One big question I have. So now we have gone from original A321 to A321 that can do transcon reliably with 2 ACT to A321NEO that can probably do TATL barely to A321LR that can do NorthEast to as far as Paris/Madrid to A321XLR that can do NorthEast to most of Europe that people care to visit. What's...
Jump to postI'm not sure what the discussion is. The XLR is also more expensive. I'd say $4-8m if I had to guess. It also probably comes with a thrust bump which means the engines have a lower Mean Time Between Overhaul which means higher operating costs. Also, I'd assume there are extra fuel tanks which have ...
Jump to postI would say it makes no sense to introduce something that would reduce the output of NEOs at the moment. If you can not deliver it before 2025/26, there is no need to launch now. And if Boeing delays the MoM decision there is even less need. I agree. Also with the news of the possibility of a new F...
Jump to postNew to the forum Just curious why it seems that The 320 models seem to be viewed as a platform that can go on for ever while the 737 is on its last legs Is it really obout the short landing gear on the 737 s That stops it from evolving compare to the 320 models? Are their other reasons? Thanks Welc...
Jump to postI am not sure I agree with it though. going from 2 to 4 much smaller narrower wheels reduces available volume for the brakes quite a bit. I am uncertain about how available contact surface going from 2 large to 4 small tires changes. I seem to recal there being more room leghtways in the wheel well...
Jump to postThe other thing they might consider for the XLR is a wingtip extension similar to that on the A330NEO. It has the potential to release another c. 5% reduction in drag. It could be a very cheap low impact development. reliant on little more than a bit of wing twist. It It would put the XLR into cat ...
Jump to postExactly. And this is why Boeing should have introduced the NSA about 10 years ago. As Stitch pointed out up-thread, why would Boeing have spent tens of Billions to produce an all-new NSA that might be, at best, 5% more efficient than an A320neo but would be vastly more expensive to buy? That just d...
Jump to postThe A321LR sounds successo for Aer Lingus on TATL. But, what about Finnair and flights to Asia? Are there enough intresting new market? Just to make a call, HEL-BOM is at 3683nm per GC and it was a forme destination. Finnair has valued cargo on Asian flights for a long time, some of which continues...
Jump to postBoeing probably will find a few tons of MTOW, a ton of weight reduction, and we haven't seen the end of PIPs. Lightsaber I agree, but even with all of that put together I don't think the extra payload won't be more than 3-4t above what it is now. To me that isn't an ER/LR version. If they want to m...
Jump to postCongrats for the certification! Will be a great plane for the airlines and Boeing. Good on Boeing for not waiting too long to offer the simple stretch. Going forward a few years... we will no doubt see ER/LR/HGW of the 789 and 7810. Success (or lack thereof) of the 778 will determine if we ever see ...
Jump to postI think calling an airplane that was officially launched 7 months ago and has around 400 orders a sales flop is an example of commom bias found on this website. It appears that people are very quick to jump to conclusions. The 737-7 and A319neo appear to be niche planes that the market is moving aw...
Jump to postI am curious how much of a difference range will make. The longest 737-800 route (Cops PTY-MVD) and 737-900ER route (Turkish IST-DAR) are about 10% (300nm) longer than the longest A320 and A321 routes in standard two class configurations The 737-8 has been scheduled already to fly BSB-MCO at 3300nm...
Jump to postSo funny to read fow some people create their own reality here :white: Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this: There is no real advantage for either company on the economics. https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/pontifications-countdown-deltas-...
Jump to postThis seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed! I understand that sharklets can cause reduced performance over short ranges, but...
Jump to postIncreased wingspan means lower induced drag, which benefits both cruise and take-off drag. Seams to me that the plane is just more efficient, by around 1,4% whatever the distance. Obviously the fuel savings will be greater by volume the longer the distance, but pecentage wise I'd expect them to be ...
Jump to postI'm in doubt if a A322 can be part of the A320 family. If airbus designs a wider wing for the A320 (or a smaller one for the A330) the wing root (joint length with body) changes. This requires a new wingbox and center body segment. I doin't see why this would be a problem. Developing the A322 will ...
Jump to postWith this news I am positive a new wing for the A320 family will be optimised for the A321 (before I thought the A320 was still going to saty as the 'base'). I think they should still keep the A320 as an option though to have a high performance NB in the portfolio, even if it ovelaps capacity wise w...
