Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Airbus Downsize To A Lean And Mean A30X?  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 21462 times:

Airbus and Boeing could replace the current narrow bodies by slightly larger base airframes, additionally covering 757/762/A300 replacement, as stated in many posts.

If Airbus upgrade the A320, A321 and maybe create A320.5 and A322 variants with new engines, weight savings (composite tail), significant wing improvement (flaps, composites, profile, span, more fuel), new interiors etc. that platform might well be able to cover capacity from 160-250 seats in an economical way far into the next decade.

Also it could cause the 130-150 seat short haul segment (A318/A319) to slip to the upcoming large regional aircraft like the CSeries, ARJ, Superjet and maybe Embraer. I think it's already starting. http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/0...airline-orders-canadian-rival.html After all the hotspot of the segment is around 150 seats, under 1000NM. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...llRRNButilization.jpg?t=1267434698

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=1500nm%40LHR,+1500nm%40DFW,+1500NM%40PEK,+1500NM%40DEL&E=180&MS=wls&MX=540x540&PM=b:diamond7%2b%25t&RW=2
1500NM ranges in big markets:

A possible strategy is developing something smaller, optimized for shorter flights, from 130 up to max. 175
seats. Lighter, more quiet and competitive then re-engining the heavier / more capable A318/A319 and A320.

Large efficiency gains might be achieved by
   reducing MTOW/range
   reducing cargo capability (not that important short haul)
   reducing airframe stretch potential to maybe 175 seats
   reducing maximum speed down to what is still practical in ATM (flight time is less important on short flights)
   reducing seat width (less important on short flights)
   reducing wing size (less fuel capacity needed)
   reducing galley capacity (less important on shorter flights, less F cabins too)
   extensive use of lighter materials
   reducing noise isolation (quiet engines in the back)
   limited entertainment options (just flight info /wifi), no PTV.

So a real lean aircraft that covers the heart of the market with maximum efficiency/ low operating costs.


Older NACRE study that could point in this direction (also see Airbus GMF 2009-2028)

In such a scenario Airbus would end up with a dual NB strategy:

   offering an upgraded A320 platform to cover 160-250 seats up to 4000nm's
   a lean and mean smaller platform covering 130-175 seats, up to 2000nm's

Cockpit designs could be synchronized for full pilot compatibility. The OEW of an A30X would be about 25% lower than a similar seat capacity A319. Engines would be optimized for low fuel, low noise at slightly lower Mach numbers.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 20911 times:

Such an aircraft might work for Europe and India, but I don't think you will ever sell substantial numbers of 1500 nm aircraft in the United States. It's just too inflexible, and the U.S. airlines have too many 2000-2400 nm routes.

I also think Airbus probably has better things to do with its capital than wade into a pool full of sharks. It's clear that heavy competition has already moved into the 100-150 segment -- it's probably better to spend the capital improving the 180-250 seat aircraft to the point where no one (except Boeing) will be able to catch up.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20563 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
Such an aircraft might work for Europe and India, but I don't think you will ever sell substantial numbers of 1500 nm aircraft in the United States. It's just too inflexible, and the U.S. airlines have too many 2000-2400 nm routes.

But they would still use their A320/737 (upgraded) for that or the usual 757, 767, etc. for those flights. Looking at e.g. DFW, all of the US is covered. Same for ATL, LAS and Chicago. SW average flight lenght is 640 miles with an average duration of one hour and 54 minutes. (Southwest aircraft fly an average of 6.25 flights per day). Seatcount is 137 single class, range of a Boeing 737-700 >3000nm. http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/factsheet.html

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 1):
I also think Airbus probably has better things to do with its capital than wade into a pool full of sharks. It's clear that heavy competition has already moved into the 100-150 segment -- it's probably better to spend the capital improving the 180-250 seat aircraft to the point where no one (except Boeing) will be able to catch up.

And risk >70% of the market in the process? Btw the A320 upgrade is included in the scenario, it not OR, it's AND. It looks like it will be ungraded anyway.


