seahawk wrote:

Again this discussion?

Yes, now made complete with a veer off in to program accounting talk.

seahawk wrote:

We know that the current landing gear is reaching ground pressure limits at 101t, we also know that the newest exit door configuration is limited to 250 seats and the A321 already does 240 in sardine can configuration. In addition addition for any extra FA you need about 10-12 seats to just compensate the costs. So once you go over 250, you need at least 270 seats to make the effort worthwhile. I would not call a 2 row stretch ground braking in any form. And something like 6 rows to take the plane to 276 seats will be starting to become MTOW limited quickly as the additional passengers alone will eat up the MTOW bump. In addition the longer fuselage allows means worse take-off performance as the maximum rotation angle will be reduced.

Imho the only thing reasonable solution would be doing the A320.5 and A321.5 with the A320.5 then going to 200 seats and the A321.5 to 250 seats.

In other words, no true NMA competitor emerging, at best we have an attempt at a spoiler.

It's the same narrative that got aired here when an Airbus marketing guy started talking about A330neo Regional -- some heard the sizzle and thought they had bacon.

I feel even better about my MD-11 vs 777 comparison now.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Seems you are4 acrtively trying to distract the discussion again into a topic you now is far more complecated. You keep repeating your self again and again without adding anything new just to distract. Is that called Trolling?

I don't think fact based posts amount to trolling.

On the other hand, posts about hidden projects based on decades old desires seem to largely be "repeating your self again and again without adding anything new just to distract.".

I guess we can't just be happy with A321XLR coming closer to reality, we have to make that next Leap too.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The question for this thread is, does Airbus have the free cash flow and resources to launch a full A322 with a new wing?

Some seem to prefer that we play hide and seek to find the answer to a pretty basic question.

keesje wrote:

AA & DL committed to A321 fleets already & would not be too hard to convince to convert some to bigger A322s, sitting on aging 757/767 fleets. Who's gonna be the big NSA launching customer, at what price? China Southern (Trump), JAL (who makes the wings?) ?

Even if both UA and DL committed to heavier A321s for longer missions, both of them need the 797 or something like it. An A321XLR is not going to make sense as a 767 replacement. UA needs to find a replacement for about 40 767s, and DL still has about 25 unaccounted for. If there is no 797, those aircraft will be replaced by widebodies.

A 2nd (or is it the 3rd) stretch of the 320 series I am sure will be a real market changer. Look at all of the other successful stretches / makeovers in aviation, like the 764, the 748, the 739, the 345, the 346, and the Q400 stretch to 90 pax.

parapente wrote:

Seahawk.i believe your A231.5 is what people here are discussing.IE a max 250 seater one class (but perhaps 29-30" pitch) .The move to 101 tonnes (created for the XLR) will allow for that stretch with a reduction of range to circa 3knm. And yes that has got to be circa the top end of pavement loading for a single bogey MLG.Whether the same small stretch can be applied to the A320 ( your A320.5) am not technically competent to comment but would deliver more bang for buck I suppose.
This concept is not a classic 'MOM' but would shrink the available space for it to operate in as it could not compete against such an aircaft over these shorter distances.
Yup it has been discussed ad infinitum!

I agree with you, but in the end a stretch to 250 seats at 30" offers little imho. You add some weight for the longer fuselage, you add 1.2ts in pax payload so the amount of fuel you can carry goes down and so does the range. Imho the difference in capacity would be like the 9MAX to the 10MAX, one variant would become pointless.

seahawk wrote:

parapente wrote:

Seahawk.i believe your A231.5 is what people here are discussing.IE a max 250 seater one class (but perhaps 29-30" pitch) .The move to 101 tonnes (created for the XLR) will allow for that stretch with a reduction of range to circa 3knm. And yes that has got to be circa the top end of pavement loading for a single bogey MLG.Whether the same small stretch can be applied to the A320 ( your A320.5) am not technically competent to comment but would deliver more bang for buck I suppose.
This concept is not a classic 'MOM' but would shrink the available space for it to operate in as it could not compete against such an aircaft over these shorter distances.
Yup it has been discussed ad infinitum!

I agree with you, but in the end a stretch to 250 seats at 30" offers little imho. You add some weight for the longer fuselage, you add 1.2ts in pax payload so the amount of fuel you can carry goes down and so does the range. Imho the difference in capacity would be like the 9MAX to the 10MAX, one variant would become pointless.

I took a 4m stretch as reference for a 322. That means 4 rows/24 seats and an additional meter for additional lavatory, crew, galley space. It would have to be a significant capacity increase to make sense. With 4 meters extra 250 seats single class seems realistic for medium range flights. You need galley / lavs on those flights and can't go 28 inch.

Maybe part of the cash flow is already being spent on 321 upgrades.
Besided, current cash flow is not the only way to fund investments.

Guys, let's discuss the topic at hand please. Please stop the Boeing vs Airbus bashing and blame game of who said what and when.

Seahawk, you mentioned one FA means 12-14 seats to offset the costs. How did you get that number? Doing some quick arithmetic in my head says it should be a far lower number than that? I guess it depends on a lot of variables, but 12-14 seats seems too much.

