Concerning the acquisition (at least in 7,5 years) of the C-Series by Airbus, I would like to discuss the technical and operational implications of this move - detached from what is discussed in general in the civil-aviation-forum. I think, there seem to be far reaching consequences for the future of the narrow-body market. What do I mean?

1. Airbus is splitting the narrowbody-market in two segments. Each segment complements each other, each segments concentrates on the strengths in its part of the market: Small narrowbodies (CS-part) and large narrowbodies (A32X-part). The lower end will be covered by CS100, 300, 500. Airbus will therefore cancel the A319 to make room for the CS-lineup and upgrade the A320 to the discussed A320plus (head on to the 737 MAX-8). Then complement the A321 with the A322 (to counter any MOM-movement of Boeing). In upgrading the A32X-series with a new wing and all the necessary rework Airbus can consolidate todays differences between C-series and A32X-series and build up commonality. In 7,5 years Airbus has to decide if they take the C-series 100 % - till then the work to merge the two product-segments may be finalised.

After finalising the future narrowbody-lineup Airbus may offer an A315, A316, A317 and an A320, A321, A322.
CS100 (future A315?) 100-130 seats
CS300 (future A316?) 130-160 seats
CS500 (future A317?) 160-180 seats
A320plus 180-200 seats
A321 200-240 seats
A322 240plus seats

2. Splitting the narrowbody-market in two specialised segments may force Boeing to go the same way in the future to keep up. With one big difference: Airbus got the second segment nearly for free, Boeing has to invest billions to only measure up. Billions they otherwise would have spent for a discussed 797. Is this the second time since NEOing the A32X, that Airbus is forcing Boeing? Probably they have to push up the replacement of the 737, even if the time is not right (next engine generation).

The above could indeed very well be the end result. As posted here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1376389&start=400#p19891441 (Mainly Keesjes line of thinking).

I could imagine though that there would still also be versions of the A320plus and A321 with the current wing. It's paid for and fit's in the box.

Brixerl wrote:

2. Splitting the narrowbody-market in two specialised segments may force Boeing to go the same way in the future to keep up. With one big difference: Airbus got the second segment nearly for free, Boeing has to invest billions to only measure up.

Boeing seems to like it that way?

It will be a while before Airbus goes anywhere withe A320. Best selling. NB ever & thousands in the backlog. it even outsells the 737-8/-800.

That does't mean a super efficient CS500 doesn't have prospects. A vast majority of 150 seat flights is below 1500NM.

I don't agree Embraer has a problem. They are king of the hill around 100 seats. Anyone compared CS100 OEW with E195 E2 OEW? The Embraer E2 backlog / balance tells an entire different story than BBD's.

If Boeing wants to work with Embraer, Boeing has to do major consessions.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Brixerl - this is more or less how the press in Seattle is seeing it, as well as a lot of us would be boeing fans.

Thanx - interesting reading (Seattle Times). If you have another link, please let me know.

There's been much discussion of the potential development (or lack thereof) of a CS500. One of the factors people cite against a CS500 is crossover with with the A320NEO. (For now, let's exclude the A319NEO. Low sales, and none in the last 5 years means indicates that it's not really being considered by the market.) If BBD/Airbus were to offer the CS500, then you have a complete aircraft family. It actually opens the possibility for an LCC-style airline to run an all-CSeries fleet. In other words, having a CS500 could well generate more sales of the CSeries overall, creating opportunities where an A321NEO wouldn't have had sales anyhow. It could create opportunities in more sparsely populated regions where an A320NEO/A321NEO fleet would be too much capacity.

So, two complete families, centred around different capacities, but with similar CASM.

I'm speaking as to how a CS500 could fit with the current Airbus lineup, as opposed to an imagined future lineup.

I believe (correct me if wrong) that an Airbus executive did recently state that the 319 was effectively dead (don't think they have had an order for 5 years anyway).
The CS500 may happen in time but not for a long while.They need to get sales going for the first 2 models.Also changing production locations /integration etc.As stated above the A320 is doing fine in this sector so no need to do this yet.

parapente wrote:

I believe (correct me if wrong) that an Airbus executive did recently state that the 319 was effectively dead (don't think they have had an order for 5 years anyway).
The CS500 may happen in time but not for a long while.They need to get sales going for the first 2 models.Also changing production locations /integration etc.As stated above the A320 is doing fine in this sector so no need to do this yet.

