Airbus is considering an A350-2000, a new very large aircraft to counter the Boeing 777-10.
Posted by UpgradedSiera6666@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 136 comments
Signal-Treacle-5512@reddit
Make an A380 Neo duh
NoGiCollarChoke@reddit
Why doesn’t the A380, the largest airliner, simply eat the other airliners?
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Gotta find some way to reduce that awful quadjet inefficiency and expense… but trijets are hardly much better, and they’re not exactly in vogue of late…
Aha! I’ve got it! We must simply convert the A380 to a twinjet! Sure, it’ll be the most underpowered plane to take to the air since the Dornier Do X, but think of the savings!
Ah, but then it would need far too much runway…
…Unless we turn it into a seaplane!
FiniteStep@reddit
Twins are actually more powerful than quads, as they need to take off with one engine instead of 3 in an engine out scenerio.
TigerIll6480@reddit
Humorous side note: before the stumpy little 747SP was introduced, Boeing considered a trijet version of the 747, with the third engine mounted internally and S-ducted like the L1011. The re-engineering of the empennage was going to be too costly for the benefits sought and expected sales, so they came out with the shrunken 747 instead. Likewise, Douglas considered building a twinjet version of the DC-10, which was also dropped before it could get off of the drawing board.
chateau86@reddit
Why do I feel like MD would still try to reuse the old tail structure with the hole in the middle for that plane anyway to "save cost".
TigerIll6480@reddit
1) “MD” would have done nothing because this was a pre-merger Douglas proposal. 2) the concept drawings exist, and they gave a normal horizontal stabilizer. 3) get over this brain-dead “MD was everything wrong with aviation and Boeing was a bunch of innocent engineers who wanted to build great planes” nonsense. The 747 was just as flawed as the DC-10, and the 737 has had far more mechanical and design defects over the decades than the DC-9 family. 🙄
Concept art posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/s/8ryKDnGj10
Rubes2525@reddit
Boo hoo, someone insulted your precious aircraft builder that was bankrupt for being crap. Get over it.
TigerIll6480@reddit
Aww, someone is delusional and thinks the company that foisted the 737 on the world is a bunch of saints. 🤣
Skylord_ah@reddit
You guys are both weird for being corporation fans like what lol??
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Oh, I remember that thing. It looked ridiculous, and I’m sad we didn’t get it.
TigerIll6480@reddit
They could just use those insanely large new GE engines…the ones that can’t be fitted to a 747 for testing without angling the nacelle upwards. 🤣
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
You could practically pass a subway car through one of those things. Seems sensible.
But for ultra-long-haul, high-capacity aircraft, I doubt you could do better than the upcoming “Big Bird”, the big brother of the Pathfinder 1 doing flight tests over San Francisco lately. 200 ton payload capacity, ~30,000 square feet of cabin space, and fuel-efficient to boot! Beats the pants off of a 777-9, with its 73 ton capacity and paltry 3,700 square foot cabin.
The only downside is that, being an airship, it would take three days to fly as far as a 777-9 can fly. Best break out the playing cards and prepare for an epic poker tournament.
Lyravus@reddit
User name checks out.
I jest, blimps have a certain je ne sais quoi. Would be cool as shit.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
In all seriousness, though, their longer travel duration makes them unsuitable for long-haul mass transit, I think. Far better for short trips, that makes the difference in flight time much more manageable. It’s the difference between having a nice dinner and maybe doing some dancing or gambling for an evening, and having to stay overnight in tiny cabins more akin to a sleeper train than a cruise ship.
Lyravus@reddit
For passengers, they'd be a novelty. But I could see them used for cargo IF you can get the per unit cost down. Because bulk transport is more sensitive to cost and less sensitive to time than passengers. 3 days on a blimp is nothing vs 2 weeks by ship.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Considering the United States’ woeful underinvestment in high-speed rail, and rail’s inability to cross large bodies of water, I think having them as a faster ferry or train alternative over shorter distances would be more viable than you think. Humans are a cargo of a sort too, after all, and a high-value one which favors airship’s spaciousness and weight sensitivity.
The bigger problem is that the only competition they’d have for long-haul travel is airplanes, which they’re unable to beat on speed, unlike trains and ships.
