It seems things are moving a bit around the Boeing NMA business case & time schedule. Meanwhile the industry moves on. Airlines look for medium size capacity to replace old fleets and optimize medium capacity / range operation. Airlines, lessors want some clarity and options for their longer term network & fleet planning.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane

"A decision on authorizing the sales force to offer the NMA for sale is ambiguous. For the first time, targeting 2025 for entry into service appears to be acknowledged as iffy." https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/02/max-impact-on-boeing-nma-beginning-to-emerge/

"Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc could re-enter the competition to power a medium-sized jetliner under development at Boeing Co. if the U.S. planemaker pushes the project back to help cope with the 737 Max crisis." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-02/rolls-royce-could-power-boeing-797-if-max-crisis-delays-launch

Boeing’s chief executive has assured investors that the company’s massive effort to return the 737 Max to service has not affected – at least not significantly – 777X development or potential development of the “new mid-market airplane” (NMA). During last weeks Quarterly financial meeting Boeing told investors NMA & 777X are not influenced. But there might be a lot of hope in there. There must be a reason they are sticking to 2025, while most observers question the feasibility of this (no engines, avg 7-8 yr development time). https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-777x-and-nma-timelines-unaffected-by-737-max-457701/

It seems increasingly likely the NMA time table is moving, maybe the requirements too.
This creates new opportunities / trade-offs for all parties involved.

The assumption Airbus will just wait and see (apart from the evolutionary A321XLR) might be optimistic from a Boeing stand point. The gab between the A321 and A338 is significant. The A330 needs a future replacement and an A350-800 proved overkill. An A370? Airbus might be willing to implement A350 & engine technology in the segment left open by the A300/757/767/A310.


https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/150096600055544731/

for the week-end

I think Airbus would be crazy to start on an 370 now. They should use the time to focus on improving margin.

While I don't think we will see a NMA launch until the MAX is back into service (and even then it will just be an ATO giving them 6-8 months before formal launch - lots of time to make sure MAX is okay) I think they will keep doing what they are doing which is having 1,000+ engineers working on the "Concept".

That many engineers can do a lot of work and further refine the design before formal launch so they have more certainty.

It will come and although 2025 seems very tight right now - effectively it should still come at the same time.

Although I stated above Airbus would be crazy to go now it could be an interesting time to do it but I think they would want to wait to see what Boeing is going to do.

If they do a Super Single Aisle (Keesje Version) and then Boeing goes and does the tight/Light 7W (My Concept) they could be in a not too good spot. Boeing could have a nice advantage on them.

If Boeing does the 7W they really should respond with the same thing or go Ovalish 8 and keep the 6W A320 Cross section and rewing it for the low end.

I love it, the way some of these threads are titled...."Airbus just sitting on their hands?"......as though we here on a.net know more about running a multi-billion dollar business than they do.....

morrisond wrote:

I think Airbus would be crazy to start on an 370 now. They should use the time to focus on improving margin.

Why? They have 3 cash cows (A320/A330/A350) that they will further develop into new variants, the A380 will wind down, the backlog is bigger then ever, they covered 120-160 seats with the CSeries. They have the technology (new engines >2025), resources and ambitions to open up new segments. They never were shy, long term strategy beats short term profits/ buy backs and there will be new management with new ambitions soon.

Airbus’s Gain from the 737 MAX Fiasco Isn’t What You Think
The European plane maker can’t boost production of its rival short-haul jet, but it can press its advantage in the medium-haul market

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbuss-gain-from-the-737-max-fiasco-isnt-what-you-think-11556627795

Maximizing the use of new engine technology could drive aircraft design. As the MAX shows, there are limits on re-engining increasing high BPR engines on exsiting aircraft. BPR's > 1:15 should be integrated in a safe and efficient way.



https://www.eucass.eu/doi/plenary/EUCASS2017-Wiart-Atinault-Hue-Grenon-Paluch.pdf

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I think Airbus would be crazy to start on an 370 now. They should use the time to focus on improving margin.

Why? They have 3 cash cows (A320/A330/A350) that they will further develop into new variants, the A380 will wind down, the backlog is bigger then ever, they covered 120-160 seats with the CSeries. They have the technology (new engines >2025), resources and ambitions to open up new segments. They never were shy, long term strategy beats short term profits/ buy backs and there will be new management with new ambitions soon.

Airbus’s Gain from the 737 MAX Fiasco Isn’t What You Think
The European plane maker can’t boost production of its rival short-haul jet, but it can press its advantage in the medium-haul market

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbuss-gain-from-the-737-max-fiasco-isnt-what-you-think-11556627795

Maximizing the use of new engine technology could drive aircraft design. As the MAX shows, there are limits on re-engining increasing high BPR engines on exsiting aircraft. BPR's > 1:15 should be integrated in a safe and efficient way.



https://www.eucass.eu/doi/plenary/EUCASS2017-Wiart-Atinault-Hue-Grenon-Paluch.pdf

That just tells me the XLR is coming which makes a lot of sense. I still think they would be smart to wait for Boeing to commit to their next tube and wing program and then change the game with something that isn't tube and wing like some of the Airbus concepts.