Jump to postFleet commonality is difficult in these days of Airbus and Boeing refusing to go head-to-head and instead staggering their airplane designs. AA have a fleet of over 900 airplanes, the 789 probably doesn't quite match what AA needs for an eventual 772ER replacement in several markets. My guess is th...
Jump to postA319 738/8M7 A321ceo/neo/LR(?) 797 788 789 78J(?) 77W 779(?) Looks simple to me. That is still more compliceted than this: 738 A321 788 789 (78J) A359 A35K If they really need the A319 for a certain number of missions it won't make the fleet harder to manage since the pilot pool will be the same wi...
Jump to postA319 738/8M7 A321ceo/neo/LR(?) 797 788 789 78J(?) 77W 779(?) Looks simple to me. That is still more compliceted than this: 738 A321 788 789 (78J) A359 A35K If they really need the A319 for a certain number of missions it won't make the fleet harder to manage since the pilot pool will be the same wi...
Jump to postThis isn't difficult....He is saying that an A321 @220 seats is heavier than a 797 @270 seats on a per seat basis, which isn't that much of a stretch to imagine IMO. Not that difficult . . .? ? (yes, I realize I'm pulling this slightly out-of-context). I think it will be very difficult, if not impo...
Jump to postIt is, and basically a subtype using most of the same components. I agree 100% that the A320 family is a great frame, but it's 30 years old now. It's inevitable that a replacement is going to happen at some point and I think the NEO is the last update that frame will see. The base model also needs ...
Jump to postAs for the thread subject, I think a modular type approach might be worth exploring. Increase the length of the A320/A321 replacements by roughly a couple meters. Base the wing around the A321/A322 which would be the same length and use the same wing, vertical & horizontal stabilizers. Differen...
Jump to post220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that... You were saying the A322 could be a stretch too far where it would compete against a lighter frame, The "A322" could very well end up being a "stretch to fa...
Jump to postBut wouldn't it be cheaper to produce two different wings rather than two different fuses? Could keep the current A320 wing as is and just make a new wing for the longer range and longer fuse variants with the new carbon wingbox they have already produced. It is much easier to create different fuse...
Jump to postAs for the thread subject, I think a modular type approach might be worth exploring. Increase the length of the A320/A321 replacements by roughly a couple meters. Base the wing around the A321/A322 which would be the same length and use the same wing, vertical & horizontal stabilizers. Differen...
Jump to postRight now we don't know if Airbus will certify ACTs on the A350. I'm aware QF challenged Airbus and Boeing, but it remains to be seen if Airbus would go through the effort for just two potential customers (QF and NZ). I'm skeptical. True, this is all hypothetical at tho moment regarding the A35K, b...
Jump to postAgreed completely, it'll be interesting to see what AA does in the months years ahead. I put question marks next to the 78J for the reasons stated. In an absolute perfect world, I would want this, circa 2025-2030: 788 789 A359 A35K 779 Simple, yet versatile. Scenario #1 and #4 seem to be the ones m...
Jump to postIt was brought up in the QF UHL thread that a A35K with 316t MTOW (has been bought up by Airbus as a possibility) and an ACT could do 9500Nm with a 24t payload. I wonder if the improvements made to the -900LR could be made to the -1000 to get a similar range plane with higher capacity?
350helmi
Great thread! Lots of different scenarios that could happen! Scenario 1: A350 order kept, replacing 77E and/or A350 order increased A332 788 789 A359 777 Scenerio 2: A350 order increased, including the -1000 as a potential 77W replacement A332 788 789 A359 A35K Scenario 3: A350 order converted from...
Jump to postSure, Sandilands can sometimes be useful. But what are you trying to suggest: That AJ wants to put 300 seats in a 359 to do Sydney-London? That his new ULH fleet will have a passenger density much higher than his 789s? 50 more passengers than SQ's standard 359s? Well Sandilands is starting to sugge...
Jump to postAlright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well. Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work. A332 788 789 A359 A35K 779 Good co...
Jump to postAlright, let's assume the A350 goes through, no conversions. 22x is a good start to replace some 77Es, with additional 789s as well. Now, eventually, if they want the extra capacity, and to replace the 77Ws, perhaps the A35K and 779 with Flagship First would work. A332 788 789 A359 A35K 779 Good co...
