During the Innovation Days today, Airbus revealed A321 output will be increased to around 50% of all A320 family deliveries, up from 44% today.

Source http://twitter.com/thatjohn/status/737542211554836482

The backlog however does not reflect this (there are more A320s than A321s in backlog). Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

Slide below from last year shows A321 output evolution. Will go to 50% in 2017.



[Edited 2016-05-31 06:41:19]

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

Or conversions.

So if the A320 is becoming the new A319, and the A321 is becoming the new A320, When will the A322 come along?

Can a single aile get much longer and still function on short haul?

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 1): Can a single aile get much longer and still function on short haul?

The 757-300 has proven that long turn-around times are not favorable.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): The backlog however does not reflect this (there are more A320s than A321s in backlog). Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

I think we will see more conversions. In some big A320 orders quite a few A320 could be a place holder for either a A320 or A321, the decision coming near to production start.
We also see A321 bought complementary to an otherwise Boeing lineup of 737-800.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): The backlog however does not reflect this (there are more A320s than A321s in backlog). Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

They are probably expecting quite a few up-conversions.

I suspect that the change of mix will also go hand-in-hand with planned increases in production, to permit a few more near-term 321 sales (at a premium, no doubt  ).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2): The 757-300 has proven that long turn-around times are not favorable

I think that this is a statement that does not stand like that. If you use L2, the boarding speed is not to bad. Since running the 2 767, Icelandair rotates the -300 to trips were the -200 is overbooked. You do not see vastly increased turn around times. If the stretched frames are not used for ultra short haul, you do not have a big problem.
Used on longer distances, you do not use ultra dense configurations. So I think the turn around time of a 757-300 with 220 pax boarding through L2 is quite a bit better than a A321 with 220 pax boarding through L1.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5): Since running the 2 767, Icelandair rotates the -300 to trips were the -200 is overbooked.

Except the 767 is a widebody jet, the 757 and A320 are not.

John Leahy today explained:

Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, Leahy said. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need to stay within reasonable turnaround times on the ground.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...es-no-reason-concern-about-mad-max

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):

The 757-300, TF-FIX, which I believe he is talking about is not a wide body.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6): Except the 767 is a widebody jet, the 757 and A320 are not.

Could you explain that comment? I compare the 757-300 with the 757-200. Icelandair does not use any 767-200.

The 757-300 was used mainly to LHR and JFK, sometimes AMS or CPH. It has been replaced by the 767-300 on those routes and is now mainly used were one 757-200 is overbooked. I have not seen increased boarding times and I have been sitting quite often in the 757-300.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6): John Leahy today explained: Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, Leahy said. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need to stay within reasonable turnaround times on the ground.

Until he declares the A321 will be stretched. As it is, with the A321 without competition and overbooked in production who would muse about a stretch.
Regarding capacity, it depends if you talk about high density or low density. In Icelandair configuration, which is still pretty packed, it is 220 pax. in the 757-300, if there would be a lay flat business class you would not even fit that number. So far below the 240 to 250 pax number.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 1): So if the A320 is becoming the new A319, and the A321 is becoming the new A320, When will the A322 come along?

I suspect that if Boeing goes ahead with a desperate move to save the 739MAX by either building a 737-9.5 or a 737-10, Airbus might just do an A322 to comprehensively kill its prospects.

But surely it has to be more than a simple stretch, as the A321 itself has rather small wings compared to its overall stature, and I'm not sure how close its tailstrike characteristics are to the envelope either.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 8): Could you explain that comment?

Pretty easy:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5): Since running the 2 767, Icelandair rotates the -300 to trips were the -200 is overbooked.

The sentence starts with the 767 so I had interpreted it as "Icelandair rotates the 767-300 to trips were the 767-200 is overbooked".

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 8): Icelandair does not use any 767-200.

I'm not familiar with Icelandair's fleet.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 1): Or conversions.