I think a stretched A322 could re-arrange the door configuration to achieve more than 250 pax - but even so, I think the value of the stretched frame would be in legacy carriers having the option to introduce a larger premium cabin on trans-continental flights in the US. The "Mint" type of configuration seems to become more and more popular.

Of course Airbus could finance such a modification where have you been..

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjQ16bt3YnfAhWPalAKHXobARIQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2Fus-airbus-results%2Fairbus-shares-hit-record-after-core-profit-tops-forecasts-idUSKBN1KG0FF&psig=AOvVaw2F7dJI2BWn6eqqAL2GJ-4c&ust=1544135156777395&cshid=1544048754768

JayinKitsap wrote:

A 2nd (or is it the 3rd) stretch of the 320 series I am sure will be a real market changer. Look at all of the other successful stretches / makeovers in aviation, like the 764, the 748, the 739, the 345, the 346, and the Q400 stretch to 90 pax.

Yeah, I'm sure Boeing is banging its head on the walls and asking itself why it even bothered building the 739: with at least 598 737-900 (ER's and non-ER's, counting the unfilled orders and the BBJ 737-900) and 136 737-9M sold, it was a real waste of time and money for them...

william wrote:

Curious, when Boeing states they want to make sure there is a business case for the 797, do you not think they haven't done their own due diligence on how efficient a rewinged and reengined A321 would be? I think their super computers comes pretty close to what a formidable competitor such an air frame would be (and Airbus is doing the same on the 797). So if the 797 launches in the face of this "slam dunk", then maybe, just maybe the 797 is efficient enough to compete with the "slam dunk" A322.

I am 99% sure the 797 and A322 will be on the market in 10 years time.

Boeing will know exactly how good the A322 will be. The A322 will force Boeing to be aggressive on pricing. Boeing will still capture the majority of the MOM market as they are aiming at the middle of the MOM gap. The A321XLR and A322 are on the small side of the MOM gap but they will still sell extremely well.

seahawk wrote:

we also know that the newest exit door configuration is limited to 250 seats and the A321 already does 240 in sardine can configuration. In addition addition for any extra FA you need about 10-12 seats to just compensate the costs. So once you go over 250, you need at least 270 seats to make the effort worthwhile. I would not call a 2 row stretch ground braking in any form. And something like 6 rows to take the plane to 276 seats will be starting to become MTOW limited quickly as the additional passengers alone will eat up the MTOW bump.

The error with your thinking is you assume most airlines fit 240 seats in the A321. Jetstar for instance has 220 seats in their A321. So for Jetstar the A322 with a decent 4 metre 5 row stretch will equal exactly 250 seats.

I would go even as far as saying this increased 250 seat exit limit for the A321 is mainly to allow a simple stretch A322.

You want to design your plane around your average customer not extreme cases. Looking at the my rather large seating database approximately 75% of A321 customers have between 195 and 225 seats. So a 4m stretch for an a322 would sit nicely under the 250 seat limit.

It is actually more perfect than you think.

The airlines that operate their A321 on short haul in single class with around 220 seats could gonwiththe A322 simple stretch for perfect CASM boost with 250 seats.

The airlines that operate the A321 on longer flights or in 2 class with just under 200 seats they can operate the A321XLR and keep it just under 200 seats.

Because they would both have 95% commonality airlines can have both with little additional cost. Fit the A322 with 250 seats single class 31" pitch and put them on short busy routes. Fit the A321XLR in 2 class with 200 seats for your longer thin routes. It is the perfect combo.

mjoelnir wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

IMHO, Airbus will not open their cards on A322 until Boeing firms up 797. Otherwise they may undercut themselves. If Boeing goes stupid and launches a "MoM", they'll make an A322 and kill it with price. If Boeing starts a clean sheet 737 replacement, they'll invest in a clean sheet A320 family and kill that.

except boeing has the cash flow to easily develop new products, airbus doesnt have that same financial freedom. and if there are 2 clean sheets nb replacements, they'll both be successful. the idea that only ab can develop and build good new planes and vice versa is so weird to me.

Do you want to start on this Boeing stands financial better than Airbus?

Guys, please stop. Or start a new thread. Or go look up "program accounting" and post there.

The topic is an A321 stretch. Yes, Airbus can afford to stretch a A321.

Question: Should they?
Answer: I sure would. A very load cost, no MTWO increase, pure stretch. And I would do it (and lock up as many orders as a could) before Boeing announces a MoM aircraft.

kitplane01 wrote:

The topic is an A321 stretch. Yes, Airbus can afford to stretch a A321.

Question: Should they?
Answer: I sure would. A very load cost, no MTWO increase, pure stretch. And I would do it (and lock up as many orders as a could) before Boeing announces a MoM aircraft.

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The topic is an A321 stretch. Yes, Airbus can afford to stretch a A321.

Question: Should they?
Answer: I sure would. A very load cost, no MTWO increase, pure stretch. And I would do it (and lock up as many orders as a could) before Boeing announces a MoM aircraft.

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

OK. That's a totally awesome question.

