Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21543 times:
WSJ and LaTribune report Airbus is considering replacing the A320 by two aircraft types.
A twin aisle design would also be under consideration again. The official line still is : no replacement before 2020 earliest. However the market / oil rules.
I think a new lighter type optimized for 100-160 seats and A320 upgrade 180-250 seats (composite wings, new engines, stretches) could be a viable scenario.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21225 times:
I think the CSeries and its possible future stretches cannot be seen seperately from Airbus and Boeing brainstorming. If it become clear (maybe it has already) those aircraft are structurally more efficient then the smaller A320/737 variants (e.g. SW orders 100+100 ) likely somebody will act.
I wonder if Bombardier can resists an extensive worldwide support network, a few billion cash injection and some corporate bonusses when the CSeries development starts sucking in big money and technical snags / delays kick in..
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6156 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21018 times:
Quoting Borism (Reply 1): Wouldn't twin-aisle version be competitor to 787-3?
No, I think it would be more like an A310/767 replacement. Sounds like AB finaly realizes that they have a huge gap in that segment. If you think about it, after the A350 replaces the A330/340, the gap between the A320 and the A350 will be enormous. I know the A330 will be flying for a long time but there's still a significant gap between the A320 and the A332, especially in range and payload.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2011 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 20825 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 3): I know the A330 will be flying for a long time but there's still a significant gap between the A320 and the A332, especially in range and payload.
Yes, this segment is now claimed by the 757, an ageing airplane, which will not stay around forever, despite being as great as it is... A big potential market for that super-320...
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 20629 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20642 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 4): Yes, this segment is now claimed by the 757, an ageing airplane, which will not stay around forever, despite being as great as it is... A big potential market for that super-320...
Well, it's more like it's a segment all the way from the 739ER to the A332 with aircraft in between of 757-200/300, A321, A310 and 762. The smaller widebodies fell out of favor due to economics, but partly because they were the smallest of a more efficient design. If a new aircraft from Airbus and from Boeing was designed for 170-250 two class, that's a different story. It replaces all of those planes and the 762 and A310 sized widebodies would be the most efficient of the bunch, not the least efficient as they are now.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 344 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20636 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 2): I think the CSeries and its possible future stretches cannot be seen seperately from Airbus and Boeing brainstorming.
Bombardier has a stock value of $6.63 billion and has an aerospace and a transport division.
Airbus should buy the aerospace division along with the C-Series. This will cost them about $3-4 billion which is really, €2.15 to €2.85 billion. In the process they will end up with an entire new line of aircraft to market at the half the price of developing a new line of aircraft.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1032 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20509 times:
It's a given that it's not possible to design an airplane that ranges the spectrum of 100-250 seats. Well, at least not one that can compete with the same kind of efficiency of a more specialist aircraft, for example the CS100 and CS300 in the 110-130 seat range. But I wonder how much resources (financial and technical) will be needed to launch two aircraft types at the same time? Boeing managed to do so with the 757 and 767, but these are different times now. And I wonder if even Airbus is able to do so. They'll have their hands full with 3 different versions of the A350 (especially the -1000 will cause them serious headaches to get it in the air on time and on spec IMO). And don't forget further developments of the A380 (a -900 please! ) and perhaps the A330.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 2): I think the CSeries and its possible future stretches cannot be seen seperately from Airbus and Boeing brainstorming. If it become clear (maybe it has already) those aircraft are structurally more efficient then the smaller A320/737 variants
Of course the C-series will be far more efficient than anything other in the 110-130 seat market now, Bombardier wouldn't have launched it otherwise. However, it competes with the likes of 318, 717 and 736 and these were non-starters to begin with. It's gonna be different when a CS500 will be launched, a direct competitor to the 737-700 and A319. But, P&W will need to develop their GTF a bit further (not much though!) before the CS500 can be launched, and I believe the C-series will have to have had its first positive results from flight testing before airlines will massively start dumping their 737's and A319's. Unfortunately, the CS100 and CS300 aren't exactly a runaway success yet, but I'm optimistic things will change in the next few years yet to come
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2116 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20474 times:
Is it possible they could end up with one family with a 2-3 layout and one family with a 2-3-2 layout? That way they could have 2 optimized versions of each family rather than try and make 4 versions out of one fuselage, with mediocre results on the high and low ends.
Clemsonaj From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20452 times:
Sounds like both Boeing and Airbus (and armchair CEOs) have come to similar conclusions - this segment is best filled with two base airframe designs with corresponding stretches. Whether this turns into a single asile/twin aisle combo, or two single aisle designs remains to be seen. Twin aisle aircraft in this segment would be walking a fine line between turnaround time/cargo capacity and the extra weight / increased size. Of course this is nothing new. It will be interesting to watch and see how each manufacturer approaches this segment.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20279 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7): But, P&W will need to develop their GTF a bit further (not much though!) before the CS500 can be launched, and I believe the C-series will have to have had its first positive results from flight testing before airlines will massively start dumping their 737's and A319's
Airlines do not need to buy aircraft in increments of 20 seats. The seat differential between say a 120-seater and a 140-seater is dealt by adjusting frequency and controling seat inventory - 120 seats = fewer cheaper seats, 140 seats = more cheaper seats. As is right now the CS300 competes with the 737-700.
Olympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 400 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20263 times:
In other topics, the Airbus pundits here have said that the 321 is a replacement for the 757 when UA announced that they are seeking proposals for their fleet replacement
The split is similar to the 757 / 767 family decades ago albeit smaller in seat count.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20262 times:
I think a major problem for Boeing and Airbus is that their largest customers - mega-LCCs - want a plane that seats no more than 150 people for staffing and turn time issues. WN's fleet is exclusively ≤150 seats and the bulk of U2's fleet is, as well.
Now if Boeing and Airbus choose to develop an airplane with a fuselage at least 15cm wider than the A320, they could offer 18" wide seats with an aisle wide enough to allow people to pass one another during boarding and disembarkation, which would help take care of turn times on a ~200-seat model and make it palatable enough for WN and U2.
I still think Boeing and Airbus are best served by a single model starting at 150 seats in a single class with a 175-seat single and 200-seat double stretch. I just don't see a real market for an A310/762ER plane. The 739(ER) and A321 together have sold more frames than the 757-200 have so they appear to be able to meet the demand for this class of aircraft and fuel-efficiency improvements will allow them to extend their range without requiring significant fuel volume expansion.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1032 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19901 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 10): Airlines do not need to buy aircraft in increments of 20 seats
Bombardier did launch two types with that difference in seat counts though, if you look at their website the layouts are 20 seats apart for the CS100 and CS300.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 10): As is right now the C130 competes with the 737-700.
Not always, as the CS300 is smaller, about 10 seats less in comparable seat configurations. Not always a problem, but I don't think an airline like WN will consider an aircraft with less than 149 seat to replace their 737's.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6156 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19689 times:
Quoting Olympic472 (Reply 11): In other topics, the Airbus pundits here have said that the 321 is a replacement for the 757 when UA announced that they are seeking proposals for their fleet replacement
In many cases it is. One just has to look at what airplane many former 757 operators are flying today. However it is also true that the A321 falls short of of the 757's operating capability, but most airlines either don't need that extra "20%" or are willing to work around it. That is certaily true for European carriers where the most demanding missions are not nearly as demanding as the ones seen in N.America. For example: MAD-LHR is nothing compared to PHX-PHL.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19545 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 13): Bombardier did launch two types with that difference in seat counts though, if you look at their website the layouts are 20 seats apart for the CS100 and CS300.
There will be airlines that will buy the smaller one, some will buy the larger one, and some airlines that do not understand how to control fares and availability may buy both.
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 13): Not always, as the CS300 is smaller, about 10 seats less in comparable seat configurations. Not always a problem, but I don't think an airline like WN will consider an aircraft with less than 149 seat to replace their 737's.
Like you said, you "don't think", so we are venturing into opinions. My opinion is that Southwest's long standing relationship with Boeing, their vigilance for operating costs and their essential need for a very large and dependable fleet trumps a marginal difference in seat count. If Boeing were offering an exact replica of the C-series, the chances of Southwest biting would be much higher.
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19476 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 2): I think the CSeries and its possible future stretches cannot be seen seperately from Airbus and Boeing brainstorming. If it become clear (maybe it has already) those aircraft are structurally more efficient then the smaller A320/737 variants (e.g. SW orders 100+100 ) likely somebody will act.
I am sure that if Airbus or Boeing decides to cover the 100..150 seat range with a dedicated design Bombardier and the likes will not be able to compete. Any of the 100 seat proposals and new designs go not so far with new technology like Airbus and Boeing with the 787 or A350. That means that if A or B decide to inject the full power of their leading technology into the short range market the CSxxx will not be on par to the resulting A or B product.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 10): Airlines do not need to buy aircraft in increments of 20 seats
Fact is many airlines buy aircrafts in increments of 20 seats (many many customers for A319, A320, A321). Do you mean that they didn't need what they bought?
IMO one day there will be a short-to medium-range plane with the A350 cross section. Airbus has the habit to reuse the cross section as much as possible.
The A300 cross section was used for aicrafts in the range of:
- 212 - 370 seats (factor 1.75)
- 142T - 365T MTOW (factor 2.57)
If you use those factors to extract the smallest A350-cross-section-type (from the A351) you get a plane like this:
- 200 seats (ok, that plane would be short with 9 abreast)
- 116T MTOW
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19020 times:
You would think that B or A would realize the first company to get their design on the drawing board has a significant advantage in terms of sales. 2020 seems a little far away. I would want to start on this project ASAP.
You also run the risk of another, smaller manufacturer jumping in ahead and stealing A and B's cash cow with a design of their own.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 18826 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17): You would think that B or A would realize the first company to get their design on the drawing board has a significant advantage in terms of sales. 2020 seems a little far away. I would want to start on this project ASAP.
Both companies are working on design studies, but airlines are going to want significant improvements across the board before they commit to orders. JL, for example, wants the next narrowbody to be FIFTY PERCENT more efficient than the current 737NG/A320. While an extreme example, most other carriers polled are asking for at least 20% before they bite.
P&W still has to prove the GTF works as well in the "real-world" as it does in the laboratory and that will take a few years of revenue service. CFM's LEAP program continues to move forward in fits and starts and Open Rotor has it's own hurdles in packaging, noise abatement and blade-failure protection to work out.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18201 times:
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 16): Fact is many airlines buy aircrafts in increments of 20 seats (many many customers for A319, A320, A321). Do you mean that they didn't need what they bought?
Several points to comment further:
Many airlines buy different versions of a type at different times, in particular when they can get a bigger version of an aircraft already in their fleet with a lower cost per seat mile. With hindsight, they would have preferred the bigger type entirely.