Personally, I'm expecting a lot of A320neo orders to be converted up to A321neos.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): The backlog however does not reflect this (there are more A320s than A321s in backlog). Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

IMO there are many orders booked as generic A320s, of which the detailed breakdown will be negotiated and published in the O&D chart later, and this is an indication of part of those orders already being converted to A321s. But as the A321NEO is bound to be a big seller, there could be future expected sales in those numbers too.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 11): Personally, I'm expecting a lot of A320neo orders to be converted up to A321neos.

Second that and here´s hoping for the A322 in near future

Cheers 

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Are Airbus expecting more sales for the larger A321 in the future?

I would say yes and possible conversions too. Also, the new 4th line that will be eventually opened in Hamburg will support this growth as all A321 are manufactured and delivered here (except the aircraft transported to Mobile of course).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 10): The sentence starts with the 767 so I had interpreted it as "Icelandair rotates the 767-300 to trips were the 767-200 is overbooked".

As we were both talking about the 757 ...

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 15): As we were both talking about the 757 ...

FWIW I read it 767-200 too.   

I get the feeling there is a A322 growing.

Airbus is a for profit concern, and has a hot selling product selling at near sticker. Of course Airbus is going to crank out more profitable A321s in the production mix.

As someone else posted, it looks like the new pairing outside of the A350/787 is the 737-8/ A321 ie. AA's fleet going forward.

Airbus currently has a big issue in ramping-up production. That is one of the biggest issues Airbus currently has. Before thinking of an A322 they should improve their production processes and deliver all the A320 aircraft family planes already ordered.

They could sell more of the A320 family if they had available slots. From a financial perspective I would favor increasing production numbers and only then when a solid backlog and a corresponding production has been reached should they offer an A322. And this only in case the demand for such a plane is high enough. Maybe customers do not want an A322 but rather earlier deliveries of new ordered A321's.

Quoting osteogenesis (Reply 19): Airbus currently has a big issue in ramping-up production. That is one of the biggest issues Airbus currently has. Before thinking of an A322 they should improve their production processes and deliver all the A320 aircraft family planes already ordered.

A322 would EIS in 2021+, they should have their deliveries in order by then. The development team however will need something to do, once NEO, NEO and A350 are done. The A350 team will be doing the A350XL probably, but the rest will also need something to do.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20): A322 would EIS in 2021+, they should have their deliveries in order by then. The development team however will need something to do, once NEO, NEO and A350 are done. The A350 team will be doing the A350XL probably, but the rest will also need something to do.

That is correct. But their is a lot of other work also to be done:

1) Stretch and re-engine the A380
2) Continuous improvement on A330
3) Continuous improvement on A320

Those kind of seemingly "small" continuous improvement projects need a lot of R&D. But this of course is a lot of speculation. We do not have the numbers to decide which investment is the best.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20): A322 would EIS in 2021+, they should have their deliveries in order by then.

I can't see Airbus launching a major new 320 variant until after Boeing has announced what it is going to do next. Why spend the money when any airline that needs a large single aisle frame has no better option available than the 321neo?

They will, of course, keep studying all their options in the meantime.

Quoting speedbored (Reply 22): I can't see Airbus launching a major new 320 variant until after Boeing has announced what it is going to do next. Why spend the money when any airline that needs a large single aisle frame has no better option available than the 321neo? They will, of course, keep studying all their options in the meantime.

That is imho thinking of the past. When there is a market, you can meet the demand and the investment is so small that the project is worth doing, you do it, if you have the resources. The line of thought that says "our products are good enough, buy them or nothing" is exactly the line of thought that caused the problems at Boeing, I hope Airbus does not fall into that trap.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23): That is imho thinking of the past. When there is a market, you can meet the demand and the investment is so small that the project is worth doing, you do it, if you have the resources.

But that's the point - they are already maxed out satisfying demand for their existing products so they could not "meet the demand" without cannibalizing sales from their existing models.

So, unless a larger 320 variant could be sold at very significantly higher margins (to recover the not insignificant additional development / testing costs) than the already high margin 321, then they are better off waiting until either they can further increase production rates, or demand for existing models starts to reduce.

