We have been discussing this Middle of the Market requirement for years.

Many interesting concepts and insights came out of it.

Leahy lately has been saying they have the MoM already in the house, the A321LR.



Meanwhile the A330 is turning into a long haul machine and sales of the -200/-800 create little enthusiasm for the next 10-15 yrs.

Will Airbus wait and see? History shows they probably won't (A330/340, A380, A400, A350, A320NEO).

And the company isn't in a particularly weak / shy phase.

So what will happen? Leahy has been relatively quiet. That alone used to make Seattle nervous in the past.

That is just a fantasy right? Unrelated to Airbus.
No need to discuss that picture from a program strategy standpoint.

keesje wrote:

So what will happen? Leahy has been relatively quiet. That alone used to make Seattle nervous in the past.

They don't have to be nervous, Leahy will retire in 2018.

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.

When Airbus started to drop the A358 because it was not turning out to be a viable plane, they knew they couldn't leave a gap between the A321 and A359. That is when we got the A330neo. Does Airbus feel that they need to fill in te gap between the A321 and A339? The A338 is not looking like it is going to get very far in the market, with only 6 orders so the gap has increased. Can Airbus either stretch the A321 or build a new plane and profit from a plane in the middle of the market category? I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that. This is about engineering a workeable plane given the constraints of the A321 or the expense associated with an all new plane. It is not about being, weak,shy, or nervous. It is a legitimate business case cost benefit analysis.

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'.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.

What is your belief based upon, tea leaves, the direction the sun came up ? or actually something factual ??

It would be nice to work out what parts of your post is your opinion, and what is actually fact.

Can you clarify for us all how you know what their " engineering and strategy teams" are working on ?

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.

No, no, business can be pretty hectic, sporty & energizing, given the right leadership. Not just specialists doing calculations. I won't go into details, but let Boeing do the talking:

To rivals at Boeing, Mr. Leahy is a showman and his baiting of ''our friends in Seattle,'' the manufacturing base for Boeing, is infuriating. Boeing's weekly sales meeting used to kick off with a slide of a cartoon asking, ''Where's Leahy?'' Boeing has even hired an actor to play him at a sales conference to fire up the staff. ''John was the guy that at Boeing we loved to hate, and we blamed him for a lot of the losses that we experienced against him,'' said Toby Bright, a former sales chief at Boeing

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E2DE1739F931A25751C0A9679D8B63&pagewanted=all

Sometimes I think Airbus should launch more paper planes to keep people happy.

The new posts about NMA/MOM are actually so conflicting that they make a point to stay away from the concept. Sure if I promise unicorn sparkles, airlines are interested. Who would not love a twin aisle with single aisle economics covering anything from 200 to 270 pax and flying as far as 5000nm while still being competitive on short routes? And it should obviously not cost more than the single aisle solution adjusted by the extra seats.

seahawk wrote:

Sometimes I think Airbus should launch more paper planes to keep people happy.

The new posts about NMA/MOM are actually so conflicting that they make a point to stay away from the concept. Sure if I promise unicorn sparkles, airlines are interested. Who would not love a twin aisle with single aisle economics covering anything from 200 to 270 pax and flying as far as 5000nm while still being competitive on short routes? And it should obviously not cost more than the single aisle solution adjusted by the extra seats.

You are right there, paradigm shifts are rare.. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

It all starts with new engines. We should discuss engine drawings first and see what kind of aircraft they could support and when.

Zeke, again there is no need to be rude (tea leaves??). A belief is not a fact. It is what I think based on my observations and understanding of the industry. I have never talked directly with anyone in Airbus marketing or strategy, but I have talked to people who have spoken to them. My understanding is there is a product development team that includes engineering, strategy and finance where they evaluate the market and what opportunities exist. John Leahy is a spokesman. There is a whole team supporting him evaluating the market and I believe they are studying the Middle of the market to decide what Airbus should do. Both the A321LR and A330neo are airplanes that hit the top and bottom of the middle of the market and close the gap that was between the original A321neo and A350.

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'.

I agree that just because there is a gap, there is not necessarily a business case. I believe that Airbus has teams evaluating the size of the gap, market interest, what engineering options there are to capture what market exists, the cost of doing so and the profitability. Airbus and Boeing put out market forecasts. We have seen them before and and they can predict the future well in some areas and not as well in others.