User currently offlinefrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 20179 times:

Now that Iceland is serving Seattle it raises the question: Would the longer range likely with a redone 737/320 series be capable and economic to handle that route. And by extension much of the western US to Europe including northern Africa and the Middle East - all as one stop flights. If they were it would raise an interesting question.. Hubbing low passenger cities with one stop flights could be a new business model. Would those two airframes horn into 787/350 aircraft


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19984 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
SW average flight lenght is 640 miles with an average duration of one hour and 54 minutes.

That may be the average, but a big part of the reason WN likes the 73G is that it can fly every flight in the network including 2200 nm transcons under any weather conditions. It has to schedule the 733s much more carefully.

And AA isn't just hubbed in DFW. It's also hubbed in ORD, LGA, and MIA, and aircraft rotate through the hubs. A 1500 nm aircraft could not replace MD-83s on near transcons.

Likewise for Continental in IAH or Delta in MSP, the other two big mid-country hubs.

Personally, I expect the next Boeing narrowbody will be sized especially so that its smallest variant has exactly 149 seats in WN configuration. That would imply a baseline aircraft sized between the 737-800 and -900, which seems reasonable. Airbus may not have a similar motivation to produce a shrink, so they might upsize the base A320 to about 738 size, which also seems reasonable, and responsive to the sweet spot in the 6-abreast market.

We'll see if either one gets back into the 5-abreast game. You are right that there are aircraft to be sold. I'm just not sure Airbus or Boeing are the most logical makers to do it.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18626 times:

I don't think there is a market for this type of craft. It's a little too small and short ranged. Some of the efficiencies you've mentioned already exist to some degree in other frames. There are also alot of short haul regional jets like the E-class that can be had for very little too. It reminds me alot of the MD-80s.

User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18263 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 5):
I don't think there is a market for this type of craft. It's a little too small and short ranged.

I think you just described an CRJ200!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
so they might upsize the base A320 to about 738 size

I think you ment the A320 replacment, it wouldnt make sense to change the a320s desing specifacations now, it would be a different model with different set of wieghts and ranges.



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17552 times:

I think the majority of bigger carriers have multiple aircraft types anyway. Even SW. I think the "one shoe fits all" as preferable fleet strategy has it limits. It's becoming to expensive. The US transcon missions are a small percentage of the global market so won't be decisive. I'm not sure 150 seat aircraft will the preferred capasity for transcon flights in the future. Maybe 200-250 seaters will be more economic.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
a lean and mean smaller platform covering 130-175 seats, up to 2000nm's

I assumed the range of a light narrowbody would be 2000NM. 3% of flights is longer then 2000nm. You could use 737/A320 variants for those missions. To oversize your complete fleet because of it seems irresponsible if significant cost saving can be achieved by right sizing..



[Edited 2010-03-01 14:41:15]

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16958 times:

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 6):
I think you ment the A320 replacment, it wouldnt make sense to change the a320s desing specifacations now, it would be a different model with different set of wieghts and ranges.

I think you are right...   must proofread posts...



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6294 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16794 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Airbus and Boeing could replace the current narrow bodies by slightly larger base airframes, additionally covering 757/762/A300 replacement

Huh, how many copies of 757/762/A300 was sold during the last ten years? Not many.

Boeing tried to revive that segment not too long time ago with the 753. No big success.

Later they lauched the 783, and it is now clear that it is not the bird which is going to keep the 787 line busy in the foreseeable future.

I can't explain why, but there seems to be little business any longer in the 200-250 seats short and medium range segment.

Let's have a look at present day 737/320 family sales. And for simplicity we exclude the not selling 736 and 318. Where are the bulk of the sales? They are in the middle.

The 738 and the 320 are selling best with noticeably lower volumes going to the short 73G/319 and long 739ER/321 versions.

738 and 320 have roughly identical capabilities and can be described as 150 seat two class planes. It seems to me that the market has proved that they are positioned right in the center of the short and medium range market.