True, for certain kinds of cargo. Nothing too heavy for how valuable it is, like bulk ore, crude oil, liquefied gas, etc. They’d be cheaper and far cleaner than shipping by plane, though, and that’s not nothing. Particularly for relatively valuable and time-sensitive things like fresh vegetables and seafood, finished manufactured goods, etc.
Lyravus@reddit
This is a really interesting conversation, cheers.
Im not sure about using a blimp for domestic flights. Because with shorter flights, the percentage of time taken up with take off and landing is greater. A blimp that is say 10% slower from embarkation to disembarkation vs a plane would be a key weakness for blimps vs planes. Hence Im not sure blimps could compete with a plane over shorter distances.
I am not an expert with blimps though so happy to be proven incorrect.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
That factor actually favors airships—it’s proportionally a much slower time for an airplane when looking at total trip duration, since the time an airplane spends actually flying, it’s going to be moving much faster than an airship. Thus, the longer the trip, the proportionally slower an airship will be by comparison. However, an airship will still take significantly longer than a plane even over very short flights, since there’s only so much time you can save from airships having more train-like boarding procedures and security.
Well, an airship takes about twice as long as a plane over short distances, but they’re not the only thing to consider. About as many people travel short distances by ferry and train as they do by plane, and who even knows how many by bus and long car rides—in every case, slower than an airship.
Crucially, the optimal productive cruising speed of an airship (in terms of throughput of passengers and cargo) is also much higher over short distances over long ones. Over 5,000 nm, a conventional rigid airship with a 100-ton payload has an optimal cruising speed is between 60 and 70 knots—about the same speed old Zeppelins traveled at. Over 300 nm, that same ship’s optimal speed is between 140 and 150 knots, which outpaces the top speed of most modern helicopters, and is considerably faster than most bullet trains average (about 90-140 mph for Shinkansen lines).
It’s sort of a “you don’t have to outrun the bear, just your slowest hiking buddy” situation.
ecniv_o@reddit
I'd absolutely take a 3-5 day airship ride across an ocean if you could get me the equivalent experience to second-class on an ocean-liner (or normal-class on a modern cruise ship) for the price of an economy ticket on a modern jetliner!
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Well, it’d take some doing, but it’s possible. The tricky part is that an airship large enough to offer prices that low would necessarily have to carry hundreds of people, and it may be difficult to fill that many cabins for a voyage that long.
Taking the Hindenburg as an example, airships can carry about 1.6 passengers per ton of payload capacity in an overnight configuration. In a modern sense, that surprisingly still holds true for small leisure-oriented airships at modern cruise ship-like passenger densities, because modern expectations demand amenities like extra space, en-suite bathrooms, and showers for each stateroom, which nullifies the gains from having lighter modern materials.
A ship crossing the Atlantic with 100 tons of payload (thus 160 passengers) at a cruising speed of 100 knots would, with sufficient scale and R&D amortization, cost about $4,600 per hour to operate. If we assume a 4,000 nm distance, the standard 50:50 premium/economy split for transatlantic airliners, and Zeppelin’s historical 0.85 ratio of trip speed compared to theoretical straight-line speed with no headwinds or diversions, that would entail a 47 hour flight with an operating cost of $216,000.
Since the average operating costs for medium-sized airlines are about half the actual ticket revenue with taxes and fees and whatnot included, that means 160 passengers splitting up $432,000. If we further assume a fairly standard price ratio of first class paying 5 times as much as coach, that’d entail a second class per-passenger price of $1,080.
That’s not enough to compare to economy for a transatlantic airliner, which is about $300-$500 one-way. In other words, you’d need to either charge first class more than 5x economy (which some airlines do), make extra revenue from onboard restaurants, bars, gambling, and duty-free stores like cruiseferries do, or opt for a bigger airship—and since their payload scales exponentially with linear increases in size and expense, that’s obviously the preferred option. Unfortunately, I don’t have any data or estimates on what larger airships’ hourly operating costs would be. Since there are a few on the drawing board that would be able to carry 2-10 times as much as that, though, it’s certainly compelling enough for some to take interest in the idea, though obviously we’re still years off from getting an airship with a 200-ton payload or more in operation. Something like that would be about as long as the Hindenburg or even larger, depending on the design!
ecniv_o@reddit
Goddamn. You really did the math on this one.