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I think Airbus would be crazy to start on an 370 now. They should use the time to focus on improving margin.

Why? They have 3 cash cows (A320/A330/A350) that they will further develop into new variants, the A380 will wind down, the backlog is bigger then ever, they covered 120-160 seats with the CSeries. They have the technology (new engines >2025), resources and ambitions to open up new segments. They never were shy, long term strategy beats short term profits/ buy backs and there will be new management with new ambitions soon.

Airbus’s Gain from the 737 MAX Fiasco Isn’t What You Think
The European plane maker can’t boost production of its rival short-haul jet, but it can press its advantage in the medium-haul market

https://www.wsj.com/articles/airbuss-gain-from-the-737-max-fiasco-isnt-what-you-think-11556627795

Maximizing the use of new engine technology could drive aircraft design. As the MAX shows, there are limits on re-engining increasing high BPR engines on exsiting aircraft. BPR's > 1:15 should be integrated in a safe and efficient way.



https://www.eucass.eu/doi/plenary/EUCASS2017-Wiart-Atinault-Hue-Grenon-Paluch.pdf

That just tells me the XLR is coming which makes a lot of sense. I still think they would be smart to wait for Boeing to commit to their next tube and wing program and then change the game with something that isn't tube and wing like some of the Airbus concepts.

I see the A321XLR/A322 as evolutionary / a HGW version/ a done deal. Signals from airlines are they already committed to it. The advantage of a tube is that it is efficient and can easily be stretched/ shrunken. Probably the next generation of design will be tubes/wings.



I think the time has come for an entirely new aircraft (I may be off a few years) benefitting from new production and materials technology, new engine technology.

1970 : A300
1982 : A310
1986 : A320
1991 : A330/340
2005 : A380
2009 : A400M
2013 : A350
2027 : A370

I suspect that the MAX disaster reinforces the strategy of moving as quickly as possible with the NMA, and particularly with the NMA as a close sister ship of the NSA.

It would be interesting to see Airbus responding with a rewinged 321/320 as their 'heavy' mid sized plane. Is there any room to do an efficiency redo for shorter ranged 320/321s?

keesje wrote:

Boeing’s chief executive has assured investors that the company’s massive effort to return the 737 Max to service has not affected – at least not significantly – 777X development or potential development of the “new mid-market airplane” (NMA). During last weeks Quarterly financial meeting Boeing told investors NMA & 777X are not influenced. But there might be a lot of hope in there. There must be a reason they are sticking to 2025, whilemost observers question the feasibility of this (no engines, avg 7-8 yr development time). https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-777x-and-nma-timelines-unaffected-by-737-max-457701/

Can you please share who you are referring to when you say most observers? I didn’t see any comments in the linked articles from observers questioning the feasibility of 2025. The 777 entered service 5 years after launch with three new engines. What observers (I assume there are many since you used the word most) are you referring to? The only observer I have seen is Leehamnews, but they question everything that Boeing does

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Boeing’s chief executive has assured investors that the company’s massive effort to return the 737 Max to service has not affected – at least not significantly – 777X development or potential development of the “new mid-market airplane” (NMA). During last weeks Quarterly financial meeting Boeing told investors NMA & 777X are not influenced. But there might be a lot of hope in there. There must be a reason they are sticking to 2025, whilemost observers question the feasibility of this (no engines, avg 7-8 yr development time). https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-777x-and-nma-timelines-unaffected-by-737-max-457701/

Can you please share who you are referring to when you say most observers? I didn’t see any comments in the linked articles from observers questioning the feasibility of 2025. The 777 entered service 5 years after launch with three new engines. What observers (I assume there are many since you used the word most) are you referring to? The only observer I have seen is Leehamnews, but they question everything that Boeing does

At your service:
https://www.aerotime.aero/clement.charpentreau/21478-delta-negotiates-boeing-797-launch-doubts-2025-delivery
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-02/rolls-royce-could-power-boeing-797-if-max-crisis-delays-launch
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-797-delay/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-quietly-plugs-away-at-nma-pending-2019-decis-453005/


Do you really believe a 797 NMA will enter service in 2025, when launched in 2020? If so, why? (apart from Boeing trying to boost stock holders).

Because its basically a done design - they just need to order the tools?

Perhaps this thread could be combined with the existing 797 thread? My apologies for asking a question that is already covered in the other thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411903

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Perhaps this thread could be combined with the existing 797 thread? My apologies for asking a question that is already covered in the other thread

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1411903

This thread is not about the 797. It's about strategy changes at the Airlines, Airbus and Boeing resulting from the current situation.