A319, A320 and A321 are nice examples of a familiy, but if you look at the difference in seat count, TAM operates all of them with A319 at 144 seats, A320 at 174 and A321 at 220. The seat count differences are 30 and 46 seats - much higher than 20. They are not exactly the best of example of 20 seat increments.
Finally, it may be that an airline purchases a smaller version not for the smaller size but because of performance - either short field performance or greater range in a subset of key markets. Delta for example bought 737-700s for the range and size to serve small destinations in Latin America - a big mistake because those markets are by definition SMALL.
MoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18028 times:
You have to keep in mind the world is changing. Previously (past 20 years) fuel has been so cheap that the savings from fleet commonality for training and parts outweighed the inefficiencies of less than ideal fuel consumption.
However, with fuel prices relatively high, and projected to return to even higher levels the fuel equation changes, making the perfect sized aircraft for the job far more important than fleet commonality.
I believe in the near future we will see a SWA order that isn't a Boeing 737 for this very reason.
Olympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 400 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17813 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 14): That is certaily true for European carriers where the most demanding missions are not nearly as demanding as the ones seen in N.America. For example: MAD-LHR is nothing compared to PHX-PHL.
Exactly right. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is for UA with regards to their 757s.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 17689 times:
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 20): However, with fuel prices relatively high, and projected to return to even higher levels the fuel equation changes, making the perfect sized aircraft for the job far more important than fleet commonality.
All high fuel price does is to shrink demand: Ticket prices go up and fewer people can afford them.
Shrinking demand makes competition more fierce. Fleet commonality is on the side of lower costs so one can easily make the case that high fuel prices will make simple fleets more common.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4847 posts, RR: 45 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 17260 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22): All high fuel price does is to shrink demand: Ticket prices go up and fewer people can afford them.
Shrinking demand makes competition more fierce. Fleet commonality is on the side of lower costs so one can easily make the case that high fuel prices will make simple fleets more common.
not really - ticket prices go up because costs go up. If a more efficient plane can be used instead, then costs go down, as do ticket prices. MoltenRock does have a point. Fleet commonality is no longer an advantage once you get over a certain fleet size - I think as the price of fuel increases, this point will drop, but I still think it will require a large fleet size before commonality ceases to matter.
Quoting United787 (Reply 8): Is it possible they could end up with one family with a 2-3 layout and one family with a 2-3-2 layout? That way they could have 2 optimized versions of each family rather than try and make 4 versions out of one fuselage, with mediocre results on the high and low ends.
Creating different fuselages means creating a seperate production line, which is a huge cost. If they do this they could end up having 4 production lines - A380, A350 and the two new ones. They need to keep this as low as possible, with the two types being as common as possible. Either the larger one will share a common fuselage with the A350 (creatign a widebody medium haluer, ala the A300/A310) or the two will share a common fuselage, with differing wings (Ala A330/A340). The second is possibly the best option, but it really depends on what size each is going to be - an 80 seat 3x3 probably work, and a 150 seat XWB probably wont work.
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17): You would think that B or A would realize the first company to get their design on the drawing board has a significant advantage in terms of sales. 2020 seems a little far away. I would want to start on this project ASAP.
Not really - and especially not in this case. "The early bird catches the worm - but the second mouse gets the cheese". Every airline knows both Boeing and Airbus will release a product at some point, so no matter who is first to announce, most airlines will wait to see what the other announce. Besides im pretty sure as soon as one announces anything, the other will be no more than a month behind.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 16876 times:
Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 23): not really - ticket prices go up because costs go up. If a more efficient plane can be used instead, then costs go down, as do ticket prices. MoltenRock does have a point.
Actually he does not. The innefficiencies of having to use an aircraft that does not have the exact ideal seat count will always exist simply because of natural variations on passenger demand from day to day, and especially, from day-of-week to day-of-week. To match demand and supply so neatly, airlines would have to publish unique schedules for every day of the year and on many days the fleet would be under-utilized.
Quoting Nighthawk (Reply 23): Fleet commonality is no longer an advantage once you get over a certain fleet size - I think as the price of fuel increases, this point will drop, but I still think it will require a large fleet size before commonality ceases to matter.
Fleet commonality is ALWAYS an advantage. The size of that advantage gets smaller with bigger fleets but does not disappear. Even taking two fleets of 150 aircraft and replacing it with a single fleet of 300 aircraft has advantages: fewer distinct procedures, fewer spare parts, improved maintenance plan, less crew training, more efficient crew schedules, fewer reserve crews, fewer reserve aircraft and fewer aircraft to fly a given schedule.
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6156 posts, RR: 8 Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 15881 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22): All high fuel price does is to shrink demand: Ticket prices go up and fewer people can afford them.
That's a false statement. You may get a initial drop in demand due to shock but it rebounds. Bottom line is, over long term, more and more people are flying. In 2009, more people will have flown than in 1989 when fuel was 1/3 of the price.
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 30 Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16390 times:
Carls From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 496 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16303 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 3): No, I think it would be more like an A310/767 replacement. Sounds like AB finaly realizes that they have a huge gap in that segment. If you think about it, after the A350 replaces the A330/340, the gap between the A320 and the A350 will be enormous. I know the A330 will be flying for a long time but there's still a significant gap between the A320 and the A332, especially in range and payload.
