As Boeing's MOM airplane is getting more real, Airbus prepares to respond:

Weeks after delivering its first A321neo, upgraded with new engines, the planemaker has already begun talking to suppliers about enhanced versions called A321neo-plus and, most recently, A321neo-plus-plus, people familiar with the matter said.

Airbus's so-called A321neo-plus-plus would be rolled out if Boeing does go ahead with plans for an all-new plane seating 220-260 passengers. It would involve a new carbon-composite wing make the biggest Airbus single-aisle jet cheaper to fly.

...

Airbus has dismissed the threat of such a jet, saying any market gap is well covered by its A321neo, which can seat up to 240 people in high-density configurations. It says its own A310 several decades ago proved that twin-aisle jets can't easily compete in that part of the market.

But internally it is working on a series of improvements to the A321neo to try to thwart Boeing's grab for the middle of the market, where thousands of potential sales could be at stake.

Three industry sources said the plans include an A321neo-plus-plus with a new wing. Analysts say such makeovers cost $1-2 billion against $15 billion for a new jet.

Two sources suggested Airbus could also fine-tune its smallest twin-aisle jet, the A330, in a pincer movement against the Boeing model. But after numerous refinements since it was launched in 1987 that aeroplane is said to have limited growth.

Article
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airbu ... SKBN185101

An A321neo with a new CRFP wing would obviously open the door for a potential A322 upgrade.

Remember that Airbus started talking about A320neo Plus back in 2014.

KarelXWB wrote:

An A321neo with a new CRFP wing would obviously open the door for a potential A322 upgrade.

You gotta imagine one of those pluses refers to a stretch and the other refers to a new wing.

I am counting the seconds until "someone" will post a graphic with a fly on it...
PS.: just kidding....

N14AZ wrote:

I am counting the seconds until "someone" will post a graphic with a fly on it...
PS.: just kidding....

I do think I have seen that concept somewhere in one of the numerous topics about the 322/Airbus' MOM etc, dont remember if it included a CRFP wing though although I remember there was a discussion about it.

And I strongly suspect Airbus is following a particular member of the forum in regards to those designs

If Boeing does go ahead with the so called "797", and Airbus countered with the 321neo ++, what timeframe are we looking at for EIS? I would assume a lot earlier than 2025 if so??

scotron11 wrote:

If Boeing does go ahead with the so called "797", and Airbus countered with the 321neo ++, what timeframe are we looking at for EIS? I would assume a lot earlier than 2025 if so??

If Airbus wants to put 2025 generation engines under that CFRP wing, it won't be much earlier.

$1-$2 billion seems kind of cheap for a new wing. I imagine the costs to be more on the scale of the 777X and include a stretch. Still a lot cheaper than a new plane though.

Will this have folding wingtips? The A321 is underwinged (too high of wing loading). But it is more than a CFRP weight reduction and small aero improvement in the same wingspan. More wingspan is needed. But here is a need to stay within gate space.

I'M HOPING folding wings are a past due technology from the 1930s ready for commercial service.

Lightsaber

Good 'spot'Karel.
Of course it goes without saying that Airbus would be undertaking technical planning to cover the possibility of the MOM being launched.And Yes of course it would require a new wing (but not a new engine?) to match the figures quoted for the MOM.If a new engine is required then of course there would be no EIS advantage.
As above what (right now) would be of interest is the single 'plus' version.A simple small stretch traded for reduced range? I.e. A smaller 757-300 type of aircraft (250 one class seater?)This may be possible perhaps.

KarelXWB wrote:

If Airbus wants to put 2025 generation engines under that CFRP wing, it won't be much earlier.

Would probably depend on what P&W and CFM think they can get out of the current engines with PiPs.

Pratt particularly, were pretty aggressive in their expectations of performance - and while the GTF is having teething issues - thrust and fuel burn are not among them.

lightsaber wrote:

Will this have folding wingtips? The A321 is underwinged (too high of wing loading). But it is more than a CFRP weight reduction and small aero improvement in the same wingspan. More wingspan is needed. But here is a need to stay within gate space.