I have no further background in airship / airliner running costs (I just fly the thing!) ... but I've heard the Hindenburg was not particularly well-equipped for lavish luxuries, with paper thin walls and limited running water!
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Yes, given the much heavier and weaker materials and technologies of the ship’s construction, they had to have thin walls and only a single shower for all the passengers! Though all the rooms did have hot and cold running water. By far, the greatest luxuries of the ship were its eerily still and silent ride, and its spaciousness.
Considering the competition at the time was things like the DC-3 and flying boats, which were outrageously loud, rattling, uncomfortable things that weren’t even that much faster (and couldn’t fly over large distances anyway).
erublind@reddit
For oversized loads, especially to areas without sufficient bridges or tunnels, and for point to point transport to inland destinations. For wind turbines, aircraft parts and transformers.
chateau86@reddit
Might be just enough to make Cadillac Allante 2.0 not such a financial flop.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Nearly 3,000 m^2, I'd love to ride that in luxury.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Planes took the transit crown from trains, ocean liners, and airships because time is money. However, when it comes to luxury, there’s no substitute for space—the bigger the better!
That airship is so spacious that you could put 2,000 people on it—the most people it could reasonably hold with a payload of 200 tons, i.e. 200 lbs per passenger—and they’d still have 15 square feet per person, three times as much as an economy airline seat. Of course, in actuality, it would probably carry fewer people than that, in greater luxury—even historical Zeppelins got about about 2/3 of the way towards the passenger density of cruise ships, with up to 108 square feet of deck space per passenger, so it might even go all the way to the average 150 square feet per passenger of a cruise ship.
Xivios@reddit
The weirdest thing about Pathfinder 1 is that it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Its the worlds largest extant aircraft (by volume, not weight or individual measurements like width or length), you'd think that would qualify it as notable, and many smaller current airships have pages. Somehow it has flown under the radar.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Wikipedia’s pages on airships are an absolute rat’s nest of improperly used technical terms, incorrect unit conversions, irrelevant editorialization, and straight-up missing information. Peter Lobner’s “Modern Airships” series of articles is vastly superior, at least when it comes to postwar airships.
TigerIll6480@reddit
At that point you basically have a turboprop with a speed ring wrapped around it. 🤣
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Ducted fanprop? Past a certain point of bypass ratio, really hard to tell…
TigerIll6480@reddit
It does seem like technology has gone backwards in that respect, from “jet propulsion is the future” to “a jet engine is a great way to spin a prop, or something like a prop.”
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Physics will out, in the end. Back when fossil fuel was cheaper and more abundant, it made sense to not care as much that accelerating a large quantity of air slightly faster was more efficient at producing thrust than moving a small quantity of air very quickly. But that was always true, all along, we were simply able to get away with ignoring it for a while in the midst of the exuberance and abundance that unbelievably rapid industrialization gave to the world over the course of the 20th century.
Now that bill is coming due, and gravity is starting to reassert itself. You can see it beginning everywhere. Battery electric cars beating out less efficient fuel cell and internal combustion ones. High-speed rail and intercity transit beating out the endless parade of traffic jams, regardless of any promises of techbro pods and eVTOLs. Suburban sprawl and car-dependency collapsing under its own financial weight in favor of old-fashioned denser, walkable mixed use developments.
Mark my words, we’re going to look back on these days and marvel at how inefficient and wasteful everything was, much like we now look back at things like classic land yacht automobiles and wildly inefficient jets like the Concorde and Dornier Do 31 and are equally amazed and appalled at the sheer extravagance and wantonness of it all.
big_trike@reddit
It seems more like a cruise ship in the sky. The staff and food requirements for the much longer trip would add a lot of expense.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Yet it would also add a lot of revenue—cruise ships and overnight ferries can trace a third or more of their revenue from onboard sales driven by their restaurants, bars, casinos, and duty-free shops. An airship could certainly fit in all of the above, especially considering some high-end luxury trains manage to find the space to do so, despite having a small fraction of the floor area.
marcusr550@reddit
Why don’t they just add a beak? Droop it for take off, slide it up to cruise.
