Kilopond
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:11 pm

Hey folks, just search for the A30X - this is how the A320 successor had been dubbed. The project was shelved when Airbus decided to do the NEO.

More recent reports (or rumors) suggest the A30X would come some time in the mid-20ies.
 
dare100em
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:13 pm

The NMA/MOM will fill all the gap up to a 787-9 in the long run. Cargo profits and fares are constantly erroding, so there is no need for LD3-capabillities. The fuse will probably be designed to be 2-4-2 in sardine configuartion, 195" wide fuse is enough for that. With this numbers in mind you get a plane which will be in the weight range of a 767-200 with 767-300 capacity. No, it won't have single aisle economis but be fare more economic than the classic widebodys today and much cheaper to build. I expect a AlLi-fuse with a carbon wing. It will be a LCC plane to fly alot people in a crowded configuration at medium distances, which is a huge - and evolving - marked.

It won't directly replace a A321 for sure, but that's not the point. For that market Boeing has to build another plan in the long run in any case. With that lineup Airbus will be forced to do something too because above the A312 the only option left will be the A350. It will still sustain >50% profits in the single aisle marked ofc.
 
parapente
Posts: 1997
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:14 pm

As many here have said.Is there really a market in this 'so called' gap?If there really was airlines would 'abuse'the nearest to It product.IE the 338/788 but they haven't.Cant say there is not a market but even a major airline said 'they didn't get it' when Boeing showed them their twin aisle concept.That tells you that it wasn't the airline asking for it (i.e. Being marketing oriented -but Boeing suggesting it -manufacturing oriented).
Boeings 737-10 seems to have received a 'mmm' response from lessors I note.The standard A321NEO has this reduced range offering covered already.And as stated above if airlines wanted a super low CASM regional machine then Airbus could simply do a small stretch (250 pax -a magic number?) and trade range for weight.
Airbus does not need to respond to a desperate paper aircraft.What they need to do is crank out A321NEO LR's as fast as they can.And to make D Trump v happy make em' in the USA.
For Airbus to hear that their 321lr aircraft covers 95% of their requirements must make them swing from the chandeliers!

Perhaps the best way at looking at the A321NEO NEO LR is to imagine it is a brand new aircraft.Not a derivative although God knows that helps too in terms of low cost,low maintenance and 'family'.
If someone said here is a new (cheap) aircraft.It takes 240 pax in single economy class.Circa 210 in 2 class and has tatl range(both more than the 757) and consumes 30% less fuel -you might be amazed.Well you should be.
Let Boeing mumble about 'their' MOM ,let them blather on about cargo (bet they are -not important for this market).Just sit back and smile.And if you can look to make further small improvements and twist the knife.An extra couple of tons mtow?,Additional 'feathers' on the BW's?A further pip on the gtf?5% missing might just become 1%!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:28 pm

Any tricks that you can play to make a twin aisle have the economics of a single aisle you can play with a single aisle and make it even better. If you assume that each seat or aisle is a seat width then you get 6 useful seats across for every 7 seats space i.e. 86% useful width. With 2-3-2 it is 77%, 2-4-2 is 80% 3-3-3 is 82% and then if you are looking at the volume or area the differences are magnified due to being the square of the difference.

With the A350-1000 in flight testing and the NEO(s) developing nicely the airbus engineers aren't going to be sitting on their hands, they have (or seem to have) the benefit of time to get a re-winged A320 right. My understanding is that they have flown a wing with a different systems architecture and this could be a huge benefit for risk management.

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:44 pm

I think Kesje is right on the LD3-45's. My guess is it will be the Oval 2x3x2 concept we have been hearing about.

Think of an oval the Height of the A320 Fuselage that is about 30" wider in total (Using 737 Width saves you 6 inches - Narrow the existing aisle by 2" - Add another at 18" then add another seat and armrest - call it 19" - Total 29").

As the Fuselage is wider you can move the floor down a little for more headroom/bins and still have room for an LD3-45 below.

Take a look at this picture https://www.google.ca/search?q=a320+fus ... tOkimxaC3M:

The extra skin drag of an Oval that is only 30" wider and the same height as an A320 is minimal (we did the calc's somewhere on this site before and I think it was about 6% - offset by probably better lift from the Fuselage itself.).

