|
|
Post by fanairbus on Feb 29, 2016 22:52:39 GMT 1
|
|
ghorn
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 993
|
Post by ghorn on Mar 1, 2016 0:10:45 GMT 1
Latest quote from Leahy making more sense. Thinks something smaller than the 777-9 will be an attractive 777-300ER replacement. He could be onto something. Geoff |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Mar 1, 2016 0:46:26 GMT 1
Leahy already had said something similar at the Singapore air show. This time, however, he leaked a key number : he is talking of a 45 pax increase, which means 5 rows of seats and, approximately, a five meters stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Mar 1, 2016 1:04:27 GMT 1
Latest quote from Leahy making more sense. Thinks something smaller than the 777-9 will be an attractive 777-300ER replacement. He could be onto something. Geoff May be the 777-8 is in that area ? By the way it's not always good to try and compete in every area of the market against your competitor. Build your best planes and variants of it. But don't go over the top and try to do a Heinz 59 approach, otherwise you just spread yourself to thin, no need for a new -1100 version. Build the -900 and -1000 versions and build them well and at a good price and sell loads of them, don't get distracted. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 1, 2016 1:25:13 GMT 1
I don't believe the market is big enough for so many aircraft types. We used to have A330s and 777s, now we have A330neo's, 787s, A350s and 777X. There is more fragmentation then ever before and the more types you introduce, the less some will sell. Well, I quite agree that there is a proliferation in the number of types of aircraft being offered on the market now but I sense that neither manufacturer wants a hole in their catalogue. It only takes one of them to force the other into developing a similar strategy, especially if it doesn't cost too much to do such extensions, or they will see market share taken away from them. One can argue that it was by accident that the market settled on the A330/B777 mix due to the 767/A340 obsolescence but I don't think the manufacturers would have wanted to keep it that way for too long. E.g. Boeing moving in with the 787 programme, to target the A330 market. That was my thought as well, before I realised that this train has long since left the station. It would certainly make a lot of sense, but to re-develop a Mark 2 -1000 just so it has more commonality with the -1100 just does not seem to make much sense to me at this point. The only thing that would make sense from an engineering point would be to make the -1000 a simple shrink from the -1100, but that would probably produce a lot of headaches with the -1000s you already sold, because every sales contract comes with certain guarantees that you probably can't satisfy if your -1000 carries around additional weight and capabilities built in for the -1100. From what I can see, the train is probably on the move but hasn't quite left the station yet and so they can still act on it as the order book is still small-ish. If the A350-1100 is targeted for a ~2020 entry, some customers taking deliveries after this time can be allowed to switch to the new build -1000 incorporating such changes if they want but if the others want the -1000 in its present configuration, Airbus can press ahead to complete their contracts. There probably won't be more than 200 deliveries of the type before then and if we're concerned about the after-market support and commonality within existing fleets, it isn't too bad compared to what Boeing went through with the 777 development. Within Airbus themselves, the A330 evolved over time incorporating a few commonality breaking changes and added capability although it is a little less complicated than the -1100. |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 9:41:00 GMT 1
Leahy already had said something similar at the Singapore air show. This time, however, he leaked a key number : he is talking of a 45 pax increase, which means 5 rows of seats and, approximately, a five meters stretch. A350-900 to A350-1000 also add some 40 seats, yet this stretch is 10 meters. You need additional length for extra toilets, galley's etc. Perhaps another exit door. Etc. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 1, 2016 9:51:11 GMT 1
Were these long versions on the A350 roadmap from the beginning? To me it would be some big mistake to do some A340-500/-600 out of it again: Tune it to the max but with many compromises.
If Airbus thinks they need something seriously bigger they must build a separate big twin above the A350. So pick an engine and off you go.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 10:00:37 GMT 1
What makes you believe it will be an A340-500/-600 approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Mar 1, 2016 10:10:17 GMT 1
Stretch it too much, high wingload, limited performance.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Mar 1, 2016 10:17:08 GMT 1
People seem to forget A340-600 had excellent payload/range performance. The performance of the A340-600 is being overshadowed by the success of the 777. As explained by Taliesin, what really killed the A340-600 was its weight. It was significant heavier than the 777, I believe up to 20 tons. As for the A350, the A350-1000 comes at 155 tonne OEW versus 190 tonne on the 777-9. That's a gap of 35 tonne right there. If Airbus adds another 15 tonne to stretch the A350-1000 they'll end up at ~ 170 tonne OEW. That's about the same as the 77W and still 20 tons lighter than the 777-9. That doesn't look anything like the A340-600. |
|