Why haven't 757/762/A300 size planes been selling in the past? One theory could be that those planes fit in the old regulated market back in the 70'es and 80'es. At that time airlines would fly you wherever you wanted, but only WHEN THEY wanted. Today you pick the airline which is most convenient for you, and it is the one which flies you when you want to fly. That has put more emphasis on frequency. Well, that's one theory - could be totally wrong.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15621 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
Personally, I expect the next Boeing narrowbody will be sized especially so that its smallest variant has exactly 149 seats in WN configuration. That would imply a baseline aircraft sized between the 737-800 and -900, which seems reasonable.

Actually, an aircraft seating 149 people with 32" seat pitch would still be smaller than either the 738 and 734. Let's say you add two seat rows to WN's 73G configuration, that's only a 64" stretch. The 738 would still be 13 feet longer and the 734 would be 4 feet longer.


User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5290 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15239 times:

I feel like this thread is deja vu all over again.  

Neat looking aircraft, though, and I imagine it could be popular with some carrier's

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2199 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14592 times:

I think this plane would be the only chance that Airbus ever offers another larger and more capable NB.

It is costly however to cover the market of a single familiy from the past by two families in the future. There needs to be a trade off. Consider the two family strategy vs the one family strategy: do the generated sales by the two families that lay outside of the covered scope of the single family return the much higher investments?

To show what I mean I assume the exact proposed two family strategy compared with the current A320 family:

Two family strategy:
- 160-250 seats up to 4000nm's
- 130-175 seats, 2000nm's

One family strategy:
- 140 - 210 seats, up to 3000nm

Now check the size of the "gained" market that is ONLY served by the two family strategy. That would be the 130-140 seat market and the sub 2000nm market on the lower end. On the upper hand it would be the 757 role (but only where it is used to its full capacity, I estimate only some hundreds 757´s are used in a way no other existing narrowbody could help out).

Isn´t it questionable that this "gained market" justifies the effort of two development programs?

Don´t understand me wrong. It is a very nice aircraft. I consider it an absolute must if ever a larger more potent Airbus NB family shall see the light. But I am not convinced that the two family strategy will pay out.

You spotted correctly that the 140 seat/short range market differs from 200 seat/medium range market in two orders of magnitudes. The same aircraft family that has a 210 seat/medium range member will always lock lousy as a shrink to serve the 140 seat/short range market. Bluntly it will not work. That means that in case of a single family strategy Airbus will hardly touch the size/range span of the current A320 family. Too prooved to deviate.

I think the desire to cover a larger size span would be adressed best by a single 6 abreast CFRP cross section that gets different wings for the different roles. The proposed A30X could be realized this way almost perfectly.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14476 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 9):
Boeing tried to revive that segment not too long time ago with the 753. No big success.

Later they lauched the 783, and it is now clear that it is not the bird which is going to keep the 787 line busy in the foreseeable future.

I can't explain why, but there seems to be little business any longer in the 200-250 seats short and medium range segment.

My reading of it is that the airlines that need 2,000m+ range in that segment already have the 757 - mainly US carriers. Those that dont are happy to run A321 and 738/9/9ERs on routes that could support a 762/752/A310 etc - its good for yields.

I think that an A322 might work - a slightly stretched A321 with more powerful (perhaps GTF) donks delivering a lot more thrust than the A321 has, and a large increase in MTOW - hence much more range and more payload across longer ran



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14052 times:

While it is entertaining to see the 2008 RR chart again, everyone should remember that with a projected all-new NB EIS 15 years out, the aviation industry will be significantly changed, on the one hand, and technology will be significantly advanced on the other. In short, the speculating should be based on what will be happening in ~2025... not 2010.


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13187 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 14):
While it is entertaining to see the 2008 RR chart again, everyone should remember that with a projected all-new NB EIS 15 years out, the aviation industry will be significantly changed, on the one hand, and technology will be significantly advanced on the other. In short, the speculating should be based on what will be happening in ~2025... not 2010.

I think loooking at 2025 one thing is sure. The worlds populated areas / airports won't grow further apart.

About seat capacity, the segment between 125-175 has grown enormously over the last 25 years. So did the segment above 175 seats, but still its relatively small;



No doubt the average narrow body size will grow in the next 15 urs. It grew 3% during the last 10 years. A mean and lean light aircraft would have to cover that. It would with an aircraft optimized for

[Edited 2010-03-02 02:25:24]

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4361 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12567 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 15):
About seat capacity, the segment between 125-175 has grown enormously over the last 25 years.