It won't be that Heavy and basically still Single Aisle sized.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:02 pm

Stitch wrote:
Oh I agree with you that Airbus is at least studying it. My comments were aimed at those who perhaps feel they are not.


A lot of how Airbus will / should / has to react is dependent on Boeing managing to create another "drug like rush" like what
they achieved for the Dreamliner or not.

This will have to master higher hurdles than before. Burnt fingers and such come to mind.
Took Airbus quite a while to understand that a mirage can not be countered by hardware.
Murphy is an optimist
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 489
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:16 pm

Out of curiosity, what's the maximum number of seats you can have from an aisle?
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:25 pm

kurtverbose wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's the maximum number of seats you can have from an aisle?


3 afaik. i.e. no PAX more than 2 seats removed from an aisle.

Single Aisle allows 6 ( 3 left, 3 right )
double Aisle should allow 12 ( 3 + 3/3 + 3 ) 12 across, nobody done that yet :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
giblets
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:20 pm

Boeing are in quite a quandary at the moment, they have effectively split many of their traditional max 9 customers with the 10, they are then looking at possibly harming the Max 10 (which they claim is so good) with the MOM.
Meanwhile, Airbus have the relatively(!) simple job of the A322 which could grab a whole load of the MOM market with performance, and then undercut the MOM with lower costs. Or conceivable, they could bring out their own MOM
 
wingman
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
I'm gonna put this "widebody with narrowbody economics" in the same ballpark as "Boeing will build an 787 in just 3 days".


I agree, it will never happen because it makes no sense. What will happen is the launch of Boeing's 737 replacement the width of the 320 series, all new materials and powerplants etc etc and the only thing "revolutionary" about it might be the wing/engine options. I think we'll see two fuselage lengths scaled up slightly longer than the present 8/9 and 20/21 choices and wing/engine choices on the largest variant or both. I could easily see Boeing building one configuration in the US and the other in Korea, with 787 style risk sharing on the primary wing/engine components. Mitsu doing the 787 wing never hurt that program and KAI is a solid supplier as well..as far as I know. Or join forces with Embraer and build some down in Brazil. Offer one variant of each length that does 3000 miles and another that does 5000. Four planes from two lengths and two sets of wings that span every conceivable range of missions in the 180-240 passenger load segment. Offer one wing to Boeing engineers and another to any partner willing to pony up the investment in exchange for the manufacturing rights. In the above scenario Mitsu could do the one wing and maybe KAI does the fitting out.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7265
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:34 pm

WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Oh I agree with you that Airbus is at least studying it. My comments were aimed at those who perhaps feel they are not.


A lot of how Airbus will / should / has to react is dependent on Boeing managing to create another "drug like rush" like what
they achieved for the Dreamliner or not.

This will have to master higher hurdles than before. Burnt fingers and such come to mind.
Took Airbus quite a while to understand that a mirage can not be countered by hardware.


You really have the talking points down. Kudos.
-Dave
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:48 pm

I'd hope they'd be in a condition to react.

They might still be shell shocked with how the highly efficient MAX10 is about to end the A321NEO with those superior economics Boeing sold on that very accurate slide at ISTAT.
 
airzona11
Posts: 803
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:37 pm

The only reason there is no plane truly addressing the A300/757/A310/767/A332 market is because with only 2 manufacturers, airlines don't have that many options.

A purpose built plane for their segment would no doubt sell. But with only 2 options, the result is Iterations of the A321 and 737.

Here's to hoping we get a new bird in the mid-2020s!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:00 am

No, the real reason is that airlines did not buy new 757s and happily traded many of them for 737NG and A321s. While many also happily exchanged their A300/310s for A330s and Boeing did also not sell too many 767 sales after the A330 was available. Boeing tried many times to interest airlines in refreshed 757s /767s, but there was not enough interest.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:46 pm

:old: The moment 757 and 767 were up for refreshment there was 9-11. Boeing ended the costly 757 line and AA & UA were out as launching customers for 767-400ERX (GP7000/Trent600). Then came the 767 tanker scandal (9-11 reaction IMO) & Boeing decided to go for a Yellowstone Y2 Carbo330, after airlines bulked on the SonicCruiser. B757 is a narrow body at WB production costs. Don't know how that could have been rectified. :old:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2000-07-26-The-Newest-Boeing-767-Is-Inspired-By-The-Future-Introducing-The-Boeing-767-400ER
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:03 pm

Last time around Boeing plugged this "gap" with two frames - 757 and 767.