Taking guesses (and these could all be wrong)

(1) The runway requirements get excessive because after the stretch because the takeoff angle becomes limited.

(2) The wing is too small. It CAN fly at such high weights, but it's aerodynamically less effecient and therefore burns too much fuel. This is OK for a few long range missions, but not great for everyday flights competing against normal A321s.

(3) There really is no airline requirement (hard to believe. Lower casm is king!)

(4) They have a better plan (secret MoM from Airbus. secret new A322 wing already in design???)

(5) They are about to. Now that the MTOW weight is so high, they HAVE been working on it, and are about to announce!

(6) Political problems in Airbus (until Brexit they don't want to announce anything, invented by a Frenchman so the Germans so "nein")

(7) Lack of designers. They're all working on the A350 and improvements to the A330neo.

(8) Some combination of these.

So .. I don't know but wish I did.

What's the right answer?

WIederling wrote:

I'd have taken the original Pink Panther:

I would've had too were it not for the 'trendy' stipulation.

WIederling wrote:

never a hard word or action but always ahead.

I guess that's called for in this thread -- hence a bit of comic relief to defuse the tension.

Please stay on topic folks and avoid the usual boring A vs B stuff.

I'm not sure it really matters whether the A322 would be competitive vs the 797 - neither have been launched. If Boeing needs (say) 2,000 797 to make an attractive return and the A322 could take (say) 200 of those deliveries, that might be enough to tip Boeing from launching the 797 to not launching it. The A322 is a feint that is sufficiently low-cost to be credible

Please keep the thread on topic and keep the Airbus vs Boeing flamewar nonsense out of the discussion, nor is it the place to bring up program accounting

qf789 wrote:

Please keep the thread on topic and keep the Airbus vs Boeing flamewar nonsense out of the discussion, nor is it the place to bring up program accounting

Perhaps you stop it off when somebody starts the financial discussions with Boeing has the better finances. I did not start comparing Boeing to Airbus finances in this thread.

mjoelnir wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Please keep the thread on topic and keep the Airbus vs Boeing flamewar nonsense out of the discussion, nor is it the place to bring up program accounting

Perhaps you stop it off when somebody starts the financial discussions with Boeing has the better finances. I did not start comparing Boeing to Airbus finances in this thread.

You could also have answered Newbiepilot's question without having to bring Boeing's accounting into the discussion. Boeing's accounting has absolutely nothing to do with the financial ability of Airbus to launch a new version of the A320 family. I understand that it's something that the news / aviation site always like to compare the two, that's the nature of the duopoly. That's why sources always mention this in comparison to the other side. But that doesn't mean that people here have to be so counter reactive here all the time every time it comes up.

I don't think that Airbus will have any issues financing a new A320 based project, free cash flow is not the only way to finance something like this. The issue will be how many customers they can get to commit to it when they are already very content with the A321. But the shift towards the A321 does show that larger is the way to go in this segment of the market. There's some buzz around, and I don't mean Keesje's brain waves that started this thread, right now this is the new Airbus development to keep an eye on.

JetBuddy wrote:

Guys, let's discuss the topic at hand please. Please stop the Boeing vs Airbus bashing and blame game of who said what and when.

Seahawk, you mentioned one FA means 12-14 seats to offset the costs. How did you get that number? Doing some quick arithmetic in my head says it should be a far lower number than that? I guess it depends on a lot of variables, but 12-14 seats seems too much.

I think a stretched A322 could re-arrange the door configuration to achieve more than 250 pax - but even so, I think the value of the stretched frame would be in legacy carriers having the option to introduce a larger premium cabin on trans-continental flights in the US. The "Mint" type of configuration seems to become more and more popular.

For a typical low cost airline:

Roughly 30-40$ block hour costs for the FA - say 35$ for the example
Say 2 hour stage length. 60-80$ extra cost. - 70$ for the example
average load factor 90-95% - say 92% for the example
Operating margin 7%.
average ticket price 80-100$ - say 90$ for the example

average margin per ticket = 6,3§
Extra cost divided by average margin: 70/6,3 = ~11,11
correct for load factor = 12 seats
some old block hour costs can be found : https://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/gallery ... _costs.pdf

DL747400 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

WHAT larger market? There is NO market for NMA. At all. Nobody wants A310 or 753 sized airplanes. What airlines want is to squeeze more people into existing platforms and at lower cost. Until technology takes another step to make a plane the size of A330-800 lighter, cheaper and more economical than A320, it will not happen. And that's not going to materialize in the next 20-30 years.

Well, how about we agree to disagree? Let's just wait until Boeing launches the 797 in 2019, then we can see how many launch customers line up and how many firm orders are placed, OK?

How about we start a betting pool? My bet is that Boeing will launch an NMA neither in 2019, nor ever. No MoM, no NMA, no resurrection of 757. I'll add to my bet that it'll be a clean-sheet 737 replacement. Which will fail in sales. Anyone wants to counter that?

