Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus - Next Projects?  
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 31658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Assuming all goes to plan, all Airbus's current programmes should be complete by 2017, and their engineering resources winding down in 2015/2016.

Airbus will need to start developing something soon, if for no other reason than to maintain its engineering competence

This thread is to discuss and explore the possibilities open to them and the requirements the marketplace is driving

My own twocents ...
I can't see them doing anything major on narrowbodys. They might "slow-burn" a capability enhancement to the A321NEO to make it truly TATL I guess, but I don't see that as "a major programme".

Twin-aisles...
I think most of us accept that the A350-800 in its current form is sub-optimised.
Airbus could launch a re-work of the A358 to make it fully competitive with the 787-8/9 at the bottom end of the range.

Mid-range - the A350-900R and -900F are possibilities - the former I see as almost a freebie on the back of the A350-1000, the latter I don't see as Airbus's next most pressing priority.

upper range - I guess the choice is between a "simple stretch" A350-1100, and a complete new growth variant with a 70-odd m wing and 330-340t MTOW

For the A380 the only real options out there are re-engine and/or -900 stretch, or possibly both. As I don't see the A380 going away any time soon, I expect one or both of these to happen by about 2022

Over to you guys

Rgds

230 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31621 times:

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
For the A380 the only real options out there are re-engine and/or -900 stretch, or possibly both. As I don't see the A380 going away any time soon, I expect one or both of these to happen by about 2022

I think the A380 has to be next. It needs a front to rear clean up to reduce production costs and improve performance. It will have nearly 20 years of tech to achieve that with. New engines I don't see, but again work the technology in without triggering a full and very expensive certification. I don't see this making profit for Airbus, but I see them still seeing an economic boost since they won't be paying those massive overhead costs across declining sales.

The A350 programs to me don't make sense yet. If these ideas are good why are they not done today? The short time frame doesn't leave enough performance growth through technology that would make new models of the A350 worth while.


User currently offlineBill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31534 times:

Begin concepts for a new supersonic aircraft. It's the next logical path for aircraft development.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1909 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31509 times:

If I remember correctly, their next "big" project will be replacement of A320 family, after 2025. When NEO was studied, Airbus stated it is an interim project until new material technology is mature enough to be used in construction of their new aircraft. That's why there is no other significant change to A320, except for new engines and whatever reinforcements are there necessary to support their installation.

A380 will be a dog - I do not see any stretch/reengine in the future.

"A350-1100" will be interesting thing to watch. A350-900F is a given, provided that cargo market recovers.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31486 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
The A350 programs to me don't make sense yet.

I'd agree re the -900R. I'm not convinced the sales will be there to justify it. The -900F however is IMHO, a certainty.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 1):
If these ideas are good why are they not done today?

For exactly the same reason Boeing didn't do the 787-3 , -8, -9, -10 and -F from day one - lack of engineering resources and the desire to spread the financial burden.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31410 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
"A350-1100" will be interesting thing to watch.

Agree - all the signs are that the proposed 779x, with 400-plus seats, is creating a whole new (large) market. Because of the long 'lead-time' - not in service until 2020 or so - Airbus have time to develop a counter; either a 'second stretch' of the A359, or a new model.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31401 times:

A 752ish A321/A322 would sell very well by the time 767s, 757s and A300s are seriously leaving the market. Smallest WB option would be a 763ER or a 788. Way too much capability for some routes flown today, waste of energy and cycles on a WB frame IMO. With a larger wing the A321 would shine.

User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31353 times:

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
Airbus could launch a re-work of the A358 to make it fully competitive with the 787-8/9 at the bottom end of the range.

I support this as well.

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
upper range - I guess the choice is between a "simple stretch" A350-1100, and a complete new growth variant with a 70-odd m wing and 330-340t MTOW

I support the A350-1100 simple stretch. Stretched enough to perform 80% of the 779-X routes.

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
For the A380 the only real options out there are re-engine and/or -900 stretch, or possibly both.

I say both. You probably need the stretch that will justify the new engines and vice versa. My understanding is that engine replacement on the A380 should be easier as pylons are the same for whichever type of engine.

I see two new projects or maybe two in one. By 2018 Airbus should start considering the replacement of the A330-200 (the A330-300 size will be taken care of by the A350-800 optimisation project) and the A320. These will be 2025 EIS for the 230-270 seat capacity and 2027 EIS for the 160-220 capacity.

Are they going to be one family or two? how are they going to look like? I do not know, that's why they need to start in 2018 to deliver something in 2025.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 31309 times:

They could split the A320 series in to two, A319-21 and A322/223, the later being 752/753 sized, with better lift and more thrust. Should be able to cover the market up until the 788 starts to shine.