Yes, but these are the A320s and B738, which are only used by LCC above 175 seats...


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12533 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16):
Yes, but these are the A320s and B738, which are only used by LCC above 175 seats...

you are right. Airbus and Boeing in general talk about "typical 2 class" configurations with 4 abreast in front. I rather use single class as an absolute number. I think 175 seats single class could cater for a very acceptable 150 seat two class configuration, certainly if the cabin would be 5 abreast. In the 2008 RR graph the hot spot seems to be around 140 seats.

Trend in Europe of the last 10 years has been reducing / elimination the front cabins. Many airlines offer some kind of economy plus, with a little extra pitch, different seatcover and the curtain so premium customers feel recognized etc. Good ground products took over on short flights (lounges, quick check in, more luggage, points etc.)



Making everything lighter and leaner would enable much lighter fuel efficient engines for the same number of seats, and that what its all about..

[Edited 2010-03-02 05:20:34]

User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1089 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12352 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Making everything lighter and leaner would enable much lighter fuel efficient engines for the same number of seats, and that what its all about..

Well, getting the engines off the tail might be a good first step towards "lighter and leaner".  

I'm not sure it is wise to imply that it's all about fuel efficiency. Cost of development (which clearly affects the airline's cost of acquisition), maintenance costs, spares and training cost, pilot scope clause issues, all need to be factored in. In fact, on the shorter stage lengths which you are so interested in these days, fuel tends to be a smaller than average component of overall cost.

My guess is that Airbus will stick to a single basic model, but that is just a guess. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently onlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 12318 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 18):
Well, getting the engines off the tail might be a good first step towards "lighter and leaner".

And let's place them up top, C-14/An-72-style!  



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12229 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 19):
Quoting PITingres (Reply 18):
Well, getting the engines off the tail might be a good first step towards "lighter and leaner".

And let's place them up top, C-14/An-72-style!

Placing the engines under the wings has a lot of advantages. And disadvantages ) Boeing also the the engines of its new concepts mostly in the tail. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a114/auen00/19d4ce20.gif Why? (hint: no clean wing (drag, fuel), LDG height, APU distance, high BPR engine ground clearance, noise, etc.)


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12212 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 20):
Placing the engines under the wings has a lot of advantages. And disadvantages ) Boeing also the the engines of its new concepts mostly in the tail. http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a114/auen00/19d4ce20.gif Why? (hint: no clean wing (drag, fuel), LDG height, APU distance, high BPR engine ground clearance, noise, etc.

Yes, but at the cost of nasty stall characteristics and higher maintainence cost, which is why no-one emulated the DC-9 and the tri-engines once they went away.


User currently onlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 12206 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 20):
Placing the engines under the wings has a lot of advantages. And disadvantages ) Boeing also the the engines of its new concepts mostly in the tail.

I was being facetious. It wouldn't work in this airframe class.

However, I do see a potential benefit to aircraft flying into short fields. How about 50-70 passenger RJs that could fly into, say, LCY with no difficulties? On top of that, think of how many new airfields would be opened up.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11905 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 22):
However, I do see a potential benefit to aircraft flying into short fields. How about 50-70 passenger RJs that could fly into, say, LCY with no difficulties?

Isn't that a BAe 146?

Tom.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11824 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
Airbus and Boeing could replace the current narrow bodies by slightly larger base airframes, additionally covering 757/762/A300 replacement, as stated in many posts.

Here we go again Keesje talking about the same issue all over again.

I do not know if you are aware but Richard Aboulafia is talking about the same issue.
http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=311

My opinion is that manufacturers (and I mean all of them) will not do anything in that segment for two reasons.
1. They are busy with their existing and development platfroms until 2020.
2. There are enough 757/767/A300/A310 in the market to satisfy the needs of this segment that have already been paid for and airlines have invested in the infrastructure to support them.

When these old aircraft have been sent to the desert or to cargo companies, then airlines will either fill the gap with the narrowbodies or they will ask the manufacturers to build something new.