More or less the same gap between the 737 and the 777, or the 737 and the 767. Even between the 737 and the 788 the gap is still big.
MoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 28, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 16304 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 24): Fleet commonality is ALWAYS an advantage. The size of that advantage gets smaller with bigger fleets but does not disappear.
Sorry but there simply isn't an "always" as some universal truth regardless of what you are talking about in business.
Hypothetically if fuel is 30% of your operating expenses when it is low, but raises to 50% when fuel is high a cost advantage for fleet commonality is mainly a fixed cost savings, whereas fuel is a variable expense, thereby reducing, eliminating, or actually creating a detriment to your cost structure if you are flying a less than ideal aircraft.
As fuel rises so does the average passenger's % of fare paid go to fuel, and less towards fixed costs such as leases, parts inventory, and other such expenses. A plane that is 5% less efficient or 10% less efficient than an ideally sized one can often times be a much worse decision vs. just a one size fits all approach.
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 29, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 15487 times:
I see A360 going in for a 3-version 170-230 pax class followed by a 2-version A-370 for 230-280 class as a A330RS, direct B788 competitor, A300RS, B757/B767RS.
I would prefer to see a single aisle A370 in 3-3 configuration, simply because better efficiency can achieved thanks to "active wings", which makes stretches more efficient than going widebody.
KL911 From Hungary, joined Jul 2003, 4437 posts, RR: 17 Reply 30, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 15202 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 22): All high fuel price does is to shrink demand: Ticket prices go up and fewer people can afford them.
Otherway around. Fuel will go up, oil is running out soon. Airlines need to lower costs, then the ticket price comes down and people fly again. 2/3 of FR's revenue btw comes from non flying revenue. Example, carrental, hotel provision, insurance, advertisement, gambling etc
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 31, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14837 times:
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 28): Hypothetically if fuel is 30% of your operating expenses when it is low, but raises to 50% when fuel is high a cost advantage for fleet commonality is mainly a fixed cost savings, whereas fuel is a variable expense, thereby reducing, eliminating, or actually creating a detriment to your cost structure if you are flying a less than ideal aircraft.
The concept of ideal-sized aircraft is artificial because it depends on frequency and pricing.
Even without touching any pricing concepts, a route can be flown say with six frequencies a day with a 100-seater. Or five frequencies with a 120-seater. Both aircraft, from a size perspective, are ideal for this route and an airline will choose what aircraft to operate based on other aspects - not on seat count.
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 28): As fuel rises so does the average passenger's % of fare paid go to fuel, and less towards fixed costs such as leases, parts inventory, and other such expenses. A plane that is 5% less efficient or 10% less efficient than an ideally sized one can often times be a much worse decision vs. just a one size fits all approach.
Like you said, as fuel rises, fuel efficiency becomes critical. That is different from (artificial) aircraft size becoming critical.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14661 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 31): an airline will choose what aircraft to operate based on other aspects - not on seat count.
Capasity is often the main driver to choose an aircraft for a certain route on a certain moment. You can't just spread out the aircraft. The volumes are determined by demand, spoke waves, revenue potential, slot availability, landing rights etc. Demand determines seat count, not the other way around.
MoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14451 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 31): The concept of ideal-sized aircraft is artificial because it depends on frequency and pricing.
Even without touching any pricing concepts, a route can be flown say with six frequencies a day with a 100-seater. Or five frequencies with a 120-seater. Both aircraft, from a size perspective, are ideal for this route and an airline will choose what aircraft to operate based on other aspects - not on seat count.
Yield management is an entirely different issue. And the "ideal efficiency" is not a spread of 20 seats, more like 40 to 50 seats. Take the A320, for example:
A320 - 4,043 ordered - seats 164/150 (1 class / 2 class)
A319 - 1,524 ordered - seats 134/124 (reduction from 320 of 26 to 30 seats)
A318 - 83 ordered - seats 117/107 (reduction from 320 of 43 to 47 seats)
A321 - 768 ordered - seats 199/185 (increase of 35 seats)
The same hold trues on the optimized Ejets as well as Boeing's 737. After all why do you think JetBlue, Airtran, and others have moved to split fleets? A one size fits all, doesn't work "always". Again, as fuel continues to increase in its % of an airline's cost structure the more mixed fleets you will see.
Otherwise, using your logic no one would fly anything but 738s and tailor their capacity to such. The same could be said for operators running A380s, 747s, and/or 777s. Increasingly the right sized aircraft will be critical to an airlines survival unless for some bizarre reason fuel costs plummet.
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 31): Like you said, as fuel rises, fuel efficiency becomes critical. That is different from (artificial) aircraft size becoming critical.
That makes absolutely no sense. "Artificial aircraft size"???
Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14355 times:
Well, China really has to do a lot more on public image building. No one even aware the COMAC C919 !!!
China is building the C919, expected first flight in 2014, and in service by 2016. A single aisle twin-engine aircraft, seating at 168, and max at 190 (thus the name C919). China is aiming at exactly the B737/A320 replacement market, of which in China alone there would be a huge market to fill. The initial C919 has a max out load/performance matching the low end of the B757, and a later longer fuselage version would cover that segment.
Interestingly COMAC stated that over 75% of the C919 components would be from foreign sources, including the engines, of which both GE and RR are competing.
So this time China is now in the lead, and years ahead of Boeing and Airbus. In fact my understanding is that Airbus is in close 'discussion' with appropriate entities in China on a joint project to have a A310/B757 performance aircraft to be co-designed and co-produced in Europe and China. More interesting time ahead.