BREECH wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

BREECH wrote:

WHAT larger market? There is NO market for NMA. At all. Nobody wants A310 or 753 sized airplanes. What airlines want is to squeeze more people into existing platforms and at lower cost. Until technology takes another step to make a plane the size of A330-800 lighter, cheaper and more economical than A320, it will not happen. And that's not going to materialize in the next 20-30 years.

Well, how about we agree to disagree? Let's just wait until Boeing launches the 797 in 2019, then we can see how many launch customers line up and how many firm orders are placed, OK?

How about we start a betting pool? My bet is that Boeing will launch an NMA neither in 2019, nor ever. No MoM, no NMA, no resurrection of 757. I'll add to my bet that it'll be a clean-sheet 737 replacement. Which will fail in sales. Anyone wants to counter that?

Just to be clear your bet is there is no NMA and that Boeing launches a 737 replacement and it is a failure as a program sales wise?

I am curious why you think an all new narrowbody would fail?

keesje wrote:

China Southern (Trump)

AND the A320 final-ish assembly line in Shanghai.

DL747400 wrote:

While it is not known at this time who will end up being the largest launch customer, DL / Ed Bastian has already stated publicly on multiple occasions that DL wants to be a launch customer for the 797.

He said it on ONE occasion, it was just re-printed in various pro-boeing sources. I don't know why he said that but talk is cheap. NO sane and sober (was he?) CEO would seriously commit to anything without frozen specs. It also goes completely against DL's recent f*ck-Boeing-we-want-real-planes strategy. How many Boeings did Delta order in the past, say, 10 years?

Why haven't Airbus produced an A322 earlier?
Well they already did gloat the idea publicly circa 20 years ago.There was a link somewhere to a Flight Internatiinal article on the subject.
The rational as to why they didn't was.
1. The obvious one - not enough commercial interest.
2. It has been guessed at that the primary reason ( at the time) was the loss of range was too great.

As to why not recently.
1.That's contained in the title.Airbus are openly didcusding an XLR.To do this they have said they can bump the existing MLG one more time to circa 101 tonnes ( very likely the absolute limit).
2.It is said that the new engines can achieve a further small power bump that would be needed for the heavier XLR.And of purse these brand new state of the art engines a far more fuel efficient
3.The just launched new door arrangement can be certified for 250 pax.
Without all of these new developments it's simply not possible to do it.But all these important developments have come together at the same time fortuitously.
4.And at the same time Boeing is floating the idea of a 220-270 seater MOM.
It's all pure speculation,Airbus have said nothing beyond a 'plus'. But now it can be built and there is a reason for it.That of course doesn't mean it will!
I would add that Flight International showed an Airbus picture not so long ago or a carbon ( as opposed to metal) 320 central box section that they were prototyping.The article went on to say it was about cost reduction of manufacture - but its bound to be lighter too.This might also be another part of the reason they now have the ability to create a 250 seater with a decent (3knm) range.

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The topic is an A321 stretch. Yes, Airbus can afford to stretch a A321.

Question: Should they?
Answer: I sure would. A very load cost, no MTWO increase, pure stretch. And I would do it (and lock up as many orders as a could) before Boeing announces a MoM aircraft.

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

Easy answer:
Because the A320 series neo is selling like hot cakes and there's absolutely no competition whatsoever in the A322 space. So why spend the money on it now?
Instead they keep building up their war chest for when it's really needed.

parapente wrote:

Why haven't Airbus produced an A322 earlier?

I think you'll get an answer when you look at expanding range capability ( of the next larger model )
when the swap over of buyer interest happened for that same larger model.

What range did the A320 exceed when the A319 lost its 50% share in sales.
What range did the A321 exceed when the A320 lost its 50% share in sales.

So what range must an A322 have to allow being attractive enough?

( my theory of "magic range"

kitplane01 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The topic is an A321 stretch. Yes, Airbus can afford to stretch a A321.

Question: Should they?
Answer: I sure would. A very load cost, no MTWO increase, pure stretch. And I would do it (and lock up as many orders as a could) before Boeing announces a MoM aircraft.

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

OK. That's a totally awesome question.

Taking guesses (and these could all be wrong)

(1) The runway requirements get excessive because after the stretch because the takeoff angle becomes limited.

(2) The wing is too small. It CAN fly at such high weights, but it's aerodynamically less effecient and therefore burns too much fuel. This is OK for a few long range missions, but not great for everyday flights competing against normal A321s.

(3) There really is no airline requirement (hard to believe. Lower casm is king!)

(4) They have a better plan (secret MoM from Airbus. secret new A322 wing already in design???)

(5) They are about to. Now that the MTOW weight is so high, they HAVE been working on it, and are about to announce!

(6) Political problems in Airbus (until Brexit they don't want to announce anything, invented by a Frenchman so the Germans so "nein")

(7) Lack of designers. They're all working on the A350 and improvements to the A330neo.

(8) Some combination of these.

So .. I don't know but wish I did.

What's the right answer?

Thanks for a list of totally awesome answers!

