3 ms·
The A350XWB was their second attempt. The original A350 and 787 were introduced around the same time. But the all aluminum A350 was DOA compared to the flashy n
by yardie 9y ago
The A350XWB was their second attempt. The original A350 and 787 were introduced around the same time. But the all aluminum A350 was DOA compared to the flashy new carbon fiber 787. It showed in the order books as well, no one wanted their warmed over A350.
TL;DR the 787 didn't have a 4 year head start. The A350 arrived 4 years late after a complete redesign.
- tolien 9y agoThat's all true but I don't see how it refutes what I said. The 787's been in production and delivering aircraft for 4 years longer than the A350 XWB, which is still ramping up [1]. If that's not a head start when we're comparing delivered aircraft between the two then I don't know what is; the fact that Airbus let Boeing have that lead by wasting their time trying to hawk an A330 with revised wings and engines is neither here nor there. > Airbus plans to increase its production rate from 10 monthly in 2018 to 13 monthly from 2019, while the Boeing 787 production will increase from 12 to 14 per month in 2019, and six A330 are produced monthly. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Production
- xvf22 9y agoAnd yet they managed to save the program and avoid the lithium battery issues of the 787 all while not being anywhere near as overweight as the 787 was upon introduction.