Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Next For Airbus - A322?  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 665 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 17237 times:

Airbus has achieved some substantial steategic wins as a result of the AA order this week:

1 Forced Boeing to offer a fourth iteration of the 737 instead of a new-build

2 Thereby giving many additional years' life to the A320 programme

3 Thereby pushing further out its own need for R&D spend on a new n/b

4 Achieved a good slug of A320 OEO orders to bridge the gap to production of the NEO

5 Achieved a secure cash flow form AA for many years (assuming they remain solvent)

Bearing in mind also that Airbus have pushed the A321 NEO back so that it will now be the last version flying, possibly to give them time to beef it up a little in terms of weights for a good number of TATL applications, is there scope for a stretch?

Ryanair are demanding an intra-european 200 seater. A stretched "A322", with the possible higher A321 weights, and benefitting form a longer product lifecycle than anticipated (2 above) and the availability of R&D spend (3 above), would make a lot of sense.

What chances?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7617 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17119 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Achieved a secure cash flow form AA for many years (assuming they remain solvent)

I would add to this remark that Airbus also scored a major order from a major carrier that was very unlikely to order Airbus products. This is quite a strategic achievement!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
A321 NEO back so that it will now be the last version flying, possibly to give them time to beef it up a little in terms of weights for a good number of TATL applications, is there scope for a stretch?

Hmmm, maybe I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the A321NEO would not be able to fly trans-Atlantic, or would only be able to do so in selected routes (i.e., Northeastern U.S./East Coast Canada to the westernmost European destinations). Perhaps I misunderstood. Hopefully someone can clarify.  
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Ryanair are demanding an intra-european 200 seater. A stretched "A322", with the possible higher A321 weights, and benefitting form a longer product lifecycle than anticipated (2 above) and the availability of R&D spend (3 above), would make a lot of sense.

In other words... a 753 replacement???

Wait... an all-Y A321 with LCC-type 30-31 inch seat pitch will seat close to 200 passengers, no?



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1121 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17109 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Ryanair are demanding an intra-european 200 seater. A stretched "A322", with the possible higher A321 weights, and benefitting form a longer product lifecycle than anticipated (2 above) and the availability of R&D spend (3 above), would make a lot of sense.

For 200 seats there is no need for an A322. Lufthansa A321 nek hold 200 already, TAM's hold even 220.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1434 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 16941 times:

If anything, Ryanair want's a 199 seater at 27 inch pitch, not a 200 seater. To get to that, Airbus would either have to extend the A320 a bit, or shrink the A321 a bit - whichever way you prefer to see it.

And that's not going to happen; Airbus seems to be very comfortable with the gap between the 20 and the 21.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16793 times:

When did they mention that they were pushing it back? I'd think they'd move it up.

NS


User currently offlineAAMDanny From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16523 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 1):
Wait... an all-Y A321 with LCC-type 30-31 inch seat pitch will seat close to 200 passengers, no?

Thomas Cook Airlines UK (MT) has 220Y on it's A321 fleet (originally from Airtours International/MyTravel Airways - acquired thru merging)

AAMDanny


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16386 times:

A year ago I sketched a A322NEO. New engines, double bogey main landing (like Indian A320s), 5 row stretch. Also a TATL version.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A322NEOTATLwithLOPA.jpg


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
A year ago I sketched a A322NEO. New engines, double bogey main landing (like Indian A320s), 5 row stretch. Also a TATL version.

Nice picture again. What are your estimates this proposal ever hitting the market. Especially the double bogey seems quite a lot of work (= costs). It would be a true B757-300 successor though.  .


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16228 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Nice picture again. What are your estimates this proposal ever hitting the market. Especially the double bogey seems quite a lot of work (= costs).

Landing gear should be ok. Wheel, integration etc seems covered. (beefing up needed)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPJb3UE_DU&feature=related

Stretching the fuselage seems a minor issue too. PWs GTF is said to be ready for 40.000 lbs trust. The main area of attention seems the wing. It will have to get scaled up ~10-15% for lower wing loading/ take-off performance and holding fuel to realize additional payload range performance, including cargo.

No doubt a significant investment but they could do 2 versions/lenghts. The replacement market for a 220 seat two class aircraft medium haul seems there (A300, A310, 762, 763, Tu154, 757). US transcon, Intra Asia, Leisure carriers, Caribien, EMEA.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16150 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
Landing gear should be ok

I did not know they already did a double bogey LG on the Airbus A321. Thanks.

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
The main area of attention seems the wing. It will have to get scaled up ~10-15% for lower wing loading/ take-off performance and holding fuel to realize additional payload range performance, including cargo.

That will also be the most costly thing adding at least $1 Billion on the development costs. Still an interesting option, especially since Boeing is now also re-engining the B737. So the investment could be worth the while for Airbus.

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
The replacement market for a 220 seat two class aircraft medium haul seems there (A300, A310, 762, 763, Tu154, 757). US transcon, Intra Asia, Leisure carriers, Caribien, EMEA.