They would be silly (irresponsible?) if they weren't looking at it. But as KarelXWB points out, there may just not be a there there. I think us avgeeks would love there to be such a market, but is there really. My Magic 8 Ball says "Ask again later".

zeke wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.

What is your belief based upon, tea leaves, the direction the sun came up ? or actually something factual ??

It would be nice to work out what parts of your post is your opinion, and what is actually fact.

Can you clarify for us all how you know what their " engineering and strategy teams" are working on ?

Whoa son, take it easy, anyone can express an opinion, whether they have facts or not.

It's like a computer. You think you are buying the best and latest technology now, meanwhile the backroom boys are already busy with the next design that is way ahead of your one. And I can't imagine all those design engineers now sitting there twiddling their thumbs because there is nothing new, I bet they are hard at work.

I believe that there has to be something in the research and development phase at Airbus that is probably in the development top secret phase. The A330neo, A321LR, and A350-1000 should all wrap up development and enter service within two years. What is next at Airbus? I know they are hard at work addressing supply chain and production problems (especially engines) on the A400M, A320neo and A350, along with some delays to the A330neo caused by Rolls Royce, but they have to have something for all their design engineers to work on in a few years. Airbus will have a fantastic product line in a couple years with the A320neo, A330neo and A350 production lines at full capacity. What will they do with all that cash flow? Someone has to be looking into what is next. It could be an attempt to capture some of the Middle of the market if that is sufficient, or it could be something else.

I can't help but feel that Keesjes ideas of a new wing for the A321 and a new A322 are the logical next steps for airbus, the current wing works great on the current crop and if there was a bigger longer wing to aid longer range/higher weights then it would enable the gap to be filled "relatively" easily.
the size of this looks interesting
http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-e ... -aircraft/

I can't see how anything other than a 3-3 layout is going to get traction, airbus has a cross section of this size that loads pallets so if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I'd love to have the time to draw a proper constraints diagram for something like this and get a wing sized correctly for the given mission but alas I have adult responsibilities *humbug*

Fred

There was quite a bit of chatter about the MoM over the past day or two, but it's mostly been from UAL or from the executives of lease companies.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

I have no who idea who will do what from A or B, but I do enjoy following the rumor mill.

flipdewaf wrote:

I can't help but feel that Keesjes ideas of a new wing for the A321 and a new A322 are the logical next steps for airbus, the current wing works great on the current crop and if there was a bigger longer wing to aid longer range/higher weights then it would enable the gap to be filled "relatively" easily.

And what would that cost - $2 to $4 billion as a rough guess? What would a new MOM aircraft cost? The 787 cost nearly $30 billion. Spread out of the 1000 aircraft projection and that's a very big premium Boeing is going to need to justify the programme.

Newbiepilot wrote:

When Airbus started to drop the A358 because it was not turning out to be a viable plane, they knew they couldn't leave a gap between the A321 and A359.

Nice narrative. Reality saw significant numbers of A358 ordered.( >180 ~2009/10 )
Then Airbus got busy and started to move those customers "up" or "down".

So "turned out to be not viable" appears to lack substance.
Causality must be different.

The A330 NEO was offered in, what? 2014. IMU when an acceptable engine upgrade was available for the taking.

Trent1000 and GenX both had run through various PIP iterations until they actually met their design spec.

Trent1000TEN is the first to go beyond initial spec.
Trent7000,. a trent 1000TEN with aircraft bleed activated ) is more or less "cheap for the taking" and provides the A330 with leading edge sfc. We saw Airbus planning frustrated slightly by political order delays from China. ~1 year delay for the Trent1000TEN widened this a bit more while another batch of CEO orders helped to narrow the production slump.
Without that the NEO changeover would have been just about at the right moment.
Slumping CEO deliveries replaced with NEO deliveries.

Lack of interest in 788 and A332/8 in recent years imho indicates a market gap and not a manufacturer gap.
( again IMU the MoM will sit in the same gap. It will sit in a slowly closing slot. ( you see the same in the lower NB segment.
The leaner meaner lighter offers like the C-Series have an efficiency advantage but they do not open a new expanding market.)

Balerit wrote:

zeke wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.

What is your belief based upon, tea leaves, the direction the sun came up ? or actually something factual ??

It would be nice to work out what parts of your post is your opinion, and what is actually fact.