Is one solution now viable? I can see LCC interest more in a "long A320 / B737" to sit above their enormous fleets of each, while legacies may focus more on a "short A330 / B787".
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:55 pm

keesje wrote:
B757 is a narrow body at WB production costs.

Don't necessarily disagree, but I do wonder 1) what indications you have that it had WB production costs, and 2) what's the fundamental difference between NB and WB production cost?

Thanks,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:32 pm

PW100 wrote:
keesje wrote:
B757 is a narrow body at WB production costs.

Don't necessarily disagree, but I do wonder 1) what indications you have that it had WB production costs, and 2) what's the fundamental difference between NB and WB production cost?

Thanks,
PW100


It's about the production process. How much is assembled at the FAL and in the supply chain. B757 and 767 were developed in paralel, leading to commonality, but also compromises.

Most importantly, in the late nineties, early 2k's Boeing had a series of production process optimizations and lean 6 sigma projects on the 737 line. So the 737 line had become way more efficient and Boeing decided to move forward with the 737-900ER. Economies of scale and 80-90% coverage of 757 missions did the rest.

So in hindsight :old: the 757 (production) didn't keep up, maybe (justified?) lack of investment in production efficiency.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9dwqu7pRqGg


Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:19 pm

keesje wrote:
Image


What does the highlighting on the map represent? Sri Lanka is lit up, and most of populated China is not??
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:26 pm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:20 pm

If Airbus indeed goes for a higher capability A320 version, a new wing is a key factor. The high wingloading of the current wing limit initial cruise levels and sub-optimal fuel efficiency. A significant lower wingloading seems required for better cruise early in long flights. Also fuel for up to 4500-5000NM with lots of payload needs to find a place on a bigger A322. Looking at recent wing design R&D from NASA, Onera and DNW, it's clear a high aspect ratio's and thin wings are probably the future.

Image

Leaving less space for fuel in the wing, while more is needed. So probably more fuel needs to go in the belly. Extra fixed (lighter) fueltanks just before and aft of a new centre wingbox seems most likely, close to the centre of gravity. Furthermore the wing should be ready to facilitate new engines being developed with even higher BPR's / fans later on in the twenties. The current A321 wing design is 25 years old, a new one will probably look entirely different.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:07 pm

keesje wrote:
If Airbus indeed goes for a higher capability A320 version, a new wing is a key factor. The high wingloading of the current wing limit initial cruise levels and sub-optimal fuel efficiency. A significant lower wingloading seems required for better cruise early in long flights. Also fuel for up to 4500-5000NM with lots of payload needs to find a place on a bigger A322. Looking at recent wing design R&D from NASA, Onera and DNW, it's clear a high aspect ratio's and thin wings are probably the future.

Image

Leaving less space for fuel in the wing, while more is needed. So probably more fuel needs to go in the belly. Extra fixed (lighter) fueltanks just before and aft of a new centre wingbox seems most likely, close to the centre of gravity. Furthermore the wing should be ready to facilitate new engines being developed with even higher BPR's / fans later on in the twenties. The current A321 wing design is 25 years old, a new one will probably look entirely different.


This.....Lets say this A320/A321 replacement is 10 years out. Why would Airbus dump three to four billion on an A320 based A322 with a production life of 6 to 7 years?

Besides that, Airbus has stated it time to reap in profits from present and new platforms. A321 (printing money) and the A350 have large back orders and are easily covering the losses of the A380 production slow down. Don't think Airbus is any hurry to invest billions into a new platform.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:31 pm

william wrote:

This.....Lets say this A320/A321 replacement is 10 years out. Why would Airbus dump three to four billion on an A320 based A322 with a production life of 6 to 7 years.


To sell 800 for a 10-20mln premium over the A321 in the next 10 years and push Boeing towards a bigger NMA.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:34 pm

2175301 wrote:
/
KarelXWB wrote:
Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'./


I think Airbus or Boeing would have build a specific plane for a 1000 "niche" market. The problem is that the real MOM niche appears to many to be in the 200 - 400 plane range; and that is why no one is rushing to fill it. There is no way to justify the money for that small of a potential market.