My guess is a variation on (7): they want to focus on monetizing the huge existing A320 family backlog before they do something like introducing a stretch. We've read in the media that introducing cabin flex (those tiny lavs everyone loves to hate) has caused problems in the line. We've read that XFW line 4 has gone away from monuments to computer controlled vehicles to position subassemblies in the FAL, and we've learned Boeing is doing the same for the 777 line ( ref: 777x production thread ). We've read here that redesign of parts for easier assembly and lower part count can result in huge efficiency gains, and many times this involves 3d printing.

I think the A321XLR will introduce churn to the production line, but not as much as a stretch will, so they'll make that move first and get a feel for the impact it has on the product line, and any potential stretch would be a follow-on.

airbazar wrote:

Easy answer:
Because the A320 series neo is selling like hot cakes and there's absolutely no competition whatsoever in the A322 space. So why spend the money on it now?
Instead they keep building up their war chest for when it's really needed.

I agree Airbus wants to minimize churn and maximize positive cash flow, but I think it's pretty clear that Boeing will launch NMA next year, and Airbus marketing will be pushing engineering for something they can respond with.

Even if they gave themselves two years to launch XLR and another two years to launch the stretch, they'd still be on the market ahead of NMA.

Maybe something like that is what will happen.

WIederling wrote:

parapente wrote:

Why haven't Airbus produced an A322 earlier?

I think you'll get an answer when you look at expanding range capability ( of the next larger model )
when the swap over of buyer interest happened for that same larger model.

What range did the A320 exceed when the A319 lost its 50% share in sales.
What range did the A321 exceed when the A320 lost its 50% share in sales.

So what range must an A322 have to allow being attractive enough?

( my theory of "magic range"

I think that is really what it comes down to. The A320 series had or has one or 1.5 more growth steps in it than the 737 which makes sense given the timeframes for each starting out. The 737 doesn’t grow that big without losing too much range and or field performance. It’s a very good market for Airbus to be in and it would require an expensive clean sheet for Boeing to attack the A321/2 area directly. The cost of getting there likely wasn’t worth it.

The design, industrial and financial approaches to eventually supplanting the narrowbodies in both lineups will be the biggest test of the C-level employees in many decades. I suspect any A322 is the last iteration from Airbus and any new wing for Airbus is the first plan in whatever follows the A320 series. For Boeing I think NMA is the first step in defining the upper boundary of a new narrowbody. But the whole process is full of risk for both builders. Should be an interesting watch.

I wonder if a new fuselage for an A320 replacement would provide enough improvement to justify the expense. What would it bring that the current fuselage can't. New wingbox and wing I can understand though.

Taxi645 wrote:

I wonder if a new fuselage for an A320 replacement would provide enough improvement to justify the expense. What would it bring that the current fuselage can't.

Nothing. It's one of the best fuselages on the market and definitely the best narrow fuselage in existence.

Re Magic Range theory.
What is being discussed is a ('simple - it never is') stretch sacrificing range for capacity.Which seems to go against the theory.
Well I would sight the 787-10 to counter this.In fact I'm not sure that aircaft hasn't caught Airbus a bit flat footed vis a vis the 350-9.
It's low running costs compared to the 359 must be quite telling.

It's all about optimal distances.As long as an A322 can do 3knm ie Transcon in all conditions then it meets a very important market area whether it be N America,Europe or Asia.And it would do it with supreme efficiency whether it be an LCC with 250 pax or a Legacy with 220 is in 2/3 classes.
Clearly what It won't do is the 767-300er range profile.This is squarely where the MOM is aimed as best we can guess.However in the absence of anything else ( as is the case now in fact) 763's are being 'abused' often flying well below their intended range.
Now it would be quite correct to counter that the MOM offers greater operational flexibility which would be absolutly true.
So perhaps that is the question.It certainly could not match this theoretical A322 on price,availability ( short term) or Sfc.But operational flexibility may be more important.Hard call.
What I do believe is true is that if Airbus tried to match MOM range it would v quickly be staring at a whole new aircaft as the theoretical A322 maxes all technical aspects of the existing aircaft to the limit.
So for a true MOM you might as well start looking at a 2025 technology A310 - but that's another story and one for the photoshop boys !!

BREECH wrote:

And if shares buybacks are not aimed at reducing shareholders' control of the company, then what IS their purpose?

IMU (artificially) lifting share value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase

bigjku wrote:

Your idea that share buy backs decrease shareholder control is just laughable really.

Then please explain how it works...

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

OK. That's a totally awesome question.

Taking guesses (and these could all be wrong)

(1) The runway requirements get excessive because after the stretch because the takeoff angle becomes limited.

(2) The wing is too small. It CAN fly at such high weights, but it's aerodynamically less effecient and therefore burns too much fuel. This is OK for a few long range missions, but not great for everyday flights competing against normal A321s.

(3) There really is no airline requirement (hard to believe. Lower casm is king!)

(4) They have a better plan (secret MoM from Airbus. secret new A322 wing already in design???)

(5) They are about to. Now that the MTOW weight is so high, they HAVE been working on it, and are about to announce!

(6) Political problems in Airbus (until Brexit they don't want to announce anything, invented by a Frenchman so the Germans so "nein")

(7) Lack of designers. They're all working on the A350 and improvements to the A330neo.