Can you clarify for us all how you know what their " engineering and strategy teams" are working on ?

Whoa son, take it easy, anyone can express an opinion, whether they have facts or not.

It's like a computer. You think you are buying the best and latest technology now, meanwhile the backroom boys are already busy with the next design that is way ahead of your one. And I can't imagine all those design engineers now sitting there twiddling their thumbs because there is nothing new, I bet they are hard at work.

Every well-resourced enterprise at every industry (except those in terminal phase) will have their research teams exploring the next steps. While I have no inside information what Airbus is doing, I could bet my hat that they have teams or persons for every imaginable possibility: rewinged 320-series, rewinged 330-Lite, a cleansheet plane, major redesign of any plane due to unavailability of a critical component etc. For odder possibilities the team may be quite small and informal - perhaps some newbies given a task to practice before allowed to do serious work - and maybe they think about those ideas beside their other tasks. Anyway they should update their plans regularly, so that whenever the board asks about the status of this and that, there are people who can give an immediate updated reply - even if that is an explanation why that is not feasible in the imaginable future - and a lot of beautiful pictures and technical drawings.

And every member of every strategy team will think every day at least a second what their competitor might do next and how would they respond to that - that is what they are paid to do. If they believe that they have it clear they do not have to invest more detailed resources on that until new information emerges.

Well it could certainly be good for Boeing if Airbus is ignoring the MoM market because they believe the A321-200neo is good enough for it. Should Boeing find a ready market for whatever they come up with and launches, Airbus could have no answer ready and have to scramble to respond (perhaps creating a reversal of MAX / neo where Boeing takes a massive, if not insurmountable, market lead).

Stitch wrote:

Well it could certainly be good for Boeing if Airbus is ignoring the MoM market because they believe the A321-200neo is good enough for it. Should Boeing find a ready market for whatever they come up with and launches, Airbus could have no answer ready and have to scramble to respond (perhaps creating a reversal of MAX / neo where Boeing takes a massive, if not insurmountable, market lead).

Were they truly ignoring it, perhaps, but I doubt that's an accurate statement. I'd guess within 6 months of an MoM launch that Airbus could move on an A322, and in the interim they've got years to sell hundreds more A321neos and cut the MoM business case off at the knees.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Well it could certainly be good for Boeing if Airbus is ignoring the MoM market because they believe the A321-200neo is good enough for it. Should Boeing find a ready market for whatever they come up with and launches, Airbus could have no answer ready and have to scramble to respond (perhaps creating a reversal of MAX / neo where Boeing takes a massive, if not insurmountable, market lead).

Were they truly ignoring it, perhaps, but I doubt that's an accurate statement. I'd guess within 6 months of an MoM launch that Airbus could move on an A322, and in the interim they've got years to sell hundreds more A321neos and cut the MoM business case off at the knees.

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

Airbus could do a simple stretch of the A321, with higher MZFW, same MTOW.
This way they can trade the range for more payload capacity, for trips up to 2000NM.

Any more payload and more range will quickly overlap with the A330NEO offerings and would be obsolete or make the A330 obsolete.
It would be more profitable to sell the A330 at a lower price than to invest in a new type.

Waterbomber wrote:

Airbus could do a simple stretch of the A321, with higher MZFW, same MTOW.
This way they can trade the range for more payload capacity, for trips up to 2000NM.

Any more payload and more range will quickly overlap with the A330NEO offerings and would be obsolete or make the A330 obsolete.
It would be more profitable to sell the A330 at a lower price than to invest in a new type.

Don't think the A330 should be afraid of the A321 at all completely different beasts.

Waterbomber wrote:

Airbus could do a simple stretch of the A321, with higher MZFW, same MTOW.
This way they can trade the range for more payload capacity, for trips up to 2000NM.

Any more payload and more range will quickly overlap with the A330NEO offerings and would be obsolete or make the A330 obsolete.
It would be more profitable to sell the A330 at a lower price than to invest in a new type.

I personally don't see them doing a simple stretch - they have a perfectly capable and competitive airframe in the A321neo. In my uneducated mind, I envision the A322 as a MoM killer, not a stopgap. I don't see the A322 hurting the A338neo enough for Airbus to care, honestly.

Newbiepilot wrote:

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.

