Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
TheGeordielad wrote:A319neo has sold that well so why would they put the time and effort for an A318neo
Channex757 wrote:The only market traction would be for the A318 corporate jet, and that can be covered by the A319NEO if necessary. There's just no justification, especially with the C Series in the same market.
An A318NEO would be a total money loser and might not even be an easy upgrade with those huge engines.
PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
benbeny wrote:Why do they need to?
They must face competition from at least CRJ, ERJ, MRJ, COMAC, SuperJet, ATR, Q400.
I agree, they finally realized that A318 and B736 isn't a sound business plan and someone else has better product suited for that niche, so they better focus on duopoly currently held on 120-220 seats jets.
Ziyulu wrote:I wonder if Airbus will develop an A317? Smaller jet.
cheapgreek wrote:benbeny wrote:Why do they need to?
They must face competition from at least CRJ, ERJ, MRJ, COMAC, SuperJet, ATR, Q400.
I agree, they finally realized that A318 and B736 isn't a sound business plan and someone else has better product suited for that niche, so they better focus on duopoly currently held on 120-220 seats jets.
I don't see the ATR and Q400 in the same category. Too small, too slow and very little range. Props are poor sellers in America.
Bostrom wrote:PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
If BA decides to buy new planes for the LCY-JFK service, there are other alternatives, like the CSeries. If I'm not mistaken, Bombardier showed not so long ago that it has the range to travel non stop between London and New York.
I believe Airbus would be stupid to put money into developing an A318neo, given that the larger A319neo hasn't sold well. But if some airline called Airbus and and asked if they could buy a large amount of A318neos, they would probably change their mind. But an airline interested in a plane that size would probably also look at the Cseries and E-jet.
Ziyulu wrote:I wonder if Airbus will develop an A317? Smaller jet.
PEK777 wrote:After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
ASQ400 wrote:PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
I am not sure if this is supposed to make me laugh or cry.
LCY-ORD might be possible if you replace some passengers with fuel tanks, but that's about it. LCY-HKG or SIN are both distances that no commercial narrowbody can pull off.
benbeny wrote:ASQ400 wrote:PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
I am not sure if this is supposed to make me laugh or cry.
LCY-ORD might be possible if you replace some passengers with fuel tanks, but that's about it. LCY-HKG or SIN are both distances that no commercial narrowbody can pull off.
LCY-SIN is 5859 nm great circle, and LCY-HKG is 5192 nm great circle. It is doable with largest bizjets today, but I don't know if anyone has a business plan to for it. It might be not that efficient afterall, better to stick with LHR/LGW flight with widebodies combined with better first class product.
PEK777 wrote:It seems like their would be a market for it. After all, they will eventually need new planes for London City to New York. A more efficient 318neo could make a host of new flights to financial centers viable. LON-ORD, LON-MKE, LON-HKG, LON-SIN could come to fruition. A 757max is the other option for such routes. If Airbus wants to cede this market to the competition, I suppose Boeing will be moving on a 757 upgrade pretty soon.
77west wrote:A fuselage sized for heavy, longer range versions never scales down well.
Polot wrote:77west wrote:A fuselage sized for heavy, longer range versions never scales down well.
It is not the fuselage that is the (major) problem- it is the engines (get more efficient every generation...but also heavier), gear (get beefed up to support the higher weights of the other variants), and wings (get larger/more optimized for longer flights).
BartSimpson wrote:It's a "break even"...
kaitak wrote:The 736 and 318 were both failures, but the Embraer E-jets and similar sized aircraft, built specifically for this market have been successful; Airbus and Boeing recognise that others are best suited to developing the 100-120 seat market and they (A and B) will focus on the 130-220 seat markets where their products are optimised.
SCAT15F wrote:It may be an economic failure, but the 318 looks better (my opinion), flies better, is the most comfortable to ride in (shorter cabin length makes it feel roomier) and outperforms all the rest of the 320 series. There truly is no justice in this world. Long-live the baby bus!