Waiting until they know what Boeing is going to do will enable them to produce a far more competitive next model than jumping in now and giving Boeing a target to beat. Boeing will almost certainly have to move first this time.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 23): The line of thought that says "our products are good enough, buy them or nothing" is exactly the line of thought that caused the problems at Boeing, I hope Airbus does not fall into that trap.

That is exactly why we haven't seen a bigger ATR though. When you are clubbing the competition like the A321 is doing to the 739, why spend extra on building something that you don't need in order to capture sales? I'm sure we will see some movement once Boeing shows it's hand.

Indeed, any Airbus response would come after Boeing shows there hand, but would quite probably also have an entry into service before the new (mom) Boeing.

Airbus are in no rush here....

Quoting speedbored (Reply 22): They will, of course, keep studying all their options in the meantime.

Wouldn't it be likely that Airbus already have some sort of basic concept of a A322 ready to go ahead
with (from a R&D point of view) if/when Airbus board decided that it is go for launch?

Reasonably, Airbus likely knows roughly how big it would have to be/how many seats
it would need to have and etc?

I would not place my bet on an A322 concept. As mentioned upthread:

Quote: Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, Leahy said. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need to stay within reasonable turnaround times on the ground.

Remember, the A321neo will already be at 240 seats. Can't see them stretching the A321 for just 10 additional seats.

[Edited 2016-05-31 14:33:39]

Conversely a couple of airlines recently have changed A321 orders to A320, who is to say that this isnt the start of a trend?

There always have been and always will be a few airlines that downsize their order. Upsizing however remains the trend, downsizing is the exception rather than the rule.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter): Airbus revealed A321 output will be increased to around 50% of all A320 family deliveries, up from 44% today.

I see demand being g 55% to 60%... So no risk IMHO.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30): There always have been and always will be a few airlines that downsize their order. Upsizing however remains the trend, downsizing is the exception rather than the rule.

I wonder if the short field kit had any impact. As Airbus can ask for more of a premium for A321s today, JL could make a profit both ways.

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 29): Conversely a couple of airlines recently have changed A321 orders to A320, who is to say that this isnt the start of a trend?

If it is a trend, Airbus is still not meeting A321 demand. There is a reason Mobile initially ramped up all A321. Worst case is Airbus produces half A321 for 5 years and then reverts back.


Now Mobile will start A320NEO production with the A320, but is expected to return to all A321 production later.


Actually, worse case is the CS500 eats into A320 sales and Airbus must go 75%+ A321.... Basic game theory says flexibility is better.

Lightsaber

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28):

they are taking about 240 seats in the 32" set pitch range. The A321 is at 240 range at 28". theres a big difference. Sorta like the smoke and mirrors of the A320 at 189 seats matches the 737-800's 189 seat "so it's a comparable configuration." No its not, it has smaller seat pitch, reduced lav & galley space.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 17): I get the feeling there is a A322 growing.

That's pointless. Turnaround times would be ridiculous. A derated A332, or A337neo is a much better choice, offering carriers flexibility and more overhead bin space- not to mention the impression a wide-body makes vs a single-aisle.

An A322 is inevitable IMO. It's just a question of when. If Boeing launches a 737 "Mad" MAX 10, it may happen sooner than anyone thinks. If Boeing stands pat with the MAX 9, then Airbus can wait until whenever Boeing makes its next move.

It won't be a simple stretch, though. It will need a revised wing (possibly with folding tips), more engine power than is on offer today, and significant fuselage changes. And it will cannibalize A321neo sales to an extent. That is why Airbus has no interest in telegraphing that it will create an A322 before it is absolutely necessary.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2): The 757-300 has proven that long turn-around times are not favorable.

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. European operators thinking about the aircraft for very short stages were unimpressed by the turn times. For other operators (notably American ones with 4- to 6-hour stage lengths) it's not as big a deal. UA and DL both adore their 757-300 fleets, push them extremely hard from a utilization perspective, and would undoubtedly pick up additional frames if any were available on the used market. Both airlines will most likely fly the 753s until they run out of cycles.

I think the aircraft's poor sales were principally attributable to horrendous market timing; the aircraft's entire time on offer was in the immediate wake first of major domestic 767 sales and then 9/11.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28): Remember, the A321neo will already be at 240 seats.