Gotta be worth five, maybe eight knots?
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Blunt-nosed is best, unless you’re planning on taking the ship supersonic! Boy, wouldn’t that be a sight—a 300 meter ship would surely make for a hell of a boom, too.
xylarr@reddit
If you do that, just make sure you put MCAS in the pilot's manual.
Ok_Suggestion_6092@reddit
The McDonnell Douglas ones maybe. Quick someone revive a 712 fleet!
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Please no. Do you have any idea how loud the fuckers are?
Ok_Suggestion_6092@reddit
Negative. Loudest planes I’ve experienced are 717s from a window seat that’s beside the engine
DTDude@reddit
727- MAX2!
Expo737@reddit
Don't forget that the 757 was originally designed with a T-tail, initially a variant of the 727, the 727-300 :)
Boundish91@reddit
L-1011 baby.
TalbotFarwell@reddit
I’ve been saying forever that Lockheed needs to invest some of those sweet, sweet F-35 profits into getting back into the civilian airliner market and give Boeing some much-needed competition to light a fire under their asses.
badbatch@reddit
Yaaasss!
Diarrhea_Donkey@reddit
Airbus made the A340-300 work.
TheDrunkenMatador@reddit
A new jet and some tall ass landing gear would need to be developed but I bet one of the big jet manufacturers could make an engine powerful enough to make the 747 a twin-jet
HauntingGlass6232@reddit
Umm technically they do
I still remember when the GE90 was being tested they mounted it on the 747 test bed and it was able to maintain level flight with just that engine. Imagine if they just put 2 of those babies on the 747 now you’re talking 😏
TheDrunkenMatador@reddit
So two GE90-115s probably could fly a 747, but the total thrust would still be ~54,000 lbs short of what the 747-8s 4 engines make so I’d wonder about the performance
mduell@reddit
Th problem is OEI moreso than all engines operating.
HauntingGlass6232@reddit
We just gotta tell GE to make us an engine capable of 150,000 lbs of thrust and call it a day 😂😂
PandaGoggles@reddit
Please don’t disparage the Dornier Do X. She’s doing her best, and she’s so beautiful.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
She certainly is, but the engines of the time sucked so hard she needed twelve of them to even get off the water. That’s no fault of the plane itself, I should think, but rather the period’s engine technology.
Extreme-Island-5041@reddit
Airbus stares longingly at Fat Albert's JATO system
JaaacckONeill@reddit
4 engine planes will always consume more fuel per passenger. The only reason why A380's are preferred, is if airport slots are highly limited, like London or Dubai.
With the point to point model becoming more and more common, it reduces the need for an A380.
Also, even if the airlines have less capacity for flight, as long as they're earning more for that flight, it's worth it. Then they can add more flights at different times, increasing connection opportunities.
The A380 also has a slightly wider cabin, which allows for wider seats, increasing comfort over the A350 and 787, but I don't think that's the primary factor.
dagelijksestijl@reddit
It really boggles me how the BAe 146 ever was economical for European short-haul.
JaaacckONeill@reddit
Fuel was cheap back then
Dies2much@reddit
What makes you think it isn't?
MoccaLG@reddit
because 4 engines need a lot of food.
But would love to see a A380 - 2000 - I know the 900 version would have had approx 7 m more to 79,4... assuming a 1000 would have 14 and a 2000 21m more to over 90m lenght
concorde77@reddit
Because they forgot the cargo door like on the 747
Caramel-Secure@reddit
The plane isn’t like Ross, from Friends.
Steezy_Six@reddit
Just replace the four small engines with two big ones. Ok maybe three if you really need to, everyone likes a trijet
GregTheIntelectual@reddit
Perhaps they are saving that for wing sweeps.
verstohlen@reddit
This is why. Wakka wakka wakka.
Repa24@reddit
Waka waka eh eh Tsamina mina Zangalewa This time for Africa
Illustrious-Pop3677@reddit
I left a similar comment on a similar post about a potential A350-2000, but I’m really interested in seeing how airbus and Rolls Royce would go about engineering it. Like I wonder by how much they would increase the MTOW/MZFW, especially considering how I feel like I saw somewhere that even the A350-1000 is payload limited on some routes compared to the 777-300ER.
