Boeing and Airbus model numbers

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I notice that British Airways initial order is for 8 787-8 and 16
787-9 aircraft.
Will these become 787-836 and 787-936 on delivery? Likewise the 747-8I
for Lufthansa will they become 747-830I on delivery?
Why have Boeing decided to start with series 800, 900 and not the more
logical series 100, 200, 300 etc, Similarly Airbus A-350 will come in
-800, -900 flavours to start with, with -1000 and -1200 to follow. Can
some one please explain, or have I missed something important.
Thanks in anticipation,
Be lucky
David

[BelArgUSA]

Hola David -
xxx
Yes, in principle, airplanes from Boeing take the "customer" designation number of the client airline to which first delivered, and therafter, keep that designation, even sold later to another airline... Realize that each customer airline have their "options", such as type of engine, or configuration. So, for me, with Boeing airplanes, a customer numbers tells me much about what airplane it is, and what it normally has, as equipment.
xxx
Has happened that airplanes were ordered by "ABC" airline, then politics changed, and the USA prohibited export of these airplanes to that airline, but delivered such airplanes to "XYZ" airline, at times with the original "ABC" airline designation, at times with the "XYZ" designation. In the 747, was the case of airplanes ordered originally by Iran Air, but delivered to Saudia, or airplanes ordered by Libyan Arab, but delivered to Varig...
xxx
There are other rare exceptions. It has happened that Boeing airplanes are sold to a leasing company (which also have a Boeing customer designation), then immediately leased to an airline. Has been the case of some 737s... which I am not too familiar with.
xxx
Airbus does not use that system... Somebody else will tell you.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[bjones4]

Will these become 787-836 and 787-936 on delivery? Likewise the 747-8I for Lufthansa will they become 747-830I on delivery?
Yes, although airlines and more than likely those airlines' onboard literature for example will continue to refer to them as just -8 or -9, but they will travel through the factory and will be certified as -836s or -936s, the only reason that the names can work so easily for Boeing as single digits is with the fact they have no customer numbers to attach, and as BelArgUSA rightfully stated, the code also serves as a way to track the equipment throughout it's life.
Why have Boeing decided to start with series 800, 900 and not the more logical series 100, 200, 300 etc, Similarly Airbus A-350 will come in -800, -900 flavours to start with, with -1000 and -1200 to follow.
Airbus started all this dodgy numbering with the A380, they set the initial version as the -800 (despite A3XX concepts being -100, -200 etc) because, they stated, -800 gave the impression of a mature product straight out of the door, whereas an A380-100 would suggest the opposite, while we're on the subject, the 8 in A380 was selected for two reasons, the digit symbolised two decks and it's a lucky number in Asia, a region that Airbus needed to get onboard the A3XX bandwagon bigtime to get closer to the projected long term success.
Anyway, it worked well for Airbus so the 7E7 followed on, again despite the original studies carrying different names, in that case it was the SR, LR and STR and everything since has continued the naming, -8Is, XWB-900s etc

[WHBM]

Airbus started all this dodgy numbering with the A380, they set the initial version as the -800 (despite A3XX concepts being -100, -200 etc) because, they stated, -800 gave the impression of a mature product straight out of the door, whereas an A380-100 would suggest the opposite
Surely incorrect. Those professionally involved in aircraft purchase (as opposed to the airliners.net brigade) know perfectly well the development history of what they are considering.

[bjones4]

I'm with you on that one, The people that matter and the people with the cheque books wouldn't care less if it was an A380-800 or an A3XX-100 but the reasons I gave for them choosing it are correct.

To quote from an A380 book I've got,

But why A380, rather than A350 or A360, both of which had been th enext logical designations in the Airbus numbering system? Although the user of the numerical 8 was already believed to be good luck to many asian cultures, and therefore a consideration toward the large customer base of the region, Forgeard said the final designation was selected because "8 suggests double-decks, one on top of the other".

...

Then there was the question of using the higher end -700/-800/-900 designations for the derivatives straight out of the box. Airbus Chief Commercial officer John Leahy said that this approach was taken because the three versions were fully developed aircraft and the -100/-200-/300 designations would be subject to earlier obsolescence and therefore lower residual values.

[Silvio Pettirossi]

AFAIK, the last two numbers of the airbus model designations specifies the engine maker and version for that aircraft.
For exemple; on the A320-231, the 3 means the engine is from IAE, the 1 means it is fitted with the engine version IAEV2500-A1.
The A320-232 is also powered by an IAE engine, but the last digit, in these case the 2, indicates that this plane is fitted with the IAEV2527-A5
version.
Each engine manufacturer has one number for all airbus models;

0 = General Electric
1 = CFM International
2 = Pratt and Whitney
3 = IAE (International Aero Engines)
4 = Rolls Royce
6 = Alliance (for the A380)