User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 31249 times:

I think they will work on a A321-200X or something to get the 757 replacement market. A350-1100 seems likely and probably a MLU for the whale. Then it will be the A320 replacement, depending on the when the next engien generation will be defined.

User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2830 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 31175 times:

There is a new article on aerotelegraph from today, in which CEO Enders is quoted with saying "the first in the row is the A 380, see link below, unfortuantely in German

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-...serer-a350-ergaenzung-angebot-a380


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 31046 times:

Hi N14AZ! I think the speech was actually made in Sydney! English version below:-

"Enders was asked if the latest technology being incorporated in the Airbus A350XWB family and proposed for the Boeing 777-X series would not erode the A380 cost per seat per unit of distance and acquisition cost per seat advantage by the end of this decade and said there was an immense amount of growth and efficiency yet to be realised in the giant Airbus, but, he cautioned, “at the right time”.

"He said “There is no need to rush to do this, but …. the A380-800 is the first of the family.”

“I won’t discuss here such details,” he said, “but I can discuss the trends to larger jets within a family such as the A320, and that the A380 is the first of the line.”

"Rather than the first and last, as quite a lot of international commentary has been claiming in advance of the formal launching of the Boeing 777-X anticipated next month.

------------------------

"He said without elaboration that the A350 line could be stretched in size beyond its current largest model on offer the 1000."


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ger-and-best-yet-to-come-for-a380/

Looks to me as if the decision has already been made - he's planning to upgrade the A380 soonest, and then counter the B777Xs only with an extra stretch of the A350?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 31029 times:

I would optimize the A358 first. Then turn my attention away from A350 and let it mature up and put a serious dent into the backlog. In the mean time I would look at the A380 to see if a new engine and a weight elimination scrub could work to get its efficiency solidly down below the A351. I don't see an A389 in the cards in the near future. Depending on how that project turns out I would look to the A350 and if everything is light and bright look into the A359/A35F but I wouldn't push it if there was not room in production because an A350-1100 with a new wing and engine mid/late next decade could benefit the A359R/F if they could not be fit in earlier. Similar to the 77W program leading to the launch of the 77L and 77F. I think that would take us pretty close to the A320 replacement late next decade.

...If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range. Something that could take more passengers and fly them further, with some cargo, beyond an A321 TATL NEO but well below A359R territory. Updated engines that would beat Trent Tens and lighter engine and airframe compared to the 788. I personally do not see A359R and 787-10s controlling all of the new regional market in Asia in 10 years. If US traffic picks up there will be a limit to the role of the 737 Max 9s and A321 NEOs can play and I don't see 788s flying domestic routes too soon. It could be that the NSA will grow to accommodate so that would need to be considered.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30963 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):

For me the A322 would need to make it 4500nm with 220-230 seats installed, a viable option on many routes IMO. 3-3 seating is ok on long haul IMO. What is lacking is a NB cfrp wing, wingbox, bigger gears and a GTF in the 40K thrust clas. If they could retain weight about the current A321 and still grow capability it would be a winner.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 30613 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 13):
For me the A322 would need to make it 4500nm with 220-230 seats installed, a viable option on many routes IMO. 3-3 seating is ok on long haul IMO. What is lacking is a NB cfrp wing, wingbox, bigger gears and a GTF in the 40K thrust clas. If they could retain weight about the current A321 and still grow capability it would be a winner.

I would like to see the numbers behind the narrow and wide body form. The ability to carry LD3s is an advantage I think and I am not sure if a narrow body is the right way to go. It certainly would be lighter. Either way this is the kind of thinking I would do if I were at Airbus because its a big jump in range/capacity to get to the A350 from the A320 even with the TATL NEO capabilities.

tortugamon


User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 602 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 30491 times:

I am with some others:

1) As with Enders, the A380 is next: add newest 'twin WB' engine technology for the 4 A380 engines.
Plus minor to middle refinements to increase efficiency. Not necessarily a stretch in stretch in the first step.
This will be around the 777X entry to market or 1-2 years later.

2) The A310-321 is in my opinion good enough to cover also the 2nd GEN GTF engines. But I would expect Airbus to develop something like a mid range plane based on the 320 series. A325-800 and 900 based on the A320 fuselage, but a new high lift CRFP wing and adopted GTF engine probably in the 5000-5500nm range.
My 325.800 would have a A320 based fuselage length between 320 and 321 - so around 42m. then the 900 would be rather around 50m. This would not be a direct replacement of the 788, but the most efficient trans atlantic mid range plane and filling the gap to the A350 line.