You are right. Airbus CEO Tom Enders himself "said there hasn’t been a sale of the A319, the 126-seat model, since 2012. The CS100 seats 100-110 and the CS300 135-145 passengers. As a result, the C Series presents no competition to Airbus because of the lack of sales for the A319."

Enders today talked about using CSeries cockpit technology on new aircraft developments. If we combine this with the growing 200-250 seat 4000NM requirements, wing developments going on, PW working on a GTF NG and the lower capacity segment covered , Airbus might be tempted to put a few billion extra in a A321 stretch. It probably won't be named A32x anymore.

keesje wrote:

Enders today talked about using CSeries cockpit technology on new aircraft developments. If we combine this with the growing 200-250 seat 4000NM requirements, wing developments going on, PW working on a GTF NG and the lower capacity segment covered , Airbus might be tempted to put a few billion extra in a A321 stretch. It probably won't be named A32x anymore.

Do you believe that each manufacturer has to have an answer for EVERY product the other one has? I mean there is no Boeing full double deck aircraft, Airbus already has the Narrowbody field almost to itself under 200 seats, do you just want Boeing to give up and die off or something? Can they not just have something to themselves?

Andre3K wrote:

keesje wrote:

Enders today talked about using CSeries cockpit technology on new aircraft developments. If we combine this with the growing 200-250 seat 4000NM requirements, wing developments going on, PW working on a GTF NG and the lower capacity segment covered , Airbus might be tempted to put a few billion extra in a A321 stretch. It probably won't be named A32x anymore.

Do you believe that each manufacturer has to have an answer for EVERY product the other one has? I mean there is no Boeing full double deck aircraft, Airbus already has the Narrowbody field almost to itself under 200 seats, do you just want Boeing to give up and die off or something? Can they not just have something to themselves?

They can. If they actually develop it. They could have bought out Bombardier. Instead, they tried to kill them. Look how that worked out. They could have launched the NSA a while back. Instead, they have the MAX. And look how that's working out: more narrowbody marketshare to Airbus.

They are their own worst enemy it seems.

Interesting input keesje - what do the experts think: What technical advancements of the CS-series, like the feedback-sidesticks (?), would be worth taking over to a new A32X-series (or A36X) in the upper segment of the future Airbus narrowbody-lineup?

I think it's worth restating that Boeing had no choice but to launch the MAX series.At the time they were hawking a brand new NSA.It was Airbus who went for the reengine first (NEO) and force Boeing's hand.Boeings key 737 customers demanded something from them in a similar timeframe to the NEO.Had they not done this they would have lost a shedload of customers in the short term.It would have taken a hell of a brave CEO to have gambled at that point.
Furthermore (at the time) Southwest (their most important customer) demanded a dash 7 model to fit their Then strategy.The NSA did not envisage one of those at all.
In actual fact considering the aircrafts limitations it (MAX) has done incredibly well IMHO.It has plugged every gap (or will have with the 10x) except for the 'LR' model.Hence all these discussions on 'midrange' aircraft.
Had Boeing gone the other way and taken a short term hammering but produced a brand new NSA I am certain it would have included a 250 (one class) seat model.Then would never have heard about MOM.
Their oft stated plan (Yellowstone?) was for a three model family covering all bases.The NSA(797),the 787 and the 777(8,9,10).Would have been perfect (IMHO).
But you can hardly expect Airbus to sit back and let it happen can you? Any more than Boeing was going to let Airbus eat the whole of the middle ground with the 330 family.Its a fierce competition.Which is what makes it interesting.Bombardier is actually a side dish to the main course.

Airbus Pledges to Put C Series Ahead of A319 in Sales Push
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... sales-push

Excerpts:
Airbus will “definitely” push the Canadian model’s largest variant, the CS300, at the expense of the similarly sized A319neo, Enders said in an interview Wednesday. “That was the last time we sold the plane,” he said. “That tells you something about the competition between the A319 and the C Series.”

Enders, speaking at the EU Aeronautics conference in Brussels, said Airbus plans to tap cutting-edge C Series technology in areas such as the cockpit, avionics and composite materials for future aircraft models.