If the NMA market is there, Boeing has shifting priorities and other programs are maturing the opportunity grows to step in.

If technological / efficiency improvements are there, they will probably step in, as has been the case over the last 40 years.

Yes they do have an opportunity - but in my mind it's to do what Boeing will probably do - an Ovalish 7W design - take away Boeing's thunder and steal a lot of the launch orders. With all the controversy surrounding Boeing right now they would have a lot of orders being placed with A just so they didn't have to announce an order with B right now.

This effectively would replace the A330 as well.

Later on they(A) can make a smaller winged version to take on the short ranged missions to replace A320/A321 and upsize A220 to fill in the line from below.

morrisond wrote:

Yes they do have an opportunity - but in my mind it's to do what Boeing will probably do - an Ovalish 7W design - take away Boeing's thunder and steal a lot of the launch orders. With all the controversy surrounding Boeing right now they would have a lot of orders being placed with A just so they didn't have to announce an order with B right now.

This effectively would replace the A330 as well.

Later on they(A) can make a smaller winged version to take on the short ranged missions to replace A320/A321 and upsize A220 to fill in the line from below.

The oval 7 breast miracle has been with us for 20 years, no takers. http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/6616100

Airlines will order what they think fits best & it will have little to do with wath people say on the MAX.

Same for Airbus, they make their plans based on what the market wants, not what Boeing says they might do.

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes they do have an opportunity - but in my mind it's to do what Boeing will probably do - an Ovalish 7W design - take away Boeing's thunder and steal a lot of the launch orders. With all the controversy surrounding Boeing right now they would have a lot of orders being placed with A just so they didn't have to announce an order with B right now.

This effectively would replace the A330 as well.

Later on they(A) can make a smaller winged version to take on the short ranged missions to replace A320/A321 and upsize A220 to fill in the line from below.

The oval 7 breast miracle has been with us for 20 years, no takers. http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/6616100

Airlines will order what they think fits best & it will have little to do with wath people say on the MAX.

Same for Airbus, they make their plans based on what the market wants, not what Boeing says they might do.

Yes it has been with us for that long - that's why it's not that big of a stretch to see it or some variant of it by 2025.

If the NMA is something 767-sized, Airbus might be better off responding with what killed the 767: the A332.

A clean sheet a332-sized plane with next generation engines might be what Airbus will need to take the 787 market back. Targeting the 787-8 replacement cycle might be a better idea than going head to head with the NMA.

I strongly doubt the MAX situation has changed Boeing's 797 strategy. But I'm sure it has changed the public-relations approach. Boeing is not in a position to crow about anything, either publicly or to external partners, until the MAX is back in the air.

And because I don't think Boeing's approach has changed, I don't think Airbus's has either.

The risk factor with the 797 continues to be engines, as it has been for a long time, more than anything about the airframe. On Airbus's side, the question is more in-house: whether to pull the trigger on developing a new wing for the A320 series fuselage that would improve efficiency and fuel capacity. Both parties have an incentive to wait until the last possible second before finalizing and disclosing decisions on those matters. So we who are outside the know just have to wait.

If Airbus could make a clean sheet design for a single aile, optimized around the A321, a shorter version A320 and a longer version A322. Leave the < A320 market to the A220-100/-300 and develop a proposed A220-500. Perhaps a new wing with extending the current A321 will be enough for the period 2022 - 2035 and develop a clean sheet design in 2033 onwards.

It is for Boeing to make a move, I am sure that Airbus has enough proposals in the works to react adequate.

April 18, 2019
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/apr ... ng-crisis/

Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer

“Analysts say Scherer is picking market battles but will come under some pressure to sustain orders. He must also respond to Boeing proposals for a New Mid-sized Airplane (NMA) between the A321neo and A330neo, though he insists Boeing's plan won't work.

How that battles plays out could affect choices and timing of the next generation of single-aisle jets like the MAX and A321neo from 2030, which is beginning to influence strategies.

Scherer, who keeps a model in his office of a jet code-named A30X, which would have seen the light of day if Boeing had opted for a new jet instead of the MAX, is focused on current business but acknowledges Airbus is shaping its ideas beyond the A320neo.“

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Perhaps this thread could be combined with the existing 797 thread? My apologies for asking a question that is already covered in the other thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411903

This thread has a question mark in the title and some random pictures which make it different enough.

But it is also quite similar to this one: viewtopic.php?t=1418069

Babyshark wrote:

April 18, 2019
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/apr ... ng-crisis/

Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer

“Analysts say Scherer is picking market battles but will come under some pressure to sustain orders. He must also respond to Boeing proposals for a New Mid-sized Airplane (NMA) between the A321neo and A330neo, though he insists Boeing's plan won't work.

How that battles plays out could affect choices and timing of the next generation of single-aisle jets like the MAX and A321neo from 2030, which is beginning to influence strategies.