3) The 777x competitor to close the gap between A350-1000 and the A380. The A350-1100 in 80m length.
Instead of a simple stretch (which could be offered too as A350R)), I would expect an optimized larger wing, probably taking on the folding wing system similar as proposed for the 777x.

4) is probably an optimized A350-800 2nd. GEN.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 30452 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Agree - all the signs are that the proposed 779x, with 400-plus seats, is creating a whole new (large) market.

I'm completely missing these signs....
I'd put money on them letting the -1000 mature and gain payload range before stretching it. You really don't have to have a 1:1 match with your competitors line up.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
If I remember correctly, their next "big" project will be replacement of A320 family, after 2025.

The consensus among suppliers is that that has slipped post-NEO to 2030 or beyond. That's at least 16 years between greenfield projects - there's no way they'll allow that to happen, even if it means tackling a niche market with relatively little return. Smack in the middle is 2022 - ripe for launch in 2015. But what will it be?
My bet - Something in the A300 and early A330 space. Launched in parallel with the A380-900 which will EIS in 2019, which I expect to be a big seller (fleet replacement for existing operators + new markets).

One more possibility - filling the "double gap" between the A320 and A321. Two variants at the same length - one based on the A320 weights/engines/wing the other on the A321. The lighter variant is the CASM king, the heavier is genuine TATL. Right at the 199 pax sweet spot for LCCs, too.



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10816 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 30213 times:

That the A380 needs new engines latest by 2021 is obvious. It should be the most important project for Airbus after the A350-1000 is flying. By 2020 it´ll be 15 years since first flight, and 15 years without major improvements is a long time. I think the A380-900 should only be launched with these new engines unless they can sell 100 without it.
That Airbus needs to be ready to counter the 777-9X if needed is also obvious. Unless they can convince airlines that the A350-1000 is enough for 90% or more of the 779 missions. If so, the leaner A350 will be the clear winner in this fight. The 777-8X is no real threat anyway, and the risk that the 777X might become the 748I of the 2020s cant be wiped from the table as of now.
One thing to consider is also a A350 freighter as the A330F isnt a good seller at all.
When that is done the next project will be the A320 family replacement which should take place anytime after 2025.

Leaves one thing - whats with the huge gap between the A321 and the A330-200/A350-800?


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3334 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 29689 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 16):
My bet - Something in the A300 and early A330 space.
Quoting na (Reply 17):
whats with the huge gap between the A321 and the A330-200/A350-800?
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 14):
its a big jump in range/capacity to get to the A350 from the A320 even with the TATL NEO capabilities.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range.
Quoting panais (Reply 7):
By 2018 Airbus should start considering the replacement of the A330-200

I agree with the above. The 787 was originally mooted to capture much of this market but as we've seen it grew beyond its original mandate and left a gap in the market.



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2036 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29476 times:

Politically the A380 was such a statement of intent, that Airbus won't let it wither and die, so there will definitely be developments.

There definitely is a developing gap between the A321/739 and the smallest widebodies. The 789 and A358 are pretty large aircraft, and a big step up from the 767 especially. Whether ths market is large enough for a modern 767/A300 sized plane for use on regional routes and less busy long haul routes is another matter...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineMildaIV From Czech Republic, joined Oct 2013, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 28956 times:

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):

For the A380 the only real options out there are re-engine and/or -900 stretch, or possibly both. As I don't see the A380 going away any time soon, I expect one or both of these to happen by about 2022

If they reengine what engines they use? As for RR it will probably be some Trent XWB or Trent Ten derivate. But I dont see any suitable engine family from competitors. Maybe PW will see this as oportunity for first member of new GTF family for WB, which can later found its place on B787 NEO and/or A350 NEO. GTF technology will be well tested at that time, and as Lightsaber.. ehm PW promised, GTF will bring more advantages on larger engines than on smaller ones.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 28886 times:

Reply 15
I am with some others:

As am I. If only because this is what Enders has said!
A380
Power Plant.
I do see RR offering a major upgrade- not sure about a total re engine with XWB's as it is often a biiger job than it appears on this forum (but could be wrong - often am). But I imagine a huge amount of the Trent XWB technology could be inserted into the 900 engine.The 350-1000's engine development is all about the triple spool core (rather than the cold front end) so it can be done.
Wing.
I feel sure that they will try and improve the wingtip area with all their learnings in this area (but accept that total wingspan is an issue here.They have improved the wing slightly already (twist) too.
Weight.
They are still working on reduing the total weight of the aircraft which will also improve all aspects of performance.
Size.
I can't see the 900 stretch at the moment. It would only be (mainly) for one (EK) airline so they would neeed to order alot to persuade A to do it.
Pax.
With 88 rows of very spacious Y seating I fear the simple route would to do am 'EK' 773 to Y class and add an extra seat per row and even reduce pitch a little if necessary. This way you would get between 80 -90 additional pax. The plane has been certificated for higher weights and the other changes would mantain existing range.

