Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Clean Sheet A320 Replacement Pre 2024 -JL  
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Posted (5 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

From Flightglobal 17th September:

Speaking at the unveiling of the airframer’s latest Global Market Forecast earlier today, Leahy said: "We’ll still be delivering A320s and Boeing delivering 737s in 2020 – maybe with a new engine. An all-new single aisle won’t come out until 2024."

Airbus goes GTF for 8-10 years from 2014/2015/2016? Then open rotor with a new design?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...replacement-until-2024-airbus.html

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I still don't believe Pratt is going to have a 30-40k pound thrust GTF ready by the mid-2010s. And I am inclined to agree with Pratt that Open Rotor's noise, mounting, and structural reinforcement issues are going to negate most of the fuel advantage it has.

What would be interesting is to see if Rolls-Royce could bring the lower climb fuel-burn advantage of the triple spool to a narrowbody engine. This would likely be very desirable to short-haul airlines who spend a good bit of their flight regimen climbing to altitude and do so many times a day. The GTF's real fuel burn advantage is at cruise. This would be desirable for longer missions (especially TATL).

I know Pratt and Rolls-Royce are equal partners in IAE, but if they could successfully develop a ~30k triple-spool and a ~40k GTF, they could each move back into the narrowbody market as independent entities and the volumes would be such that even with billion-dollar-plus development budgets, the RoI would be very, very nice. And it would force CFM International to really step-up their game.

[Edited 2009-09-17 11:15:01]

User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

I'm not surprised. I doubt the savings can justify the substantial investment required. Given the current state of the industry, wringing out small incremental imrpovements in a proven and paid-for design seems the prudent thing to do.

Plus, neither A nor B want to go first in this endeavor.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rbgso (Reply 2):
Plus, neither A nor B want to go first in this endeavor.

Well they don't necessarily have to, either.

Yes, it's nice to create all these pretty pictures of a 150-seat Bombardier C series or an "Embraer E-20x", but the fact is the base models of those planes are not exactly setting the world on fire right now and much of their past success was due more to the scope clauses that lowered the labor costs than things like superior fuel burn or CASM.

Neither McD nor Boeing could sell the 717 and that plane was a direct replacement for DC-9 and MD-8x fleets measuring in the multiple hundreds and it was more efficient than the baby 737s and A320s that did end up replacing much of those fleets.

A C-150 might be more efficient than an A320 or a 738, but I still believe Bombardier would find such a plane a very hard sell against either model with current operators of those types.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4207 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I still don't believe Pratt is going to have a GTF ready by the mid-2010s.

Huh? They just flew it!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
Huh? They just flew it!

I meant a GTF in the 30-40k range, which would be needed to power a new narrowbody family, as we're discussing.

[Edited 2009-09-17 11:15:29]

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4105 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The lack of capital investment in the 120-150 seat market by both Boeing and Airbus is going to provide a perfect opportunity for Embraer or Bombardier, maybe both. Assuming they can find the $$$ to fund it.

While Airbus and Boeing are whoring out their builds to any government willing to pay for a piece of the action, Canada and Brazil have a chance to create a market shift away from EDS and BA.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3920 times:



Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Leahy said: "We’ll still be delivering A320s and Boeing delivering 737s in 2020 – maybe with a new engine.

Hmm, JL is very confident about Boeing's plans, coming from him I don't think it's just guesswork. He'll probably know more - maybe Boeing and Airbus have agreed not to kill each other off with another all-new design, spending billions each and ending up in the same situation as they are now: virtually splitting up the 130-210 seat NB segment.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Yes, it's nice to create all these pretty pictures of a 150-seat Bombardier C series or an "Embraer E-20x", but the fact is the base models of those planes are not exactly setting the world on fire right now and much of their past success was due more to the scope clauses that lowered the labor costs than things like superior fuel burn or CASM.

Well, to be honest, the C-series has been launched with the worst possible timing, just when the sales bubble popped and the economic crisis started. But I agree with you that (like the 787) the advantages of the C-series will be mainly because of its new engine. So Airbus and Boeing could just hang a new engine (GTF, LEAP56 or whatever IAE may come up with) under the 737 or A320 series and they'll remain competetive.

