Airbus Considers a Rework of the A350, Gives Boeing Breathing Room
Airnation.net Newswire
Airbus may be reworking its newest twin-aisle airliner, the A350, as cancellations increase amid criticisms of the new jet. Boeing could benefit from Airbus’ snags as they plan their next plane to succeed the 777.
The pending decisions on the 777 and the A350-1000 show the risks in an industry whose products cost billions of dollars to develop and typically stay in production for decades. While Airbus and Boeing share a duopoly for single-aisle jets, the U.S. company holds the advantage in wide-body planes, which offer higher margins because they cost three times as much.
“Airplane development is one of the best real-life case studies in game theory,” said Carter Copeland, a Barclays Plc (BARC) analyst in New York. “These are big bets with long-life paybacks. Decisions about components, technology, production systems, all have an important bearing on the long-term profit profile of these programs.”
The A350-1000 was initially scheduled for delivery in 2015, before Airbus announced a delay in late 2011, saying it needed another 18 months to boost the performance of the largest member of the A350 line. Qatar Airways and Emirates, the biggest A350 buyers, have said they still aren’t content with the design, adding pressure on Airbus as Boeing plots what comes after its 777-300ER.
Category: Newswire
They’ll just tweak it to make it even better than it’s already going to be…a 777 killer…which is just a bunch of bolts anyway.
You know maybe the (*gasp*) the A350 isn’t that good yet. I know…shudder at the mere thought!
It ain’t no ‘Boring’ bucket of crap, I know that! :)
Wait wait wait…. Boeing’s thinking of a “replacement” for the 777?? Didn’t they try this idea a bunch of times with thoughts of “replacing” the 737? How could they think that’s a good thing?
Just tweak the 777-200/300 and come out with the 777-500, etc. The 777 has got to be the best in it’s class in terms of safety and efficiency; don’t eliminate it.
And as for Airbus, i guess they kind of need a twin jet the size of the 777. I’m looking at my 1:200 models of the A300, A310, A330, A340, A380 and neither of them match the size of the 777. The A330′s bigger than the 767 yet not as big as the 777. And forget the stubby A340 with it’s 4 engines… who ever thought of that one?
I think Airbus needs to worry about their engineers who have the A380′s undercarriage ripping off in flight-testing and wing brackets falling apart. I think they did a wonderful job with the A300, 310, and especially the A320 and A330…. but come on, take your time to get it right.
They’ve stopped production (or plan to) of the A340. Kinda a strange plane although I like it.
I think they’ll come out with a updated variant of the 777. Another model makes no sense with them having the 787 as well.
I’ve flown the A320 and A330 many times. They are great planes.
Yeahh, the A340 is a strange plane for sure- not only for the fact that it needs 4 engines to transport a 767 sized fuselage, but that the A340-600 is so freaking long!! Looking at one, it’s hard to believe it holds together. I always thought the DC-8-63 looked long, but damn…
I wish companies like Boeing and Airbus could stop trying to re-invent the wheel… Look how successful Boeing has been with the 737! They took a design that worked and just made it “better”. Why any of these companies want to start fresh when what they have already works is beyond me… And i mean for what, for a few mpg increase? It’s a shame money is the only thing that motivates manufacturers these days. For example, take the 717; it has the highest dispatch reliability of any airliner in it’s class, but didn’t sell well. That thing started with the already perfect DC9, and had 45 years of proven ability in it’s blood. To me, that’s the perfect airplane. It’s a shame carriers pick ERJ’s and similar “tin cans” over the real thing… just to save a buck.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the 717 suffered from what the MD-80 class has…it’s a fuel hog. Which is why the ERJ’s do so well.
Believe it or not, the 717 didn’t have a problem with fuel efficiency like it’s older derivatives; it actually had a 24% gain in fuel efficiency compared to the DC-9-30. After AirTran took delivery of the 717, they saved more than $3 million in fuel costs within the first year and their maintenance costs dropped by 45%.
The 717 actually has better fuel efficiency than it’s comparable 737-600 (same number of passengers). This is due to the extra weight of the 737 along with less efficient engines.
The 717 died because they’re not really part of the Boeing marketing family. The cockpits and instrumentation are completely different, which is something airlines don’t like. For example, most of the current Airbus models use the same cockpit layout and instrumentation. Pilots can fly one, they can fly them all. The same is true for the 757 and 767. Pilots are easily moved from one to the other. Southwest for example, has all their pilots trained to fly all variants of the 737, from 737-200 to the -300, -500, -700 and even -800. Not to mention that the parts for the 717 have no similarities to the rest of the Boeing fleet. Unless an airline has a bunch of Douglas aircraft, the 717 is just a headache for maintenance people.
Hopefully it should fit right in with Delta, as the MD90 is very similar to the 717 in terms of instrumentation and parts.
That’s interesting and good to know…because I like the 717 (you see a lot of them here at DFW) and as i said before they built them at Long beach near where I grew up.
So why is it different? Was it a joint project?