A321.
As stated try for TATL range within the existing scope of the aircraft.

A350. As stated .Clearly when they went for a major redesign of the 1000 they would have built the possibility of a 1100 into it - which they have effectively confirmed.

A330/A 358.
Thats the tricky one! Obviously they have enjoyed a bumper few years with the 787 problems. But they must soon be overcome one imagines. If they do 'drop' the 358 model then a clear new segment opens up.But thy would have to do something 'super special' to beat the 787. I can not see a 'conventional' design besting the 787.
I think they may try and soldier on with the (near enough) free -8 shrink and some small improvements to the A333 (as they are doing).
But if I had to guess re a brand new project in (say) 5-10 years time - this would be it.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28286 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 16):
I'm completely missing these signs....

Lufthansa has already signed up for 34 779X, BaconButty. And Emirates are negotiating too; with rumours saying that they may order more than 100 of them:-

"Clark said Boeing is “still a bit aggressive on pricing” for the 777-9X model that Emirates is eyeing as a replacement for “some or all” of its 175 current-model 777 jets, which includes 61 outstanding orders. The 777-9X is the larger of the two models being developed by Boeing and will seat around 400 passengers.

“If we order the 9X, we’ll be ordering a large chunk of them,” he said in an interview."


http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...in-talks-over-777x-order-1.1236317

[Edited 2013-10-16 04:46:08]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28274 times:

As this thread is in the nature of a poll of "what do you think they will do?", my expectations:

A380-900 (stretch, new engines) - it needs to move away from the 779/A35J in market positioning
A321NEO+ (good enough to do North East NA to North West EU - e.g. all year round EWR-CDG, BWI-LHR, YYZ-AMS, JFK-BRU). That will offer such low CASM (when in dens-ish configuration) that it will drive growth, LCC entrants and new P2P/P2H routes.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2771 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28451 times:

Don't forget the new Beluga, too  

In any case, one thing that worries me is that all projects being mentioned are derivatives of existing models - no "greenfield" program is in sight until probably 2027-2030 when NEO replacement comes in (the initial 2025 prediction has shifted to the right IMO). Sure they'll have plenty of derivative programs to keep some engineers busy, but the skillset required to develop an all-new from scratch airplane will inevitably fade...


User currently offlinecougar15 From Australia, joined Sep 2013, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 28886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

as per an article today in the german Aero telegraph , Tom Enders actually states that the ´next big development´ after the A350 will focus on the A380...
Guess that throws a spanner in the works of all those who see "quads" dying , and especially the various other threads
on this subject. below the link, sorry, article is in german only...
http://www.aerotelegraph.com/airbus-...serer-a350-ergaenzung-angebot-a380



I was lucky enough to enjoy the 747SP,741,2,3,4-F27,50,100,L10,LOF (F),721,2,731,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,AB34F,312,3-AB6R,DC8F,9
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29030 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Agree - all the signs are that the proposed 779x, with 400-plus seats, is creating a whole new (large) market. Because of the long 'lead-time' - not in service until 2020 or so - Airbus have time to develop a counter; either a 'second stretch' of the A359, or a new model.

A "whole new large market"? The 779 is a 2.7 meters stretch and adds another 20 seats; the aircraft is a response to the A350-1000.

[Edited 2013-10-16 04:50:44]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineeire123 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29091 times:

A new carbon composite A320 family, and a possible 757 alternative within that for the transatlantic narrow body routes.

User currently offlinenicode From France, joined May 2012, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29042 times:

I'm reading "major improvements on the A380" or "next big development on the A380". Could we see an A380 with two engines instead of four ?

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29008 times:

Quoting nicode (Reply 29):
I'm reading "major improvements on the A380" or "next big development on the A380". Could we see an A380 with two engines instead of four ?

I doubt you will find an engine maker crazy enough to develop an 150,000 lbf engine.

[Edited 2013-10-16 05:04:37]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 29009 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 2):
Begin concepts for a new supersonic aircraft. It's the next logical path for aircraft development.