That is basically a huge potential. But will Airbus be able to capitalize on it? Or will some of the replacement for these birds will see some grow and go mostly A332/A333/B788?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16079 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
Ryanair are demanding an intra-european 200 seater.
Quoting robffm2 (Reply 2):
For 200 seats there is no need for an A322. Lufthansa A321 nek hold 200 already, TAM's hold even 220.

LX A321s have slightly over 200 seats.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15868 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
What chances?

I think Airbus now need to focusing on getting its product to the market:
A319NEO
A320NEO
A321NEO
A350-800XWB
A350-900XWB
A350-1000XWB

In addition they need to ramp-up the A380 production.
They possible also "need" to ramp-up the A320 production.
And not to forget the A400 project.

I'm not so sure Airbus has that much more available resources.
But that's just me.


User currently offlineEltomzo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 13275 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
New engines, double bogey main landing (like Indian A320s)

Who is flying such aircraft? I have never heard of this and I am in India right now so keen to look out for it!



AA AC AF BA BD BE BR CA CI CX CZ EZY FR HU HX GA GS IT J2 KL LH LX MK MU NH OZ QR SA SQ TG TK TCX UN UX VN VS VY WY W6 Y
User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12966 times:

Quoting Eltomzo (Reply 12):
I have never heard of this and I am in India right now so keen to look out for it!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roland Bergmann-Spotterteam Graz




Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3691 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12854 times:

Isn't the A320 wing pretty much maxed out with the A321?

And don't forget, a longer NB is not good for many operations, otherwise, the 757 300 had been much more succesful.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12178 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 9):

I did not know they already did a double bogey LG on the Airbus A321. Thanks.

Actually they never did.

The dual-axle bogie in its current form is useless for a MTOW increase since the A320s using it are limited to 73.5t of MTOW vs. up to 78t for a normal A320.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineEltomzo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2009, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12001 times:

Update: I just saw one, the moment I was touching down in Madras! Air India, at first I thought it was a 752 then looked up and saw wingtip fences etc.

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
The dual-axle bogie in its current form is useless for a MTOW increase since the A320s using it are limited to 73.5t of MTOW vs. up to 78t for a normal A320.

I know this is getting off-topic, but what is the purpose of the double-bogie?



AA AC AF BA BD BE BR CA CI CX CZ EZY FR HU HX GA GS IT J2 KL LH LX MK MU NH OZ QR SA SQ TG TK TCX UN UX VN VS VY WY W6 Y
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11649 times:

Quoting Eltomzo (Reply 16):
I know this is getting off-topic, but what is the purpose of the double-bogie?

I think it was for their initial batch of A320s (1990s) to land on runways where the weight of the aircraft needed to be spread more thinly.

I am not sure more recent deliveries have it.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8577 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11629 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Thread starter):
3 Thereby pushing further out its own need for R&D spend on a new n/b

That would be a mistake. Airbus is leading the NB race in part because Boeing kept pushing back on their own narrowbody strategy. With the A380 problems mostly solved, a huge backlog of narrowbody orders well into 2018, and the XWB on its way to production, Airbus will be swimming in cash and R&D resources. This is not the time to slow down.

Quoting Chiad (Reply 11):
I'm not so sure Airbus has that much more available resources.

You're talking about production resources and engineering resources as if they were one and the same. The XWB and NEO engineering resources should be mostly freed up in another couple of years. That's a lot of R&D resources looking for a new job. At the same time the XWB and NEO should be entering production giving Airbus a huge infusion of cash.

Quoting Eltomzo (Reply 16):
I know this is getting off-topic, but what is the purpose of the double-bogie?

So they can operate on "rough fields".


User currently offlinecloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11572 times:

Stretching the A321 or increasing its wingspan is going to bump the aircraft up to ICAO Code D. You start running into airport compatibility problems. At most airports outside the US Code D stands are a dying breed. If you start mass producing a Code D aircraft you disrupt their infrastructure and operational planning on a grander scale than when the A380 came on line.

There is also a danger a new wing will bump it up a wake vortex category too. Then you start loosing capacity at busy airports.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1019 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11424 times:

I am not sure the A321 can be stretched any further. If you look at some take-off shots of current A321s, like the one below, you will see that the type is not far away from a tailstrike as it is.



To stretch the aircraft, you would have to make the gear struts longer, raising the entire aircraft further off the ground, so that you have the necessary ground clearance on rotation. Increasing the length of the struts would mean completely reworking the gear bays and the entire assembly. It's certainly do-able, but I am not convinced the costs would be worth it.

By the way, if anyone is wondering why the 757 was able to be stretched to the length of the B753, this is because the aircraft sits much higher - it was designed with longer struts from the beginning. That, and the gear is located a bit further aft.

See here:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/9/7/0779790.jpg



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlinebevisisback From Netherlands, joined Oct 2009, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11185 times:

Given that the 753 wasnt that sucessful, i doubt there would be a call for an A322.

Also, a busy 752 can be a pain in the crack to board/disembark so I can only imagine what a 753 can be like. I think if u wanted to carry ~220 pax it would make more sense operationally to opt for a twin aisle.


User currently offlinecallumm92 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2007, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

Quoting bevisisback (Reply 21):
I think if u wanted to carry ~220 pax it would make more sense operationally to opt for a twin aisle.