The 757 didn't seem to have many problems finding gate space although if the cost is right, folding tips could be an advantage for airlines. I just don't know if the extra weight is worth it for what would be primarily a short/medium haul aircraft. In a ULH airplane like the 777 you can justify it because it more than makes it up in fuel savings over the course of a LH/ULH mission. Not so sure how the equation works over short haul missions. What about a wider wing? That would certainly improve wing loading but it probably has a negative impact on aerodynamics.

1-2 billion seems really low for a new composite wing.

N14AZ wrote:

I am counting the seconds until "someone" will post a graphic with a fly on it...
PS.: just kidding....

Yes Keesje either predicted this or was tipped off that it was in work. The comment regarding Airbus saying the A310 proving twin aisle jets can't easily compete in that part of the market is probably marketing spin since Airbus doesn't have a viable widebody option amd wants to promote A321 stretch.

Just as many of us have expected. An A321neo with a new wing would be very smart. And open the door for a simple stretch to an A322 later on.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The comment regarding Airbus saying the A310 proving twin aisle jets can't easily compete in that part of the market is probably marketing spin since Airbus doesn't have a viable widebody option amd wants to promote A321 stretch.

The interesting part is that Airbus and Boeing will avoid direct competition in this market segment. An A321 stretch would be like a 757-300 single aisle plane, while Boeing's MOM product will be a 767 style twin aisle plane.

KarelXWB wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The comment regarding Airbus saying the A310 proving twin aisle jets can't easily compete in that part of the market is probably marketing spin since Airbus doesn't have a viable widebody option amd wants to promote A321 stretch.

The interesting part is that Airbus and Boeing will avoid direct competition in this market segment. An A321 stretch would be like a 757-300 single aisle plane, while Boeing's MOM product will be a 767 style twin aisle plane.

I agree with you. Judging by how the 787, A350 and 777x capacities were determined, it doesn't look like Airbus and Boeing want to go head to head. There could be markets for both the A321 plus and a widebody MOM. It doesn't have to be one or the other with the goal of killing the competition.

I would see this development as a natural progression once the A350-1000/A330neo work is done, but I dont think it will be a single aircraft. I would think the strategy would be longer term with a re-winged A320 series, and a A330.

I would think the wing will feature
the "more electric" wing that they have been working on for some time,
A350 adaptive wing technology as well as the low speed devices.
different electric and hydraulic architecture
upgrade the avionics like they did on the ATR72-600 from the current single computer single LRU model to their new IMA2 technology
updating the cockpit in line with the A380/A350

A lot of these updates would leverage from the A350, I think they will aim for a short to medium haul 200-250 seat aircraft with a longer A321 being the base, and a medium to long haul 250-275 seat A330 update. First aircraft probably in around 6 years, the second in around 10 years.

A new wing would allow AB to upsize the whole A32x family.

Sizing the wing is going to be an interesting exercise, but given the latest trend, I would say that they will be aiming at stretching the 321 further towards 250-260 seats. The question is, what will happen to the 320? Would it keep its current wing? would it get the new one as well, even if it's a bit too big, but the CFRP weight saving would likely make it zero-sum in the end?
Will the A319 survive, or will they finally give up the sub-150 seat market to BBD / Embraer / Mitsubishi / Etc?

Would the hypothetical 322 suffer from the 757-300 syndrome? Would they stretch the forward fuselage enough to allow door 2 boarding?

This will be fun to watch.

Really interesting article. Thanks for posting.
I am guessing a simple 3-4m stretch for the -plus with the mentioned improvements from Zeke and a maybe 4-6m stretch and new wing for the -plus plus and and the same new wing for the original A321neoLR for +4000nm range without the need for the 3 additional fuel tanks.
Like said before, the 757 didn't suffer from 38m wing span and the MOM certainly won't fit in narrowbody gates.
Don't see much A330 potential, though. An optimized 199t A330-200 won't be easy nor cheap to do.

Francoflier wrote:

Will the A319 survive, or will they finally give up the sub-150 seat market to BBD / Embraer / Mitsubishi / Etc?