Another thing is the engines. Would RR just figure out a way to squeeze more out of the existing XWB or would they maybe even put forth the ultrafan if that’s ready? Interesting stuff to ponder
DeniedByPolicyZero@reddit
The very logical route for airbus would keep the mtow of the 2000 same as 1000, same engines, same wings, undercarriage, brakes, all sorts.
And just accept a hit of 1000 to 1500 miles of the range.
That would sell like crazy and could be brought into service super quick.
cwhitt@reddit
They already have that with the -1000ULR, and the market for it is very small.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
That would be a pretty massive growth step again, the A350-1000 as it stands has about 90% of the thrust and MTOW of the 777-8/9 The -1000 already comes with the largest and newest version of the Trent XWB engine, either RR is gonna have to find another 10% or Airbus another engine.
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Easy solution, just do what Hawker did with the Trident and glue an little extra booster engine to the back of it.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
JATOs are back on the menu, boys!
Lost-Inevitable42@reddit
We will see EATOs soon enough. Electric assisted take offs. Maybe even jettison the batteries?
somnambulist80@reddit
EMALS equipped runways. Just make sure your setback is fully upright and locked prior to takeoff.
swift1883@reddit
Lfg and dont mind all the extra weight of the airframe, life is nothing but a virtual fantasy anyway. Ooooh
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
No, we won’t. Jettisoning batteries? An absolutely ridiculous idea.
Flaxinator@reddit
Airports could use flying tugs like gliders currently use. A small, powerful but short range aircraft that tows the big aircraft into the air and releases it before returning to the airport
jzwick18@reddit
I’m now imagining a supped up 172 with a classic muscle car intake popping out of the hood towing an A380
lifestepvan@reddit
TIL. That's very Kerbal.
asmrhead@reddit
Have you heard of the 727 solid rocket booster option?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/1192w5x/a_boeing_727200_with_rato_to_boost_thrust_in_case/
theaviationhistorian@reddit
Mexicana FTW! At least the original one.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
I would never turn down the chance of a new trijet (2.5-jet?), but I think you need some Brits in a shed for this kind of tomfoolery and Airbus unfortunately has neither.
mosaic-aircraft@reddit
Ultrafan?
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
AFAIK that is expected to have up to 444kN, 10% less than the GE9X. The gearbox is sized for 490kN, but that would only bring it on par with the 777-8/9.
The 777-10 they want to compete with would need an uprated GE9X with 500+kN, GE already said that is feasible, which makes sense for a 10 year old engine design that hasn't been uprated so far.
SevenandForty@reddit
IIRC the GE9X has already been tested at 134,300 lbf (597kN) in an engineering test, but was derated to 110,000 lbf (490kN) for longevity and lower stress on engine parts; that's compared to the 127,900 lbf tested and 115,000 lbf rated thrust values for the GE90-115B on the 777-300ER.
I'd expect an uprated GE9X to be quite plausible for a 777-10X stretch. The bigger question is how much a 777-10 could be stretched; IIRC it's already just under 77m, which is getting quite close to the 80m x 80m ICAO Code F bounding box.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
IIRC they were talking about four rows or 3.7m, that and the wingtips would make it exactly 80 by 80m.
SevenandForty@reddit
Were they going to extend the wingtips too? From what I can find the wings are 71.75m extended. I know the A350-2000 speculation was based on a 4 row stretch, but that was supposedly 6m or so, although it did include a new over-wing full-size exit; a 3.3m stretch on the 777-10 to hit the 80m length maximum seems like it would have trouble fitting more than 3 rows.
FZ_Milkshake@reddit
Scratch the tips, I misremembered. I knew they were right at the limit, but they are at the 65m limit (folded) and not the 80m one.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
What's up wit RR lately? Just the normal hickups developing bleeding edge tech?
Is it just me or is General Electric currently better positioned?