They had concepts on the drawing board (i.e. in evaluation) that would address this segment of the market at least 8 years ago.

They didn't bite then or at any point since. I would very much doubt that at any stage was the concept parked up and gathering dust.

I'd wholly agree with you that this is nothing new - and the current "will they/won't they" is indeed probably less A vs B and more A and B vs physics, geography and airline economics.

Newbiepilot wrote:

When Airbus started to drop the A358 because it was not turning out to be a viable plane, they knew they couldn't leave a gap between the A321 and A359. That is when we got the A330neo. Does Airbus feel that they need to fill in te gap between the A321 and A339? The A338 is not looking like it is going to get very far in the market, with only 6 orders so the gap has increased. Can Airbus either stretch the A321 or build a new plane and profit from a plane in the middle of the market category? I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that. This is about engineering a workeable plane given the constraints of the A321 or the expense associated with an all new plane. It is not about being, weak,shy, or nervous. It is a legitimate business case cost benefit analysis.

Question remains whether there is a real market between the A321 and A330.

The original 787 concept (7E7) started as a 1:1 767 replacement, yet airlines kept pushing Boeing to make it bigger and bigger. The 787 weight ended up twice the 767.

Even the A330 MTOW kept growing because airlines wanted more lift.

Airlines may prefer flexibility: instead of being stuck with a niche aircraft, it may be better to have an aircraft that can handle multiple missions (think about A330s flying short and long haul sectors). Even if it means sacrificing a bit of efficiency on short the routes.

KarelXWB wrote:

Question remains whether there is a real market between the A321 and A330.

I am of the opinion there has not been one (hence the lack of 767 family sales), but it seems that airlines may now be thinking there might be if they can get a frame significantly (~15%) more efficient than a 767.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Zeke, again there is no need to be rude (tea leaves??). A belief is not a fact. It is what I think based on my observations and understanding of the industry. I have never talked directly with anyone in Airbus marketing or strategy, but I have talked to people who have spoken to them. My understanding is there is a product development team that includes engineering, strategy and finance where they evaluate the market and what opportunities exist. John Leahy is a spokesman. There is a whole team supporting him evaluating the market and I believe they are studying the Middle of the market to decide what Airbus should do. Both the A321LR and A330neo are airplanes that hit the top and bottom of the middle of the market and close the gap that was between the original A321neo and A350.

Of course Airbus and Boeing constantly have small teams evaluating opportunities and dreaming up new plans/variants. That is normal. They will then float these past various airlines etc to see what traction they have.

This is normal.

It is when serious bucks start getting spent to define such paper planes in sufficient detail to put them to market. They still might not fly. I think of the original A350 and the original Max7 as cases in point. I am of course forgetting the sonic cruiser.

I see no indication that Airbus have taken any plane beyond the initial stages.

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.

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.

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.

then Boeing shouldn't launch a MoM. Or the aircraft you mention were next best to what was required & airlines had no choice. The average flight lenghts I saw of some longhaul WB's and A321 sales suggest so.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, I specialize in maritime mechanics but prefer planes over boats, hence im a total aviation nerd, but from what I can see all over this forum and in my general perception within the airline business is the need for a modern a310-300, something which has the legs to do 4-5,000 comfortably, take cargo pallets, and fit about 240 in a decent business and economy lay out, that would fill the so called niche, charter airlines in Europe could Max it out and fly it pretty much to the east coast of America and all of the med and potentially a lot African destinations. The northern American market could use it for trans con, tatl, heavy lifting between mass markets. More effective than an old 767, a 330 and even a stretched long range 321. Just my two cents but those are the main markets I see.

I could see Airbus building a new A360 with an extended A321 fuselage, new composite wing and landing gear (going to be expensive, but it's a new model after all), and enlarged P&W GTF engines that would also be offered on the Boeing MOM. A360-800 157' 5500nm 2x40k thrust engines, A360-900 187' 4250nm 2x 43k thrust engines.

Disclaimer: Very much hypothetical!

Stitch wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Question remains whether there is a real market between the A321 and A330.

I am of the opinion there has not been one (hence the lack of 767 family sales), but it seems that airlines may now be thinking there might be if they can get a frame significantly (~15%) more efficient than a 767.