I can see the whole family moving up. Thus A319/A320/A321 becomes A320/A321/A322. Same could happen on the 737, once Boeing starts replacing the MAX around 2030.

zeke wrote:

I would see this development as a natural progression once the A350-1000/A330neo work is done, but I dont think it will be a single aircraft. I would think the strategy would be longer term with a re-winged A320 series, and a A330.

I would think the wing will feature
the "more electric" wing that they have been working on for some time,
A350 adaptive wing technology as well as the low speed devices.
different electric and hydraulic architecture
upgrade the avionics like they did on the ATR72-600 from the current single computer single LRU model to their new IMA2 technology
updating the cockpit in line with the A380/A350

A lot of these updates would leverage from the A350, I think they will aim for a short to medium haul 200-250 seat aircraft with a longer A321 being the base, and a medium to long haul 250-275 seat A330 update. First aircraft probably in around 6 years, the second in around 10 years.

But at what cost to the airlines? A 250-275 A330 would be a lot more expensive than a A321neo ++....no?

Interesting divergence if Boeing went small widebody and Airbus went extended narrowbody. At the end of the day Boeing will really have to turn things around. Not spend too much in development and price the new airplane at a premium price, plus deliver the aircraft absent the 787 debacle, Airbus A321 derivative can easily undercut the Boeing offer in price however if the performance is underwhelming or the Boring plane offers the better range at a lower cost it could win. Th

So Airbus has ran the computer simulations on Boeing's paper airplane and guess what? It doesn't jive with what Leahy is saying publicly. Shocking!

Airbus has wisely decided to go down the evolution track in regards the next NB platform. Airbus had stated they wanted a new platform to replace the A320 family, but its really not necessary (Boeing has been doing the same for the 737). The CF wing will be used on the A320 too, Airbus would be foolish not too.

Re winging the A320 family allows more funding for what I think is Airbus's next project. An A330 replacement to span the gap from the A321 plus to the A350-900.

Interesting point about Boeing and Airbus not competing in the exact same space.

This would kill the 737 MAX, at least the larger versions.

KarelXWB wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

Will the A319 survive, or will they finally give up the sub-150 seat market to BBD / Embraer / Mitsubishi / Etc?

I can see the whole family moving up. Thus A319/A320/A321 becomes A320/A321/A322. Same could happen on the 737, once Boeing starts replacing the MAX around 2030.

Something I would expect, too. Abandoning 319 (and 318) size includes dangers, however.
Would they make a new smaller short-ranger, even a turboprop, for that not so small niche, or just leave it for competitors?

Otherwise, I wonder how they can make a new wing with 1-2 billions. If it were so easy and cheap we would already have it. I won't believe, unless they have recently made some breakthrough in engineering that allows easy planning and testing. Computer simulations are easy and cheap, but practical testing is always unavoidable.

I think the 757-300 proved that there is a upper limit of what is practical from a single isle point of view... I don't think stretching the 321 is a good counter idea, even if it's the lowest cost solution.
Maybe we will see Airbus focus on the lower end of the MOM market with a narrow body and Boeing go after the upper end with the 797.

william wrote:

So Airbus has ran the computer simulations on Boeing's paper airplane and guess what? It doesn't jive with what Leahy is saying publicly. Shocking!

Airbus has wisely decided to go down the evolution track in regards the next NB platform. Airbus had stated they wanted a new platform to replace the A320 family, but its really not necessary (Boeing has been doing the same for the 737). The CF wing will be used on the A320 too, Airbus would be foolish not too.

Re winging the A320 family allows more funding for what I think is Airbus's next project. An A330 replacement to span the gap from the A321 plus to the A350-900.

Interesting point about Boeing and Airbus not competing in the exact same space.

No.

Airbus is just using the same trick than Boeing and mulls about a new stretch. They should be quiet for a couple of years

One little detail from the article is that Airbus is also considering an all new single-aisle family to enter market by 2030:

One industry strategist said Airbus would at least study the option of waiting for Boeing to show its hand in the middle of the market and then accelerating development of an all-new single-aisle family by 2030, depending on engine technology.

"How both companies behave now may set their course for the next 10-15 years," he said, asking not to be named.