The door closed on this one nearly as soon as it opened. A few months back two RAF Typhoons went supersonic over the UK, there were complaints galore. Supersonic flight is only a reality for ocean crossings, add in any length of over land flying and its a non starter.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28782 times:

A 350 I think they will keep to the time plan and bring out the A 350-800 and A 350-1000 as planed.

Moving the A 350-800 back perhaps will bring a "better, lighter" frame but time is also essential and having the A 350-800 ready when sales for the A 330-300 thin out must be a consideration.
Airbus has a history of improving a frame while producing it, bring it out 2016 and lighten the frame batch by batch.

When all versions are out Airbus will have a look at the backlog and I think not do a further stretch of the A 350 right away, having enough to produce for quite a few years.

The A 380-800 is an ongoing project, it has had major engine PIP's, the weight of the frame has been reduced and there has been work done on the aerodynamics, the biggest part was the change of the wing twist. This will go on now having finished the wing fix regarding cracks.
I do not believe in putting the XWB on the A 380 but I expect both engine producers to come with mark 2 engines where the changes will not be retrofitable to older engines.
I do not expect other major changes to the A 380. If of course a customer (EK) would order a batch of 50 Airbus could produce the A 380-900 as a simple stretch.

The first project IMO Airbus should look at is expanding the A320 with a bigger version range and/or size.
A new wing, bigger engines higher MTOW.
That would perhaps not be a market for many thousands of frames, but additional sales of a some hundreds.

The second project should be a small double aisle frame below the B 787, light and medium range, a modern A 300/310.
There should be a place for a frame being an upgrade to single aisle, next step up without going to the investment of a B 787.

The high end of the dual aisle market is packed with offering of both producers. We will find areas were one is offering a frame and the other not, but I think that it is the strategy of both not to match each other frame by frame.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2286 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28523 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 16):
The consensus among suppliers is that that has slipped post-NEO to 2030 or beyond.

I could see a scenario, in which the MAX suffers also in the medium/long term so Boeing will actually be the pacemaker and pull the trigger for a new NB program maybe around 2020. In that case Airbus will start shipping a NEO replacement prior 2030.

The best for Airbus would be a slowly eroding 737 customer base and a not so clearly but still failing MAX. The worst a soon and clear market verdict which would force the NSA to be launched much earlier than planned or hoped. There are no signs for the latter, but the former could be realistic...

It was exactly that way how Airbus became so succesful as they are today... There was no apparent failure of Boeing at first sight in the years when Airbus's market share grew the most. Today the combined MDD & Boeing own just about half of the market they ruled for decades by themselves. If you image how the story could happen today, it would be just as if Airbus and Boeing would make no evident mistake and - boom - in 15-20 years COMAC would own half of the world market. We rightfully say "never"! Just like a lot of people would have about Airbus in 1980....


User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28432 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
Lufthansa has already signed up for 34 779X, BaconButty. And Emirates are negotiating too; with rumours saying that they may order more than 100 of them:-

Wow, an order. I'm off to beat myself with a studded paddle for being so stupid.

Look, the 777X will sell, at least initially: the middle eastern airlines it's tailored for, coupled with the usual political orders will see to that. It may even be a long term success. That's a world away from carving out a new market segment. For Pete's sake, there's still hundreds of 747's flying smack in that space.

Interesting how Zvedza's law (for those who remember it) get's suspended when it suit's though . . .



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28400 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
A "whole new large market"? The 779 is a 2.7 meters stretch and adds another 20 seats; the aircraft is a response to the A350-1000.

None of us can know for certain, KarelXWB. But the 779X, if produced, will have a wider fuselage than the A350. My guess is that the 400-plus figure refers to a 'normal' fit-out, with 9-across in coach - but that 10-across is possible, taking the total load well above 400? And that - given a new Al-li fuselage and composite wings, and different engines - the fuel/range equation may be very much improved over the (already very efficient) existing 777s?

What impressed me is that Lufthansa didn't hesitate to place a substantial order - and that Emirates (who would probably win the 'world's most difficult customer' award year after year, if one existed) are very much interested.

As always, 'time will tell'..................



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28323 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 35):
None of us can know for certain, KarelXWB. But the 779X, if produced, will have a wider fuselage than the A350. My guess is that the 400-plus figure refers to a 'normal' fit-out, with 9-across in coach - but that 10-across is possible, taking the total load well above 400? And that - given a new Al-li fuselage and composite wings, and different engines - the fuel/range equation may be very much improved over the (already very efficient) existing 777s?
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 35):
As always, 'time will tell'..................

Well, as always, you're wrong again. The 407 figure is based on a 10-abreast layout.

Still don't understand why you cannot accept the facts.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28134 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 36):
The 407 figure is based on a 10-abreast layout.