Oceanic From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 128 posts, RR: 2 Reply 35, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14176 times:
I'm hoping that when we are hearing twin-aisle that we are talking 2-2-2. Anything with more seats than that would be short and stubby. 2-2-2 would seem to be an ideal layout, most people who travel with others travel in pairs, so this would be the ideal seat utilization layout as far as I'm concerned. Everyone is no more than 1 seat away from an aisle. No more awkward middle seats that no one wants. There is a reason that when you book a ticket you only get two preferences, window or aisle. When was the last time someone walked up to the ticket agent and said "Oh, I'd prefer a middle seat if at all possible" ?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 36, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14144 times:
The problem with 2+2+2 is it results in a wider, and therefore heavier, plane.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 37, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13312 times:
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 33): Yield management is an entirely different issue. And the "ideal efficiency" is not a spread of 20 seats, more like 40 to 50 seats
I can accept that. That goes back to my original statement about the 130-seat C-series competing with the 737-700.
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 33): Otherwise, using your logic no one would fly anything but 738s and tailor their capacity to such.
You seem to making an effort to distort what I said.
Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 33): Again, as fuel continues to increase in its % of an airline's cost structure the more mixed fleets you will see.
Not necessarily - and for multiple reasons. A lot of mixed fleets that exist today are a result of airlines holding on to old aircraft. With very high fuel prices airlines may replace fleets more quickly resulting in more uniform fleets, not more mixed ones. Higher fuel prices will put pressure on airlines to lower other costs, and simplifying fleets is one way to do it. Also mixed fleets sometimes are the result of airlines trying to get a special type to work on marginal markets. With high fuel prices each airline is likely to focus on being successful in their core markets instead of trying to pursue marginal ones - resulting in simpler fleets.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 32): Demand determines seat count, not the other way around.
Not exactly. The availability of service stimulates demand. Price sensitive travelers who otherwise would not travel will buy cheap seats if available. It is better to say that an estimate of demand above a certain fare determines seat count. Frequently airlines get the estimate wrong or their market share wrong and have to sell tickets at prices they regret.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10913 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17): You would think that B or A would realize the first company to get their design on the drawing board has a significant advantage in terms of sales. 2020 seems a little far away. I would want to start on this project ASAP.
The single-aisle market is so big that one manufacturer having even a multi-year lead will not make that much difference in the longer-term (assuming the planes are reasonably closely matched like today's A32x & 737NG).
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17): You also run the risk of another, smaller manufacturer jumping in ahead and stealing A and B's cash cow with a design of their own.
I honestly don't believe it will happen. There's a huge barrier to getting in on the current single-aisle duopoly. Development costs are frightening and, as things stand today, only Airbus & Boeing have the money and resources to offer a full range of products which most airlines want. I don't see Embraer or Bambardier moving above 120-130 seats any time soon and I certainly don't see the Chinese or Japanese suddenly becoming big players in this market.
By far the biggest issue today is the lack of significantly more efficient engines to power new planes.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8605 posts, RR: 96 Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10810 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 17): You would think that B or A would realize the first company to get their design on the drawing board has a significant advantage in terms of sales. 2020 seems a little far away. I would want to start on this project ASAP.
You also run the risk of another, smaller manufacturer jumping in ahead and stealing A and B's cash cow with a design of their own.
I'm pretty sure Boeing and Airbus are sitting there like huge spiders just waiting to pounce on an intruder into their territory.
I actually believe that the reverse to your statement is true - i.e. there are significant second-mover advantages, because the second-mover will know the target they have to beat (note the word "beat" )
And as Scrimbl says, these two organisations have the luxury of a complete suite of aircraft across the range, providing them with
a) huge cashflow
b) significant profit potential
c) massive infrastructure/resources.
d) tied in supply chain
Someone will challenge A+B here soon, but they'll have to be able to stand the risk of having to invest the huge sums of money, without significant supporting cashflow, and in the full knowledge of the risk of retaliation from the big 2.
That sort of sounds like some form of government support, or at least safety net, will be required.
And I'll bet my salary the politicians and lawyers from the EU and USA will be all over it..
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 17 Reply 42, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 10601 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 38): I honestly don't believe it will happen. There's a huge barrier to getting in on the current single-aisle duopoly. Development costs are frightening and, as things stand today, only Airbus & Boeing have the money and resources to offer a full range of products which most airlines want.
Can you add more detail on the difference between development costs of a 130-seater and a 150-seater? There isn't much.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 43, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10387 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 40): I do think the Cserie 300 has the potential. High density it can do 145 seats at 30 inch pitch.
But the 73/A319 can do that, as well, and the 738/A320 (which in many cases has similar trip costs to the 73G/A319) can do ~190 and 35 more seats should help lower the CASM a good bit to offset the extra weight inherent in the Boeing/Airbus planes.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10322 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 43): Quoting Keesje (Reply 40):
I do think the Cserie 300 has the potential. High density it can do 145 seats at 30 inch pitch.
But the 73/A319 can do that, as well, and the 738/A320 (which in many cases has similar trip costs to the 73G/A319) can do ~190 and 35 more seats should help lower the CASM a good bit to offset the extra weight inherent in the Boeing/Airbus planes.
Yes, but still SW doesn't buy 737-800s. If you have an average 75% load factor at 120 seats, an expensive 737-800 or A320 aint the right machine.