Only in the worst ULCC or charter configurations. An A322 with 240 seats in a normal European airline configuration sounds pretty attractive to me... and, Leahy is unintentionally conveying here, probably to Airbus as well.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 33): A derated A332, or A337neo is a much better choice, offering carriers flexibility and more overhead bin space- not to mention the impression a wide-body makes vs a single-aisle.

Not a chance. The 330, just like the 767 and 787, is far too heavy for the sorts of missions where an A322 would excel. Modern widebodies excel at long-haul range.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 28): Remember, the A321neo will already be at 240 seats. Can't see them stretching the A321 for just 10 additional seats.

In supper high, short haul, LCC density only, otherwise it is a 180 pax bird.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 34): An A322 is inevitable IMO. It's just a question of when. If Boeing launches a 737 "Mad" MAX 10, it may happen sooner than anyone thinks. If Boeing stands pat with the MAX 9, then Airbus can wait until whenever Boeing makes its next move. It won't be a simple stretch, though. It will need a revised wing (possibly with folding tips), more engine power than is on offer today, and significant fuselage changes. And it will cannibalize A321neo sales to an extent. That is why Airbus has no interest in telegraphing that it will create an A322 before it is absolutely necessary.

I disagree that an A322 is inevitable, for the very reasons in your second paragraph.

I fly A321s for a living, and thus I am acutely aware of their limitations that come from being a stretch of a different basic design. My airline has aircraft of various ages, and the differences in performance between the oldest and the brand-new ones is staggering, but I cannot help but think that Airbus has done as much as they can with the current platform. If they want to go any bigger, the wing will need to be significantly redesigned.

The newest aircraft (with Sharklets) already have a max takeoff mass of 93.5 tonnes. At that weight, your Green Dot Speed is 250 knots, and your initial climb is limited to FL310. There are already a number of airfields we can't get the aircraft out of at MTOW. The sharklets have helped with performance by increasing the wing area, but there's a limit to how much additional area you can squeeze into your wing by making them longer. For practical purposes, we can consider the current wing maxed out. To support the kind of weight increase an A322 would require, you need to add serious square footage to the existing wing design.

The other thing that comes with the A321 being a stretched design is the tailstrike risk. You already need to be careful with them on landing, and increasing the length of the fuselage further will further increase that risk. The safer course of action in a stretched design would be to increase the height of the landing gear to give you more tail clearance. However, you can't increase the height of the landing gear without completely redesigning the wheel bays and wing roots.

With that much redesigning necessary, you might as well go the whole hog and just design a whole new aircraft. And that's what I think will happen. I think whatever single-aisle design replaces the A320 will be optimised for 200 seats, with chops and stretches available for 150 and 250 seats. That seems to be what the market wants, and I am sure that eventually Airbus will deliver just that.

While an A322 is a good idea in theory, on the engineering side of things it's probably too much work to come to fruition.

Actually, an A322 would be a big investment for Airbus, just like the mad max would be for Boeing, as it would probably need a new wing.

This from Leeham: -

Quote: Airbus can do an “A322,” a stretched version of the A321neo with a new wing, but at this stage doesn’t see the need to do so.

If I was Airbus I would want to be pushing that into the next round of develpment when the NEO needs an update, and when Boeing has made their move.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 5):

Having handled FI, I can tell you that their boarding is very slow at LHR & MAN for both the 757-300 and -200, as the airline opts to only use the one air-bridge. I know the premium section of the cabin is only small but FI don't like to use the front door as it goes into their crews rest space.

Quoting TurnaroudUK (Reply 38): Having handled FI, I can tell you that their boarding is very slow at LHR & MAN for both the 757-300 and -200, as the airline opts to only use the one air-bridge. I know the premium section of the cabin is only small but FI don't like to use the front door as it goes into their crews rest space.

They do not have a crew rest space. FI uses L2 so that saga class can turn left and economy can turn right entering the aircraft.

Question is would they then optimise the wing for the A321 and have the A322 with a slightly small wing and the A320 with a slightly large wing.