(8) Some combination of these.

So .. I don't know but wish I did.

What's the right answer?

Thanks for a list of totally awesome answers!

My guess is a variation on (7): they want to focus on monetizing the huge existing A320 family backlog before they do something like introducing a stretch. We've read in the media that introducing cabin flex (those tiny lavs everyone loves to hate) has caused problems in the line. We've read that XFW line 4 has gone away from monuments to computer controlled vehicles to position subassemblies in the FAL, and we've learned Boeing is doing the same for the 777 line ( ref: 777x production thread ). We've read here that redesign of parts for easier assembly and lower part count can result in huge efficiency gains, and many times this involves 3d printing.

I think the A321XLR will introduce churn to the production line, but not as much as a stretch will, so they'll make that move first and get a feel for the impact it has on the product line, and any potential stretch would be a follow-on..

We’ve heard about production issues going on in Hamburg and Airbus struggling with variability. That can be diverting engineers attention away from a bigger A321+ project.

Another draw could be the A350neo that we are hearing about. If Airbus is trying to add engine choice on the A350, it could take quite a few engineering resources.

Waiting until a firm NMA is launched may coincide with more engineering resources available. That could be a win win for the A322, assuming the market is actually interested in the plane. Some on this website assume it is a slam dunk, but Airbus will have to determine what the specs will be and shop that to airlines.

WayexTDI wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Your idea that share buy backs decrease shareholder control is just laughable really.

Then please explain how it works...

There are 100 shares outstanding with 10 owners of 10 shares worth $10 each. The company buys back 10 shares from one owner. We now have 90 shares outstanding and each owner left owns 11.1% of the company instead of 10% and if the fundamental value of the company stays the same those shares are now worth $11.11.

The value of the company is the same. The 9 shareholders left each have relatively more control than they did before.

This would continue right up to buying every share but 1. If I bought back 99 shares and all else remained the same that share is worth $1,000 and the owner of that 1 share controls 100% of the company.

In share buybacks anyone who doesn’t sell gets more rather than less control.

bigjku wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Your idea that share buy backs decrease shareholder control is just laughable really.

Then please explain how it works...

There are 100 shares outstanding with 10 owners of 10 shares worth $10 each. The company buys back 10 shares from one owner. We now have 90 shares outstanding and each owner left owns 11.1% of the company instead of 10% and if the fundamental value of the company stays the same those shares are now worth $11.11.

The value of the company is the same. The 9 shareholders left each have relatively more control than they did before.

This would continue right up to buying every share but 1. If I bought back 99 shares and all else remained the same that share is worth $1,000 and the owner of that 1 share controls 100% of the company.

In share buybacks anyone who doesn’t sell gets more rather than less control.

That's where you got it wrong.
When a company buys back shares, those shares do not disappear; they become the property of the company. And the more the company buys back, the more they gain control of themselves, up to becoming a private company again; that's the main purpose of going private, as Dell Computers did.
Furthermore, those shares are still existing somewhere (in the company portfolio) and can be re-injected in the stock market later on shall the company need to raise cash.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. That's a totally awesome question.

Taking guesses (and these could all be wrong)

(1) The runway requirements get excessive because after the stretch because the takeoff angle becomes limited.

(2) The wing is too small. It CAN fly at such high weights, but it's aerodynamically less effecient and therefore burns too much fuel. This is OK for a few long range missions, but not great for everyday flights competing against normal A321s.

(3) There really is no airline requirement (hard to believe. Lower casm is king!)

(4) They have a better plan (secret MoM from Airbus. secret new A322 wing already in design???)

(5) They are about to. Now that the MTOW weight is so high, they HAVE been working on it, and are about to announce!

(6) Political problems in Airbus (until Brexit they don't want to announce anything, invented by a Frenchman so the Germans so "nein")

(7) Lack of designers. They're all working on the A350 and improvements to the A330neo.

(8) Some combination of these.

So .. I don't know but wish I did.

What's the right answer?

Thanks for a list of totally awesome answers!

My guess is a variation on (7): they want to focus on monetizing the huge existing A320 family backlog before they do something like introducing a stretch. We've read in the media that introducing cabin flex (those tiny lavs everyone loves to hate) has caused problems in the line. We've read that XFW line 4 has gone away from monuments to computer controlled vehicles to position subassemblies in the FAL, and we've learned Boeing is doing the same for the 777 line ( ref: 777x production thread ). We've read here that redesign of parts for easier assembly and lower part count can result in huge efficiency gains, and many times this involves 3d printing.

I think the A321XLR will introduce churn to the production line, but not as much as a stretch will, so they'll make that move first and get a feel for the impact it has on the product line, and any potential stretch would be a follow-on..

We’ve heard about production issues going on in Hamburg and Airbus struggling with variability. That can be diverting engineers attention away from a bigger A321+ project.

Another draw could be the A350neo that we are hearing about. If Airbus is trying to add engine choice on the A350, it could take quite a few engineering resources.

Waiting until a firm NMA is launched may coincide with more engineering resources available. That could be a win win for the A322, assuming the market is actually interested in the plane. Some on this website assume it is a slam dunk, but Airbus will have to determine what the specs will be and shop that to airlines.