PS 190 seats on A320 is a lot. I've done 176 (Clickair I think) and that was real bad..
NCB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10272 times:
Quoting TISTPAA727 (Reply 41): What do you mean by active wings? I haven't heard that before.
Active wing is the future of wing design.
Instead of having a passive wing that is one fixed wing designed to be most efficient at cruise on an average of several weight/balance configurations with selectable high lift devices, the active wing would adapt the wing's shape, dimensions and position to be most efficient at all flight parameters, just like birds do.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, RR: 51 Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10117 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 42): Can you add more detail on the difference between development costs of a 130-seater and a 150-seater? There isn't much.
Except a 150-seater from Airbus or Boeing will almost certainly be launched as part of a 3-model range rather than a stand-alone. I'd be surprised if they'd see much change out of $8-10billion.
The risks for a new entrant in the 150+ seat, single-aisle market are huge.
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10060 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 47): The risks for a new entrant in the 150+ seat, single-aisle market are huge.
If Bombardier has the CSeries up and running, a stretched -500 wouldn't be a very high risk and probably offer superior CASM on short flights (<3 hrs the vast majority of all narrowbody flights).
It's wing span was lenghtened a few short of a Boeing 737-900ER. Room for growth.
Trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3719 posts, RR: 15 Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9893 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 45): Yes, but still SW doesn't buy 737-800s. If you have an average 75% load factor at 120 seats, an expensive 737-800 or A320 aint the right machine.
isn;t SW's issue with the 738 the number of flight attendants they would need? Get over 150 and you have to have 4 now.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9913 times:
Quoting Trex8 (Reply 49): Isn't SW's issue with the 738 the number of flight attendants they would need? Get over 150 and you have to have 4 now.
It's both that and the greater turn times the extra rows/seats entail, reducing aircraft utilization rates (less segments can be flown per operating period).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9814 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 45): Yes, but still SW doesn't buy 737-800s. If you have an average 75% load factor at 120 seats, an expensive 737-800 or A320 aint the right machine.
Well I certainly cannot rule it out as a long-term fleet replacement, but I admit I am inclined to believe that Boeing and Airbus will be able to close the weight gap* and be able to hang larger engines with better SFC which means a larger and heavier 150-seat "CS400ER" will struggle against the 150-seat model of the 737 and A320 replacements.
* - Per FlightGlobal, the CS300ER is about 2000 pounds lighter than the 737-600 and 9000 pounds lighter than the A318.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9594 times:
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 53): Whatever it is, it will be wider and heavier.
I don't agree. Above a certain lenght a narrow 3-3 cabin (like 757-300) needs additional material to provide strenght and stiffness. If we are talking a high capasity aircraft e.g. 40 rows or more a bit addional cross sections could result in a lighter construction.
Apart from that it's a tunnel specially on long flights, and quick (de)boarding an illusion.
MCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1919 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9024 times:
I think the real question is "who is going to blink first". Both B and A seem to be waiting to see what the other guy is going to do first and one of them is going to have to pull the trigger and actually be first.
Of course as we know, the engine technology is the real driving factor here.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8605 posts, RR: 96 Reply 58, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8717 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 55): There is more to weight. Every pound sunk onto the frame burns fuel for the life of the aircraft.
Weight is a big deal.
Except these days the extra weight goes into things like bigger wingspans and high-bypass engines, which both reduce fuel burn over the life of the aircraft.
Weight IS important, but it is by no means the only determinant of fuel burn or operating cost.
Hence
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 57): Which is why the 787-8's OEW is 15,000lbs more than the 767-400ER and 46,000 lbs heavier than a 767-300ER. Right?
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4854 posts, RR: 46 Reply 59, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8440 times:
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 57): Which is why the 787-8's OEW is 15,000lbs more than the 767-400ER and 46,000 lbs heavier than a 767-300ER. Right?
Interesting discussion on relative weight. Let me note some specs(from wikipedia) for 788 and 764 which can be tied to the weight.
The 788, with a larger fuselage, heavier engine and larger wingspan, is only slightly heavier--about 6%. Clearly the use of composite material explains most of it.
To clarify, the fuselage cubes indicate that overall the 788 is about 8% bigger than the 764ER.
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 452 posts, RR: 2 Reply 60, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8414 times:
Let me give you some thoughts out of an automotive engineer brain using airline planning and concepts in the automotive way when we plan new markets.
One thing is clear: there seems to be the need for a mid haul (lets say 4000 mi) optimized plane with higher capacity then current narrow bodies can provide e.g..
Seems to be that all developing out of a new narrow body development might not be the best idea, so 2-aisle plane is required.
Several options for an Airbus plane could be considered:
1) Develop a dedicated all new mid range 2 aisle plane with 2-3-2 abrest around the Boeing 767 diameter size with composite technology a'la 787 or panel type a'la A350.
2) Take the A330 and make an A370 out of that by:
- Develop a new mid haul optimized dedicated all composite wing
- Structural optimization of the wing to body connection to this dedicated wing. (more or less: new developed section around the wing, wing box)
- Maybe new composite rear section a'la A380, if weight and design favorable
- Newest engine technology available
- Keep basic frame before and after the wing section.
- Keep cockpit
- Keep suspension (unless an easy weight saving could be achieved w/o investing in a new suspension.
- Offer an A330-200 length model and probably a shorter -150 version if there is interest.