I was just thinking... if JL has inside knowledge of Boeing not planning to design a clean-sheet NB, does that mean he also knows there's gonna be a 777 sucessor before 2020?  cloudnine 



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3798 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7):
Quoting Art (Thread starter):
Leahy said: "We’ll still be delivering A320s and Boeing delivering 737s in 2020 – maybe with a new engine.

Hmm, JL is very confident about Boeing's plans, coming from him I don't think it's just guesswork. He'll probably know more - maybe Boeing and Airbus have agreed not to kill each other off with another all-new design

...or maybe Leahy is signalling to Boeing through this statement that Airbus is willing to hang back - if Boeing co-operates by hanging back too it will probably benefit both of them.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7):
Well, to be honest, the C-series has been launched with the worst possible timing, just when the sales bubble popped and the economic crisis started.

Bombardier has been pimping the CSeries since the early 2000's. The original model - the BRJX - flopped so in July of 2004 they tried again with the CSeries. But after 18 months, nobody (at least of note) ordered so they put a halt to it in January 2006 - even as Boeing and Airbus were recording record orders year upon year.

Four years later (July 2008), they tried again and orders are still as rare as hen's teeth. Yes, I agree the world economic malaise has not helped any, but it took LH almost a full year to finally turn their LoI into a firm order and when they did, it was for half as many planes. And with the current leasing environment, I'm not so sure the 20 other planes currently ordered by Lease Corporation International are exactly a "slam dunk" to be delivered.

[Edited 2009-09-17 13:54:11]

User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3755 times:



Quoting ElbowRoom (Reply 8):
maybe Leahy is signalling to Boeing through this statement...

- I think, A and B have other ways to signal to each other - this is rather signaling everyone else that they've already exchanged such signals  Wink...


User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Oh, and this:

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7):
(like the 787) the advantages of the C-series will be mainly because of its new engine.

- if so, why doesn't Airbus get back to original 350 idea? It was exactly that, new engines and minor improvements, and, BTW, was selling very well. Why bother spending billions? Just curious.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6184 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3595 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
but it took LH almost a full year to finally turn their LoI into a firm order and when they did, it was for half as many planes.

And it should be noted that the aircraft are going to Swiss to replace the BAe/Avros and not LH's fleet. There was almost universal acclaim on this site that LH was going to replace their 737s with the CSeries.... WRONG!

A and B have very little to worry about from BBD as their updated NBs will still beat BBD on price (if they would so choose) and be competitive on total economics with an existing A or B fleet. And A and B's next gen NBs will be far and away superior to the CSeries.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3336 times:



Quoting RIX (Reply 11):
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7):
(like the 787) the advantages of the C-series will be mainly because of its new engine.

- if so, why doesn't Airbus get back to original 350 idea? It was exactly that, new engines and minor improvements, and, BTW, was selling very well. Why bother spending billions? Just curious.

The airlines themselves (SQ!) signaled to Airbus that the original A350 just didn't cut it, and the QF deal for up to 110 787's was the turning point IMO. Now, with the successes of the A330, one can wonder if a re-engined improved A330 would have been such a bad idea... It could very well had EIS before the 787!



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 13):
Now, with the successes of the A330, one can wonder if a re-engined improved A330 would have been such a bad idea... It could very well had EIS before the 787!

The idea of the original A350 was always good. The original sales of 200 copies showed that already. Then the A330 sales boom started underlining this point even further. But the A350 lost out to the B787, mainly in the marketing & sales department. At some point it seemed that the B787 was the only option any sensible run airline had. Now we know that initially the B787 will not be as good, and the original wasn't so bad.

But the A350-XWB promises to be so much better (but also larger) then the original A350, hence the continuous development program for the A330 to keep the plane attractive for quite some time to come. All in all the move to the A350-XWB was not a bad one for Airbus in the end. But at the time we all (might have) thought that they were struggling just to keep their heads above the rising Boeing water. Now of course the picture is much more balanced between the A330-A350-XWB on the one side and the B787 on the other side. All very good airplanes (to be) in my opinion. I can hardly wait to see all of them flying on a regular basis to the many airport around the world.  

Now we only have to wait for possible new engines to be slapped on both the B737 and the A320 since a completely new successor seems a long time away into the future.

