Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A321NEO – The Next Big Seller?  
User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1618 posts, RR: 6
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 17212 times:

For many trans atlantic flights, the B757 has had a great end of life, with lots of point to point operations appearing through airline networks, from the east coast USA to Europe.

The 787 will be successful in replacing the B757 for many of these routes.

However, with the advent of the A320NEO, and in particular the larger A321NEO variant, will we see this as a further option for carriers on these routes?

From data I can find, it looks like the A321 NEO would be able to do many trips from western Europe to the East coast USA, with seating for 185 in a typical 2 class config, compared to up to 250 on the 787-8, and 200 on the 757.

How would the economics compare with the 787 and 757 on these routes, and is it a viable alternative for thinner routes, or to help flexibility in a fleet where there is a more seasonal demand?

Would the economics see it as the perfect fit for LCC’s (perhaps easyJet, JetBlue) to start trans-atlantic operations?

It would seem to me that there would be no aircraft competing in this market in the short term (unless of course Boeing does a re-engine too), which could make it a big seller.

An increase in range could make it more attractive still - Would Airbus be able to fit additional fuel tanks to increase the range of the A321NEO to cover more markets, eg into Eastern Europe, or Mid US?

82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 17154 times:

If the 321NEO has the range, those routes are surely a big sales point for JL. But I disagree with

Quoting Richard28 (Thread starter):
The 787 will be successful in replacing the B757 for many of these routes.

The 788 has way more range and cabin area, so I think for most 757-TATL routes the 787 will be way too much capacity...



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 16783 times:

Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 1):
The 788 has way more range and cabin area, so I think for most 757-TATL routes the 787 will be way too much capacity...

  

CO's 757 have 175 seats. If a 787 should indeed carry 250 seats, that would mean a capacity jump by almost 1/3. If today's 757 markets would produce these numbers, they'd be 767 markets already.

And I'm not so sure the A321NEO will even be capable of flying TATL flights non-stop. It should easily manage to do BOS-SNN, but how about HAM-EWR or MAN-ORD on a day with strong headwinds? From what I have read, it would require extensive modifications to bring the A321NEO up to par with the 752s range, and the markets on which that range is truly needed is too limited to justify such an investment/development.

That is not to say that if any US carrier were to order the A321NEO though, they wouldn't operate it on selected TATL services were operational difficulties are unlikely to be encountered.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinemafi29 From Germany, joined Nov 2010, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 16720 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Thread starter):
Would Airbus be able to fit additional fuel tanks to increase the range of the A321NEO to cover more markets, eg into Eastern Europe, or Mid US?

I don't think fuel volume is limiting here; at a reasonable payload it would be MTOW limited. And IIRC the A321's wing is already maxed out at 93.500 kg. So I doubt there will be an increase of MTOW for the A321neo


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 16680 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Thread starter):
However, with the advent of the A320NEO, and in particular the larger A321NEO variant, will we see this as a further option for carriers on these routes?

In general, no.

The 757-200W has a stated range of 4000 nm and realistically has been able to fly east/west routes up to about 3400 nm GC.

Most of those TATL routes are between 3000 and 3400 nm GC.

The current A321-200 has a stated range of 3000 nm and has realistically been able to fly east/west routes up to about 2200 nm.

We have had debates about the range increase the A321 NEO will see, but it's not expected to achieve more than 3500 nm at most. In the real world, that will allow it to fly things like BOS-SNN, but not the bulk of the routes from JFK, EWR, PHL, or (coming soon) IAD.

What the A321 NEO does have the potential to do, which could be enormously valuable for US carriers, is take the restrictions and the doubt away on 2200 nm transcons and Hawaii flights. The A321 NEO could replace pretty much the entire domestic 757 fleet in the U.S., except for a few frames that fly out of places like JAC, EGE, and SNA.

[Edited 2011-05-27 05:44:49]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 16596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The current A321-200 has a stated range of 3000 nm and has realistically been able to fly east/west routes up to about 2200 nm.