This will provide a 2-4-2 layout (some low cost airlines may use 9 abrest)
3) Develop the same concept based on the A350XWB body.
My armchair view would favor proposal 2 (the A330 derivative) for the following reasons:
- Significant lower investment and engineering effort then an all new dedicated plane.
- Optimized where it is favorable for mid haul.
- 8 abrest is probably better then a 9 abrest based A350.
- Weight savings where it is favorable (wing, mid section, tail?)
- Could be manufactured outside Europe (US, China?)
As I said: from an automotive strategy view, using the best effect out of meeting demand, dedicated technology for the market, investment and cost balance, this would be the ersion I would ask my engineering team to deeply analyze this proposal as priority 1.
Parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1208 posts, RR: 10 Reply 61, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8298 times:
With regars to the all imortant 150-200 seat market I agree with the spider analagy.They will watch the Chinese 919 with interest.If China follows a "buy Chinese" route there is nothing they can do about that anyrate.
But as for ROW and the LCC's they will bring out "blockbuster" aircraft that leaves all other pretenders in their wake in my view.As "effectively" stated by Airbus this will be a composite open rotor aircraft.Nothing will be able to come close.It is not coming out yet as the technologies are not quite mature enough but they are nearly there.
Both manufacturers are perfecting their 2 carbon tube routes and have up to the second learnings on carbon wing designs.
The open rotor designs (and high temperature/pressure cores) are moving forward swiftly now.
Just wait a couple of years when the 787 and 350's are flying - then the fun begins.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 62, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7726 times:
Hurlin also says "we are looking at a bigger aircraft" with variants ranging from 160 to 240 seats and "we need to reduce the passenger loading and disembarking times."
This means "we are looking at a twin-aisle aircraft but we don't want a widebody used as a short-haul aircraft because we don't need the range."
"We were looking at 2012 for replacements but the manufacturers did not respond so we are looking at 2015 to 2016."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 63, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7674 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 62): This means "we are looking at a twin-aisle aircraft but we don't want a widebody used as a short-haul aircraft because we don't need the range."
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 64, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7647 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 63): Quoting Keesje (Reply 62):
This means "we are looking at a twin-aisle aircraft but we don't want a widebody used as a short-haul aircraft because we don't need the range."
787-3s, AF. 787-3s.
I don't think he means removing a few fuel tanks / cutting wings will do Stitch..
Astral From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 65, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7610 times:
INTERESTING INDEED
Mr. Heni Hurlin of Air France said the following points of the replacement type -
160 - 240 seats, , 15 - 25% fuel saving, and looking at 2016 delivery,
He made the comment at the Asian Aerospace Show in Hong Kong SAR China !!!! Now at the same Show, China displayed the C919 publicly, of which -
150 seats (3-class) 168 (1-class). Second version growth to 190 seats. COMAC is reviewing engine suppliers proposal (GE, RR, PW) and aiming for a minimum of 15% fuel saving. C919 expected first delivery in 2016.
Don't you think it was just a very fortunate coincidence ??!!!!!!
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 15604 posts, RR: 90 Reply 66, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7600 times:
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 344 posts, RR: 0 Reply 67, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7346 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 62): Hurlin also says "we are looking at a bigger aircraft" with variants ranging from 160 to 240 seats and "we need to reduce the passenger loading and disembarking times."
This means "we are looking at a twin-aisle aircraft but we don't want a widebody used as a short-haul aircraft because we don't need the range."
I think a fuselage slightly wider then A320 could offer 2-2-2 narrow seats for short flights (offering aisle cross overs etc) 3-3 wide seats for longer distances. Premium flexibility could be 2-1-2 for domestic flight, 1-2-1 for long haul Business and 1-1-1 for First. And much better space experience and luggage stowage of course.
Flexibility / speed a conventional just right 3-3 can not offer.
from "Greenliner" concept a few yrs back.
I think demand for a 757/A300 sized aircraft is there from carriers flying long routes in the US (the big 4), intra Asia carriers and leisure airlines flying 3-6 hr destinations. Adding all 757, 762, A300/10, TU154 and extrpolating it 20 yrs I see a requirements for at least 2000 aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23595 posts, RR: 79 Reply 69, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6862 times:
I do agree a slightly wider fuselage (~15cm) than the A320 brings benefits to both passengers through wide seats (46cm / 18in) and a wider aisle to make getting past people during loading.
Panais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 344 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6726 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 69): I do agree a slightly wider fuselage (~15cm)
I suggest a 30cm wider fuselage. 4 cm per seat and 6 cm for the isle. Next time you travel on an A320 see how easy it is to pass next to someone else. With another 6 cm it will become less of a nuisance.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 13989 posts, RR: 55 Reply 71, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6562 times:
Quoting Borism (Reply 1):
Wouldn't twin-aisle version be competitor to 787-3?
Well, the 787-3 would have to actually exist. It doesn't appear that it's going to.
Quoting Panais (Reply 70): I suggest a 30cm wider fuselage
Remember, width=drag and weight. It's not quite as simple as just making it wider.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 2 Reply 72, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Quoting Airbazar (Reply 14): Quoting Olympic472 (Reply 11):
In other topics, the Airbus pundits here have said that the 321 is a replacement for the 757 when UA announced that they are seeking proposals for their fleet replacement
In many cases it is. One just has to look at what airplane many former 757 operators are flying today. However it is also true that the A321 falls short of of the 757's operating capability, but most airlines either don't need that extra "20%" or are willing to work around it. That is certaily true for European carriers where the most demanding missions are not nearly as demanding as the ones seen in N.America. For example: MAD-LHR is nothing compared to PHX-PHL.