Exactly as I said! Although Airbus should cut it out with the dumb names and just call it what it is: A322.

As stated, I can definitely see AA being a buyer.

And the trend starts to boomerang back to years past when there were multiple planes and families on offer. With technology, being certified across families is becoming less and less of a barrier.

As A+B start to push the families larger, north of 150 seats, they seem to be offering more tailored models to meet the market, willing to break up models etc. As enthusiasts, we can all agree, fun times ahead with new planes on the horizon!

flyingcat wrote:

Interesting divergence if Boeing went small widebody and Airbus went extended narrowbody. At the end of the day Boeing will really have to turn things around. Not spend too much in development and price the new airplane at a premium price, plus deliver the aircraft absent the 787 debacle, Airbus A321 derivative can easily undercut the Boeing offer in price however if the performance is underwhelming or the Boring plane offers the better range at a lower cost it could win. Th

What does Boeing have to really turn around? Their financial performance is nothing like the gloom you describe. Airbus and Boeing are very well run companies that enjoy a healthy and fruitful duopoly.

Thing is that Boeing offered a 5k nm 757-200 17 years ago.It was then called the 757-200X.It used some of the strengthening of the -300 and used belly tanks.But-there were no takers.It was designed for all the uses we talk about now including 'deep' USA to 'deep' Europe.Ok times change - perhaps.
As above I am quite interested in the single 'plus'.A true 250 seater (one class) with perhaps 3k miles range.I could see a market for that in many parts of the World and it wouldn't need a new wing - or a new engine (ok perhaps a gtf small thrust bump.

Talking of 'bumps' Flight (I think it was)recently showed a test A320 with a 'bump' on the fuse just above/ahead of the wing root.Clearly designed to increase air flow speed over the wing root to create more lift.But for what I wonder ??

Clydenairways wrote:

I think the 757-300 proved that there is a upper limit of what is practical from a single isle point of view... I don't think stretching the 321 is a good counter idea, even if it's the lowest cost solution.

At 54,4m the 757-300 is a whopping 9.9m longer than the A321. I don't see them going there. Probably slightly longer than the 757-200 at 47,3m. You might be right that there is maximum for a single aisle. I just don't see it at 44,5m.

Clydenairways wrote:

I think the 757-300 proved that there is a upper limit of what is practical from a single isle point of view... I don't think stretching the 321 is a good counter idea, even if it's the lowest cost solution.

I don't believe that's really the case; IMO the poor sales of the 757-300 were mostly due to poor market timing and probably being 10-15 years too early with too little range. I think a 220-250 seat single-aisle aircraft with ca. 4000 nm range could be an extremely attractive product for many hub-and-spoke carriers. With proper 2L boarding (unlike the A321), the issue of turn times becomes less problematic; the only significant drawback in my view would be lack of cargo capacity.

scotron11 wrote:

If Boeing does go ahead with the so called "797", and Airbus countered with the 321neo ++, what timeframe are we looking at for EIS? I would assume a lot earlier than 2025 if so??

I think there's little value to an earlier EIS unless the difference is several years and/or the "A322" comes close to matching or beating the "797." Aircraft are long-lived capital assets, and the residual value of an A322 would take a big hit if a superior competitor were to hit the market. The MD-11 and A340 both beat the 777 to market and yet the 777 family outsold the combined figures of the other two by a factor of over three.

airbazar wrote:

The 757 didn't seem to have many problems finding gate space

The 757 came to market during a relative boom time in airport terminal construction in the U.S. (where a very significant fraction of all 757s found homes). When you're dealing with existing terminal facilities within a constrained footprint, it is of course possible to change gate spacing, but the total number of gates will decline and there still might be issues with alleyways.

I'm still not certain Airbus needs to respond if Boeing moves forward with the MoM, but if they do, more growth in the A320 family seems like the sensible way to proceed. With as much debate as there is about whether the middle of the market can pay back the development costs on one clean sheet design, I can hardly imagine it doing so for two.

But a slightly larger, longer-range Boeing MoM and a slightly smaller, shorter range A321++ could be complementary.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This would kill the 737 MAX, at least the larger versions.