Scherer, who keeps a model in his office of a jet code-named A30X, which would have seen the light of day if Boeing had opted for a new jet instead of the MAX, is focused on current business but acknowledges Airbus is shaping its ideas beyond the A320neo.“

This is also why I don’t understand those who think Airbus wants to use the early 2000 A220 design in 2030 as their future a320 replacement while they have a a30x planned. If they rip the cockpit out of the A220 cockpit and make it a real Airbus in logic. But then They have to share with Bombardier and I’d bet they’d rather just let BBD continue to wither away to nothing.

Developping a new wing for the A320 series would probably have low priority, if you sold 6500 and still have 6000 in the backlog, with demand beating supply.

New wing, wingbox technology and supporting UHBPR engines will probably work best on a design optimized for a new segment. That goes for both Airbus and Boeing.

And because I don't think Boeing's approach has changed, I don't think Airbus's has either.

I see Airbus using new technology for a new design in the next decade, a continuation of their 50 year strategy. Airbus has never been a follower (A300/310, A320, A330/40, A380, A400M).

The A320-200 variant will never become obsolete, unless there is some breakthrough in electric aircraft.

You're forgetting that we're still in 1988 technologically in this industry Keesje, especially Airbus (but I guess it's better than 1968).

This NMA/A321XLR must be keeping Keesje awake.
A 2025 EIS for a NMA is not realistic anymore, we're sliding into 2026 at the earliest.

The thing is, I would like to see Airbus sell more A330neos or A380's. Increasing the unit margin after the aircraft is going to cost hundreds of millions to certify doesn't sound like something to focus your energy on.

Every A330 that is produced at half the possible production rate of 120 per year is selling at half its sales margin.

There are 200 production slots going to waste i. The next 3 years.

That is what should be keeping Airbus awake.

Regardless of what Boeing will/won't do on their 737 / NMA business case the A321XLR seems a go, w'll know in a month (Paris).

The question is if Airbus will break the tradition of launching 1 or 2 new aircraft designs every decade. In past I considered if it might be an ultra efficient ultra quiet short haul 150 seater, but that seems less likely after they bought the A220 program.

Now e.g. something lean and mean inbetween an A322 and the A359 might be on the table.

LurveBus wrote:

If the NMA is something 767-sized, Airbus might be better off responding with what killed the 767: the A332.

A clean sheet a332-sized plane with next generation engines might be what Airbus will need to take the 787 market back. Targeting the 787-8 replacement cycle might be a better idea than going head to head with the NMA.

Well, the re-engined A330-800 has been a moderate success so far. I think the 787-8 has some further improvement opportunities. Going head to head with that, seems a risky trajectory

That's a pretty big airplane you are drawing. Just on mass it's got to be a lot worse per seat than A321/A322 if launched.

A 7W NMA(or Airbus 370) with 30-40 more seats than A321 (about the same as your 370-800) could be about the same length as A321 - Slightly bigger tail surfaces than A321 and when folded the wings the same span as A321. Fuselage about 20" wider on both sides.

Just picture the size difference - or if you can overlay that on your image.

morrisond wrote:

That's a pretty big airplane you are drawing. Just on mass it's got to be a lot worse per seat than A321/A322 if launched.

A 7W NMA(or Airbus 370) with 30-40 more seats than A321 (about the same as your 370-800) could be about the same length as A321 - Slightly bigger tail surfaces than A321 and when folded the wings the same span as A321. Fuselage about 20" wider on both sides.

Just picture the size difference - or if you can overlay that on your image.

It's just an example, I created some time ago, but threads get locked earlier these days. You are right it would probably be heavier per seat, although I believe it would weigh significant less than a 2-3-2 fuselage.

It would be more capable for medium flights, offering direct aisle access for long haul Business Class 4 abreast, significant cargo capability and most importantly more space / capacity than a A321 could ever offer.

A narrow single aisle on longer flights with >250 seats e.g. 753, creates all kinds of inefficiencies and bad passenger appeal. This example A370 fuselage would be around 10 inch wider than a A321.

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That's a pretty big airplane you are drawing. Just on mass it's got to be a lot worse per seat than A321/A322 if launched.

A 7W NMA(or Airbus 370) with 30-40 more seats than A321 (about the same as your 370-800) could be about the same length as A321 - Slightly bigger tail surfaces than A321 and when folded the wings the same span as A321. Fuselage about 20" wider on both sides.

Just picture the size difference - or if you can overlay that on your image.

It's just an example, I created some time ago, but threads get locked earlier these days. You are right it would probably be heavier per seat, although I believe it would weigh significant less than a 2-3-2 fuselage.

It would be more capable for medium flights, offering direct aisle access for long haul Business Class 4 abreast, significant cargo capability and most importantly more space / capacity than a A321 could ever offer.

A narrow single aisle on longer flights with >250 seats e.g. 753, creates all kinds of inefficiencies and bad passenger appeal. This example A370 fuselage would be around 10 inch wider than a A321.