Not in the only article I found on the subject, KarelXWB?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28040 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 37):
Not in the only article I found on the subject, KarelXWB?

To which article are you referring?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28076 times:

1) Stop designing aircraft just for Middle East carriers.
2) A380R for China
3) A small capacity(max 250 pax in high-density) long range, basically a skinnier version of A350.
4) Give longer legs to A321NEO

[Edited 2013-10-16 06:06:11]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
This thread is to discuss and explore the possibilities open to them and the requirements the marketplace is driving

Which is an excellent idea to discuss this and so far this thread has a high quality of posting.  .

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
upper range - I guess the choice is between a "simple stretch" A350-1100, and a complete new growth variant with a 70-odd m wing and 330-340t MTOW

For the A380 the only real options out there are re-engine and/or -900 stretch, or possibly both. As I don't see the A380 going away any time soon, I expect one or both of these to happen by about 2022

Agreed on all parts. I believe the A380 will be greatly improved with 15 year newer technology and could see the EIS at 2022 or so. The A350 needs rework on the -800 version first. Which might be done in 2018-2019 and after 2020 we will see most likley an A350-1100 (simple stretch) and possibly a A350-1100R of -1200. That would be the stretched version with increased performance and new wings/engines to counter the B777-X. That version will take longer to develop, so let's say an EIS of 2022-2024 or something along those timelines.

Quoting panais (Reply 7):
I support the A350-1100 simple stretch. Stretched enough to perform 80% of the 779-X routes.

Will be the easiest to do, and will not require a major investment or work load. But will that be enough to keep the whole R&D departments up and running full scale as they are doing today?

Quoting panais (Reply 7):
I say both. You probably need the stretch that will justify the new engines and vice versa.

   Totally agree. Improve for those who will not want or need to go larger, and stretch for those who can fill that version with unbeatable CASM/RASM possibilities.  .

Quoting seahawk (Reply 9):
I think they will work on a A321-200X or something to get the 757 replacement market.

A likely project imho. But how big will that project be?

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 10):
There is a new article on aerotelegraph from today, in which CEO Enders is quoted with saying "the first in the row is the A 380,

Which is only logical considering the build up of the program of airliners they are offering their current and future customers.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Looks to me as if the decision has already been made - he's planning to upgrade the A380 soonest, and then counter the B777Xs only with an extra stretch of the A350?

Could be, and it would be a good thing.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):

I would optimize the A358 first.

Me too, but that does not necessarily needs to be such a big program. Which again poses the question :"can Airbus keep the R&D departments fully up and running with such a project. They need more imho.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
I don't see an A389 in the cards in the near future.

I do see it. I am firm believer we will see it in the early 2020's.

Quoting na (Reply 17):

That the A380 needs new engines latest by 2021 is obvious. It should be the most important project for Airbus after the A350-1000 is flying.

With the updated A35-800. Then I fully agree with you.  .

Quoting na (Reply 17):
By 2020 it´ll be 15 years since first flight, and 15 years without major improvements is a long time. I think the A380-900 should only be launched with these new engines unless they can sell 100 without it.

Yes, 15 years without major upgrades is a long time. And still only in 2017-2020 the competing airliners A350-1000 and B777-9 can just about equal it's CASM. Which tells us how good the A380 actually is.

Quoting parapente (Reply 22):
Power Plant.
I do see RR offering a major upgrade- not sure about a total re engine with XWB's as it is often a biiger job than it appears on this forum (but could be wrong - often am). But I imagine a huge amount of the Trent XWB technology could be inserted into the 900 engine.The 350-1000's engine development is all about the triple spool core (rather than the cold front end) so it can be done.

Well, since they have a lot of experience with the Trent-XWB on the A380 since they use it as the test bed to test this engine, Airbus will have a very good idea what would be necessary to upgrade to Trent-XWB engines on the A380. I think it is quite likely that they will switch engines, at least on the RR-part. Even now they are still flying tests with that engine even though the first two A350's are in flight test with these engines.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
And Emirates are negotiating too; with rumours saying that they may order more than 100 of them:

Well, but that was always going to happen. But EK also would like 90 more A380's if the airport in Dubai could handle them. But this is about what Airbus R&D might do after 2017.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 27):
A "whole new large market"? The 779 is a 2.7 meters stretch and adds another 20 seats; the aircraft is a response to the A350-1000.

It is Boeings response to the A350-1000 to keep the CASM on par, but it might turn out to be a new niche in the market. But could also develop into something more.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2323 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 27891 times:

LH order has committed Boeing on doing the whole 777X on less than a 50 frames order, my conspiracy mind tells me this order made Boeing show its cards (on development), and now Airbus knows B next move and specs...