If a MoM is larger and more capable than an A321neoLR, and is cheaper and as efficient (or moreso) than a 787-8, and smaller than an A330-900, it would have a chance. That's a narrow spread though. Additionally every one of those other options will still be competing for sales, particularly the Airbus options, and they have price elasticity and delivery times on their side. I do hope that a MoM comes to fruition, though. I'd think it'd be one of those frames that becomes more popular over time.

In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??

strfyr51 wrote:

In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??

That's all well and good, but the airlines need to actually want to carry that capability around on every flight. That doesn't come for free. For many, a "Narrow NEO" will be just fine and a heck of a lot cheaper to own and likely operate.

The easy solution for Airbus is a new wing for the A321 in combination with a slight stretch and a MTOW bump.

seahawk wrote:

The easy solution for Airbus is a new wing for the A321

Well... easier.

A new wing represents the majority of the design work for a clean sheet.

It would depend on how fancy they want that new wing to be, from a straight extension or scale-up of the current wing (which is over 30 years old now) or a completely new CFRP and more aerodynamically efficient design.

The latter would probably be the only way to efficiently compete against Boeing's MoM, but would be quite expensive.
I think PW would be quite capable of ramping up the power on the GTF's, however. I dunno about the LEAP.

Then again, Airbus is running out of major design projects to work on, with the A350 and NEOs reaching maturity. They're going to have to find something for their engineers to do... and this would allow to reboot growth on the 32x family which has now done all it could do with that wing.

The $10 Billion question is, again: Is there a sufficiently large market for it?

More like 3-4 billion is Airbus case.

/

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,

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,

I think if we combine Intra Asia (China!), US transcon, EMEA and Leisure Operations, there's probably a market for around 2500 aircraft in the next 20 years. I think behind closed doors Boeing and Airbus acknowledge. What they say on conferences / investor meetings depends on short term goals, e.g. discouraging airlines to look at competing products.

I think for an A321 stretch a new wing, holding fuel for 4500NM and good airfield performance (Leisure market!) and facilitating 80-90inch fan engines is key. It would be a sub family, because the 150-180 segment is too competitive/ large to bold on a oversized wing.

What people overlook is fleet scheduling.

Many of todays 757 and 767s are still in use, because they are paid off. Flying only 2 3000-4000nm sectors each day is no problem for them. A factory fresh MoM must either be quite cheap or must work on short sectors as well, to get up in utilisation. If you use longer range planes you can more easily schedule a mix of 3000nm and 5000+nm sectors, than for a plane limited to 4500nm.

seahawk wrote:

What people overlook is fleet scheduling.

Many of todays 757 and 767s are still in use, because they are paid off. Flying only 2 3000-4000nm sectors each day is no problem for them. A factory fresh MoM must either be quite cheap or must work on short sectors as well, to get up in utilisation. If you use longer range planes you can more easily schedule a mix of 3000nm and 5000+nm sectors, than for a plane limited to 4500nm.

Of course that's correct. I've seen comparisons in doc between 767 vs 757 and 757's vs A321. Add A321 NEO vs CEO efficiency improvements and it becomes clear AA and DL are replacing 757, 767's at a quick rate. Even now fuel is low and they give in on network flexibility & significant capacity. That said a real MoM would offer both capacity and medium range flexibility. I remember A330/A310 were used that way in Europe. A heavy short rotation in the early morning rush and then off over the Atlantic later in the morning.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What people overlook is fleet scheduling.

Many of todays 757 and 767s are still in use, because they are paid off. Flying only 2 3000-4000nm sectors each day is no problem for them. A factory fresh MoM must either be quite cheap or must work on short sectors as well, to get up in utilisation. If you use longer range planes you can more easily schedule a mix of 3000nm and 5000+nm sectors, than for a plane limited to 4500nm.

Of course that's correct. I've seen comparisons in doc between 767 vs 757 and 757's vs A321. Add A321 NEO vs CEO efficiency improvements and it becomes clear AA and DL are replacing 757, 767's at a quick rate. Even now fuel is low and they give in on network flexibility & significant capacity. That said a real MoM would offer both capacity and medium range flexibility. I remember A330/A310 were used that way in Europe. A heavy short rotation in the early morning rush and then off over the Atlantic later in the morning.