Any new offering in this segment will have to wait until the knowledge of building the next generation of planes has been well understood.


25 Post contains links keesje : Reply 24 Here we go again Keesje talking about the same issue all over again. I do not know if you are aware but Richard Aboulafia is talking about t
26 panais : What is wrong with cashcows? How are they going to finance the airplanes that you are suggesting for the last few years on this forum?
27 PlanesNTrains : I guess I'm not clear from the original post, but the thread title suggests that Airbus is considering this "A30X". But when I read the post, it sound
28 Revelation : Why do you think they like those bigger aircraft so much then? Are you saying the A380 was built for prestige and not to meet a real market need? Sam
29 keesje : Are you trying to put words in my mouth & fight those? It did not exist, so little appeal I guess.. I sometimes it seems folks are only staring a
30 Revelation : No, just trying to understand what you said, namely: It seems pretty irrational to me that an vendor would "want/have to spend their money on a bigge
31 planemaker : But there will be fundamental changes by 2025 that will impact air travel. Population growth in Europe is already flat and N. America is not too far
32 tdscanuck : Or CFM just upgraded all of the CFM's with their latest technology on the entire A320/737 fleet a year ago...but don't let facts get in the way. When
33 Revelation : I'm glad someone else here is finally picking up on that.
34 planemaker : Actually, I posted a fair bit about it last year but I don't think that there are enough people on here to understand the technology nor the impact.
35 Post contains images Revelation : I guessed I missed that.. And is busily buying up Tandberg shares to try to get an even bigger piece of the market. I've attended meetings in Telepre
36 Post contains links and images planemaker : Here's the link to an article on it. BTW, Panasonic and LG are also coming out with Skype enabled TVs and Cisco says that they'll have a retail produ
37 Post contains images keesje : Airbus doesn't build engines. The dominating CFM, CF6 have their roots in the early seventies. Look at the mobile phones from that age. They did. In
38 parapente : Is this not (again) really a question about market size. It seems (to me) that when a brand new aircraft is launched it takes about 500 sales to B/E p
39 Post contains images DfwRevolution : You're right. Airplane engines should be at least three times as small in 2010...
40 PITingres : So what? Aircraft engines and mobile phones are on completely different development trajectories with completely different timelines. In the jet engi
41 keesje : After 14 yrs a mod for 1% better SFC. You think that That changes everything? I have seen market forecasts (can't find the back) on Narrowbodies for
42 planemaker : Considering that their all-new NB design is not due for another +10 years, it is pure speculation on your part that "they will prevent this situation
43 tdscanuck : The TI mod was considerably better than that, and they've got another package on the way. Does it change the entire narrowbody market? Nope. Does it
44 Post contains images keesje : .. still its not a new car The growing trade-off for airlines is if it's still a good long term investment with good residual value in 2035.
45 EA772LR : Isn't this whole topic a moot point since Airbus and Boeing (as well as the engine manufacturers) have said they can't deliver a 15-20% more efficient
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...
Us Airways Will Discontinue Service To KIN And SDQ posted Thu Jun 8 2006 20:02:27 by M180up
Will Dragonair Fly To LHR And SYD Soon? posted Fri May 12 2006 04:50:14 by United Airline
Will Airbus Adhere To JetBlue's Request? posted Fri Apr 4 2003 04:25:23 by John
Sabena Will Fly Again To Liberia And Burundi posted Mon Sep 25 2000 23:36:54 by A330
Airbus: UA Will Return To Profit And Order A380 posted Wed Jan 8 2003 22:38:58 by Bigo747
Airbus Confirms It Will Pitch A380 To ANA posted Mon Feb 11 2008 09:57:51 by Kappel
Coagulation To SQ And Airbus For A380 posted Thu Oct 25 2007 16:23:00 by 747400sp
Airbus Will Boost Production To 650 Aircraft A Yr posted Mon Apr 30 2007 11:49:52 by EI321
Will IAD See Direct Service To Spain And Italy? posted Thu Dec 28 2006 16:07:29 by Mk777
Qatar: Airbus Will Give Us Free 380 And Money posted Tue Nov 7 2006 17:02:02 by Jimyvr