Have a great day,

The United guys said the other day that the current A321 covers 90% of the MOM requirement, and it's that extra 10% they are interested in.

So for a projected niche of 1000, if we add in the 737-9 and 737-10 that would give a ballpark of 85% of the need. That cuts the numbers of planes needed right down. As low as 150 planes between two manufacturers. Hardly a convincing business case to spend a combined $20 billion or more on developing. For those shorter and lighter routes the airlines will want to fly the existing models with lower fuel burn and costs.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:38 pm

Channex757 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
/
KarelXWB wrote:
Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'./


I think Airbus or Boeing would have build a specific plane for a 1000 "niche" market. The problem is that the real MOM niche appears to many to be in the 200 - 400 plane range; and that is why no one is rushing to fill it. There is no way to justify the money for that small of a potential market.

Have a great day,

The United guys said the other day that the current A321 covers 90% of the MOM requirement, and it's that extra 10% they are interested in.

So for a projected niche of 1000, if we add in the 737-9 and 737-10 that would give a ballpark of 85% of the need. That cuts the numbers of planes needed right down. As low as 150 planes between two manufacturers. Hardly a convincing business case to spend a combined $20 billion or more on developing. For those shorter and lighter routes the airlines will want to fly the existing models with lower fuel burn and costs.


90% of the 757 market, not MOM. The 737-9 and -10 aren't the even in this discussions because this is more so about the international flying of the 757 and you could now put the 767 in the mix as well.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3225
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:40 pm

The problem with the current A321 and A321neo is the wing, IMO. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but in the sense that a new wing would greatly increase the performance of an already proven design.

Airbus is robbing the A321 of its potential. Increasing the size and length of the wings, and then stretching it to the A322 would provide an adequate response to the MoM.

There is one airline who a.) Has not said anything (as of yet) about the MoM, b.) Has aging 757s and c.) Operates the largest A321 fleet in the world who'd be a perfect Rewing A321neo/A322.

Look at my icon.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:48 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
90% of the 757 market, not MOM. The 737-9 and -10 aren't the even in this discussions because this is more so about the international flying of the 757 and you could now put the 767 in the mix as well.

Go to Flightradar24 and do a filtered search. There really aren't that many 757s flying the Atlantic, and not so many 767s nowadays either.

Asia has already been buying the existing aircraft in volume. So again where is the business case for expenditures of over twenty billion?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1561
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:15 am

Channex757 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
90% of the 757 market, not MOM. The 737-9 and -10 aren't the even in this discussions because this is more so about the international flying of the 757 and you could now put the 767 in the mix as well.

Go to Flightradar24 and do a filtered search. There really aren't that many 757s flying the Atlantic, and not so many 767s nowadays either.

Asia has already been buying the existing aircraft in volume. So again where is the business case for expenditures of over twenty billion?


This aircraft (if built) would not be only flying over the Atlantic, in my view this aircraft will end up being an international 757 replacement and a true 767 replacement.
Airlines could use an aircraft in this 4500nm-5000nm range in many different parts of the world. Plenty of airlines have spoken up about this thing and there could easily be more in constant talks Boeing. Bottom line is we can all sit here and talk about a business case for the aircraft all we like, we don't know what is happening between the airlines and Boeing. If the demand for the aircraft is there and Boeing get orders for a comfortable number of aircraft we will see it launched. If not enough commitments come in this aircraft will not see the light of day.
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:27 am

Personally, I don't think we will see a A322NEO. I do think there is lots of life left in the A320 series, and I would not be surprised to see the 320 used beyond the NEO. When that happens, I would expect airbus to drop the A319, and a re-winged A321 would become the baseline aircraft with a stretched A322 and shrunk A320.

All this may be 10-15 years out, and Airbus may start working on a replacement for the A330. Airbus may downsize the A330 replacement to cover the upper end of the MOM segment. Maybe something smaller than the A332 on the small end, and a stretch to something between the A332 and A333.