Concerning the first post of this thread - the assumption, that Airbus will cancel the A319 seems to be on the way. And the merging of the products concerning commonality seems to be already in the planning.

A CS500 competing with the A320 is not very relevant. It's more than counting seats.

- Fleet commonality (hundreds of existing A320 series operators)
- Container / pallet option, one guy (un) loading tons of luggage / cargo in minutes
- Payload range, revenue potential where it matter (>2000NM)
- Engine choice / financing (GE/CFM)
- A x000 backlog and option to upgrade fleet capacity later on (A321)

keesje wrote:

A CS500 competing with the A320 is not very relevant. It's more than counting seats.
- Fleet commonality (hundreds of existing A320 series operators)
- Container / pallet option, one guy (un) loading tons of luggage / cargo in minutes
- Payload range, revenue potential where it matter (>2000NM)
- Engine choice / financing (GE/CFM)
- A x000 backlog and option to upgrade fleet capacity later on (A321)

100% agree with above. Totally different products, totally different applications and most often different customers.

A CS500 Light (a low cost simple CS300 stretch, trading range for payload) would be by far the CASM champion in the "small/medium NB sector".

A CS500 launch overall profitability (taking into account possible A320 sales cannibalisation, but stealing 737MAX8 sales) may be demontrated very soon. And obviously, Airbus doesn't need to wait 7.5 years, as they would have to pay only 50.01% of the launch costs...

Really interesting points in this thread.
My thoughts of the CS500 go back to the time the neo and MAX were launched. One argument against a clean sheet new NB was the incredible high monthly output of well oiled FALs. It would take years to reach this with a new plane. If we now look at a A32X successor around 2030 the CS500 simple stretch or even more so a +3000nm version would really help in this regard. Launch it 2-3 prior to the new Airbus NB with a uniformed new cockpit/flight laws.
Right at the time Airbus buys out Quebec and Bombardier.
BTW really like the scaled up CS nose on the A321/322. @keesje

Brixerl wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Brixerl - this is more or less how the press in Seattle is seeing it, as well as a lot of us would be boeing fans.

Thanx - interesting reading (Seattle Times). If you have another link, please let me know.

Anything by Dominic Gates is worth reading.
One of the very few reasonable, neutral and knowledgeable reporters in the US I've come across.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

keesje wrote:

A CS500 competing with the A320 is not very relevant. It's more than counting seats.
- Fleet commonality (hundreds of existing A320 series operators)
- Container / pallet option, one guy (un) loading tons of luggage / cargo in minutes
- Payload range, revenue potential where it matter (>2000NM)
- Engine choice / financing (GE/CFM)
- A x000 backlog and option to upgrade fleet capacity later on (A321)

100% agree with above. Totally different products, totally different applications and most often different customers.

A CS500 Light (a low cost simple CS300 stretch, trading range for payload) would be by far the CASM champion in the "small/medium NB sector".

A CS500 launch overall profitability (taking into account possible A320 sales cannibalisation, but stealing 737MAX8 sales) may be demontrated very soon. And obviously, Airbus doesn't need to wait 7.5 years, as they would have to pay only 50.01% of the launch costs...

This is how I see it too. I don't see the whole, "It cannibalizes A320NEO sales," as something that will stop Airbus. They will make a nice pincer movement. CS500 nipping at the 737-8 from below. And a fuselage extended and rewinged (with tech from Belfast) 320 and 321 taking on the 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 from above.

If they start after the deal closes, they can have CS500s ready for delivery in 2020. That gives them room to steal sales from Boeing while running down their A320 backlog (running to 2023). And in 2020, they start on the 320.5 (rewinged and enlarged 320) and 322 (rewinged and enlarged 321). And get those into service in 2023-2024. So unless Boeing launches the NSA, Airbus gets to dominate from 100-220 seats.

And since the 320 renewal and CS500 won't cost that much, Airbus will still have capital left to get their own MOM into service around 2025.

They've bought themselves a ton of flexibility with this deal. In effect, with the CSeries having a wing ready for the CS500, they've bought themselves their NSA program. They can launch early or wait to undercut Boeing. Lots of options. But you can bet that when Boeing announces the MOM or the NSA, Airbus will launch the CS500 to force Boeing to blow more capital on development.