  

I make the A321 a good 800Nm down on "realistic" range on the 757

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
We have had debates about the range increase the A321 NEO will see, but it's not expected to achieve more than 3500 nm at most.

Again, I see the A321NEO closing about half that 800Nm gap to the 757, so anything "real-world with a strong headwind" to about 2 600 - 2 700nm should be on the cards, but that will be about it.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
The A321 NEO could replace pretty much the entire domestic 757 fleet in the U.S.,

  
I think the A321NEO will be a hit on US transcon because it should be able to max out on payload to almost the same extent as a 757 - ( I reckon to about 50k lb or so), year round.

Rgds


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1618 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 16593 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
We have had debates about the range increase the A321 NEO will see, but it's not expected to achieve more than 3500 nm at most. In the real world, that will allow it to fly things like BOS-SNN, but not the bulk of the routes from JFK, EWR, PHL, or (coming soon) IAD.

Thanks for the info.   

A little confused though, as for example FRA-EWR is showing on Great Circle mapper as 3362 Nautical miles, so this and similar Western european routes should be in range?

The A319 has the A319LR variant, which has, I understand extra fuel tanks in the aft cargo hold. Could that (relatively straight forward) solution be an option available to Airbus, i.e. A321LR NEO? Or would the extra weight incurred mean bad economics, or need to strengthen the under carriage?

Alternatively if the A321NEO has still not got the legs to do such trips, the A320NEO would have the range, but would it have the economics?


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 16573 times:

Maybe a good option for BA Openskies and similar largely business class routes not using a carrier's main hub base - given relatively low pax count and therefore low weight.

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 5410 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 16354 times:

Quoting Richard28 (Reply 6):
A little confused though, as for example FRA-EWR is showing on Great Circle mapper as 3362 Nautical miles, so this and similar Western european routes should be in range?

Not once you add in North Atlantic headwinds and real-world routing. You need a 4000 nm aircraft like the 757 to fly those routes.


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 16176 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
In general, no.

The 757-200W has a stated range of 4000 nm and realistically has been able to fly east/west routes up to about 3400 nm GC.

Most of those TATL routes are between 3000 and 3400 nm GC.

The current A321-200 has a stated range of 3000 nm and has realistically been able to fly east/west routes up to about 2200 nm.

We have had debates about the range increase the A321 NEO will see, but it's not expected to achieve more than 3500 nm at most. In the real world, that will allow it to fly things like BOS-SNN, but not the bulk of the routes from JFK, EWR, PHL, or (coming soon) IAD.

What the A321 NEO does have the potential to do, which could be enormously valuable for US carriers, is take the restrictions and the doubt away on 2200 nm transcons and Hawaii flights. The A321 NEO could replace pretty much the entire domestic 757 fleet in the U.S., except for a few frames that fly out of places like JAC, EGE, and SNA.

   We have a winner!

Despite it's shortfalls with regards to the 757's missions, the 321NEO should be able to come closer to replacing it than any previous candidate, and this will result in a healthy number of future orders, no doubt. However, to a certain extent its success is still undetermined, as we still don't know what Boeing will/won't do with the 797


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 16102 times:

A practical range of 2,600 nm for A321NEO would enable Indigo to fly the following routes:
DEL-ICN
DEL/BOM-PVG/PEK
DEL/BOM-IST

Air Asia would be able to fly the following routes:
KUL-PEK/PVG/KHI
BKK-NRT


User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 14366 times:

Airbus would be remiss by not extending the range of the A321 NEO, if they do then it immediately fills the apparent gap we talk about all the time, that of the 752 for TATL, European and N American intercontinental ops including US west coast to Hawaii. A new larger wing would not only allow an increase in MTOW it would carry more fuel. Maybe even a small additional fuselage plug to allow for an additional center or near center fuel tank.....since it seems that the niche 752 fills right now is not offered on a next/new generation aircraft, the A321NEO would be the only comparable choice at least until we see a clean sheet narrow-body from Boeing and right now, we dont know how wide the capacity arc would be for a new family. The 787 and A350 are both considerably larger than the 752 or even the 753 and so is the 332 or 333.....the 777 family is bigger and the 737 family does not have the range, cargo capacity or additional expandability to fill the shoes of 752. It appears to me that an A321NEO would be the only choice if indeed its range can be extended to that of the 752. Perhaps a new wing for the 321 could be developed in conjunction with its use on a clean sheet design in the future.