Not only don't most airlines need that extra 20%, many operators don't even need anywhere near the range/load capacity of the present 73G/A32X.
Is there any mileage in producing a lighter structured plane, to suit the typical routes of FR, U2 etc ?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 73, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5974 times:
As a first step for the 160-240 seat category (IMO rewinged -engined) A320 versions could do. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233825/ The LEAPX and GTF versions will probably be good strong enough (40k LBS) to power it. Low risk scenario IMO.
Then there is the <160 seats category. An enormous market. The Chinese, Russians and Canadians jumped in already. Now Embraer, Airbus and Boeing are reviewing their strategies.
Contrary to what many believe I do not believe Bombardier can pull this off on their own. Fokker, Dornier and BAE couldn't. The first two had lots of potential IMO. I find it very likely Bombardier will conclude this at soe point in time and partner to realize the CSeries market potential and reach full industrializiation.
A probable version covering 150 seats in a represenatieve 2 class configuration will/would plant the Bombardier flag right in the middle of Airbus A320 / 737-800 territory.
I think they can / should, but they need more financial / industrial power to do it and I expect some form of consolidation
R2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 1803 posts, RR: 1 Reply 74, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5638 times:
Well I don't think that this is a serious project yet, Airbus is probably throwing out ideas to test market reponse.
It's clear that there will be an enormous gap between the the current short-haul family and the A358. The A330 is a great plane today but it will be reaching its age in some years...so what can Airbus do?
One low-risk option would be to develop a direct A320 replacement, then complement it with an A330 "Advanced" - GEnx engines, A350 systems and avionics, some weight saving and aero tweaks here and there. Effectively bring back the old A350 v1.0. There was also talk of a shrink A330 a very long time ago. The question is how the market will perceive such an aircraft versus the "all-new" 787.
The other option would be to develop two a/c families: one slightly smaller than the current A320family, single-aisle, open rotor, and less range requirement for better weight optimization. The other spanning the 757-A300-A310-762-A332 market, with more capacity and range than the single-aisle family.
Problem with developing two families simultaneously is the huge development and engineering cost first, then the industrial cost of having to produce different fuselage cross sections, wings, having different assembly lines, etc. I'm not sure Airbus (or Boeing) have the resources to do that, in the next few years at least.
Airbus did make a good move with the A330/A340 - same fuselage, different wings/engines. The problem with doing it the other way around (same wing, different fuselage) for an A320 replacement is that the larger family would have too little range while the smaller one would have too much wing.
Berblinger From Germany, joined Aug 2009, 10 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5428 times:
The current discussion is always very much centered on length and diameter of fuselage, but it is never discussed to use the SPACE within this fuselage in a different way than having luggage in the lower compartment and passengers is the upper one. In particular with respect to low-cost carriers, there seems to be the wish to change from this traditional approach. In a way, flying is getting more like traveling by train and here we do not have this rather strict separation of luggage and passengers. So my questions is: Aren't there considerations to provide more space for larger hand-luggage to be accommodated in the aircraft? Couldn't that result in completely new concepts, eg. like having two combined passenger/luggage floors instead of one for luggage and one for passengers?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11025 posts, RR: 72 Reply 76, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5307 times:
Quoting Berblinger (Reply 75): Aren't there considerations to provide more space for larger hand-luggage to be accommodated in the aircraft?
To some extent, yes. The new 737 interior will have the larger pivot overhead bins to accomadate more and larger hand-luggage.
Quoting Berblinger (Reply 75): Couldn't that result in completely new concepts, eg. like having two combined passenger/luggage floors instead of one for luggage and one for passengers?
That woudl require a pretty significant change in the FAR's and the fuselage cross-section...neither is impossible, obviously, but it would be a pretty huge shift and I'm not sure what it would do for you. The total volume of passengers+luggage wouldn't change, and I don't see how spreading the luggage around would improve the density.
MSNDC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 78, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4866 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 69): I do agree a slightly wider fuselage (~15cm) than the A320 brings benefits to both passengers through wide seats (46cm / 18in) and a wider aisle to make getting past people during loading.
If they stick with 3+3, then my hope is it's 18.5+19+18.5 with a 24" or better aisle.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4770 times:
Quoting Berblinger (Reply 75): The current discussion is always very much centered on length and diameter of fuselage, but it is never discussed to use the SPACE within this fuselage in a different way than having luggage in the lower compartment and passengers is the upper one. In particular with respect to low-cost carriers, there seems to be the wish to change from this traditional approach. In a way, flying is getting more like traveling by train and here we do not have this rather strict separation of luggage and passengers. So my questions is: Aren't there considerations to provide more space for larger hand-luggage to be accommodated in the aircraft? Couldn't that result in completely new concepts, eg. like having two combined passenger/luggage floors instead of one for luggage and one for passengers?
For a widebody, you might have options in this respect, but with a narrowbody, to fit two floors in, the lower would basically be at hull level, and not very wide, and the upper would be above centre, and also restricted on width.
Of course its naroowbodies where the LCC's mainly operate, and they are the ones more looking at train type operations.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6156 posts, 
From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 344 posts, 
) and perhaps the A330.
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1874 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4847 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 496 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jul 2003, 4437 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 205 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10514 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2629 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
