Talk:Airbus A350

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Wishful thinking 3 New Orders 4 Similarity A330/A350 5 List of potential customers 6 Firm orders or commitments 7 Article redesign in view of recent events 8 A370 9 Why was the comparison table removed? 10 Orders 11 A350XWB vs A350 12 User:DSpammer's edits 13 A350F cross-section 14 Comparison of other aircraft 15 A350 Mark VI 16 "Two biggest customers" 17 XWB Fuselage in carbon fiber, not Al-Li

[edit] NPOV

I question the NPOV of this article, since it seems negatively slanted against Airbus. The focus is almost entirely on the negative aspects. For example: Doubt is cast about the Eur3.5 billion price tag and it is implied that the A350 is nothing but part of a FUD campaign. This is done by quoting unnamed authorities ("many industry and financial analysts"), which is a fallacy.

The factual accuracy of the article also leaves to be desired. For example, given that Boeing hoped to have 200 orders for the 7E7 by the end of 2004 but only got 52 (50 of which come from a single airline) (Reuters) it does not seem accurate to talk about "strong preliminary sales of the 7E7".

Removed POV tag as the above doesn't seem related to the current article. Also, please try to remember to include your username and a time-stamp. Dan100 18:53, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, looks good to me. Jeroen 12:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not OK. The sales are not the point, and it is OK not to consider this aspect; agree with that one so far.

The NPOV of this Article, nevertheless, remains questionable. Still, Airbus is the only one blamed therein for receiving Government backings, which reflects the Boeing position only.

The Airbus argument, however, is for instance that majority of these backings airbus receives are not a present, but are repayable, and Boeing receives tax relief/tax aids outside regular writeoffs, which are not just a deferral, but just another form of subsidy on the business results after all.

The arguments on the Airbus side remain completely unmentioned, which makes this article clearly biased to one party's, i.e. Boeing's, point of view, thus discrediting Airbus.

Also, this rather political aspect, taking place on international level, is nothing which concerns the Aircraft A350 and its technology itself. In fact, this Boeing vs. Airbus dispute arose before official announcement of the A350. It actually derives from A380 financing. If anywhere, this dispute should be mentioned in the article about the companies, but not in an article about the product.

I recommend that any statements about backings/financing be removed, or at elast altered to objectively reflect the full story. Airbus, and also the European Union, have also made their statements to the WTO. A WTO decision is not yet finanlised, it is even not sought for by the American side; talks are ongoing. This shows that the story is not that easy. The article should remain a neutral focus on the Aircraft itself.

Cheers,

Airplanedude 26-DEC-2004 20:04 PST (sorry not username yet.)

I think it is possible to discuss the controversy between Airbus/EU and Boeing/US without loosing NPOV, but I agree that the focus of the article should be the airplane, not the politics surrounding it. I propose a format similar to that used for the other Airbus planes: History, Technology, Variants, Specifications. The Boeing/Airbus dispute can be discussed in the History section.

Jeroen 08:36, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I did a fairly substantial revision of the article. Tried to make it more NPOV by rewriting some of the disputed paragraphs about the US/EU trade dispute and rearranged the information into 4 chapters.

Jeroen 09:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Now this is good. Thanks for your work and time; my Job Situation does not allow me to write something up myself Aerospace Products. sorry. However, thanks a lot Jeroen. -Airplanedude 20:36, Jan 03, 2005

I have to back your observation, the article as it is currently is very neutral. I think the financing war is unwarranted since both companies are guilty. The only diffrence is how well they have managed to hide the financing. Airbus fail hopelessly here as the transaction is very obvious. Boeing is financed in a very tricky way. An article that handled Boeing financing very well is this article [1]

---

NPOV questioned: "Since the A350's introduction, the 787 has outsold it by a factor of over 10:1." I do see two problems with this sentence: First, I miss the exact and complete list of preliminary sales for the A350. Second, if the preliminary sales are compared wouldn’t it more appropriate to compare only the part of contracts that were closed after both airliner programs were communicated? Therefore, I ask to delete this sentence or to introduce a more NPOV into this article. Thanks. MikeZ 21:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have just deleted the same passage before I saw this discussion. I too take objection to the 10:1 sales figure. It misrepresents the state of the competition for 7E7/A350 size jets, the A350 spec will not even by fully defined until late Feb/March 2005. Boeing's early lead is just that, an early lead due to the few years head start it has had for marketing. Further, while Boeing may (and probably will) outsell the A350 it will be nothing like a 10:1 ratio in the long term. Mark 00:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • From the launch at Dec.2004 to update are 5 month and Airbus have only 10 orders for the A350. The Boeing 787 has in the same time after the launch ( april 2004 - aug.2004 ) 62 Orders plus 66 optinos.