In a nutshell, I don't think Airbus needs a new aircraft specifically for MOM. This would be covered by a future A322 and A330 replacement.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:36 am

ikolkyo wrote:
This aircraft (if built) would not be only flying over the Atlantic, in my view this aircraft will end up being an international 757 replacement and a true 767 replacement.
Airlines could use an aircraft in this 4500nm-5000nm range in many different parts of the world. Plenty of airlines have spoken up about this thing and there could easily be more in constant talks Boeing. Bottom line is we can all sit here and talk about a business case for the aircraft all we like, we don't know what is happening between the airlines and Boeing. If the demand for the aircraft is there and Boeing get orders for a comfortable number of aircraft we will see it launched. If not enough commitments come in this aircraft will not see the light of day.

What you are saying makes absolute sense, but my point is that the 767 and 757 have already largely been replaced in global fleets. Many operators have upgauged to the A330 or 787-8 and the older models are diminishing day by day.

There just aren't huge fleets out there any more. Airlines like BA are replacing their 767s with the 787 for longhaul and the A321 for shorthaul. Others like Air France and KLM sold theirs on long ago. With established models doing a pincer on the MOM at what should be lower prices and costs (and here the 737-9 and 737-10 do come into it) the case is a harder sell. The less aircraft built, the higher the gate price will need to be and airlines will just adjust their sales to match cheaper models.

An A330NEO Regional would further muddy the prospects for the case if Airbus started offering it, even as a derated A338NEO-R which would start approaching the niche the A306 used to occupy.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:49 am

Channex757 wrote:
my point is that the 767 and 757 have already largely been replaced in global fleets. Many operators have upgauged to the A330 or 787-8 and the older models are diminishing day by day.

There just aren't huge fleets out there any more. Airlines like BA are replacing their 767s with the 787 for longhaul and the A321 for shorthaul.


Airbus publishes every month updated numbers, not just orders and deliveries, but also the number of aircraft in service. Looking at the Excel spreadsheet its easy to see which airline has how many of each model currently in service.

Download (Excel): http://www.airbus.com/company/market/or ... %5D=232544

There are now, as of February 2017, only 336 A300/A310 in service out of 816 delivered. It would be great is know exactly which airlines have the 767 still in service, and how many aircraft (excluding freighters) we are talking about. The A300/A310/767 are same era aircraft with MOM range and MOM size.

My question is, is there a similar overview of Boeing aircraft in service?

Looking at flightradar24.com it is easy to see that the A330 is the most common type crossing the Atlantic, and there are lots of them in Asia as well. Over the last 10 years Airbus has sold more A330s than Boeing has sold 787s. It is looking more and more like Boeing is aiming the MOM at the current A330 market. The 787 never became the 767 replacement and A330 killer it was supposed to be. On the other hand, Airbus is moving the A330 sweet spot by adding more and more range. Lately Airbus mentioned a possible MTOW increase to 251 t, better matching the 787-9.
 
777Mech
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:42 am

Are there any new powerplants by any manufacturer coming down the line to power a MOM? I would take a guess and say they would go with the 1000G if it can get certified for ETOPS assuming the MOM would go TATL.

Bring back the PW2000s!
 
WIederling
Posts: 4698
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:20 pm

keesje wrote:
Looking at recent wing design R&D from NASA, Onera and DNW, it's clear a high aspect ratio's and thin wings are probably the future.


The A350 wing has volume to boot and all the performance you could dream about.

The trick is to not do thin wings like Boeing. They carry a pronounced weight penalty ( CFRP or not ).
Murphy is an optimist
 
airbazar
Posts: 8022
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:45 pm

parapente wrote:
As many here have said.Is there really a market in this 'so called' gap?If there really was airlines would 'abuse'the nearest to It product.IE the 338/788 but they haven't.

The A338/788 are simply too expensive to operate in that way. Modern airlines want aircraft that are optimized for a specific mission and they keep them around for a lot less time. As it stands, 2xA321 are cheaper than 1 A330 so that's why airlines have gone the route of operating smaller, more economical aircraft where A310/300/B757/767 once dominated. Because there's simply nothing out there that is optimized for medium haul, 250 seat missions.

Channex757 wrote:
The United guys said the other day that the current A321 covers 90% of the MOM requirement, and it's that extra 10% they are interested in.

