A350 maiden flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are probably countless technical analysts at airlines around the world all hoping that the A350's fuel burn & performance specs are as aesthetically pleasing as the aircraft itself. It is however, without question, a very good looking airplane.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum,
Good point! The history is not so great, but it is a beautiful jet. Let's hope it performs as good as it looks. I'm looking forward to seeing the -1000 as well. If it is equally well proportioned, CX will have a pair of good looking planes to park next to those new -8Is.
PS - the new -8I (Ozark) is supposedly performing 1% better than the original brochure specs, and the price is reported to be slightly less than an A350-900.
Good point! The history is not so great, but it is a beautiful jet. Let's hope it performs as good as it looks. I'm looking forward to seeing the -1000 as well. If it is equally well proportioned, CX will have a pair of good looking planes to park next to those new -8Is.
PS - the new -8I (Ozark) is supposedly performing 1% better than the original brochure specs, and the price is reported to be slightly less than an A350-900.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cxorcist,
I am Boeing born, through and through, but the -8I is only a pipe dream I'm afraid. The pressure that Boeing is receiving from it's 777 customers to accelerate the 777x must be overwhelming. The 380 is likely here to stay, but I think everything else is going to be bigger and bigger twinjets.
box
I am Boeing born, through and through, but the -8I is only a pipe dream I'm afraid. The pressure that Boeing is receiving from it's 777 customers to accelerate the 777x must be overwhelming. The 380 is likely here to stay, but I think everything else is going to be bigger and bigger twinjets.
box
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is quite ugly to be honest. The nose gear is far too forward and the nose looks like its been punched in the face like it's bigger sister. The winglets look like they have curled up in the sunshine.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Here
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop teasing the Airbus! They've obviously had enough and can't take it any more!! As safety is our priority, we need our Airbus crews to have no emotional hang ups when on duty. 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least we will not have the following conversation.
"Dear captain I have bad news and some good news...the bad news is that our batteries are on fire! The good news is that they are buring in their titanium box...for now!"
"Dear captain I have bad news and some good news...the bad news is that our batteries are on fire! The good news is that they are buring in their titanium box...for now!"
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Froggy,
FYI - the box is the last of three fixes to the battery system. They separated the cells and insulated them from one another and the potential for thermal expansion of one cell affecting the others. They also tightened the rates at which the batteries can charge or discharge electricity.
I think it is quite likely that the largest 787, the -10X, will become part of the CX fleet as an A330 replacement. It is much lighter weight than the A350-900 (same size) but has less range as well. It's envisioned to be 25% more efficient than the A330-300 on short and medium haul flights (up to about 10-11 hours).
FYI - the box is the last of three fixes to the battery system. They separated the cells and insulated them from one another and the potential for thermal expansion of one cell affecting the others. They also tightened the rates at which the batteries can charge or discharge electricity.
I think it is quite likely that the largest 787, the -10X, will become part of the CX fleet as an A330 replacement. It is much lighter weight than the A350-900 (same size) but has less range as well. It's envisioned to be 25% more efficient than the A330-300 on short and medium haul flights (up to about 10-11 hours).
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 350 is pretty ugly too, it's lost the Airbus curves in the fuselage, it now has a straight and boring Boeing fuselage instead of the inverted banana of the 330. As was mentioned before the nose gear is too far forward and it's extended too much losing the distinctive front to back slope of the previous Airbus's. Those winglets too look out of place, so in short pretty disappointing for me, modern aircraft might be more efficient but they look pants.
B787 vs A350?
Both are the epitome of current aerodynamic, engine efficiency and performance design for airliners.
One of them will always be better than the other, depending on each of the many missions that are envisaged for airline operations.
Vive la différence!
Both are the epitome of current aerodynamic, engine efficiency and performance design for airliners.
One of them will always be better than the other, depending on each of the many missions that are envisaged for airline operations.
Vive la différence!
Flex,
Correct me if I'm wrong (ha... not the 1st & certainly not the last time) but didn't Mr.S or former boss Mr.TT say that the 787 were too small for the CX operation?
And as per the latest 777 newsletter-
"CX are looking very seriously at the 777-X"
b.
Correct me if I'm wrong (ha... not the 1st & certainly not the last time) but didn't Mr.S or former boss Mr.TT say that the 787 were too small for the CX operation?
And as per the latest 777 newsletter-
"CX are looking very seriously at the 777-X"
b.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kowloon
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
787-10 is the same size as the A333 and A359
The problem is that its range is significantly (significant in the CX route network sort of way) less than the 350's. So it might be a 333 replacement, but that's it.
Why buy 350s and 787s and 777s, when you can just have 350s and 777s?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four reasons:
1) it weighs a lot less than the A359 and therefore is much more efficient on short and medium haul flights
2) it is the same type rating as the 777 for pilots (3 day differences course)
3) CX already operates a different version of the GEnx. I imagine there is a significant parts commonality
4) there may come a time when CX decides that the A358/B789 size is something they want for new, smaller markets. The 789 is expected to be much lighter and therefore more efficient than the 358 with similar capacity and range.
1) it weighs a lot less than the A359 and therefore is much more efficient on short and medium haul flights
2) it is the same type rating as the 777 for pilots (3 day differences course)
3) CX already operates a different version of the GEnx. I imagine there is a significant parts commonality
4) there may come a time when CX decides that the A358/B789 size is something they want for new, smaller markets. The 789 is expected to be much lighter and therefore more efficient than the 358 with similar capacity and range.