Indeed but those short rotations also help you with the utilisation of your long range fleet. So a MoM might not be able to replace them. For example many of the widebody rotations are also driven by a quite hefty demand for belly cargo, it is is questionable if the MoM could replace them for such tasks.
While you would need to find routes for your MoM where the A330/787 is too big, where the range of the MoM is enough and then you would additionally need to find extra short rotations requiring the capacity of the MoM. If you simply fly the MoM instead of the A330/787 you improve the utilisation of your MoM fleet by reducing it for your 787/330 fleet. And in most cases you will still need a A330/787 fleet due to range and size.

I am not convinced that there are many routes left, where you could not either use a A321LR or a 787/330 instead. The economic advantage of the MoM would need to be quite big to make it worth the effort of adding an extra subfleet. I see North American Airlines being interested in it. In Asia there could be chance, but I am not convinced that the gap between A321 and A330 size is felt there in the same way, as traffic growth is usually quite fast there and MoM would only make sense in the time a A321 is definitely too small while a A330/787 is definitely too big.

strfyr51 wrote:

In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??

So the 797 will be a A300/A310/A330 type fuselage that will seat 2-4-2 in economy. It may be a little less if you want to reduce drag and install 17" Y seats but the diameter would be between the 767 and A330 where you can fit in your 2 LD3 containers next to each other.

The problem with this design would be the weight, how much would the OEW be compared to a stretched A321? The OEW of the A300 was 195 000lb and the OEW of the A321 is 107 000lb. That is 88 000lb difference. Could you cut this difference in half by new materials compared to the A300 and would the weight gain of the A321 with a stretch and new wing be 30% compared to the A321? Only then do you reach a situation where you will have some parity regarding weight which will be important to give airlines their single aisle economics they desire.

Another question that must be haunting Boeing is, if we are able to design a new fuselage that is twin aisle and achieves the single aisle economics, what will stop Airbus from doing their own new design if the stretched A321 is not a suitable answer? I don't believe Boeing will be able to copyright a shape if that is where they achieve the most gains, or own a material that achieves the weight reduction they are looking for.

enzo011 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??

So the 797 will be a A300/A310/A330 type fuselage that will seat 2-4-2 in economy. It may be a little less if you want to reduce drag and install 17" Y seats but the diameter would be between the 767 and A330 where you can fit in your 2 LD3 containers next to each other.

The problem with this design would be the weight, how much would the OEW be compared to a stretched A321? The OEW of the A300 was 195 000lb and the OEW of the A321 is 107 000lb. That is 88 000lb difference. Could you cut this difference in half by new materials compared to the A300 and would the weight gain of the A321 with a stretch and new wing be 30% compared to the A321? Only then do you reach a situation where you will have some parity regarding weight which will be important to give airlines their single aisle economics they desire.

Another question that must be haunting Boeing is, if we are able to design a new fuselage that is twin aisle and achieves the single aisle economics, what will stop Airbus from doing their own new design if the stretched A321 is not a suitable answer? I don't believe Boeing will be able to copyright a shape if that is where they achieve the most gains, or own a material that achieves the weight reduction they are looking for.

Single aisle efficiency on a twin aisle can only be if the first is 40 years older. And even then..

I think a new MoM will settle with the LD3-45 NB versions containers and pallets. The Boeing has been dismissing the option for 25 years (bulk load is perfectly ok) because the 737 and 757 can't handle them, but Sales will make make damn sure it's an option on the NSA and/ or MoM.

Normal height WB LD3's are not needed on short / medium flights. They totally compromise efficient cross section definition, empty weight and drag and you can't get much leaner then the A300/310/330/340 section. https://bigsynthesis.com/understandingaerospace/images/ArticleImages/AirbusCS/A300CS.jpg

enzo011 wrote:

The problem with this design would be the weight, how much would the OEW be compared to a stretched A321? The OEW of the A300 was 195 000lb and the OEW of the A321 is 107 000lb. That is 88 000lb difference. Could you cut this difference in half by new materials compared to the A300 and would the weight gain of the A321 with a stretch and new wing be 30% compared to the A321? Only then do you reach a situation where you will have some parity regarding weight which will be important to give airlines their single aisle economics they desire.

There are no "new materials" that can reduce the weight by half. The aircraft will be bigger than an A321, thus heavier and will require more fuel to carry for a 5,000 nm leg. Even a more fuel efficient engine is not going to make up for that.

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

Not much to cut from the A300-330 fuselage if you want the 2 LD3s.