Yes - but a 2-3-2 Fuselage Cross Section with the same seating capacity would be a lot shorter than your concept with the same seating capcity.

It could take 50% wider than LD3-45 Containers as well.

Assuming 2x2x2 Domestic Business in the front - You would save 2-3 rows to get the same capacity up front, 5 rows in the back, you might be able to save an exit due to the shorter length and the Galley's/Lavs could take up less space as well.

You could probably save somewhere in the order of of 300"(25'/7.6M) in Fuselage length. That is a lot. It would not need to be as stiff either. I highly doubt it would be significantly different in weight - especially compared to your Super Wide version.

Add in the additional revenue for the additional cargo space and the tight 7W could be the winner.

keesje wrote:

It's about strategy changes at the Airlines, Airbus and Boeing resulting from the current situation.

Then maybe you should have used that for the title, rather than the incoherent click bait "Will Airbus just sitting on their hands?"

Babyshark wrote:

This is also why I don’t understand those who think Airbus wants to use the early 2000 A220 design in 2030 as their future a320 replacement while they have a a30x planned. If they rip the cockpit out of the A220 cockpit and make it a real Airbus in logic. But then They have to share with Bombardier and I’d bet they’d rather just let BBD continue to wither away to nothing.

Since we're discussing strategies, it looks like BBD is doing a good job of withering to nothing on its own by preparing to sell off its Belfast operations.

It makes me wonder if Airbus is going to have to do what Boeing did during the 787 days and swoop in and buy out vendors to keep the A220 program alive.

That $1 investment may turn out to be darn costly.

BBD has the smell of money in its noses, and now that Airbus's name is on the A220, Airbus has no choice but respond.

Babyshark wrote:

April 18, 2019
https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2019/apr ... ng-crisis/

Airbus sales chief Christian Scherer

Article says:

"I am certainly not encouraging any sort of behavior to try and exploit this situation, because this is out of bounds," he said of Airbus, which has limited potential to increase output.

Some posts in this thread show a willingness to exploit this situation.

In my opinion, I think the Boeing NMA program will come sooner rather than later. I don't think the MAX issues have delayed it significantly, on the other hand Boeing needs some positive press right now. A fresh, new design would deliver years of excitement, and a positive outlook on the future of Boeing. It would change the narrative completely.

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

That's a pretty big airplane you are drawing. Just on mass it's got to be a lot worse per seat than A321/A322 if launched.

A 7W NMA(or Airbus 370) with 30-40 more seats than A321 (about the same as your 370-800) could be about the same length as A321 - Slightly bigger tail surfaces than A321 and when folded the wings the same span as A321. Fuselage about 20" wider on both sides.

Just picture the size difference - or if you can overlay that on your image.

It's just an example, I created some time ago, but threads get locked earlier these days. You are right it would probably be heavier per seat, although I believe it would weigh significant less than a 2-3-2 fuselage.

It would be more capable for medium flights, offering direct aisle access for long haul Business Class 4 abreast, significant cargo capability and most importantly more space / capacity than a A321 could ever offer.

A narrow single aisle on longer flights with >250 seats e.g. 753, creates all kinds of inefficiencies and bad passenger appeal. This example A370 fuselage would be around 10 inch wider than a A321.

Yes - but a 2-3-2 Fuselage Cross Section with the same seating capacity would be a lot shorter than your concept with the same seating capcity.

It could take 50% wider than LD3-45 Containers as well.

Assuming 2x2x2 Domestic Business in the front - You would save 2-3 rows to get the same capacity up front, 5 rows in the back, you might be able to save an exit due to the shorter length and the Galley's/Lavs could take up less space as well.

You could probably save somewhere in the order of of 300"(25'/7.6M) in Fuselage length. That is a lot. It would not need to be as stiff either. I highly doubt it would be significantly different in weight - especially compared to your Super Wide version.

Add in the additional revenue for the additional cargo space and the tight 7W could be the winner.

At some point, indeed a dual aisle becomes a better idea. Question is when that is the case. Can you stretch up NB efficiency a bit, for the medium requirements?

In the 2-3-2 Boeing oval cross sections that I have seen, they showed the industry standard 45 inch high LD3 based AKH containers.

https://images.app.goo.gl/JqesQHk9XkbHUp7UA

If a fat NB fuselage would be indeed be 7.6 m longer, that would mean it can take at least 4 AKH's /6t extra cargo using that extra lenght. It's hard to beat NB efficiency in terms of space use. In a shorter 7 abreast fuselage, a larger percentage od belly space would required for luggage.

Stiffness is a serious topic as you indicate. When you go real long, a NB gets relatively heavy. I think the 10 inch extra cross section on top of a A321, even more compared to 757, would improve structural efficiency.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

It's about strategy changes at the Airlines, Airbus and Boeing resulting from the current situation.