Also the idea that they are competing with themselves is absurd. They control the pricing of both the CS500 and A320. They can offer the customer what they want, at a price that works for both. They have more options with the CS500. The only change here is that a CS500 reduces return on investment, on the 320NEO. That, however, does not mean less net profit for Airbus overall. Especially beyond 2025, when Airbus buys out Bombardier's interest in the program.

"Airbus will still have capital left to get their own MOM into service around 2025."

Totally agree with you up until the MOM. A A322 will be all they have to do. I still don't see the business case for one product (Boeing MOM) certainly not two.

Brixerl wrote:

Concerning the acquisition (at least in 7,5 years) of the C-Series by Airbus, I would like to discuss the technical and operational implications of this move - detached from what is discussed in general in the civil-aviation-forum. I think, there seem to be far reaching consequences for the future of the narrow-body market. What do I mean?

1. Airbus is splitting the narrowbody-market in two segments. Each segment complements each other, each segments concentrates on the strengths in its part of the market: Small narrowbodies (CS-part) and large narrowbodies (A32X-part). The lower end will be covered by CS100, 300, 500. Airbus will therefore cancel the A319 to make room for the CS-lineup and upgrade the A320 to the discussed A320plus (head on to the 737 MAX-8). Then complement the A321 with the A322 (to counter any MOM-movement of Boeing). In upgrading the A32X-series with a new wing and all the necessary rework Airbus can consolidate todays differences between C-series and A32X-series and build up commonality. In 7,5 years Airbus has to decide if they take the C-series 100 % - till then the work to merge the two product-segments may be finalised.

After finalising the future narrowbody-lineup Airbus may offer an A315, A316, A317 and an A320, A321, A322.
CS100 (future A315?) 100-130 seats
CS300 (future A316?) 130-160 seats
CS500 (future A317?) 160-180 seats
A320plus 180-200 seats
A321 200-240 seats
A322 240plus seats

2. Splitting the narrowbody-market in two specialised segments may force Boeing to go the same way in the future to keep up. With one big difference: Airbus got the second segment nearly for free, Boeing has to invest billions to only measure up. Billions they otherwise would have spent for a discussed 797. Is this the second time since NEOing the A32X, that Airbus is forcing Boeing? Probably they have to push up the replacement of the 737, even if the time is not right (next engine generation).

If we expand on that a bit and try to imagine a 2027 Airbus product portofolio, I could imagine the following:


C-Series

CS100, 133 seat max, 3.300nm.
CS300, 160 seat max, 3.500nm.
CS500, 180 seat max, 3.000nm.

A320
Keesje style update and expansion.

Option: A320neo (current wing), 180 seat max, 3.700nm
A320.5neo (current wing), 200 seat max, 3.500nm
A321neo (current wing), 220 seat max, 3.700nm

A320 plus, plus; new 39m large fuel volume wing:
A321ER, 220 seat max, 4.800nm
A322NEO, 244 seat max. 4.200nm

A360
A330 successor, 8-abreast, 5.5m wide, LD3 capable, MTOW 205T, 60m wingspan, 59.000 lbf GTF engine architecture shared with A380NEO

A360-500, 57m, 243 seat 3-cl, 6800nm
A360-600, 64m, 287 seat 3-cl, 5900nm

A350

A350-900
A350-1000

A380NEO

A380NEO, MTOW ~500T, new 80m high aspect ratio wing, GTF engine architecture shared with A360

I can say, without fear of being wrong, there will NOT be a re-winged, re-engined A380in ten years.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I can say, without fear of being wrong, there will NOT be a re-winged, re-engined A380in ten years.

GF

Question then is, is you fearlessness justified.

But that is something for another thread.

I think there is definitely room for more than one single aisle family at Airbus. There is absolutely no need to stretch the worlds best selling single aisle aircraft, the A320, to make room for the C-series. Just think about the very high volume production of single aisle aircraft and the size of Airbus' operations. The C-series will address a slightly different market segment, and will be to the A320 series, the same as the A330 is to the A350. Some airlines will fly only the C-series, others only the A320 series, while large airlines will fly both. Commonality between the two families will grow over time.