But that's United specifically and UA does not represent the majority of the world airlines, most of which were never even 757 operators. One thing people fail to realize is that the legacy carriers and especially U.S. legacy carriers are no longer in the driver's seat when it comes to aircraft development. The LCC's for NB and the ME carriers for WB are the ones dictating aircraft design, as things stand right now. And that is really why there is no need yet for to the 250 seat short/medium haul segment. But as the world's LCC's grow their aircraft specifications will also evolve from the current 200 seater to something larger. That is why manufacturers are talking about a 250 seat medium/short haul aircraft.
 
ACATROYAL
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:25 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:21 pm

I was planning on responding but... I think airbazar said it best!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6134
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:17 pm

Airbus could do a very constrained upgrade to a MOM with an A322. Same fuselage and a bigger, scaled wing. Keeping development cost low, by scaling the wing rather than doing a new one. The 757 has been carrying freight, not compared to a wide body, but if you fly daily or several times a day, 5t per flight still moves something. It does it without offering the use of containers. The problem with the A321LR is that there is no space left for freight if you have installed the three ACT. A bigger wing, with a larger fuel volume, would decrease the need for ACTs, could reduce drag by extending the span and would allow higher initial flight levels. There are enough 757/767 group IV gates in the world that a wingspan above 36 m should not be a problem. Adding additional length to the fuselage depends on the airlines wishes. Boarding should be able through L2, that really speeds up boarding by allowing people to move in two directions at the door.
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:58 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Airbus could do a very constrained upgrade to a MOM with an A322. Same fuselage and a bigger, scaled wing. Keeping development cost low, by scaling the wing rather than doing a new one. The 757 has been carrying freight, not compared to a wide body, but if you fly daily or several times a day, 5t per flight still moves something. It does it without offering the use of containers. The problem with the A321LR is that there is no space left for freight if you have installed the three ACT. A bigger wing, with a larger fuel volume, would decrease the need for ACTs, could reduce drag by extending the span and would allow higher initial flight levels. There are enough 757/767 group IV gates in the world that a wingspan above 36 m should not be a problem. Adding additional length to the fuselage depends on the airlines wishes. Boarding should be able through L2, that really speeds up boarding by allowing people to move in two directions at the door.

Add to that a cheap and dirty downgrade to the existing A338, as a regional version. That would give Airbus two relatively cheap aircraft to mount a pincer attack on this segment of the market.

A322 for routes that need a narrowbody and a widebody 2-4-2 and LD3 capable frame to grow into that's a lower thrust and weight version of an existing platform. The Trent 7000 looks to be an excellent performer alreadt with it's T100-TEN and XWB derived technology.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:05 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Airbus could do a very constrained upgrade to a MOM with an A322. Same fuselage and a bigger, scaled wing. Keeping development cost low, by scaling the wing rather than doing a new one. The 757 has been carrying freight, not compared to a wide body, but if you fly daily or several times a day, 5t per flight still moves something. It does it without offering the use of containers. The problem with the A321LR is that there is no space left for freight if you have installed the three ACT. A bigger wing, with a larger fuel volume, would decrease the need for ACTs, could reduce drag by extending the span and would allow higher initial flight levels. There are enough 757/767 group IV gates in the world that a wingspan above 36 m should not be a problem. Adding additional length to the fuselage depends on the airlines wishes. Boarding should be able through L2, that really speeds up boarding by allowing people to move in two directions at the door.


I think it is possible to extend the wing. It was done in the 1980s when the DC-9 was transformed into the MD80 with wing root extensions. That wing was a bit more simple since there are no engine struts, but I could see it happening again.

Isn't Airbus getting rid of the L2 door on A321s? It takes up a lot of cabin space. Having enough of a space around the door to allow boarding wastes a fair amount of interior space where seats could be squeezed in.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Airbus could do a very constrained upgrade to a MOM with an A322. Same fuselage and a bigger, scaled wing. Keeping development cost low, by scaling the wing rather than doing a new one. The 757 has been carrying freight, not compared to a wide body, but if you fly daily or several times a day, 5t per flight still moves something. It does it without offering the use of containers. The problem with the A321LR is that there is no space left for freight if you have installed the three ACT. A bigger wing, with a larger fuel volume, would decrease the need for ACTs, could reduce drag by extending the span and would allow higher initial flight levels. There are enough 757/767 group IV gates in the world that a wingspan above 36 m should not be a problem. Adding additional length to the fuselage depends on the airlines wishes. Boarding should be able through L2, that really speeds up boarding by allowing people to move in two directions at the door.