I'm not so sure. If the 737 MAX 9 or 10 don't offer the capabilities needed, the A321 LR is already likely to be the choice.

The MAX 9 and 10 are already in a tight spot anyways. I suppose the A321++ or A322 could shrink their niche even further, but the likely timeline is one where Boeing needs to be getting serious about a new single aisle regardless.

Boeing778X wrote:

Exactly as I said! Although Airbus should cut it out with the dumb names and just call it what it is: A322.

A321++ sounds more like a project name, I'm sure the marketing name will be shorter.

The A321LR is pretty much reaching the limit of the single aisle aircraft. The 757-300 takes forever for passengers to exit the aircraft and also board, especially since passengers think they need to haul their 50 pound roll aways onboard. There has to be an enforced limit as to what passengers can haul on to an aircraft. The overhead bins are becoming a safety hazard with all the weight they are expected to carry. These longer single aisle aircraft become a cleaning nightmare between flights. I don't think the flight attendants are not too happy having to serve passengers in that narrow aisle as it is almost impossible for people to pass each other going opposite directions, or are lined up behind a flight attendant pushing a trolly when then need to use the lav. After a certain number of passengers, a two aisle aircraft becomes the most practical to operate. It may be wider and thus present a larger foot print which would increase the flight operation of the aircraft, but quicker turn arounds would be more possible allowing more flights per day.

If this happens, I can't wait for the threads on "How long can Airbus stretch a 30+ year old design?"

JerseyFlyer wrote:

This would kill the 737 MAX, at least the larger versions.

Indeed and thank goodness.

A310, new engines - easy done!

N505fx wrote:

A310, new engines - easy done!

You'll see the first A310neo right after you see the first 757MAX. AKA never.

scbriml wrote:

N505fx wrote:

A310, new engines - easy done!

You'll see the first A310neo right after you see the first 757MAX. AKA never.

You beat me to it by minutes. I wanted to quote the famous airliners.net "they threw away the tools"

Long narrowbodies would beat short widebodies anytime in fuel efficiency. Also, comparing an A322 to Boeing's elliptical fuselage concept, cargo space is severely limited at Boeing. But the problem with long narrowbodies is that it takes forever to turnaround. The solution could be a wider fuselage to allow a wider aisle. Wide enough so people can quickly walk through while someone is stowing their carry-ons on the overhead bins. A wider fuselage would also help stabilize such a long tube. Airbus still has time to develop an all-new narrobody family.

I could imagine that this market segment will be divided into two where Airbus A322 takes the lower end (200-250 single class) and Boeing elliptical widebody MoM/797 takes the higher end (250-300 single class).

inferno wrote:

Long narrowbodies would beat short widebodies anytime in fuel efficiency. Also, comparing an A322 to Boeing's elliptical fuselage concept, cargo space is severely limited at Boeing. But the problem with long narrowbodies is that it takes forever to turnaround. The solution could be a wider fuselage to allow a wider aisle. Wide enough so people can quickly walk through while someone is stowing their carry-ons on the overhead bins. A wider fuselage would also help stabilize such a long tube. Airbus still has time to develop an http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-s ... 016-12-new narrobody family.

I could imagine that this market segment will be divided into two where Airbus A322 takes the lower end (200-250 single class) and Boeing elliptical widebody MoM/797 takes the higher end (250-300 single class).

Maybe this?? http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-s ... eo-2016-12

lightsaber wrote:

Will this have folding wingtips? The A321 is underwinged (too high of wing loading). But it is more than a CFRP weight reduction and small aero improvement in the same wingspan. More wingspan is needed. But here is a need to stay within gate space.

I'M HOPING folding wings are a past due technology from the 1930s ready for commercial service.

Lightsaber

That seems right - not worth doing a new wing just to get the few % L/D improvement from higher cruise FL. Maybe this is where Airbus first deploys its patent for downward-folding wings? Then again, how much span delta is available within that space for A320? Maybe if the new wing has more unloaded dihedral there will be significant room to fold downwards?