Airbus has 67 A320 family deliveries in October and over 60 deliveries in November. The number of stored frames is shrinking fast. A321- 2xxNX either the plain cabin flex or LR are getting delivered. Airbus passed Boeing in October in delivered narrow body frames, 462 to 450. For both a record for the 10 month period. I would assume that production problems at Airbus was significantly overstated by the USA media.

WIederling wrote:

BREECH wrote:

And if shares buybacks are not aimed at reducing shareholders' control of the company, then what IS their purpose?

IMU (artificially) lifting share value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase

Only in some VERY rare cases. In fact so rare that I wouldn't even remember a case like that. By buying shares back you reduce the number of shareholders and the amount of their shares and thus their voting percentage. And of course you reduce the amount of dividends you have to pay. OR increase the dividends and keep them for yourselves.

Newbiepilot wrote:

We’ve heard about production issues going on in Hamburg and Airbus struggling with variability.

Another draw could be the A350neo that we are hearing about. If Airbus is trying to add engine choice on the A350, it could take quite a few engineering resources.

Who's "we" and where "we" heard that? Production issues in Hamburg? Like what?

A350neo? That's like 30 years away! Have you been reading Richard Aboulafia, the Vice-President, analyst and the only employee of the Teal Group? Is that what "we" heard? Man, where did you get all that!?

WayexTDI wrote:

bigjku wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Then please explain how it works...

There are 100 shares outstanding with 10 owners of 10 shares worth $10 each. The company buys back 10 shares from one owner. We now have 90 shares outstanding and each owner left owns 11.1% of the company instead of 10% and if the fundamental value of the company stays the same those shares are now worth $11.11.

The value of the company is the same. The 9 shareholders left each have relatively more control than they did before.

This would continue right up to buying every share but 1. If I bought back 99 shares and all else remained the same that share is worth $1,000 and the owner of that 1 share controls 100% of the company.

In share buybacks anyone who doesn’t sell gets more rather than less control.

That's where you got it wrong.
When a company buys back shares, those shares do not disappear; they become the property of the company. And the more the company buys back, the more they gain control of themselves, up to becoming a private company again; that's the main purpose of going private, as Dell Computers did.
Furthermore, those shares are still existing somewhere (in the company portfolio) and can be re-injected in the stock market later on shall the company need to raise cash.

I never said they disappear. However in the scenario we are discussing for Boeing they become treasury shares. Treasury shares do not vote and get no dividends or profit distribution and play no role what so ever in taking a company private.

Simply look up the transaction you discussed. Dell the company didn’t buy its own shares and go private. Michael Dell and an investment firm called Silver Lake bought the shares and took the company private. You can’t use company earnings to buy back company shares and go private that way. That isn’t how it works.

BREECH wrote:

WIederling wrote:

BREECH wrote:

And if shares buybacks are not aimed at reducing shareholders' control of the company, then what IS their purpose?

IMU (artificially) lifting share value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase

Only in some VERY rare cases. In fact so rare that I wouldn't even remember a case like that. By buying shares back you reduce the number of shareholders and the amount of their shares and thus their voting percentage. And of course you reduce the amount of dividends you have to pay. OR increase the dividends and keep them for yourselves.

Treasury shares have no voting rights and don’t get dividends. You can’t pay dividends to the company itself. Doesn’t work that way.

WayexTDI wrote:

bigjku wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Then please explain how it works...

There are 100 shares outstanding with 10 owners of 10 shares worth $10 each. The company buys back 10 shares from one owner. We now have 90 shares outstanding and each owner left owns 11.1% of the company instead of 10% and if the fundamental value of the company stays the same those shares are now worth $11.11.

The value of the company is the same. The 9 shareholders left each have relatively more control than they did before.

This would continue right up to buying every share but 1. If I bought back 99 shares and all else remained the same that share is worth $1,000 and the owner of that 1 share controls 100% of the company.

In share buybacks anyone who doesn’t sell gets more rather than less control.

That's where you got it wrong.
When a company buys back shares, those shares do not disappear; they become the property of the company. And the more the company buys back, the more they gain control of themselves, up to becoming a private company again; that's the main purpose of going private, as Dell Computers did.
Furthermore, those shares are still existing somewhere (in the company portfolio) and can be re-injected in the stock market later on shall the company need to raise cash.

Injecting the shares back in the market, is easier than done. If you need the capital, that you would raise by reinjecting the shares into the market, the times are usually bad and raise les capital than you spend buying back the shares.

mjoelnir wrote:

I would assume that production problems at Airbus was significantly overstated by the USA media.

The statement about the shift of engineering resources away from A321+/++ and towards manufacturing came from Airbus executives.

The delivery of record numbers of A320 family members is quite a notable achievement, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are achieving the internal cost and profit targets that Airbus wants to hit, and that Airbus isn't investing now to earn more later as the backlog gets built out.

I love people on here who know what the NMA/MOM/797 is and whether this fictional plane is or isn’t a competitor to that fictional plane.