A new CF design may bring a big efficiency and weight boost.

The downside of course is that it will cost a lot of $

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):

Yes I know that but you ask them can you put a second air-bridge on for saga passengers only and they will shoot you down pretty quickly.

Let's not make this a MoM topic. I think all has been said multiple times. IMO its even getting a bit exhaustive & boring.

One thing I noticed Airbus says 50% A321 of all A320 series production will reached in 2017/2018.

That doesn't seem to correspond with the A320/321 orderbook.

Airbus obviously knows more than we?

They do, they know more than likely that are large number of orders on the books are booked at this stage as A320 because they need to be booked as something, but that in reality up to a certain point prior to production of the frame starting it could be considered as an A32X and as such could be finalised as either and A320 or an A321 in theory it could also become an A319 but that's rather unlikely, and until firmed Airbus can fully expect that many CN/MSN will actually end up being built as A321

No anyone posting on this board isn't going to be stupid enough to disclose actual customer agreements etc to show this deal in place but naturally actually AIB will have a better than good knowledge on which orders will see these upgrades...look at the likes of some of the massive neo orders like Indigo, or AirAisa both of those will have a good chance of seeing a decent level of conversions IMO just the way your seeing the LCC of Europe and NA seeing the merits of high capacity A321

There 1250 A321 NEO orders and some (?) A321 CEO orders.

If production is going to 50%, A321 backlog is actually closer to 2500.

I assume as well Airbus' supplychain and production capabilities can deal rather easily with fluctuation on the A321 vs A320 production ratio

@keesje I merged your topic into the existing thread.

First hello to all around (first post here).

I think everyone (except Spiderguy252) forgets it's not a stretch of already stretched 321. If A322 would be needed, it would definitely need a new wing (with current one, it's already on verge of D class airspeed on approach, most widebodies are slower than A321 on approach). The one word that comes to my mind - it's wider. Probably more than 40m wingspan. Most smaller airports have been designed with an idea of 40m wingspan for jets (both 737 and 320 in all classes fitted into that). So, first thing is you might kill it for some route. I believe similar problem killed A380 (airports had to adjust, and most* of them found the extra revenue was not worth the costs). The other is cost - it's not a stretch anymore. It takes so much more to stretch A321.

So, I'd bet there won't be A322. Could be we'll see the "all-new" design in 10 years coming out, where the current seating range A320 becomes new A360-800, A321 becomes A360-900 and a new A360-1000 comes into scene, with a potential to go 1100. You never know. But it won't be A322, I'm quite sure.

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

First hello to all around (first post here).

I think everyone (except Spiderguy252) forgets it's not a stretch of already stretched 321. If A322 would be needed, it would definitely need a new wing (with current one, it's already on verge of D class airspeed on approach, most widebodies are slower than A321 on approach). The one word that comes to my mind - it's wider. Probably more than 40m wingspan. Most smaller airports have been designed with an idea of 40m wingspan for jets (both 737 and 320 in all classes fitted into that). So, first thing is you might kill it for some route. I believe similar problem killed A380 (airports had to adjust, and most* of them found the extra revenue was not worth the costs). The other is cost - it's not a stretch anymore. It takes so much more to stretch A321.

So, I'd bet there won't be A322. Could be we'll see the "all-new" design in 10 years coming out, where the current seating range A320 becomes new A360-800, A321 becomes A360-900 and a new A360-1000 comes into scene, with a potential to go 1100. You never know. But it won't be A322, I'm quite sure.

Cheers,
Adam

What about a folding wingtip to ensure it fits into current gates?

One thing that always amuses me about the various arm chair CEOs, is that they take a recent trend of the past 3 or 4 years and turn it into a future. The airline business is chaotic at best. With fuel, competition, economic growth/retraction, and all of the other variables, running an airline is tough. Just because the A321 is the cat's PJs right now doesn't mean it will be in 3 or 4 years from now. Just like 50 seat regional jets were all the rage just 15 years ago, now they are millstones around airline's necks. The only constant in an airline's business is massive change.