My take? they will improve the 330 regional more than they have said, and will improve the 380, now that they know the real gaps in B line.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27757 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 41):
My take? they will improve the 330 regional more than they have said

I forgot about the A330. There is still some potential there, especially since they can work with low prices since this program has been so profitable and has paid its investments back multiple times already. But in the longer run the A330 will lose out to the B787 and A358, even if they are larger.

But I do see Airbus continuously working on the A330, maybe even until the next NB will arrive which might span in size from 150 to 250 passengers. But the next NB is due at the late 2020's or early 2030's with the A32X-neo and B737-MAX being so successful now. And these planes will not need replacement before 2027-2030 or so.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27653 times:

reply 42 above
I forgot about the A330. There is still some potential there, especially since they can work with low prices since this program has been so profitable and has paid its investments back multiple times already.

I would have thought that the low hanging fruit (and Airbus has discussed this) is adding blended winglets (or even 'feathers').The wing is already stressed for it. Should get them 3%.
I think someone said somewhere that they can also 'easily' take out the unnecessary structures used for the a340 which are now redundant.Another 1% perhaps?
Any (core) engine PIP's based on the latest engines like the Trent XWB perhaps (1%?)
OK it's not 787 levels of efficiency but it's cheaper and available sooner (much sooner unless Boeing gets its 787 production act together)


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27619 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 40):
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 10):There is a new article on aerotelegraph from today, in which CEO Enders is quoted with saying "the first in the row is the A 380,
Which is only logical considering the build up of the program of airliners they are offering their current and future customers.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):Looks to me as if the decision has already been made - he's planning to upgrade the A380 soonest, and then counter the B777Xs only with an extra stretch of the A350?

Could be, and it would be a good thing.

The Airbus marketing guys will know their own market best, I guess. They'll know, from prospective buyers, not only what we know - that the A380 isn't selling; but also WHY it isn't selling.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27148 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 44):
The Airbus marketing guys will know their own market best, I guess. They'll know, from prospective buyers, not only what we know - that the A380 isn't selling; but also WHY it isn't selling.

And whether it's about to start selling again.
 



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 44):
They'll know, from prospective buyers, not only what we know - that the A380 isn't selling; but also WHY it isn't selling.

Slow selling, not "not selling". The year is not over yet.  .

But again, this is about the future projects Airbus might take on after the A32X-neo-program and the A350-program are more or less finished as big projects and only minor further improvements are to be expected in these programs.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26536 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 46):
But again, this is about the future projects Airbus might take on after the A32X-neo-program and the A350-program are more or less finished

Agreed about the A320, EPA001 - Airbus definitely has a winner there.

The A350 programme looks quite good on present evidence - but it's nowhere near 'mature' yet; no aircraft in service. The A330 is more or less 'holding the fort.'

It does LOOK, on present evidence, as if Enders has 'been advised' that the 'midsize segment' is OK for the moment, and priority should be given to an A380 upgrade? Meaning that there's no need to accelerate design/production of any counter to the 778X/779X?

'Time will tell' - but my own view is that not immediately seeking to counter the 'new generation' 777s - particularly the 779X - and instead opting for an A380 upgrade, may turn out to be a mistake?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26502 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 47):
'Time will tell' - but my own view is that not immediately seeking to counter the 'new generation' 777s - particularly the 779X - and instead opting for an A380 upgrade, may turn out to be a mistake?

They already have the A350-1000. Again, the 777X is Boeing's answer to the larger A350, not the other way around.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 47):
and instead opting for an A380 upgrade

Airbus can do multiple programs at once.

[Edited 2013-10-16 07:41:39]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26438 times:

Let's go

A320 family
- weight saving, laser welding in some panels, change in alloys ? -> (experience from A380) free flow til 2020
- new wing for A321 TATL+ -> 2020 ? (could be CFRP ou alumium ?)

A330
- weight saving, laser welding in some panels, change in alloys for panel (experience from A380)? -> free flow til 2020
- noise package (ICAO stage 5 and 242 t ? can it be ?
- new interior ? -> linked with a revival of A300/A310

A350
- optimized A350-800 (but will increase pavement loading with the narrow bogie) -> 2018-2019
- A350-1100 "simple" stretch -> 2020-2021

A380
- optimized cabin (11 abreast), optimized cabin crew rest
- A380-900 2020, with some new engines ? (need to announce it soon). The key is the first wave of EK A380 to replace

A310NG
- improved A330 cross section (wider with less insulation) or A350 cross section
- new wing
- more électric
2021-2022
Might be a place for a medium power GTF in the 45-55 000 lbf

My guess


User currently offlineCactus105 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26328 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 13):
What is lacking is a NB cfrp wing, wingbox, bigger gears and a GTF in the 40K thrust clas

  

I don't see the A321 going any further without the addition of these items. It's a great airplane, but any stretching of the current airframe/design would require bigger struts for sure. Engines would have to be totally revamped too, as the current 321's are pretty poor on performance as it is (at MTOW).