Jeez all of you lighten up!

Revelation wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Fair enough, but to me at least your post suggests a follow up question:

Why haven't they?

OK. That's a totally awesome question.

Taking guesses (and these could all be wrong)

(1) The runway requirements get excessive because after the stretch because the takeoff angle becomes limited.

(2) The wing is too small. It CAN fly at such high weights, but it's aerodynamically less effecient and therefore burns too much fuel. This is OK for a few long range missions, but not great for everyday flights competing against normal A321s.

(3) There really is no airline requirement (hard to believe. Lower casm is king!)

(4) They have a better plan (secret MoM from Airbus. secret new A322 wing already in design???)

(5) They are about to. Now that the MTOW weight is so high, they HAVE been working on it, and are about to announce!

(6) Political problems in Airbus (until Brexit they don't want to announce anything, invented by a Frenchman so the Germans so "nein")

(7) Lack of designers. They're all working on the A350 and improvements to the A330neo.

(8) Some combination of these.

So .. I don't know but wish I did.

What's the right answer?

Thanks for a list of totally awesome answers!

My guess is a variation on (7): they want to focus on monetizing the huge existing A320 family backlog before they do something like introducing a stretch. We've read in the media that introducing cabin flex (those tiny lavs everyone loves to hate) has caused problems in the line. We've read that XFW line 4 has gone away from monuments to computer controlled vehicles to position subassemblies in the FAL, and we've learned Boeing is doing the same for the 777 line ( ref: 777x production thread ). We've read here that redesign of parts for easier assembly and lower part count can result in huge efficiency gains, and many times this involves 3d printing.

I think the A321XLR will introduce churn to the production line, but not as much as a stretch will, so they'll make that move first and get a feel for the impact it has on the product line, and any potential stretch would be a follow-on.

I'll add a (9) to that: ongoing leadership changes at Airbus. It would make sense for me that Airbus announces a new program or an upgrade when the transition is over, i.e. when the old guard has left. So, expect nothing until Tom Enders finishes his stint in April. The new management would want ownership of any new program/upgrade launched.

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I would assume that production problems at Airbus was significantly overstated by the USA media.

The statement about the shift of engineering resources away from A321+/++ and towards manufacturing came from Airbus executives.

The delivery of record numbers of A320 family members is quite a notable achievement, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are achieving the internal cost and profit targets that Airbus wants to hit, and that Airbus isn't investing now to earn more later as the backlog gets built out.

Two completely different stories.

Story one Airbus shifting personal to aid ramp up and perhaps move on to still higher rates, aim is going for 70 a month.

Story two, Bloomberg talking about production trouble in XFW this autumn regarding the A321neo cabin flex, talk about not being able to deliver all planed frames.

Do you have any information about Airbus not reaching internal cost and profit target?

Somehow I have heard that Boeing needed to move personal to the 737 FALs to fight frames piling up this autumn. Does Boeing than is also missing internal cost and profit targets?

I would say Airbus is managing the ramp up of the neo better than Boeing the ramp up of the MAX and Airbus seems to get enough engines as it is to churn out deliveries.
Who do you think is earning better in the moment, Airbus with an already high percentage of more expensive neo, or Boeing still with a high percentage of fire sale NGs?

BREECH wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

I wonder if a new fuselage for an A320 replacement would provide enough improvement to justify the expense. What would it bring that the current fuselage can't.

Nothing. It's one of the best fuselages on the market and definitely the best narrow fuselage in existence.

Eh - Airbus wouldn't be working on other fuselage materials and manufacturing methods if it didn't think it had something to gain.

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... -spotlight

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

I would assume that production problems at Airbus was significantly overstated by the USA media.

Who do you think is earning better in the moment, Airbus with an already high percentage of more expensive neo, or Boeing still with a high percentage of fire sale NGs?

Probably Boeing with their higher percentage of more expensive widebodies.

It’s seems a bit odd to be bragging about Neo ramp up vs Max ramp up. It looks like Airbus is over the hump but I would not go around bragging about it and Airbus getting enough engines for deliveries (which all I can do is LOL)-they have both been terrible, especially with the Neo entering service 18 months before the Max and just now getting out it’s mess.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Who do you think is earning better in the moment, Airbus with an already high percentage of more expensive neo, or Boeing still with a high percentage of fire sale NGs?

Probably Boeing with their higher percentage of more expensive widebodies.

It’s seems a bit odd to be bragging about Neo ramp up vs Max ramp up. It looks like Airbus is over the hump but I would not go around bragging about it and Airbus getting enough engines for deliveries (which all I can do is LOL)-they have both been terrible, especially with the Neo entering service 18 months before the Max and just now getting out it’s mess.

We were talking narrow bodies here. Anyway what wide body program at Boeing does show a profit as it is?

Yes Airbus was 30 neo deliveries short last year, But this year they have in the first 10 month delivered already 63 more narrow body frames, and I always exclude A220, than last year. November looked also good with over 60, we have not seen the final numbers yet, and if December 2018 compares to December 2017, we will see quite an impressive record of narrow body deliveries at Airbus.