Then maybe you should have used that for the title, rather than the incoherent click bait "Will Airbus just sitting on their hands?"

Yes, you are right. Or some members were half reading, fixated & jumped to conclusions, unsuccesfully trying getting it merged.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

This NMA/A321XLR must be keeping Keesje awake.
A 2025 EIS for a NMA is not realistic anymore, we're sliding into 2026 at the earliest.

The thing is, I would like to see Airbus sell more A330neos or A380's. Increasing the unit margin after the aircraft is going to cost hundreds of millions to certify doesn't sound like something to focus your energy on.

Every A330 that is produced at half the possible production rate of 120 per year is selling at half its sales margin.

There are 200 production slots going to waste i. The next 3 years.

That is what should be keeping Airbus awake.

Airbus has for sure not the capacity for 20 WB/month. You seem to forget that some parts of the A330/A350 FAL are shared.
Airbus did not invest in any extra outfitting stations S20 for the A350.

keesje wrote:

At some point, indeed a dual aisle becomes a better idea. Question is when that is the case. Can you stretch up NB efficiency a bit, for the medium requirements?

In the 2-3-2 Boeing oval cross sections that I have seen, they showed the industry standard 45 inch high LD3 based AKH containers.

If a fat NB fuselage would be indeed be 7.6 m longer, that would mean it can take at least 4 AKH's /6t extra cargo using that extra lenght. It's hard to beat NB efficiency in terms of space use. In a shorter 7 abreast fuselage, a larger percentage od belly space would required for luggage.

Stiffness is a serious topic as you indicate. When you go real long, a NB gets relatively heavy. I think the 10 inch extra cross section on top of a A321, even more compared to 757, would improve structural efficiency.
:

Two years ago you made the same claim that a wider narrowbody would be more structurally efficient, but couldn’t provide engineering rationale to substantiate that a wider 6 abreast airplane “structurally efficiency” would offset the weigh penalty from the larger diameter for a long narrowbody.

viewtopic.php?t=1362655&start=750

You waived the white flag when such an assertion couldn’t be backed up with any engineering logic

keesje wrote:

Hi Newbie if a fuselage has a 10 inch wider fuselage, the same loads have a longer arms which leads to lower stains. It improves area moment of inertia of an aircraft fuselage cross section. Alternative you can lower the dimensions of fuselage structure and skin (weight saving) or e.g. make the fuselage longer and stay within the allowed load envelope. A bigger (average) radius helps to the fourth power improving Polar moment of inertia of a tube leaving room for weight reduction if the load stays ~ the same. Which is the case if e.g. a cabin stays 3-3 abreast + AKH container.
https://www.engineersedge.com/imagefile ... nertia.png


Of course there are other loads the fuselage has to take, but those are often more limiting factors for widebodies, that can theoretical have thin skins from a bending standpoint but still need to withstand e.g. hail & scrapnel loads

Newbiepilot wrote:

How is anything that you posted relevant to your comment "A 10 inch wider fuselage also does wonders for structural efficiency / weight when going beyond 35 seat rows." What is special about 35 rows to make a wider fuselage more structurally efficient?

In one post you say widebodies can't compete with narrowbodies in efficiency. Then in another you say that current narrowbodies are too narrow and need to be wider to be more efficient. You seem to have decided that 178 inches is some magic number, yet provide no analysis why.

I understand how a beam works, but not how you are coming up with numbers showing that 178 inches is the ideal diameter for a plane that is 55 meters long. Why is 178 inches better than 196 inches or 164 inches? Nothing that you posted backs up the claim that 178 inch diameter fuselage will be lighter than a 164 inch fuselage since it is all theory. Going on the wider is better motif, why not make the airplane a 7 abreast widebody that is 196 inches wide?

:

:

What changed from when you proposed this idea 2 years ago?

Newbiepilot wrote:

What changed from when you proposed this idea 2 years ago?

Hi Newbiepilot,

- instead of launching a 2-3-2 NMA, Boeing delayed launch in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
- Airbus proceeded developing the A321NEO, but in a conservative way.
- further A300s, 756s, 767s, A310 fleets were retired
- airlines increasingly showed interest but have limitted options

This creates new opportunities and trade-offs for all involved. Ask RR, UA, DL or Muilenburg.

Regarding structural effiency of increased diameter long tubes, I will not explain again, because I think you are not really interested in that.

I do have high expectations of valuable, substantiated and interesting posts from you though. Please move ahead!

I don’t think United is going to have the ability to wait beyond 2025 to replace their 757/767. This may very well push them to settle and order more 788 to replace their 767... however, hopefully this will push them to Airbus for the 321XLR and perhaps some 330neos

JetBuddy wrote:

In my opinion, I think the Boeing NMA program will come sooner rather than later. I don't think the MAX issues have delayed it significantly, on the other hand Boeing needs some positive press right now. A fresh, new design would deliver years of excitement, and a positive outlook on the future of Boeing. It would change the narrative completely.