I agree. The A321 doesn't need to be stretched. What is actually missing in both OEMs catalogs, is a relatively small aircraft capable of flying medium to long haul. I think an A321 with wings optimized for long haul is the way forward. For those wishing for a new widebody MOM, I think developing a clean sheet widebody just for the MOM market doesn't have a business case.

@mjoelnir The L2 is an emergency exit only on the A321. With the "A321 plus" (from 2018) this door is permanently removed. It is replaced by one over-wing exit, and an additional, optional over-wing exit. Door 3 is moved further back, and this door can also be deactivated. Airbus got certification for increased exit limits, a total of 195 passengers can be onboard with only door 1 and 4, plus two over-wing exits. This change makes more cabin space available for seats. Excellent for a long haul configuration.

The A321 LR carries 194 passengers 2-class, and 220 passengers @ 31 pitch 1-class. A MOM needs more range than the A321 LR can offer. I think a nominal range of approximately 4600 nm would be optimal.

Image
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20615
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:52 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
There are no "new materials" that can reduce the weight by half.


No, but there are new materials that may be able to give us shapes that are not feasible with metal. There are new materials that may be able to give us a practically indefinite fatigue life. There are new materials that are stronger, stiffer, and yet lighter than metals. There are also ground-up improvements that would be prohibitive to add to a 1980s design like the A320 family. For example, a new laminar flow system would probably be easier to design on a clean-sheet design than to retrofit into an existing one.

Boeing must tread carefully in these matters. New materials will invariably offer unexpected challenges. They (finally) mastered the all-electric architecture on the 787. Will they use that design philosophy again on the 797?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:59 pm

That part of the fatigue life will turn out to be wrong. In fact an old CRFP design might be much more maintenance intensive than a metal frame.
 
airbazar
Posts: 8022
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:29 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I think it is possible to extend the wing. It was done in the 1980s when the DC-9 was transformed into the MD80 with wing root extensions. That wing was a bit more simple since there are no engine struts, but I could see it happening again.

I wonder if blended winglets instead of sharklets would offer a similar wing extension benefit.
reidar76 wrote:
I agree. The A321 doesn't need to be stretched.

Not yet but, the vast majority of A321neo customers don't need the range. If they decide that they need a 250 seat plane then the A321 will be stretched and I personally believe that we're heading that way. A single class 230 seats A321 requires the same crew as a potential single class, 250 seat A322. From a LCC perspective, they are leaving 20 potential paying customers on the ground every time an A321 takes off.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:46 pm

airbazar wrote:
the vast majority of A321neo customers don't need the range. If they decide that they need a 250 seat plane then the A321 will be stretched and I personally believe that we're heading that way.


For the A321neo to become a MOM, it needs more range than the A321 LR can provide, but keep the A321neo as it is for short range. Create a new derivate with a new wing that is optimized for high take off weight and high altitude cruising. The same engine as the A321 can be utilized. The A321 actually has a high trust to weight ratio, in order to compensate for the high wing loading.

After EIS, start work on a stretched variant.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 1946
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:01 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Airbus have weight, size and technology enhancements waiting for the A330NEO. They could make the family more competitive, but it would kill the A358, take sales from the A359, and delay/thwart bigger model sales and developments.

Airbus have similar enhancements for the A350 family, but when still building volume, the last thing you want to do is upgrade capability, which will result in marketing effort expended negotiating model / capability switching with existing customers, rather than making new sales.


You realize they already pulled the A358 off the table.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 10340
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:18 pm

In the origin idea both an A321NEO and A321NEO XR were foreseen. Because both serve different markets and you probably don't want to compromise the (largest) 200-220 seat <1500NM market with an overspecified aircraft.