DullMind2023@reddit
Or airports could be fitted with steam catapults. Think of how fun that would be for the passengers!
type_E@reddit
This should rolled into an a350neo program
divisionchief@reddit
To be honest, if airlines made their business class functional they could get more from their business class revenue than stretching.
holzmann_dc@reddit
If UltraFan is ready... that could be a killer combo.
ProT3ch@reddit
There are speculation about a A350neo, with newer efficient engines. Either the Rolls Royce Ultrafan or a new engine from GE. I would guess that Emirates is pushing for GE, as they are publicly shitting on the RR engine and refuse to order the A350-1000. If they certify the A350-2000 with a GE engine, making that engine available for the A350-1000 as well, would not be hard.
holzmann_dc@reddit
I think that aircraft OEMs entering into exclusivity deals with GE, RR, CFM, etc. is detrimental to the overall market and to the safety of the flying public.
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
Very much so, but it is what it is. Capitalism has just decided that exclusivity deals are hot to the airplane maker.
notaballitsjustblue@reddit
The dust problem is already fixed. EK are just using the past experience as a bargaining tool.
ScienceMechEng_Lover@reddit
The UltraFan would likely provide enough of an efficiency boost to beat the GE9X too. It would be a sweet way to get revenge after how Rolls Royce got blindsided by the exclusivity deal between GE and Boeing when the 777-200LR/300ER was still just a concept.
KatieTheCollie123123@reddit
But I want my A390
txhenry@reddit
Paper airplane vs. paper airplane.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Correct, but on paper the -10 is a better proposition and probably won’t be anywhere near as compromised as the -2000.
The 777X is already coming to the table with new wings and engines and can more easily absorb the increased MTOW.
txhenry@reddit
I don’t buy the narrative. Airbus and Boeing don’t just react to studies. Airbus probably was already analyzing the possibility of the -2000. It was just most likely leaked as a response to the EK press release. Boeing didn’t even say anything.
Aetane@reddit
Oh absolutely, this is not a new thing. This is a PR reaction to the 777-10 news.
EnragedMoose@reddit
Let's see it certify
jtbis@reddit
A stretched A350 would have the advantage of a composite fuselage and would most certainly end up weighing significantly less. If Airbus can come up with an engine for it, they might have a winner over the 777X.
Consistent-Welder458@reddit
Does a half composite fuselage really have that big of an advantage to counter the massive brand new wing of the 777X?
type_E@reddit
The 777x needs the huge wing cause it's fucking HEAVY
AceCombat9519@reddit
Good idea and for the A350-2000 it's a clean sheet design over a 1990s airframe the B777-10. For Airbus they need to give this Genx and Trent XWBS. the latter would be A350-200x GE RR engined A350-204x
hongooi@reddit
This time for sure!
pretzelday666@reddit
How would a 350-2000 be successful if the 380 was not? 2 engines vs 4? For fuel cost savings? I don't see this happening.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Yes, the operational costs of 2 vs. 4 engines are significantly lower. Years ago the Qantas CEO said it was more economical to run two 787s vs. one A380.
biggsteve81@reddit
Most of the economical part comes from a higher cargo capacity using 2 787s and the easier ability to fully fill the planes by flying them at different times, giving passengers double the options. A partially filled A380 is an economic disaster.
ainsley-@reddit
Big massive thing everyone seems to miss with the 380. Its pathetically tiny cargo holds and capacity. I load them daily and almost no cargo gets loaded due to fuel and weight restrictions but even then, fully loaded it’s still significantly less and less practical (tunnel in the rear and crew rest in fwd) then even a 787s cargo holds capacity and capabilities. Something the 350 also struggles with in my view compared to the 777.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
What a perplexing design oversight. Did Airbus think it would be taking less fuel, or less luggage, or fewer people…?
8246962@reddit
The market/practice of using passenger airliners/flights to ship commercial cargo wasn’t as prominent as it is today when the A380 was being designed. It has enough cargo space for the passengers own bags, but it’s not able to carry secondary cargo very well.
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
Ah, I see. How strange that we seem to be evolving back towards something more akin to combi aircraft, when those had been driven almost entirely extinct in favor of dedicated freight and passenger aircraft.
ainsley-@reddit
The thing is it never really phased out, one of 777s big selling points was its cargo capacity, the a320s arguably strongest advantage over the 737 is its significantly larger and more capable cargo holds. Airbus weren’t building the 380 for cargo at all it seems. Definitely an oversight someone should have seen coming.