Not unless it comes with several hundred launch orders from major Airlines.

1989worstyear wrote:

The A320-200 variant will never become obsolete, unless there is some breakthrough in electric aircraft.

You're forgetting that we're still in 1988 technologically in this industry Keesje, especially Airbus (but I guess it's better than 1968).

Y'know, I always forget that composite fuselages were first rolled out In 1989. Oh wait, they were rolled out decades later.

musman9853 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

The A320-200 variant will never become obsolete, unless there is some breakthrough in electric aircraft.

You're forgetting that we're still in 1988 technologically in this industry Keesje, especially Airbus (but I guess it's better than 1968).

Y'know, I always forget that composite fuselages were first rolled out In 1989. Oh wait, they were rolled out decades later.

I'm referring to the numerous threads on re-winging the A320 family and the benefits of a clean-sheet NB from this century.

I think the consensus there was that there is currently no commercial reason to do so. Even a 29/30 year old CEO is more efficient than a brand-new NEO on short hops - hence the popularity of the ESG.

morrisond wrote:

Because its basically a done design - they just need to order the tools?

Yeah, and plan for an ultra tight certification process, what could go wrong ?

JayinKitsap wrote:

Boeing is appropriately being very quiet except for getting the MAX back in the air. First flight of the 777X is not far off, but hardly a peep about it. Almost not Military side press releases. Once the MAX is back flying and production is running on all cylinders will we see B go back on offense.

Interestingly, Airbus orders and news has been quiet lately also. They have some issues like BBD is selling Belfast, who will be the buyer and will the A220 wings still be produced there.

Both are very quiet, trying to stay below the radar in respect to already committed new models and variants, in case they prompt fast tracking of grandfathering and certification reviews.

1989worstyear wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

The A320-200 variant will never become obsolete, unless there is some breakthrough in electric aircraft.

You're forgetting that we're still in 1988 technologically in this industry Keesje, especially Airbus (but I guess it's better than 1968).

Y'know, I always forget that composite fuselages were first rolled out In 1989. Oh wait, they were rolled out decades later.

I'm referring to the numerous threads on re-winging the A320 family and the benefits of a clean-sheet NB from this century.

I think the consensus there was that there is currently no commercial reason to do so. Even a 29/30 year old CEO is more efficient than a brand-new NEO on short hops - hence the popularity of the ESG.

you said this industry was stuck for over 30 years with absolutely no innovation. that's quite clearly false

Scarebus34 wrote:

I don’t think United is going to have the ability to wait beyond 2025 to replace their 757/767. This may very well push them to settle and order more 788 to replace their 767... however, hopefully this will push them to Airbus for the 321XLR and perhaps some 330neos

more 321s makes sense. however with the 788 it's difficult to see united ordering any a330neo. even their a350 order is on kinda shaky ground.

musman9853 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

Y'know, I always forget that composite fuselages were first rolled out In 1989. Oh wait, they were rolled out decades later.

I'm referring to the numerous threads on re-winging the A320 family and the benefits of a clean-sheet NB from this century.

I think the consensus there was that there is currently no commercial reason to do so. Even a 29/30 year old CEO is more efficient than a brand-new NEO on short hops - hence the popularity of the ESG.

you said this industry was stuck for over 30 years with absolutely no innovation. that's quite clearly false

I think the current popularity of a 30 year old variant shows how much innovation there has been in the last 30 years.

If Airbus launched the A322/321XLR with a new (non-1988) composite wing, or carriers rushed out to buy gobs of mythical A220-500's to replace the thousands of 15-30 year old A320-200 CEO's still flying, then I would agree with your statement. However, it's not happening.

1989worstyear wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

1989worstyear wrote:

I'm referring to the numerous threads on re-winging the A320 family and the benefits of a clean-sheet NB from this century.

I think the consensus there was that there is currently no commercial reason to do so. Even a 29/30 year old CEO is more efficient than a brand-new NEO on short hops - hence the popularity of the ESG.

you said this industry was stuck for over 30 years with absolutely no innovation. that's quite clearly false

I think the current popularity of a 30 year old variant shows how much innovation there has been in the last 30 years.

If Airbus launched the A322/321XLR with a new (non-1988) composite wing, or carriers rushed out to buy gobs of mythical A220-500's to replace the thousands of 15-30 year old A320-200 CEO's still flying, then I would agree with your statement. However, it's not happening.

The 737 is a 60 year old design and it's still selling.
Does that mean there hasnt been any improvements in the Industry since then? Of course not.

The fact if the matter is that aviation is not a static Industry. And that holds true with the 797/a321xlr, both of which will offer technological advancements

morrisond wrote:

I think Airbus would be crazy to start on an 370 now. They should use the time to focus on improving margin.