I'm not sure it would - I can think of the 762 or A310, and in the future the 788 which carry in the region of 250 passengers. These are some of the smallest twin-aisles, and are more intended for longer sectors (although are of course (mis)used on high density short haul) - all are capable of transatlantic flights.

I think for an airline like Ryanair, who operate on shorter sectors, many to airports with slightly shorter runways, a narrowbody is what they would want.

From a cabin crew point of view, I actually think that 200 would be the optimum number as anything above that would require a fifth crew member, increasing costs substantially.


User currently offlineSR4ever From Luxembourg, joined Mar 2010, 800 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10185 times:

All this looks very attractive on paper, but is it feasible?

20 yrs ago, Airbus was already raising the 322 as possibility, but it has never left the drawing board.

Any chance we may also have some 321-NEO ER?

If Airbus doesn't go for the 322, then it shoud go for something that may compete with the 788 (358 is not the right frame for that, as it is to replace 345 and 77L)..


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9964 times:

Quoting flyingalex (Reply 20):
I am not sure the A321 can be stretched any further.

I seem to recall reading that somewhere, too. The A-321 is already a stretch of the A-320 (which was the basic model of the series), and for some reason the series cannot be double stretched. The A-319 was a shrink of the A-320, and the A-318 is a double shrink. If you want an "A-322", then you are essentially developing an entire new airplane with new wings, MLG, NLG, engines, fuselarge, etc.


25 SchorschNG : A further stretch of the A321 is beyond technical possibilities. Most problems have been named here (landing gear height, wing area), I would also dou
26 bevisisback : I agree. Although a WB makes more sense operationally I can't see ryanair or any of the european LCC's wanting a widebody, unless they were going to
27 B777LRF : You could always trade aft hold cargo space for 2 ACTs. That will increase fuel capacity by around 4.8 tons and bring true trans-Atlantic capability.
28 Post contains images RIX : Thereby giving many additional years' life to the B737 program Thereby pushing further out Boeing's need for R&D spend on a new n/b Achieved a go
29 SR4ever : This would perhaps be enough against to 752 and 739-ER. Airbus really needs something in that category, it would boost TATL traffic, and also between
30 airbazar : But why? If airbus can solve the 753's shortcomings then I suspect it will sell very well. In my opinion the 753 didn't sell well because it lacked r
31 HarleyDriver : I guess I would have to ask why? Sure, there might be a market for a 220 seat derivative of the A320 series aircraft if it was indeed possible structu
32 BrouAviation : The old 752 has AFAIK been covered, with the exception of the following aspects: - Hot 'n high payload capacity (power/weight ratio of old 752 still
33 TheSonntag : The main shortcoming was that the turnaround times were too long because of only two doors usable. No way to fix this in a long single aisle aircraft
34 Post contains links keesje : The A322 would be roughly similar to the B757-200 not to the B757-300. A321: Wing span 34.09m (111ft 10in), length 44.51m (146ft 0in), height 11.76m (
35 KC135TopBoom : The B-753 was intended for charter airlines, and they bought most of them. Legacy airlines like CO, NW, and TZ also bought them. A 4,000 nm range was
36 keesje : No I don't agree, a A322 would need a bigger wing fo longer flights.
37 cloudyapple : Nope. A321 fits in a Code C stand. B752/3 requires a Code D stand. Therefore the A321 is more efficient and flexible in terms of airport compatibilit
38 zeke : Or increase the flap setting for takeoff. I do not think the market needs a true 757 replacement, it is too much aircraft for a lot of operators and
39 wn700driver : Two things... Firstly, one could stretch the fuselage afore of the MLGs; taking a page out of McD's book. Both the Super 80 series & the MD-11 gr
40 SchorschNG : I think there might be a market, but for many airlines it was much more efficient to take a standard single aisle and reduce capacity. Most 757 are u
41 Post contains images keesje : Airbus' 20 year outlook expects ~20.000 NB's and 4.300 small twin aisles & regional freighters. Boeing expects 23.000 NBs and 7.300 twin aisles (a
42 328JET : I am still a big fan of the A322, but i doubt Airbus will have the resources to do it. Also, the A321 is already a 200 seater for some airlines, which
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...
What Next For Airbus? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 09:38:57 by Tugger
What Will Come Next For Airbus? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:07:28 by JamesJimlb
722... 752.... What's Next For The Box Haulers posted Fri Sep 18 2009 17:43:57 by LV
What's Next For G4 - Allegiant Summer 2009 posted Thu Mar 12 2009 02:05:02 by DTWTOLBase
What Next For Qantas? A Merger With CX Or MH? posted Sat Dec 20 2008 00:23:17 by Shanxz
What's Next For YX?: The Optimistic Thread posted Fri Aug 17 2007 06:54:26 by JBo
What's Next For Eos? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 04:06:07 by FA4B6
What's Next For CO? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 21:59:35 by COEWRNJ
What's Next For Virgin America And Its Workforce? posted Thu Jan 4 2007 10:34:19 by Stealth777
What's Next For MKE? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:35:35 by YX717fan