13:24, April,28th,2005. DEF

[edit] Wishful thinking

From what I read in this article, it seems unlikely that this plane will ever exist. Ten airplanes? That's nothing. CoolGuy 16:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, what is possible is that the A350 may not exist as described in this article. To this point, it has been clobbered in the marketpalce by the Boeing 787, mainly because the A350 is seen as not being aggressive enough of a competitor. Much like the Sonic Cruiser became the 787, I would guess that the A350 (as currently proposed) will give way to a new product. The difference is that the Sonic Cruiser suffered for being too forward-thinking, whereas the A350 is suffering for not being forward-thinking enough. Just imagine Airbus' dilemma had the Sonic Cruiser actually been accepted by the marketplace. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:43, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

[edit] New Orders

I added an order by TAM announced on June 16th, 2005. I also revised the official order count based on the press release. I also removed the following line:

• However, these list of orders are viewed widely with skepticism. Many experts believe that the A350 could not hold up to the all-new design of the Boeing 787

These orders are as firm as any aircraft orders (whether they be Boeing, Airbus, etc.)--there are no degrees of "firmness", unless one wishes to qualify the individual companies making the orders (US Airways, for example, cancelled their massive order for Embraer aircraft, so it can happen). While the second statement may very well be true (I at least lean towards it), to preserve NPOV, it's better to link these claims to the actual experts (IE: articles) than to leave them unfounded.--Dali-Llama 19:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone think this link "Airbus' plans for new plane hint of vapor trail" should also go? It's outdated and the claims appear to be much more likely to be incorrect. Incidently, the article was also wrong about Boeing since they have now apparently decided to make the 747-8. Having said that, the Seattle PI paper appears to be very pro-Boeing, perhaps not surprising given Boeing is a Seattle company. An opinion piece of theirs I came across earlier appears to show a similar bias http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/249208_boeing22.html Nil Einne 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is most definitely not pro-Boeing. They have a habit of raking Boeing over the coals. I suppose you think the Chicago Tribune is pro-Richard Daley, too, don't you? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity A330/A350

There seems to be a real bone of contention about this phrase:

... Airbus was forced to commit 4 billion Euros to a mostly new design. While the A350 superficially resembles the A330, they only share a few components. The only commonality with the A330 is the cockpit and flight characteristics to preserve the common pilot type rating.

as opposed to

...to a differnent derivative design. The A350 superficially resembles the A330 and they share components.

To my knowledge, the first is the more accurate statement. The information from Airbus [2] clearly indicates that they're greatly upgrading the cockpit (to A380 technology), redesigning the wing, putting in a new generation of engine, putting in a new tailplane, tweaking the overall aerodynamics and upgrading the interior systems. They're rebuilding large chunks of the plane in composites (probably not as much as the 787, but still a considerable amount). While the fuselage exterior will probably stay the same (it hasn't changed since the A300), there will likely be considerable differences between the A330 and the A350. If you look at the published expected stats from Boeing and Airbus, you'll see that the two planes are expected to have broadly similar performances - that should give an indication how much difference there is between the A330 and A350. — QuantumEleven | (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. While it may share individual components (Much like Boeing fuselage Section 41), the fact that a new wing has been designed greatly alters the aircraft. Despite the A330 and A340 sharing the same fuselage, no one calls it an "updated design". Even the fuselage, in this case, has been severely altered to incorporate new materials. Like most aircraft from the same manufacturer, they are bound to share visual commonalities and components. In this case, the use of new composite materials, a new wing and new engines do not warrant the "updated design" label, much like the A340 could not be called an "updated" version of the A330. I think we are really underestimating how its performance and capabilities changed with a new wing and new engines (and from an aerospace engineering perspective the wing is certainly the biggest challenge when designing a new airplane). It takes off 15 tons heavier than the A330 and, model dependent, has 3,000km to 4,000km more in range. All this with the promise by Airbus to do it cheaper. --Dali-Llama 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of potential customers

The 787 and 747-8 articles lists some potential customers for those models. I personally think this article should have a similar list. Potential customers for the A350 I believe include United (very split between 787 and A350), Emirates, Ethiad, and possibly British Airways. American and Delta probably not, as they obviously prefer Boeing aircraft. Andros 1337 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

We need to nix this list on here and Boeing 787 entirely. It's a whole lot of unwarranted speculation. Might as well list anyone who has not placed an order for either of these aircraft. I suggest we either delete the list or at least pare it back to major contests in the press (SQ, EK, etc.) Comment at Talk:Boeing 787#Potential customers list instead. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I really have to disagree about United Airlines. United already flies the 777 and the new (as of May 2006)version of the A350 will be larger and more directly a competitor of the 777. It doesn't make any sense at all for United to buy the A350.

[edit] Firm orders or commitments

The "orders" table should distinguish between firm orders with a signed contract (which is about 50) and commitments/letters of intent/memoranda of understanding (which is about 125). The Boeing 787 order table is a good example of this, with the pink color coding.

Why are the cancelled orders not included in this table? The B787 page includes the 3 cancelled planes.

[edit] Article redesign in view of recent events

It seems this article is now in need of a major overhaul, with this news: [3][4]. Where to even start? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The A350 has essentially been scrapped in its current form. Also, Qatar has publicly stated that it will not be placing an order for its 60 aircraft until Airbus actually settles on a design. They are leaving the possibility open of placing orders for the Boeing 787 since it will enter service 4 years before any redesighned A350. [5] [6]

There needs to be a section in this article talking about all of the different versions of the A350 that Airbus has put forth. Also, there should be a discussion of how this plane was really just designed as an attempt to slow 787 sales. I find it amusing how the Boeing 787 article is written by smug Airbus aficionados who criticize the Sonic Cruiser and Boeing 747X while this article fails to mention how the A350 has been nothing more than a "paper" airplane since its beginning.

I have rushed in where angels fear to tread :-) and started the overhaul process. I think the "main" article needs to focus on the A350 as now proposed (A350XWB) and the specs of the "original" version need to be either deleted or farmed out to another article ("A350 original version"). Ecozeppelin 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be handled a little like the 787 article. The difference is that the changes to the 787 were evolutionary, where as the A350 had between four and six (depending upon how you count it) iterations:

• A330-200Lite
• Airbus A330-200Lite + GEnx/T1700
• Airbus A350, initial GLARE incarnation
• Above with wider interior cabin (couple of inches)
• Above with A380 cockpit
• Airbus A350XWB —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A370

"This new aircraft has tentavley been called A370."

I think this needs a reference, all sources I have been able to find that discuss and a370 in the vein of a further development of the a350 seem to point to blogs or forum posts. I've yet to establish a primary source that would be considered wiki worthy. If one can be added it would be great, if not I'm unsure it is worth including. 144.136.232.199 07:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC) skyskraper 07:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion about an airplane that has no basis in fact? Airbus still calls its planned aircraft, the All New A350. Why not simply wait until Airbus announces thier plans? --user:mnw2000 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the comparison table removed?

The comparison table of other relevant aircraft removed? I don't see why the Specifications section needed to be completely deleted. --Smacksaw 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To make room for the A350-1000 and its rival, the 777-300ER. The 787-3 and the 787-8 are not really comparable (especially the 787-3) as they are smaller than the A350-800. Andros 1337 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders

Have the old orders been nullfied? If so, we need to redo the table. Only Kingfisher and Finnair have confirmed to stay with the new A350XWB. Andros 1337 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the old Orders table is null and void except in cases where the carrier explicitly clarified that they were still going to take delivery (Finnair, ILFC.) Therefore, the numbers are meaningless. Perhaps we could include a footnote for carriers that have stated that they will take the XWB. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't decide for ourselves that the old orders are null and void! I agree we should be very clear that the aircraft is different from the one the carriers ordered, however until they say "no, we're cancelling" I think the fair thing is to assume they will keep their orders. I can't see any cancelling as Airbus are bound to offer sweeteners for them to stick with the project (e.g. A350XWB at A350 prices). Mark83 18:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Flight International, not every existing order is a sure thing: [7] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As if to back it up, TAM ordered some 777s to cover for the A350 problems.[8] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A350XWB vs A350

It looks to me like the "XWB" is more of a marketing tool than the actual model number. All of the model numbers I've seen still use just "A350-(model)" and not "A350XWB-(model)". As all of the relevant information is already in the main A350 article I'd prefer to see the XWB article converted back into a link. As is it is redundant. If the official model is "A350XWB" then the "Airbus A350" article should be renamed to "Airbus A350XWB" thus preserving the edit history on the article. --StuffOfInterest 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "XWB" is just a marketing designator - it's still the A350 aircraft, just the latest incarnation. So there shouldn't be a separate article, just an explanation of the evolution in the main A350 article. Ecozeppelin 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both. This is why I originally tried to "prod" the XWB article. Someone else decided to be bold. The original author of the XWB article will have to be convinced. I really don't want to clog up AfD with more clutter. The Airbus A370 article is already over there. --StuffOfInterest 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As a semi-related note, we are going to have to go through some of Burbank's other contributions. A quick look at a few of his edits showed things such as changing "specifications" to "leading particulars". Just doesn't sound right. -StuffOfInterest 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult call. As a physical design it is a whole new aircraft, with new cross-section, new wings, new engines, etc. But it's a replacement for the old A350, with the same design team, same marketing, etc. From the airlines POV, it's a tweak, but from Airbus POV it's all-new. The "Fat-boy" XWB is a marketing name, much like the Dreamliner, but the design behind it is pretty solid now. - dSpammer 20:00, 12 August, 2006 (BST)

[edit] User:DSpammer's edits

I realized that I am coming close to WP:3RR, but DSpammer is making some questionable edits, so I'll stop reverting. Can we please stop with the hyperbole and whitewashing? This user has done damage to Airbus NSR in the past. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His most recent edit has to do with the interior cabin width compared to the 787. Do you have any reference you can point me to on if the difference will be 3" or 6"? If so, I'll be glad to revert out his edit (while hopefully preserving the followon editor's reference addition). --StuffOfInterest 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I was using hyperbole & whitewashing - I certainly didn't mean to! I guess it's all down to your POV - I thought I was *removing* hyperbole, not adding it. I guess in general I'm pro-Airbus, whereas you're pro-Boeing. I've always tired to be as neutral as I can. As for the 6" V 3", I'll dig out a reference as asap & link to it. - dSpammer 18:56, 12 August, 2006 (BST)

[edit] A350F cross-section

Why is the cross-section of the freighter version smaller (5,74) than that of the passenger versions(5,91)?--Arado 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of other aircraft

Does anybody else think that comparison of other aircraft belongs here? It's not mentioned in other articles (except Boeing 787, but I'll see if I can get it removed there, too), and if anybody wants, they could start a separate article for aircraft comparison. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair enough to include a comparison. It's interesting to see the differences with the models Airbus plans to spend €10B to compete with. Sure you can flip to the other articles but it's nicer to have the relevant models only and all displayed together. Nordicremote 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A350 Mark VI

OK, now we are on the sixth iteration of the A350: [9] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a section on the page with a description of all six iterations? user:mnw2000 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how about having a section called "A350 Designs"? We can then have paragraph for each design or a chart to show the differences between the designs.? user:mnw2000 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. To further clarify the designs I listed above, here are the six major incarnations:

1. A330-200Lite
2. A330-200Lite + GEnx/T1700, now badged as the A350
3. A350, initial GLARE incarnation, 2010 EIS
   • Above with wider interior cabin (couple of inches)
4. Above with A380 cockpit (this modification alone added several months delay)
5. A350 XWB, GLARE version, 2012 EIS
6. A350 XWB, CFRP version, 2013 EIS —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of sources claiming this is the 6th iteration but neither go into any detail. Clearly the plane has changed much over time but those changes are given in the description. Why do we need a list of the 6 when there have been many more than 6 changes to the design and it is rather arbitrary to allocate verison numbers to some changes and not others? I see no value in this list and suggest it is removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.48.0.60 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

In light of the recent sources posted by Joseph to the article, I believe the list should be reinstated, perhaps as a small table. THe A-350 has undergone many changes sinces its announcement, and the list helps to summarize these changes. - BillCJ 16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This article, if true, would represent Mark VII: a switch to unitary monolithic CFRP barrels (a la 787), as opposed to the riveted CFRP panels on Mark VI. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Two biggest customers"

I removed the bit about GECAS and ILFC being Airbus "two biggest customers", since they are really in a sense, only indirectly so as they're leasing companies, and in a sense only respond to the demands of airlines who lease from them. Also looking at fleet composition is also not a fair decider of "largest customer" since many of the planes owned by ILFC and GECAS were mostly bought from or negotiated in some form or another, after delievery to another customer (a number of airlines have sold their aircraft to GECAS and ILFC and then simply leased them back). It's also fair to notice that ILFC and GECAS orders for newer airplanes (the Boeing 777, the A350, and the A380) have been outpaced by other airlines, and in the case of the Boeing 787 ILFC is only a handful of frames away from most other airlines ordering the craft (GECAS is also conspicously absent form the order list). The point being, individual airlines, especially Asian carriers such as Singapore, and Middle Eastern Airlines such as Qatar and Emirates, make up a far larger concern of Airbus. SiberioS 18:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GECAS and ILFC throw around a lot of weight. The EU was so afraid of GECAS that this was the reason the GE-Honeywell merger was scuttled. In any case, the statement accurately captures the mood behind the situation. I think you're trying to argue specific points and this is really a Big Picture thing. I think it would be a mistake to assume that heavyweights like Udvar-Hazy and Hubschman to make all their decisions. At the same time, these statements are really GECAS and ILFC speaking on behalf of their customers. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because its simply not FACTUALLY true, and perpetuates a myth that has been repeated adnauseum in many business articles that ILFC and GECAS somehow represent either a majority or even anywhere NEAR a stranglehold on the order of aircraft. Last time I checked, statements that aren't factually true aren't generally approved of on Wikipedia, and thats what this is. I wouldn't mind changing the text to "the two biggest airline leasing companies" or "major customers" but two biggest customers is just FACTUALLY WRONG.24.88.79.249 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are the same person. In any case, the chosen text is per the cited links, and simple examination of the respective manufacturers' order pages bears this data out. Nowhere does it say "majority" or "stranglehold" -- just that they are the "biggest customers." A simple look at the number of Boeing and Airbus aircraft ordered by these two firms is a testament to this fact. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The moniker is still specious, but I'm not willing to push it into a tit for tat. Looking at orders for 2006, GECAS and ILFC are not Airbus' largest customers, and even looking at other models and their orders/delieveries, they will be outpaced by other individual airlines with all Airbus fleets for historical purchases from Airbus, as well as for the next few years will be outpaced by orders from other Airlines. I still don't think that the moniker is applicable, or even particuarly useful (especially in light of the Emirates A380 negotiations which shows, monetarily, Airbus is most concerned with pleasing). SiberioS 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

GECAS and ILFC were often cited as two of the main voices of opposition to the abandonment of the original A350 concept, and hence two of the main drivers for the relaunched A350. Mark83 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XWB Fuselage in carbon fiber, not Al-Li

The Fuselage section of the article should be updated because the A350-XWB will no longer use Al-Li skin.

Carbon fiber will be used. The discussion now is whether to use four panels to build the fuselage on aluminium frames or to use a single barrel construction like the B787.

If someone with more detailed information could please update the article.

Thank you. Steveq34 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can list the reference here, I'll take a look at the source, and see what we can do. Thanks - BillCJ 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For the four shells concept (for reparability) I have this reference:

http://www.eads.com/xml/content/OF00000000400004/7/19/41508197.pdf Steveq34 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the possible switch to the solid barrel concept, I have the following reference: http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7727 Steveq34 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)