First, surely, it would be an A360? An all-around airliner? Anyway, a few things: Airbus needs to continue developing new models to basically keep in-house talent up to snuff. If they stop developing new models, they will lose that talent. Moreover, the A330NEO program is proving to be a bit disappointing in the face of the 787's competition. Keesje is quite right that the gap between the A321 and the A338 is quite big, but what he didn't say is that Airbus hasn't actually sold any A338s, so what really matters is the even bigger gap between the A321 and the A339. '

His A322/A325 proposals are intriguing and certainly could bolster the low end of the market, aka the 757 market, but what really is needed is something the size of the 762 and 763 that can offer 10-12 hour performance with excellent efficiency. Airbus completely stuffed up the A380 and while the A350 is a success, they were definitely following Boeing's lead on that project. It's time for the A360.

The big thing is that Airbus has to pull off another A350. The aircraft needs to be put out with minimal delays and issues. If they do that, they could have it to market BEFORE 2025 and if they build enough space under the wings, they can do an NEO early in the program when newer engines become available.

DocLightning wrote:

His A322/A325 proposals are intriguing and certainly could bolster the low end of the market, aka the 757 market, but what really is needed is something the size of the 762 and 763 that can offer 10-12 hour performance with excellent efficiency. Airbus completely stuffed up the A380 and while the A350 is a success, they were definitely following Boeing's lead on that project. It's time for the A360.

Does it need to be 767 sized? I do not think so. The A330 won against the 767 quite easily even when having more seats, but lower CASM. The fixation on 767 size is mainly based on the fact that a larger 797 would directly attack the 787 which would make little sense for Boeing and also not solve their problem when facing the A321 and possible variants. Airbus could put an A330NEO replacement in that market.

What Airbus needs is a slightly smaller / more efficient A330 that sits better between the A321 and A350. The gap between the 737 and 787, however, is much, much bigger so Boeing needs a plane that sits in the sweet spot between the A330 and A321 for maximum commercial potential.

It makes no sense for Airbus to develop a 797 competitor for that narrow bandwidth. But with the A330neo just launched, I don't see a successor starting before the 797 is revealed. They'd want to see how it performs, where it sits (pax and range) and how the market responds before finalising design specifications. Also, the new generation of engines wont be truly ready before 2027, so a 330 successor will arrive ~2028 the earliest.

In any case an airbus NMA would be larger than the 797 (8 rows) and will succeed the A330. The A330 already struggles with no competition from either Boeing or an Airbus 797 NMA competitor.

Absynth wrote:

What Airbus needs is a slightly smaller / more efficient A330 that sits better between the A321 and A350. The gap between the 737 and 787, however, is much, much bigger so Boeing needs a plane that sits in the sweet spot between the A330 and A321 for maximum commercial potential.

It makes no sense for Airbus to develop a 797 competitor for that narrow bandwidth. But with the A330neo just launched, I don't see a successor starting before the 797 is revealed. They'd want to see how it performs, where it sits (pax and range) and how the market responds before finalising design specifications. Also, the new generation of engines wont be truly ready before 2027, so a 330 successor will arrive ~2028 the earliest.

In any case an airbus NMA would be larger than the 797 (8 rows) and will succeed the A330. The A330 already struggles with no competition from either Boeing or an Airbus 797 NMA competitor.

new modern A300 anyone ( I know it has been discussed before but)? same tube, new engines and rewinged would would do a great job between a339 and 321xlr

seahawk wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

His A322/A325 proposals are intriguing and certainly could bolster the low end of the market, aka the 757 market, but what really is needed is something the size of the 762 and 763 that can offer 10-12 hour performance with excellent efficiency. Airbus completely stuffed up the A380 and while the A350 is a success, they were definitely following Boeing's lead on that project. It's time for the A360.

Does it need to be 767 sized? I do not think so. The A330 won against the 767 quite easily even when having more seats, but lower CASM. The fixation on 767 size is mainly based on the fact that a larger 797 would directly attack the 787 which would make little sense for Boeing and also not solve their problem when facing the A321 and possible variants. Airbus could put an A330NEO replacement in that market.

If a new project would enter service late next decade, an A330 replacement could become relevant. But the A330 proved more resilient then expected before..

A long time ago the 2-3-2 was already discussed. I think it would be hard to make it light and efficient enough to compete on typical 500-1500NM big citypairs many times a day.. And that might be in the airline requirements.

Absynth wrote:

What Airbus needs is a slightly smaller / more efficient A330 that sits better between the A321 and A350.
..
Also, the new generation of engines wont be truly ready before 2027, so a 330 successor will arrive ~2028 the earliest.

I could agree with you there. The original A300 fuselage got bigger, heavier and more capable over the last 45 years.

After the A310 they lost that segment. Leahy pointed out the moderately succesfull A310 to demonstrate the weakness of the MoM segment. A bit opportunistic of course, because that was 35 years ago..