User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 14041 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 11):

You are right in all that you say. However, the costs of developing a new wing and improve the A321NEO up to these specs would be considerably greater than what Airbus could earn with the aircraft. In the real world, the market for which this extended range is required - on an aircraft that size- is very limited and arguably shrinking. The existing 752s still have some life left to them and there's no saying each and every 752 is going to be replaced on a one-for-one basis.

And on top of that.. the savings compared to existing aircraft today will only compensate for increasing fuel prices. They will not making flying cheaper. Therefore, I'd have a hard time believing an aircraft like that could open up any new markets that could not be served by A321NEO RR (regular range lol).



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 13863 times:

Quoting something (Reply 12):
You are right in all that you say. However, the costs of developing a new wing and improve the A321NEO up to these specs would be considerably greater than what Airbus could earn with the aircraft. In the real world, the market for which this extended range is required - on an aircraft that size- is very limited and arguably shrinking. The existing 752s still have some life left to them and there's no saying each and every 752 is going to be replaced on a one-for-one basis.

And on top of that.. the savings compared to existing aircraft today will only compensate for increasing fuel prices. They will not making flying cheaper. Therefore, I'd have a hard time believing an aircraft like that could open up any new markets that could not be served by A321NEO RR (regular range lol)

Thanks for the input, you very well may be right, Something. I think all the time about how we discuss the 752 replacement and how there isnt anything available now or on the drawing board that would fill that bill unless Airbus stretches the performance of the 321 into the 321NEO into something that would fill that niche. My idea of developing a new wing for the 321NEO and then perhaps applying that wing to a clean sheet design would offset the investment for the 321NEO by spreading its use into the next gen of Airbus aircraft. However, I still think that there is some discussion warranted on the subject of a real live 752 replacement especially since the 752 morphed from a mostly domestic, intercontinental aircraft into a real ETOPS rated TATL aircraft, it was obviously over-designed from the beginning and spent most of its life NOT being completely utilized at its maximum capabilities. The current 321 suffers from not being over-designed in terms of range for its size and being always compared to the 752 when in reality it is more of an alternative to the 739.

At any rate, it will be interesting to see where the 321NEO goes and what role Airbus decides it is going to fill. There is no denying that the replacement for the 752 just doesnt exist, whether we need one or not remains to be seen!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 13662 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think Airbus is playing it smart with keeping the weights and dimensions of the current A321-200 as is.

There are enough 757-200s in the world to meet the specific needs of TATL and Hawai'i operations. The last deliveries were some five years ago and as we have seen with the DC-9 and 737 Classic, with the proper maintenance you can keep an airframe alive forever.  


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting something (Reply 12):
You are right in all that you say. However, the costs of developing a new wing and improve the A321NEO up to these specs would be considerably greater than what Airbus could earn with the aircraft. In the real world, the market for which this extended range is required - on an aircraft that size- is very limited and arguably shrinking

Whether it's shrinking or not is certainly arguable. At least one major has asked Airbus to engineer the A321NEO to replace the 757...

And the wing work might not be great.

The 77L/W had "a new wing" compared to earlier 777's.
The A345/6 had "a new wing" compared to earlier A340's

I've never seen big R+D numbers slapped on either of these programmes, which also changed large other parts of the aircraft (the A346 was allegedly 80% new parts, although that again probably demands some qualification).