Spirit_jitser@reddit
It almost certainly wasn't an oversight. They made compromises to have the pax capacity that it does, and part of that was not a lot left over in the bilge for freight.
Who puts crew rest below the main deck, for example? Unless you absolutely want that space on the main deck used for pax (and for whatever reason you can't put crew rest in the crown).
Gyn_Nag@reddit
Until you run out of take-off and landing slots.
biggsteve81@reddit
But the 787 can also land at many airports the A380 can't, which puts secondary airports in play that still have gates and landing slots.
viperabyss@reddit
Which begs the question: A380 still exists today solely because of the slot constraints of middle eastern airlines. Wouldn’t A350-2000 suffer the same fate?
striple@reddit
Makes sense, 2 787-9s weigh less than 1 a380 and require less fuel, all while taking similar number of passengers.
ainsley-@reddit
The issue with the a380 was never the fact it had 4 engines, it was the fact said engines were already inefficient and outdated before Airbus even put them on the 380. So yes a350-2000 would probably be a failure for the same reasons the a380 was, MEA are already avoiding the -1000 due to its engines massively underperforming in the middle eastern climate I don’t see how even further stretching it would help in anyway. Especially when Boeing are building a 777x with folding winglets and massive engines almost exactly to emirates and Qatar’s specifications (they collaborated with Boeing on the design of the 777x).
RedditRedditGo@reddit
Why would the a350-2000 be a failure. Airbus already wanted another engine option for the a350 before even considering making the 2000. I wouldn't be surprised if they launched a neo programme for the a350 and the 2000 would use the same family engines making the 777 completely uncompetitive.
ainsley-@reddit
The 350 isn’t getting another engine option, RR are “updating” XWB engine. If that was the case why aren’t airlines lining up in droves to buy the 350s. It’s all marketing bs from Airbus I don’t know why everyone who doesn’t work in the industry buys it every time… just like the 380neo. Just like 321XRL, Airbus loves to campaign around about its incredible range but 90% of its orders are for airline who have no interest in operating long with it. The only reason the 321XLR is a hit is because of its MGTOW I don’t understand why people online seem to eat up all the marketing talk from Airbus on their aircraft.
RedditRedditGo@reddit
I wasn't insinuating the neo was considered as a fix for the engine problems on the 1000. Airbus were considering multiple engine options years ago. If they do go ahead with the 2000 it would be the perfect time to do that.
ainsley-@reddit
I see
Click4-2019@reddit
Wasn’t just the out dated engines either
It was the over engineered wings because they were designed for the 900 version.
So on the shorter 800 version they were too heavy.
ProT3ch@reddit
The A350-2000 would use the same production line as the A350-900/1000 variants. So the orders for the 2000 variant only need to cover the development/certification cost. The production line is already there. If it doesn't sell well they can still produce the smaller ones. The same way Airbus is still producing the A319neo, which only sold like 50 planes, but it uses the same production line as the A320neo, so they can build one if someone needs it. With the A380 and B747, those production lines only made the big planes, so when the orders ran out, they had to be shut down.
Also the A350-2000, would be much more efficient than the A380. Airbus was really considering the A380neo, with more efficient engines, but there were not enough orders to keep the production line and supply chain operational.
RdtRanger6969@reddit
What Boeing 777-10? 🙄🤷♂️
DTDude@reddit
It’ll be flying commercially before the 777-10, that’s for sure.
mig82au@reddit
Garbage reporting. Airbus simply said that customers are asking for it. There aren't any plans as such, not any more than the basic concepts from a decade ago. The -1100 and -2000 ideas are not new.
Emirates has also asked for an A380neo and it led to nothing.
stavic07@reddit
Time for Airbus to call Bombardier and ask about their experiences in stretching the CRJ and Dash 8
av8geek@reddit
I'm considering going out to get dinner soon. I consider a lot of things. Where's my article?
kingtacticool@reddit
Battle of the long bois
djsnoopmike@reddit
Loong, loooooong, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!