Jump to postThe 789 has considerably lower trip cost and than the 359. Second, cargo is less than 2% of AA's revenue. They clearly do not need a cargo/pax jet trans-pacific. The 789 obviously seems to work well for them. I fully expect AA to use most if not all of their remaining 50 + options with Boeing for a...
Jump to postWhy? With all those 787-9s, it seems like the replacement is clear. The only thing the A350 has over the 787-9 in this case is payload. AA may not think it's worth integrating a whole new plane into the fleet. As has been made clear in this thread, so far the 789s have replaced 767s, and for that r...
Jump to postAgain though, it comes down to how much AA actually needs the 77E's capabilities, and how close its replacement has to be to them. Most of AA's 77Es are flying TATL or down to South America, only a handful are flying TPAC. Most of them could honestly be replaced with A333s (like many carriers, such...
Jump to post3. Walk away and blame the lost deposits on the decisions of the old PM-US management team and/or changing business conditions. Maybe Boeing will help eat the loss if they want to keep the A350 out of the account bad enough. 4. Do a United - order more A350-900s in order to replace the entire 77E f...
Jump to postMy question for you Matt, is that having spent so much time explaining to us why the A380 has such an issue because a larger frame by definition needs lower CASM to offset the higher trip cost, where does the 777-9X's small CASM advantage fit into your theorem given that the 777-X has to carry cons...
Jump to postThere are over 1500 777 first generation frames that have been ordered. If the 777x gets even a third of those replacements it will be very successful. I expect at least half of the newer 77W and 77L replacements will go to the 777x. Talk of the 777x not being successful is silly. The assumption is...
Jump to postastuteman wrote:Does anyone know the status of the first A330-800?
Rgds
airbazar wrote:Yes except I'm leaning towards the idea that the A338 will suffer the same faith as the A358.
The base A350 at EIS had great performance and efficiency the improvements we will see over the next few decades will make the aircraft even better. It will be very interesting to see what Airbus is proposing to QF for the SYD LHR flights, that will probably be the basis for the A350 freighter. Tha...
Jump to postWhat makes the 777X better? New wings, new engines, new surfaces, new interior, new avionics, enhances aerodynamics, superior payload, superior range... Comparing the 777X and A350, I doubt there will be much, if any, advantage to either from wings, interior or avionics since both will be of the cu...
Jump to postAnd in light of these numbers, which Airbus must know, I think it's only logical to think that Airbus are planning to increase the MTOW of the A359 further to make better use of the available tankage. How much they can increase that I have no idea. We may be close to that limit at 280,000kg conside...
Jump to postIf fuel capacity goes up from 123t to 130t (I'll stick to tons, if that's ok), all that happens is the "MTOW limited" portion of the R/P chart gets extended to the right by 7t. So for the 280t LR Max payload range remains 6 250Nm Nominal range remains 8 500Nm @ 31t Payload at 9 000Nm rema...
Jump to postWell yes and no. Since the aircraft is weight limited right now, it will only make sense to add to the available fuel volume once it becomes fuel limited, .. you misunderstood my reservation. the outer question ( A350-* performance ) already contains the MTOW limits. If you drop the inner question ...
Jump to postI'd be interesting to know if the 165kl ( as offered currently on the ULR ) is the final word on volume available in this wing? Indeed, but since the A359 is already heavily weight restricted I doubt we'll see if there are any more reserves in the wings any time soon. Raising the -1000 tankage to t...
Jump to postWith specific reference to the A359LR vs 772LR, there's a couple of ways to compare, I guess. ... The 280t A350LR will fly its max payload about 6 250Nm, still well short of the 772LR With max fuel load, (with I assume the same 123t capacity as the A350-1000) it will fly (by my calculations) a whop...
Jump to postI'd be interesting to know if the 165kl ( as offered currently on the ULR ) is the final word on volume available in this wing? Indeed, but since the A359 is already heavily weight restricted I doubt we'll see if there are any more reserves in the wings any time soon. Raising the -1000 tankage to t...
Jump to postWith specific reference to the A359LR vs 772LR, there's a couple of ways to compare, I guess. ... The 280t A350LR will fly its max payload about 6 250Nm, still well short of the 772LR With max fuel load, (with I assume the same 123t capacity as the A350-1000) it will fly (by my calculations) a whop...
Jump to post