Bear in mind also that the A321 is a LOT lighter than the 757 - 93t MTOW compared to 116t MTOW.
Obviously to increase the range by another 500Nm (ish - my estimate) requires another c. 3t of fuel, and will probably require more weight in the airframe somewhere.
But I'm pretty sure that the A321 could be made to match the 757 comfortably, inside 100t MTOW

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I think Airbus is playing it smart with keeping the weights and dimensions of the current A321-200 as is.

The above notwithstanding, it's possible that the ever-increasing demand for flying might well result over the next decade in the A321 becoming "the new A320", so to speak. I wouldn't be surprised to see a big demand for A321NEO..

Rgds


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11818 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
Bear in mind also that the A321 is a LOT lighter than the 757 - 93t MTOW compared to 116t MTOW.
Obviously to increase the range by another 500Nm (ish - my estimate) requires another c. 3t of fuel, and will probably require more weight in the airframe somewhere.
But I'm pretty sure that the A321 could be made to match the 757 comfortably, inside 100t MTOW

Assuming Airbus go all out and give it a new wing?
As with it's current wing, it's at the max already.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting garpd (Reply 16):
Assuming Airbus go all out and give it a new wing?

Without re-writing the top half of my previous post.....



Do we know what "a new wing" means? Airbus should be able to give the A321NEO real 757 range with about a 5%-6% increase in MTOW.

We know the current wing is on the limit. What would it need doing to it to accommodate an extra 5%-6% MTOW effectively?

I don't know. But I'm comfortable in suggesting that an ALL-NEW wing may not actually be necessary...

Rgds


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11479 times:

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 11):
Airbus would be remiss by not extending the range of the A321 NEO, if they do then it immediately fills the apparent gap we talk about all the time, that of the 752 for TATL, European and N American intercontinental ops including US west coast to Hawaii. A new larger wing would not only allow an increase in MTOW it would carry more fuel. Maybe even a small additional fuselage plug to allow for an additional center or near center fuel tank.....

Yes, if it cost next to nothing to do.

Let's not forget why Airbus decided to re-engine the A320. IMO it was to significanlty reduce operating cost through lower fuel burn for a very small development outlay and thereby to (a) increase profit per airframe by selling the bird at a higher price (b) gain market share. The fact that the extra range gets it closer to the B757 in range is merely a benign coincidence. So is improved NA transcon performance.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting art (Reply 18):
The fact that the extra range gets it closer to the B757 in range is merely a benign coincidence. So is improved NA transcon performance.

I tend to agree

Rgds


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11287 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
Whether it's shrinking or not is certainly arguable. At least one major has asked Airbus to engineer the A321NEO to replace the 757...

Well, my personal definition of shrinking is regressive growth. Other than CO's STR addition all we've seen were cutbacks and cancellations. And CO sort of plays in a league of their own as far as TATL 752 operations is concerned. The biggest 752 operator of today should be UA, who ironically are the only US major that don't use them on TATL flights.

And the major that's asked Airbus to engineer the A321neo as a 757 replace you speak of is US? They currently operate 24 752WL and not even all of them require beyond-A321neo-specs.

If the new CO/UA were to signal interest in an A321NEO-ER, Airbus might consider it. However, given their lack of manpower and the other engineerical challenges they are facing, I am very sure that under current economical circumstances (ie current market demand) the A321NEO will be born as we know it today. A new wing will not be designed. Especially, since...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
There are enough 757-200s in the world to meet the specific needs of TATL and Hawai'i operations. The last deliveries were some five years ago and as we have seen with the DC-9 and 737 Classic, with the proper maintenance you can keep an airframe alive forever.

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
The above notwithstanding, it's possible that the ever-increasing demand for flying might well result over the next decade in the A321 becoming "the new A320", so to speak. I wouldn't be surprised to see a big demand for A321NEO..

Here I am in full agreement with you. This will probably be emphasized by the fact that the CASM on an A321 are lower than on the A320.

A few interesting, albeit not always reality-related figures can be found here:
http://airinsight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/a321gtfv3-21.pdf

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
We know the current wing is on the limit. What would it need doing to it to accommodate an extra 5%-6% MTOW effectively?

I don't know. But I'm comfortable in suggesting that an ALL-NEW wing may not actually be necessary...

Plus, for all we know the A321NEO may as well over-perform. Maybe it'll be more efficient than anticipated and further weight savings can be realized. New innovations might as well come into effect, like this front-wheel taxi motor, more efficient ATC, routings. That would leave room to use the A321NEO on regular TATL services, and revert to the remaining 757 on winterdays with strong headwinds for the longest routes.

Quoting art (Reply 18):
The fact that the extra range gets it closer to the B757 in range is merely a benign coincidence.

Benign? Maybe. Most welcome? Definitely.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30914 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11040 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
We know the current wing is on the limit. What would it need doing to it to accommodate an extra 5%-6% MTOW effectively?

Is the current undercarriage good for that? And would tire loadings become an issue?

I mean Airbus could always go to the twin-axle truck they did for some of AI's birds...


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10929 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
We know the current wing is on the limit. What would it need doing to it to accommodate an extra 5%-6% MTOW effectively?

I think that is only our view.

Airbus is increasing the MTOW of the A321neo versus the A321-200 without a new wing...


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10921 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
I mean Airbus could always go to the twin-axle truck they did for some of AI's birds...

I have the feeling that the A321neo will end exactly with that feature.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11646 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10821 times:

Quoting something (Reply 20):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
The above notwithstanding, it's possible that the ever-increasing demand for flying might well result over the next decade in the A321 becoming "the new A320", so to speak. I wouldn't be surprised to see a big demand for A321NEO..

Here I am in full agreement with you. This will probably be emphasized by the fact that the CASM on an A321 are lower than on the A320.

This point makes me think that any further 'beefing up' of the A321 is unlikely. Should Airbus indeed have sufficient data to suggest the A321 will become their most popular narrowbody, then it's rational to assume that a future clean sheet design line-up would include a hypothetical A322, centralising their strongest product (the A321) at the heart of the narrowbody family. The NEO is essentially a stop-gap measure, albeit a fairly lengthy one, so why venture further capital into a small and effectively short lived niche product when your competitors are struggling to answer even your basic 321 NEO offering.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
25 astuteman : The -NEO launch declared that all models would receive a 1 tonne MTOW hike. As a check for understanding, are you saying that Airbus plan to go highe
26 LAXDESI : On paper, A320NEO should have a range of nearly 3,700 nm. Could a low density 125 seat A320NEO make the B757 TATL routes with extra tanks? Would the
27 astuteman : I've heard that Airbus are advertising this. It surprises me. The current R/P has it down as a 3 000Nm nominal plane. The NEO change should add aroun
28 Post contains images LAXDESI : I have been caught red handed using wiki numbers. I took wiki's range at 3,200nm for the current A320, and added 15% to it for the NEO. Any thoughts
29 A342 : IMO it's useless, since the A320s with the dual-axle bogey are limited to a MTOW of only 73.5t vs. 78t for a regular A320. Some users on a.net have s
30 Stitch : 50 seats sounds to me to be a pretty large obstacle to overcome in terms of CASM.
31 LAXDESI : I come up with fuel cost for A320NEO that is nearly $16,000 less than that for B752 for a 3,000nm mission(JFK-LIS). The extra 50 Y seats of B757 may
32 astuteman : Someone recently linked an Airbus presentation which showed this. It's not reflected in the latest ACAP. Which might be fair enough. It raises the qu
33 Post contains images Stitch : I would expect if a 757-200 is going out regularly at a 70% LF, it would be replaced by a 737-800.
34 Post contains links LAXDESI : A quick search on Kayak for EWR-LIS indicates one way Y fare of $450 to $650 (based on RT) depending on the season. So even at 70% load factor and an
35 Stitch : I would expect 757s are deployed domestically within the US for their capacity, so I imagine their LF would generally be near 100%. They always seem f
36 Post contains images Baroque : Honesty on a.net!!! Well done. You are hereby sentenced to the normal penalty for that sin, listening to Julian Assange for two weeks while he explai
37 MarcoT : I'm afraid of missing the obvious (since I remember reading with interest your carefully crafted estimates of the A320 range increase due to the vari
38 planemaker : Oh, yes, there are lots of frames to cover that market. Below are pax carriers with over 10 757s in the their fleet... Air China - 10 American Airlin
39 bjorn14 : Is the NEO going to be offered for the entire 320 family?
40 Stitch : There are not currently plans to offer an A318neo, but there will be an A319neo, A320neo and A321neo.
41 Burkhard : How many 757s are used for TATL currently - I'm sure less than 100. So even if there might be connections from UK/Ireland to BOS and NYC within A321 p
42 something : Burkhard, I agree with you on mostly everything you say but Is this still true if you calculate for landing fees, ground handling, board crew, flight
43 Burkhard : I checked the list prices, I get A319 NEO as 77.7+6.2= 83.9 like you, but the 787 at 185,2Mio currently after last price increase, so that favors the
44 flipdewaf : And as the argument goes against the biggest of the big birds, the A319NEO would be significantly less risky for an airline to purchase and they coul
45 Burkhard : And if Edinburgh succeds and Bristol does not pay the bill you can try another airport, or only have to find a job for an A319 of which thousands are
46 bjorn14 : Are there plans for a 319LR NEO and could it push the range over 6000nm?
47 planemaker : Yes, Much less than 100. The only TATL markets where any frequency is really a factor is at hubs.
48 flipdewaf : It isnt about frequency, its about the plane going where you want to be, I dont live in london and a train fare there and back is £100 plus a good 1
49 LAXDESI : The current A319 has a range of 3,600 nm, and JFK-EDI is about 2.800 nm. Remains to be seen if the better economics of A319NEO would make this a poss
50 Post contains images planemaker : You didn't follow the thread regarding my post. I was replying in context to the statement of two 787s vs a single A380 economics. In any case, airli
51 Viscount724 : That's far higher than Airbus shows in payload-range charts on their website, unless unless you're referring to range with almost no payload. With 12
52 odwyerpw : I weighed on the B739ER, so I'll way in on the A321NEO. It is going to be a HUGE success. It's positioned just right. This will be the plane that will
53 planemaker : Here is a list of 757 oprators with over 10 frames in their fleets... other than the obvious candidates, like US Airways, who else would realisticall
54 odwyerpw : Again, I'm haunted by poor word selection. I didn't mean to imply they would retire their 757-200s prematurely, but rather when they replace them, the
55 Post contains images planemaker : No problem with your word selection... just trying to clarify. Undoubtedly the A321NEO will get some looks... as to how serious depends really depend
56 Burkhard : If I look at the list, only 3 Operators rely heavily on them - AA,DL,UA . DL and UA operate significant A320 fleets, but I doubt they have the cash t
57 planemaker : Yes, DL has a lot of 757s with lots of life still on them.... mainly from late 90's and early 2000's. As well, they have a significant 767 fleet that
58 Burkhard : if they don't order fast they can't get any before 2020 anyways, then it becomes time...
59 planemaker : Well, as I mentioned earlier, there are lots and lots of factors that will come into play that will impact fleet planning, certainly in the US market
60 Post contains links LAXDESI : The following Airbus link shows 3,700 nm range for A319. I wonder if the range/payload charts are outdated. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/pr
61 Burkhard : Completely agree with that. We calculated in onther thread that A and B are sold out with their NB until 2016, and with 1000 NEO orders expected unti
62 something : To be fair though, the future of the USA as a country is very questionable. Nobody knows when things will take a turn for the worst again. Whereas ai
63 Burkhard : I agree there still is room for mergers, which in the end only make sense when flights are put together, something that on inner-US scale favors the
64 something : It could also be argued that airlines will uphold their allegiance with whom treats them best, ie is best for their business. If other factors, like
65 MarcoT : The PDA charts are all for the base version, with 23,860 Lt fuel capacity. They don't reflect the supplementary fuel options available (1 or 2 ACT up
66 astuteman : That link to the product viewer shows 3 350Nm for the A319 (unless I'm missing something), which is a plausible gain over the c. 3 150Nm at nominal p
67 Post contains images eire123 : I know it would never be taken on by western airlines, but the TU 204-300 has a range of upto 5000nm. This would be a direct competitor to the 757.. A
68 planemaker : Parker has said that there is room for one more "majors" merger... though he didn't specify the airline he would like to merge with. On paper, certai
69 seabosdca : The Tu-204-300 is the shrink version that is closer in size to an A320. (It looks like an A320 that bulked up in the gym, with its huge wings and eng
70 Post contains images LAXDESI : It still shows 3,700 nm. Perhaps the numbers change depending on the observer.
71 Pacific : There was a time when Air Canada used an A319 TATL into LHR but the route was soon axed. Surely, the small size of the A319 might raise CASM to unprof
72 Post contains images astuteman : Or perhaps more specifically on how accurately someone followed your instructions..... The link you posted points straight at the product viewer, whi
73 LAXDESI : I noticed that on another page it indicates that 3,700 nm range is with sharklets. So adding 14%(GTF NEO) to it would take the range to 4,200 nm. Hop
74 Post contains images astuteman : For what its worth I've been told Airbus are marketing the A319NEO as a 4 100Nm nominal range aeroplane Squarely in 757 territory Rgds
75 MoltenRock : I really don't think there's much airframes to be had doing TATL, maybe 100 or less at most. I can certainly see USAirways buying nearly 1 for 1 to re
76 Stitch : Maybe 3700nm would be for the A319LR with auxiliary tanks?
77 LAXDESI : It will be interesting to see how the RASM/CASM of A319NEO stacks up against B752.
78 planemaker : Less. If they don't merge with another airline but otherwise it would be a no brainer to replace some of their 25 757s with the A321NEO. More complic
79 MoltenRock : Yup, I know. Given the sheer number of aging 757, 762, A300, etc... plus increasing traveling numbers between larger cities in Asia/Oceania, the USA,
80 328JET : This is the plan from Airbus. In the beginning of the neo sales they expect: A320 50 percent A319 25 percent A321 25 percent After 4-5 years they exp
81 Viscount724 : I expect the 3.700 nm range is for the A319 with maximum optional fuel tanks. Since they don't show those options in those tables they probably want
82 Post contains links and images astuteman : I think I may have hit across a possible explanation for the ranges Airbus are supposed to be quoting for the -NEO's . This document contains an R/P
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...
The Next Big Order For NWA posted Thu Jun 3 2004 03:40:38 by TriJetFan1
The Next Big Order For UAL posted Tue Jun 1 2004 02:59:14 by TriJetFan1
Why Wasn't The MD-87 A Big Seller? posted Mon Feb 23 2004 22:58:54 by 727LOVER
4 Large 777 Orders In The Next Few Months posted Wed Jan 12 2011 15:42:53 by QFA787380
Whats With The Next Lufthansa A380? posted Fri Dec 3 2010 00:27:21 by virginblue4
Will The New United Be The Next 739ER Operator? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 11:52:15 by EA772LR
757: The Next Super 27? posted Tue Nov 16 2010 17:12:16 by manfredj
When Is The Next AA Announcement? posted Thu Oct 14 2010 17:41:10 by AA787
Air Pacific (FJ) Future.....the Next 12 Months posted Tue Sep 21 2010 21:39:32 by zkojh
What's The Next Airline To Receive A380? posted Wed Jul 7 2010 01:02:14 by JEKY