is smack in the middle of 2 777 varients however if you look at the 350-8 then it is in competition with the 787-8 which can take 10 more passengers a few hunedred extra miles (unless you are airbus and compare it with a varient that clearly falls between 200-250 seat category whereas both 350-8 and 787-9 fall in the >250 category) so I really dont see how they can bring down the Per capita passenger per mile unless they make the aircraft inherently more effecient (even offsetting the 10 more passengers the 787-9 can take the same distance) therefore we’ll see how it works out . The new report does raise a good question though in my opinion .

Ahh, that’s what you’re talking about. I misunderstood, i thought you were comparing 330 with 350, not 787 with 350.

I would imagine part of that 10 % is just marketing talk, part of it might be real. Now, the real part could probably also be divided into advances in technology – probably a miniscule bit, while most of the efficiency would stem from the slightly larger size, since bottom line is cost per seat per km.

I imagine it will do the same thing boeing did with 767 vs 787 where situation was same – narrower, shorter predecessor which also, theoretically, could have been installed with same engine technology as 787 will have.

I am not too comfortable with that rationale. There is a whole world’s difference b/w the technology of the 767 and the 787 , the dreamliner is built with composites and manufactering techniques of this generation (tech.) have reduced overstressing and other Aerodynamic inneffeciencies however the 787 and the 350 are of the same generation and are basically rellying on similar technologies (using Composites and modern production techniques) Boeing and Airbus are masters in this area (with EADS having quite a bit of experience with composites) and are trying to make use of this the first time at this scale . Therefore I wonder what revoultionary approach airbus is employing that will further give them a 10% (or 6% according to some ) over the allready advanced efforts of boeing to make the Dreamliner more effecient.

I imagine it will do the same thing boeing did with 767 vs 787 where situation was same – narrower, shorter predecessor which also, theoretically, could have been installed with same engine technology as 787 will have.

a330 will die, surely. If not by the hand of a350 (though that will be first and most significat blow i imagine) then surely when large capacity version of successor to a320 comes out. But it will take time, and i imagine production will last up till 2012 – 2015 or so. Plently of time to produce bunch of freighters, tankers, perhaps even an occasional passenger version. They could put same new engines on old 330 but they’d have an old, not as effectively designed wing and weight issues due to old materials.

Clearly the 350XWB is an improvement on the ill fated A330 on steroids attempt.

But as facts suggest it doesnt replace the 330!! What are they planning to do with the 330??

Airbus is quoted of saying that some airlines that signed on to the earlier A350 (330 on steroids) might leave due to change in the delivery schedules.

For me the most significant breakthrough will be seeing how Airbus will take a longer , wider and similar aircraft and make it more effeceint then the an aircraft that is shorter,narrower and uses the same engines.

Quite a lot.

Both Boeing & Airbus benefit from plethora of grants, tax breaks, free provision of building land and/or infrastructure, etc. from city, state, province, & national governments. Selection of suppliers for some components of the 787, for example, was done partly on the basis of the supplier companies taking part of the risk, & in at least two cases (the above-mentioned Japanese & Italian examples), the local governments have covered that, as well as giving other assistance, which cuts the price the supplier charges, so directly benefits Boeing. Sounds to me very like Airbus launch aid – risk being ameliorated by state guarantees. The Chicago example is far from being the only case of a city or state government in the USA financially assisting Boeing – or, for that matter, any other big corporation looking to make a big investment. Airbus selected its proposed US assembly site for A330 tankers (depending on it getting the sale, of course), partly on the basis of how much local governments would pony up.

Everyone plays the game, unfortunately. Personally, I think they should all be free of subsidies, but until that comes to pass, I wish nobody would pretend it’s all on one side, or pretend only one type of aid counts.

Back on topic, there’s a report on the BBC that SIA has signed for 20 A350 XWB, plus 20 options (& some more of those big Airbus thingies). Anyone know anything?

[EDIT] Sorry, just saw the other thread on the SIA deal. But I’d appreciate any comments which are on topic here, despite contributing to the derailing – which I won’t do any more of.

To add…The singapore A380 order is not new airplane orders, or cancellations from other airlines. but a firming up of existing early delivery slot options

Clearly the 350XWB is an improvement on the ill fated A330 on steroids attempt. But at the moment it is only an artists drawing, no performance specs have been announced only expected performance has been given (Rolls Royce is developing a new engine), cleary Airbus is starting to get its act together, lets hope that there promises meet expectation.

Boeing receives “state help” in what why exactly?

I know for a fact they do not receive direct loans.

Feel free to pouce away. :dev2:

Quite a lot.

Both Boeing & Airbus benefit from plethora of grants, tax breaks, free provision of building land and/or infrastructure, etc. from city, state, province, & national governments. Selection of suppliers for some components of the 787, for example, was done partly on the basis of the supplier companies taking part of the risk, & in at least two cases, in Japane & Italy, the local governments have covered that, as well as giving other assistance, which cuts the price the supplier charges, so directly benefits Boeing. Sounds to me very like Airbus launch aid – risk being ameliorated by state guarantees – plus straight-up subsidies, particularly in the Japanese case (the Italian one is constrained by EU rules restricting state aid). The Chicago example is far from being the only case of a city or state government in the USA financially assisting Boeing – or, for that matter, any other big corporation looking to make a big investment. Airbus selected its proposed US assembly site for A330 tankers (depending on it getting the sale, of course), partly on the basis of how much local governments would pony up.

Everyone plays the game, unfortunately. Personally, I think they should all be free of subsidies, but until that comes to pass, I wish nobody would pretend it’s all on one side, or pretend only one type of aid counts.

Back on topic, there’s a report on the BBC that SIA has signed for 20 A350 XWB, plus 20 options (& some more of those big Airbus thingies). Anyone know anything?

[EDIT] Sorry, just saw the other thread on the SIA deal. But I’d appreciate any comments which are on topic here, despite contributing to the derailing – which I won’t do any more of.

I dont care about thread bashing or not where do people like me go when they want to talk about the 350XWB (and the thread clearly states this is a XWB thread) and not industry politics and subsidies ???

Here we go… a thread based upon whether or not subsidies have driven advancement now turns into a bashing thread.

No its not a Bashing thread, i was adding another point of view across, let me put it more simply

Yes Airbus will recieve launch aid for the A350/370. but so far on every product Airbus has payed back everysingle £/$. So far the British Govt has made 10 times on its investment on the A320 family.

Boeing may not recieve direct aid from its govt, but it gets assistance in other powerful ways, to which other companies may not be privy too, which in the real world will add up to millions/billions of $ in consultation fee’s.

Im neither an Airbus/Boeing fan as i believe there is room in the market for both. But i don’t like seeing a one sided argument all the time. If thats taken as thread bashing, then the Mods can ban me.