Image

Operators would be offered a smaller and bigger variant, for different payload-range requirements. MTOW's could be the same.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:20 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Words like weak, shy, quiet and nervous don't really describe what is going on at an engineering and manufacturing company like Airbus. I believe their product development team is looking at the market and where there is pontential. I think it is actually less A vs B cat and mouse game than it appears on these forums. It is pretty clear that there is a gap in the Airbus product line between the A320neo and A330neo. That gap has been around for decades, so this is nothing new.


Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'.


MOM could actually open up a lot of new markets. Many talk about just US carriers being interested and Norwegian. Non-US carriers that could be interested in such a concept...provided it can accept the LD3-45 cargo container:

Westjet and Air Canada (deeper penetration into Central and South America with narrow bodies).
Aeromexico (could serve the entire Western Hemisphere with narrowbodies)
Copa (same reason as Aeromexico)
Avianca (same reason as Aeromexico)
Lufthansa Group (especially Brussels Airlines---deeper Africa penetration)
TAP Portugal (for thin TATL routes and Mozambique service)
Turkish Airlines (could serve all of Africa with narrow bodies---farthest right now is Tanzania)
Flydubai (could take over some Emirates routes if Emirates right-sizes)
AirAsia (expanding market)
Air Astana (replacement for 757s---already leasing A321neoLRs)
IAG (also doing what Air Astana is doing---could also open up destinations too thin for a Dreamliner in the USA).
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:00 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
keesje wrote:
if we add up the 757s, 767, A300, A310 and TU154 that are/were in service over the last 20 years, there is a significant market.

....but then subtract that sum by the amount of 737s, A32x, 787s, and A330s that have eaten into that number, both from below and from above.

Then the market might not be as significant as you're envisioning.

Not really. Because by the time it's in service and done filling the need for the net number you talk about, those same planes you mention that filled the role but not optimally, will be nearing 20 years old in many cases, and be ready for replacement. Just because an A332 was bought in 2010 to fill the role doesn't mean that in 2025-2030 it won't be replaced by a 797 or A360.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7265
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:05 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Channex757 wrote:
my point is that the 767 and 757 have already largely been replaced in global fleets. Many operators have upgauged to the A330 or 787-8 and the older models are diminishing day by day.

There just aren't huge fleets out there any more. Airlines like BA are replacing their 767s with the 787 for longhaul and the A321 for shorthaul.


Airbus publishes every month updated numbers, not just orders and deliveries, but also the number of aircraft in service. Looking at the Excel spreadsheet its easy to see which airline has how many of each model currently in service.

Download (Excel): http://www.airbus.com/company/market/or ... %5D=232544

There are now, as of February 2017, only 336 A300/A310 in service out of 816 delivered. It would be great is know exactly which airlines have the 767 still in service, and how many aircraft (excluding freighters) we are talking about. The A300/A310/767 are same era aircraft with MOM range and MOM size.

My question is, is there a similar overview of Boeing aircraft in service?

Looking at flightradar24.com it is easy to see that the A330 is the most common type crossing the Atlantic, and there are lots of them in Asia as well. Over the last 10 years Airbus has sold more A330s than Boeing has sold 787s. It is looking more and more like Boeing is aiming the MOM at the current A330 market. The 787 never became the 767 replacement and A330 killer it was supposed to be. On the other hand, Airbus is moving the A330 sweet spot by adding more and more range. Lately Airbus mentioned a possible MTOW increase to 251 t, better matching the 787-9.


Here's a thread tracking the worldwide 767 fleet from what I can tell:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1352665
-Dave
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7265
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:37 pm

keesje wrote:
In the origin idea both an A321NEO and A321NEO XR were foreseen. Because both serve different markets and you probably don't want to compromise the (largest) 200-220 seat <1500NM market with an overspecified aircraft.

Image

Operators would be offered a smaller and bigger variant, for different payload-range requirements. MTOW's could be the same.


I like that lineup. The A320.5 and A322 really round out the lineup. In fact, I could see some carriers just going A320.5/A322 and calling it a day.
-Dave
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus Responds to Boeing MoM launch '17/'18, Not?

Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:42 pm

seahawk wrote:
That part of the fatigue life will turn out to be wrong. In fact an old CRFP design might be much more maintenance intensive than a metal frame.


This has been my concern for many years now (that there are certain aspects of CFRP construction which might turn out to be maintenance issues)... interesting to see someone else express it!
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos