Look at this slide ;



http://lh5.ggpht.com/_FecxC5GwIpM/SgwQzA9w...J7Y/s400/A1.JPG

obviously this is incorrect.

source: http://www.airwaysaviationnews.com/2009/05...n-a350-xwb.html

Take this little quiz for an insight into why EADS would publish such a slide.

How many 787s have been ordered to date--all versions?

How many A350s have been ordered to date--all versions?

How many 787 customers?

How many A350 customers?


Frankly, EADS is playing "catch up" in the most profitable market in commercial aviation. Three of their A350 customers virtually own the program. This is a lot of risk and now they are asking for more state aid.

I can see why they are desparate here.

Other than a few mostly non aviation journalists that will go WOW over charts like this, I am sure the folks that really evaluate and purchase airplanes just smile and remember these are the French trying to divert attention from their current mound of issues (A380 flop, A400 flop, A350 weight/funding, crashes, etc.). It will be interesting to see how the aviation press responds to presentations like this. Don't know what it is like today, but the Paris airshow was always fun to attend and watch the French at play. Boeing was always a bit more subtle, for example some of us always left tons of marketing disinformation in our hotel rooms while we attended the airshow.

If I were Airbus, I would be spending my time trying to understand why composite vertical stabilizers fall off my airplanes when too much rudder pressure is applied (below maneuvering speed in the case of AA 587) or when entering severe turbulence (likely below maneuvering speed in AF 447 because that is what well trained pilots are trained to do when encountering heavy turbulence).

Oh that's right Airbus in its own publication says:

CAUTION
Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in combination with
large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw (e.g. large sideslip angles) may result
in structural failures at any speed, even below VA. (Maneuvering speed)

Reference: http://www.a330jam.com/documents/limits.pdf page 2 (right column)

If you are the pilot of this airplane, and a maneuvering speed does not exist when you are in conditions highlighted by the CAUTION statement, how do you know what control surfaces you can use when trying to control your aircraft in severe turbulence that is pitching and yawing your airplane?

I'm sure spending time adulterating the facts of B787 vs. A350 is the most productive thing Airbus could be doing at this point.

From Mark S,

I'm sure spending time adulterating the facts of B787 vs. A350 is the most productive thing Airbus could be doing at this point.

To start with, they could improve the situation by baring the A350 OEW.

Regards,

Michael

I still find it supremely ironic that Airbus has the nerve to call the 787-8 too small. Boeing has sold 627 units to almost 50 customers before EIS. As far as I can tell, that makes the 787-8 more successful than any single Airbus or Boeing widebody variant has sold over its entire production run.

Not to mention it's the same general size of the A330-200.

So is Airbus saying their most popular model is a dud?

So Keesje, what part of this so called presentation do you find "scandalous"?

What's the 'problem' here ?

1. It is no secret or mis-truth that Boeing themselves rescheduled the B787-3 to a point called 'undefined delivery'.
2. Hence the reason why JAL has now decided to convert it's entire order of -3's to -8's .. and
3. NH has done the same with 2. Probably more to come.

4. No secret that some critics have criticised the B787-8 as 'too small'.

5. It's no further secret that the B787-10 remains largely undefined .. with the proposed Boeing design not seen as acceptable to a number of operators.

Aren't we being a tad too precious ?

Boeing could easily hit back, just as effectively with their own slide. "To composite, and back ??"

Won't take issue with the other points, but this one is a ridiculous point to argue.

Have certain airlines said the 787-8 is too small for their airline? Yes. But how can anyone possibly say the 787-8 is too small for the broader global market when it is the best-selling widebody variant in history? Those folks have zero credibility, IMHO.

So the A330-200 is "too small" as well?

As DFWRevolution correctly points out, it is a ridiculous statement to make. Nevertheless, the statement has been made .. and duly reported in the media. I didn't say that I agree with the statement - I simply pointed out that it had been made.

And yes - the A330-200 may be too small for some operators. Equally, it may be too large for some, also. Those that have no customers, limited resources or short domestic routes.

Naturally, such a statement has to have relevance to each individual carrier's operation. And that, as we know, can vary wildly.