Good evening everybody,
I was reading the topic, and i have some question and notices about that,
I am an enthousiast about aircrafts generaly but not really an expert on the strategy matters as the discusion is here.
I hope that you will understand that and you will not judge me very hard.
As i understand well we are talking here for two projects which they will come close to the 757,767, and A310 aircrafts. back then none of them was really a very big commersial success, during this years the situation changes so much , to make this projects profitable for both A & B?
an other question is, how an airplane like this will effect the market. it will push the market forward by giving the possibility to the airlines to open new routes, will optimize some existing routes by giving the possibility of using a more suitable airplane, or will redevolop some routes by changing timings and frequensies of the flights to make them more profitable?
Are the companies willing to buy such an airplane? i am saying that because they with one or another way they are adjust their strategy to the existing aircrafts, they adjust to the fact for example that is the A321 there and after is the A332. nothing between. from one side i believe is very welkome something to cover the gap, but from the other side, to add one more type or subtype in their fleet, together with that brings (pilots, FAA, technicians and other logistic issues) will be enough to convise them? I am saying that because in my eyes this project looks like more a fijne tunning airplane than a project that will really change the game of the industry. looks like an airplane which is good to be there, but still you can live without it. Plus, if understand well could be the size a bit troubling for the airport gates?
also I will love to make a observation, which i don't really know if is correct. Both aircrafts, A320 and 737 are old designs, somewhere down the road need a replacement. Airbus, if now goes forward with a new wing for a narrowbody, looks like that has already does quite a job for the development later of a pure 320 family replacement. Boeing from the other hand with a widebody project, still need to start from white paper for a 737 family replacement.

Time flies, we've been discussing a rewinged, reengined, stretched A321 for years. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272689 I still have not seen any official confirmation. 1-2 Billion seems too low for a new wing, wingbox, landing gear and all related sub systems. $3-4 seems more likely.

How Airbus can kill the 797...

https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/10/airbu ... oeing-797/

All it has to do is move first, instead of waiting for Boeing to launch the 797, something considered likely next year.
If Airbus launched what is commonly called the A322, a larger, longer-range version of the A321neo, the new version would become a true replacement for the Boeing 757, meet economics of the smaller 797, which has a working title of the 797-6, at a much lower capital cost.

Personally, I'd be surprised if Airbus moved first, but it would be interesting if they did.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

The A321LR is pretty much reaching the limit of the single aisle aircraft. The 757-300 takes forever for passengers to exit the aircraft and also board, especially since passengers think they need to haul their 50 pound roll aways onboard. There has to be an enforced limit as to what passengers can haul on to an aircraft. The overhead bins are becoming a safety hazard with all the weight they are expected to carry. These longer single aisle aircraft become a cleaning nightmare between flights. I don't think the flight attendants are not too happy having to serve passengers in that narrow aisle as it is almost impossible for people to pass each other going opposite directions, or are lined up behind a flight attendant pushing a trolly when then need to use the lav. After a certain number of passengers, a two aisle aircraft becomes the most practical to operate. It may be wider and thus present a larger foot print which would increase the flight operation of the aircraft, but quicker turn arounds would be more possible allowing more flights per day.

Look at some solutions presented in the last cabin interior expos. Sliding seats are coming and they could heal many problems. Apart from that turn around only matters on short routes, the plane does not aim for 500nm routes.

keesje wrote:

Time flies, we've been discussing a rewinged, reengined, stretched A321 for years. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272689 I still have not seen any official confirmation. 1-2 Billion seems too low for a new wing, wingbox, landing gear and all related sub systems. $3-4 seems more likely.

Well the CFRP wingbox is already ready in prototype form.

Matt6461 wrote:

That seems right - not worth doing a new wing just to get the few % L/D improvement from higher cruise FL. Maybe this is where Airbus first deploys its patent for downward-folding wings? Then again, how much span delta is available within that space for A320? Maybe if the new wing has more unloaded dihedral there will be significant room to fold downwards?

Current wing has a width of 35,8m (max Code D width is 36m) and a ground clearance of about 3,7m. So let's assume a new and ligther wing has at least 4m, that gives you 1 to 1,5m for down folding the wing on each side. At least 2m more wingspan without added weight: Wouldn't be too surprised if we see this being developed.