If we compare number of seats, one class @ 30 pitch:
- CS100, 125 seats
- CS300, 150 seats
- A320, 180 seats
- A321, 228 seats

Note, that it is not impossible to have six abreast seating in the C-series. For LCC short haul operations this might be a future possibility. Seat width, arm rest width and aisle width would be the same as in a 10 abreast A350, like those flying for French Blue and Air Caraibes. At 30 pitch and six abreast seating the CS100 and CS300 would carry 150 and 180 passengers respectively.

I think we might see a simple stretch of the CS300 after Airbus has bought the remaining shares of the C-series program, but it would be a small stretch. The CS300 is close to A320 length, just narrower. It is also closer to the ground, and has smaller and less powerful engines. Adding two rows of seats in the forward part of the cabin and two rows aft might be possible (170 seats, one class @ 30 pitch, five abreast). Without an MTOW increase, with no change to the landing gear and wings, range would drop but CASM would improve. Such a simple stretch would address a slightly different market than the A320.

With the C-series in the product portfolio, Airbus could focus on longer range, re-winged A321 and a possible A322. These new family members could have cockpit upgrades that increases commonality with the C-series, upgrades that later could be applied to the entire A320 family.

It's interesting that some expect with the c-series in the portfolio, that the A320 series with the new wing will move up a notch as a series while others expect the new wing long range models to just be an addition and the current wing models will remain in the range. I would as expect the latter since, as said, they fit the box and are paid for.

reidar76 wrote:

I think there is definitely room for more than one single aisle family at Airbus. There is absolutely no need to stretch the worlds best selling single aisle aircraft, the A320, to make room for the C-series. Just think about the very high volume production of single aisle aircraft and the size of Airbus' operations. The C-series will address a slightly different market segment, and will be to the A320 series, the same as the A330 is to the A350. Some airlines will fly only the C-series, others only the A320 series, while large airlines will fly both. Commonality between the two families will grow over time.

This is definitely the case right now, but if Airbus’s prediction is correct and the A320 will no longer be the best selling and instead the A321, then there is more of a case for the CS500 and possibly improvements to th A321 and then stretch maybe.

I think there is a very significant A320 replacement market coming up in the next 10 years,
3000 A320 series will turn 25 yrs. Mostly A320's.

To replace an A320CEO with a A320NEO doesn't provide growth (The market grew 4.5% /yr)
To replace an A320CEO with a A321NEO means a 25-30% step up in seat capacity at significantly higher costlevels.

The A321 is a whopping 7m stretch over the A320. (Ref. the 737-9 is a 2.6m stretch over the 737-8)



It think it is likely Airbus will come up with a moderate ~4M / 24 seat stretch to fill in the 200 seat / 4 crew market requirement and pull the plug on the 737-8/-9. Unless they feel it is better to keep the MAX alive until Boeing committed to the NMA.

keesje wrote:

You need to add another pair of doors, as the exit limit is exceeded in your A320.5 plus. I don't think such a stretch is worth the development costs and the extra weight. It would basically have to be a A321 shrink.

reidar76 wrote:

You need to add another pair of doors, as the exit limit is exceeded in your A320.5 plus. I don't think such a stretch is worth the development costs and the extra weight. It would basically have to be a A321 shrink.

I think with the longer range A321's available, it would be better the do a capacity for range A320 NEO Plus. Having the same MTOW as the A320 NEO, ensuring maximum commonality. A light A320 NEO Plus would probably be close in range to a A320 CEO.

The A321 has a heavier gear and a different wing, increasing costs and weight. An A321 based high payload-range A320 NEO Plus seems inefficient except as e.g. a ACJ or freighter.

I think the costs would be recapped in weeks with hundreds/thousands A320 NEO orders being upgraded to the Plus. Very few airlines need the A320NEO's full 3700NM range. 24 Extra seats without extra crew are a asset worth the investment for airlines.

First hints what might happen trickling out of Airbus...

"Airbus plans to refresh the A320 further after adding new engines and this will bring it closer to the smaller CSeries in performance, two people close to the plans said. It may also make some CSeries features more compatible with its own A320s. That comes on top of plans to enhance the larger A321neo in response to Boeing’s launch of a new mid-market plane, which industry sources expect to happen next year."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bomb ... SKBN1CR0H4