[Edited 2009-09-18 00:42:59]

User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

While A and B are in the happy position of being a duopoly and can (at some risk) ignore their customers' plea for more efficient NB aircraft in the near future, that is not good for aviation. It is clearly not in the interest of the airlines to be 'denied' more efficient aircraft. Nor is it good financially for the duopoly to deny the airlines more efficient narrow bodies, I would say.

Firstly, the cost to the duopoly of re-engining the A32X and 737 series would be small - say $1 billion to Airbus, $3 billion to Boeing to switch to GTF. I would expect the duopoly to produce 8,000 or more NB aircraft in the period 2015-2025. Spreading a $4 billion re-engining cost over 4,000 frames each results in a tiny cost increase per frame to Airbus ($250,000) and a small increase to Boeing ($750,000). Both manufacturers would be able to sell their frames for a higher price than they sell as they are now and I would think generate a good ROI on their investment (especially Airbus).

Secondly, airlines are demanding more efficient narrow bodies. Running re-engined NB's for 10 years instead of currently engined aircraft would save vast amounts of money on fuel.

Thridly, there is a 'political' element. With increasing concern worldwide over global warming, with aviation becoming a target due to its current emissions, with air travel set to continue its growth, how will the industry look to the governments of the world if the two principal manufacturers decline to produce more efficient aircraft able to mitigate some of the increase in emissions? How long would governments tolerate such gas guzzling complacency by the manufacturers without reacting against them directly or squeezing airlines operating gas guzzlers?

As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know the current annual fuel burn by narrow bodies? How much less fuel would be burnt if 8,000 were substituteded by aircraft burning 10% less fuel? I'd be thankful for any guidance.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3226 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
I meant a GTF in the 30-40k range, which would be needed to power a new narrowbody family, as we're discussing.

The CFM56 -5B has a a thrust range of 22-33Klbs, so I don't see a need for anything above 35K unless you want a TATL 739LR or A321XR.

In anothe rpost yesterday we read that Mitsubishi is going back to more aluminium. The big hype about composites everywhere is over. I still doubt that a clean sheet design started now for a 3-3 seater optimized for 180 passengers and LD3 containers would be so different to the A320 besides the potential engines.


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3208 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 7):
maybe Boeing and Airbus have agreed not to kill each other off with another all-new design, spending billions each and ending up in the same situation as they are now: virtually splitting up the 130-210 seat NB segment.

 checkmark 

This is an important point: there is no incentive for Airbus or Boeing to invest heavily in that market. It is like Cold War. Each step forward would be countered with an adequate response that would nullify the effort.

It seems impossible to gain substantial market share in the NB market for any of them. If Airbus or Boeing applies the "best available possible" technology on a new NB product the other vendor would counter with a comparable product. Both of them do not have a key technology that would make their product clearly superior. Parity is a given.

Therefore there is NO appeal at all to invest into this market.

It is even not required for them to make an agreement about that. They both simply apply the rule: "do nothing, observe the other and if he moves, make sure that parity is preserved"

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12):
And A and B's next gen NBs will be far and away superior to the CSeries.

Here I have doubts too. If Airbus or Boeing apply their state-of-the-art technology to a new NB product, they both would outclass any other current or future NB product. The OEM's in Japan, China, Canada or Brazil will never deliver solutions in the same league like Airbus or Boeing. The power to perform cornerstone research and development for civil aviation lays mainly in the hand of Boeing or Airbus.

Airbus or Boeing will not eclipse each other. But everyone else will be knocked down by their next NB product.

IMO the only strategy could be to avoid the aircraft size that will be/is covered by an Airbus or Boeing product. And indead there are indications that the next Airbus and/or Boeing NB product will not be focused on sizes below 150 seats.


User currently offlineFrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3178 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
the A350 lost out to the B787, mainly in the marketing & sales department.

Oh yes, especially CFRP was a real hype at the time, a new airline design couldn't be successful without it. Even the first A350XWB version with Al-Li fuselage was rejected by the airlines, it had to be CFRP which caused EIS to be pushed another year further away.

Even now, a 777NG with new wings and engines which would be close enough to the A350XWB in efficiency to compete was reportedly not received too well by the airlines. They want a new design, better than its competitor.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
Now we only have to wait for possible new engines to be slapped on both the B737 and the A320 since a completely new successor seems a long time away into the future.

