Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6455 times:
A300 and A310
I was wondering that too - maybe an A322 or an A329. It would probably be a larger A321 or a smaller A330 though as i doubt they'll be worrying about that just yet with the latest aircraft in production (A380, A340-600/500's etc)
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6388 times:
There is a gap in the Airbus lineup between the A321 and A332 in the current Airbus lineup, and Airbus has looked at ways to plug the gap but without success: various versions of an A330-100 have been proposed involving further shrinking the A330, mating the A332 with the wings of the A300, updating the A300 with new features such as the "common-cockpit", but no airline ordered. LH (to replace A300/310s) and SQ (to replace A310s) were the prime launch targets, but nothing ever materialized. I also believe that a further strech of the A321 wsa briefly looked at. Its interesting that the two original Airbus products, the A300 and A310, do sit between the A321 and A332 as far as size and range, but these types are no longer actively marketed by Airbus (except for the freighters), although Airbus can deliver and A300 pax or A310 to an airline if an order was placed.
Due to the gap in the line-up, Airbus does not have a direct competitor to the 757 or 763, but Boeing is having a very hard time at the moment selling these types so, I assume that a new 200-250 seat medium range airliner is not a priority for Airbus at the moment. The market really seems to have broken down into regional jets for low capacity routes, 737/A32X size aircraft for short/medium haul routes and LCCs and A332/777 and larger aircraft for longer range operations.
StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6381 times:
A lot of their resources are tied down with the A380 project-as a result, they cant really start a new project until the A380 line is up and running.
I am wondering, if you fitted the A300 with a new cockpit and fly by wire, would that make it a well selling aircraft once again? I doubt you can stretch the A320 more than the A321-you'd have to go twin aisle but the A329 would be too much of a plane.
Mf3864 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6241 times:
would it be "low hanging fruit" for Airbus? buyback A300's and A310's, retrofit them with the new cockpit/controls. fresh engines, etc... Voila! new A300/310. Like Boeing is doing with the DC10's, buying them back, rehab and voila! they become MD10's...
FLYSSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6209 times:
THAT is an interesting question....
YES, there is a gap between the A321 and the A332. But the real question is : Do the market and Airlines NEED today such a type of aircraft ?
Would this "A322" or "A329" be a "bigger" short/medium-range a/c or a "smaller" long-range a/c ?
The policy of most of the biggest airlines is to add frequencies, rather than using big planes, to better "feed" their hub and offer the shortest connections time. The A321 is big enough for this market.
As a long-range airliner the A332 has a quite small capacity ( 211 for Air France : 6P/42J/163Y ) and a lot of airlines are already using it as a replacement of their old A310/A300 or 767 : AF, EK, USairways, MEA, NW, LH etc...
The 757 was the one that would "fill" the gap, and the big fall of the orders of this type of aircraft is significant of the need of regular big airlines today...( BA for example is selling its B757 and is progressively retiring its B767 from its Short/medium haul network...their biggest a/c on this sector will soon be the...A321 )
The 7E7 will be THE "new" 767, and THE direct competitor of the A332... if it flies one day and doesn't follow the career of the Sonic Cruiser.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6149 times:
It actually worked very well for Boeing since the 738 is cheaper to maintain and operate than the 320!
Blah... the only source people have for that is that article that quotes jetBlue employees saying that maintaining the A320 requires a high level of proficiency and that the aircraft experiences spurious faults - all of which Airbus has resolved.
There's no evidence that the A320 is more expensive to operate, in fact, jetBlue has maintained a very low CASM down in the range of Southwest's.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16285 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6036 times:
This segment is hard to fill with one type. At the lower end (180-200 seats), the most efficient platform is a narrowbody (757, 321). At the upper end (~250 seats), it's a wide body (767, A300, A310, 7E7, 332). Boeing & Airbus are both having *problems* addressing this segment.....they are atacking it from above and below. The 7E7 will not address the need for a 757 replacement though.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6453 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5984 times:
I shouldn't wonder if the Toulouse guys know what they are doing. The 737 and 320 families seem to be perfectly sized for most continental flights on all major continents - pax wanting more frequencies rather than larger planes and more time consuming boarding and deboarding.
On intercontinental flights, however, larger planes have obvious advantages.
Have a look at the poor sales of the 757. It would be really stupid for Airbus to produce a direct competitor to a plane which doesn't sell.
Look at what the competitor can sell: He sells to 80-90% his 737s and 777s. Airbus seems perfectly well positioned for the competition with its 320 and 330/340 families.
Airbus may have heard a lot from potential customers about their 300 and 310 planes which, if brushed up a little, would be direct competitors to the very poor seelling 757s and low end 767s.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5925 times:
A further shrink of the A330 makes no sense, it wouldn't be economical. However, a stretch of the A321 (A322?) with higher MTOW, added fuel capacity and extended wingtips would be a perfect 757 competitor, if indeed there was a market for one. Obviously there isn't. In any case, Airbus's priority after the A380 is to develop a 7E7 competitor, something more than just a tweaked A330-200, as excellent as that airplane may be for now. That's where the real market will be.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5871 times:
Airbus has always said, there wasn't a big enough market to design an all new airplane to replace A300/310s (even before Boeing announced the 7E7 project).
I think they will try to consolidate, focus on the A400m and eventually introduce a new 2nd generation A320 line with new (=easier to maintain) composites and - maybe, just maybe - a new wing. AFAIK the composites used for A320s are still first generation composites.
Noise From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1787 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5841 times:
I always wished Airbus would come out the an "A325", something rather small(bit bigger than an A321) that is meant for thin long-haul/trans-atlantic flights. That would be ideal for large European Airports that are lacking flights to medium sized North American Airports, or it can work the other way around.
I'm not suggesting that they stretch the A321 even further, I'd like to see them come up with something new!
Also it can work great for very busy domestic routes.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2412 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5798 times:
As of late, 757 sales have been sluggish, but I'd be very reluctant to call it a poor seller, with about as many examples in service as the A320 (not the whole family, just the A320 itself). Fact is, there's enough aircraft in the current fleet today to handle the 170-200 seat market, and the clear market leader in that category is the 757, one of the most capable airframes ever built.
Senorbob From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5634 times:
I think if you look at the high density/charter capacities of the aircraft then that does highlight the gap. A321 up to 220y, A332 up to 380y (approx).
As an example, apparently Tui is looking to acquire a common fleet, and they have a number of 762s, 763s and A310s to replace which are fitted with between 270 and 320 high density seats. Routes that can support 300 seats a week will struggle when capacity is 380. Airbus simply does not have an aircraft that can meet this requirement.
The main question is how large is the market for an aircraft of this size? Perhaps an A300NG could be relatively cheap answer for Airbus, but would this satify the airlines?
Indianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5445 times:
What about the possibility of an A320/321 sized aircraft doing 7-14 hour flights? This 150-180 seater A32X-LR could be the ultimate hub-breaker, enabling point-point services on less dense routes. I am thinking (say) AMD/BLR/COK/CCU-LHR, UK-Middle East/Africa, Canada-India etc.
Narrowbody comfort etc is an issue, but if 757/321 tyope aircraft can go transatlantic then this shouldnt be a problem especially if the aircraft are more generously configured with say 34" in economy. The A321 should be able to carry 150 pax in a long haul configuration, while the A320 could carry 120 pax in such a config.
Airbus would have to work on increasing fuel capacity and improving fuel burn etc to push the range in the 12000 km range. Would the economics work out?
I think Airbus could consider this instead of further stretching the 321 like Boeing did with the 757-300.