That's the lesson both A and B have learned, why spend so many billions when you can stay competitive so much cheaper  Smile



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineJambrain From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2008, 251 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 day ago) and read 2804 times:



Quoting Art (Reply 15):
the cost to the duopoly of re-engining the A32X and 737 series would be small

One of the engine OEMs needs to put some skin in the game, I'm sure they would rather design a new engine for a new air-frame not a re-engine.

The compromises required to re-engine are quite different to a clean sheet design and could end up being a dead end engine family.



Jambrain
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 day ago) and read 2697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jambrain (Reply 19):
One of the engine OEMs needs to put some skin in the game, I'm sure they would rather design a new engine for a new air-frame not a re-engine.

The current B737 and A320 backlogs are plenty deep enough to guarantee a nice RoI for a new generation of engine for them so I expect they'd be happy to provide a new generation engine for the B737 and A320 provided Boeing and Airbus do not soon put into service replacement models that would either not work with the new engine or require it to be updated significantly.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 23 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

I just find it so strange that they can come out with the A380/A350/787/748 fairly quickly but can't come out with a new narrow body until 2020. Does this mean that the current narrow bodies are efficient enough that they just can't make a huge enough improvement, or their backlogs are large enough that they just don't need to

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30984 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (5 years 23 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 21):
Does this mean that the current narrow bodies are efficient enough that they just can't make a huge enough improvement, or their backlogs are large enough that they just don't need to.

A combination of both.

Also, narrowbodies perform a greater variety of roles than widebodies (in general) - short-haul, medium-haul and long-haul. Quick turnaround times or extensive turn around times.

Airlines flying short distances would favor engines that have excellent fuel-efficiency during climb. Airlines flying medium and long distances would favor engines that have excellent fuel-efficiency at cruise.

Airlines operating many short flights with multiple turns want a plane low to the ground to make servicing quicker, which means engines with smaller fan diameters and lower BPRs.

Airlines operating fewer medium and long-haul flights don't mind if a plane is higher off the ground because it allows larger engines with larger fans and higher BPRs and don't mind if it takes another 20-30 minutes to get the plane ready for it's next mission.


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 23 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

Stitch - I nearly always learn something from your posts. Thanks.

User currently offlineRIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 23 hours ago) and read 2325 times:



Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 13):
Now, with the successes of the A330, one can wonder if a re-engined improved A330 would have been such a bad idea...



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14):
Now of course the picture is much more balanced between the A330-A350-XWB on the one side and the B787 on the other side.

- and the conclusion is, Boeing shouldn't worry about 350 threat at all: some updates, new engines, may be another stretch if new wing / landing gear allows... and here is the new world-beater.

And I'm not ironic/sarcastic at all - this is exactly what will happen if the above considerations are true (and it doesn't look they are totally not, to say the very least). No worries about heavier 787, just make 787-10 based on same original 7E7, to expand its niche, and together with 777NG Boeing has same perfect combination as Airbus with 330/350. Then, it's time to go for Y3 to bother Airbus also on the upper end...


25 Stitch : Airbus responded from a position of strength (A330) with the A350 and a position of weakness (A340) with the A350XWB. As such, they sweated the detail
26 FrmrCAPCADET : The current NBs are likely entirely efficient enough given current possible advances in technology - airframes and engines. The big fliers of of the t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
B737 And A320 Replacement posted Sat Nov 29 2008 18:54:38 by Dkramer7
Possible 737/A320 Replacement? posted Sun Nov 23 2008 11:01:31 by EBJ1248650
B737 % A320 Replacement Engine posted Sat Nov 15 2008 19:40:38 by Dkramer7
Airbus May Not Do A320 Replacement Alone posted Tue Jul 3 2007 02:32:05 by Elvis777
Leahy Hints At A320 Replacement posted Mon Dec 11 2006 02:11:32 by 7cubed
Airbus A320 Replacement posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:36:05 by WingedMigrator
A320 Replacement posted Wed Jun 7 2006 17:35:19 by Grantcv
Engines For 737NG And A320 Replacement In 2015 posted Fri Feb 24 2006 06:28:13 by OyKIE
A320 Replacement? posted Wed Apr 13 2005 20:05:03 by Shamrock350
Why No A340 Or A320 For KLM? posted Sun Aug 22 2004 14:45:59 by Kl911