Wherever you go, there you are.
User currently offlineExtra300 From Sweden, joined Sep 2011, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26240 times:

Why not give the A320 a step by step program that will take it from current status to the an all CFRP frame with modern engines?

1. The NEO, already a success. EIS 2015 (?)
2. CFRP wing. EIS 2020
3. CFRP Fuselage and new engines again. EIS 2025

This step by step model means less risk for both A and the customers than a clean sheet design, and sales can be boosted at every program launch.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26228 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Agree - all the signs are that the proposed 779x, with 400-plus seats, is creating a whole new (large) market
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
Lufthansa has already signed up for 34 779X, BaconButty. And Emirates are negotiating too; with rumours saying that they may order more than 100 of them

So when EK orders 90 A380s, that’s an industry anomaly, but by no means indicative of (future) market trends.
But a (rumoured) EK order for 100+100 779x is creating a whole new market??

Sure LH also signed also, but many other industry leaders (JL, CX, EK, BA, QR, UA) already signed big-time for the 350-1000 . . . Not saying the 77x will be a failure, or that it will be blown out the water by the 350. Just don't see the whole new market, at most a minor stretch of an pretty healthy current market.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineap305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 24964 times:

David Kaminski Morrow (https://twitter.com/FlightDKM) has an interesting link to a Airbus related patent application for folding wingtips. One could speculate that any reworked wing for a further a350 stretch may include a similar device?

[Edited 2013-10-16 09:12:05]

User currently offlinekmz From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 164 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 24052 times:

what would be interesting to know, how many engineers in the different disciplines Airbus has to keep bussy.

It won't help a lot if they do some cosmetics and the wing guys run dry. Or if they mnake a new wing and the fuselage guys go out eating ice cream. So Let's say the A350 and A320NEO work is done, how to keep the people happy?

Wing guys, system guys, engine guys, cockpit guys, fuselage guys, etc will do the: A321 super NEO.

And the rest stretches the A380 and the A350 and yes, don't forget, some need to take care about the all new A320 successor...

  


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23974 times:

Re ap305.
Interesting! As they say on the Twitter feed. Perhaps folding sharklets ?? That would be my bet for an improved A380 wing.

If so it just adds more weight (re thread starter and various posts inc CEO's comments) that indeed it is the A380 to get the next set of improvements. The A350 doesn't need them and the A320/330 has them so no folding needed there. That only leaves one!

I also note re an earlier comment that RR is flying it's XWB engine on a A380 so this element may well happen as well. Together one would be looking at one hell of an improvement (fsc)


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23978 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 55):
I also note re an earlier comment that RR is flying it's XWB engine on a A380 so this element may well happen as well. Together one would be looking at one hell of an improvement (fsc)

The Trent XWB is a very heavy engine, not sure if it's a good idea to put those on the A380. The wing need probably to be reinforced too, thus more weight. Perhaps it's better to upgrade the current engines with 2020 technology, as Tim Clark (Emirates) suggests.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineap305 From India, joined Jan 2000, 633 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23845 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 55):
The A350 doesn't need them and the A320/330 has them so no folding needed there. That only leaves one!

The current set of a350 variants does not need them but what about a further stretch?. A super sized wing could takeaway the need for more engine thrust (similar to how the 777x seems to work). Perhaps the 97k variant of the trent xwb could suffice if a lower wing loading/ greater lift can compensate for the increased weights that any further stretch would bring?

[Edited 2013-10-16 10:24:23]

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23769 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 2):
Begin concepts for a new supersonic aircraft. It's the next logical path for aircraft development.

Less logical you mean. There is no money to make there, at least not for airliners' manufacturers. Leave that market to sellers of billionaire toys, they're already working on several models.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
I doubt you will find an engine maker crazy enough to develop an 150,000 lbf engine.

Actually that would not be enough at all, you need each engine to have as much thrust as three current A380 engines, so something like 220Klbf.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 39):
3) A small capacity(max 250 pax in high-density) long range, basically a skinnier version of A350.

You mean a shrink of the A358 ? Not possible. An improved A332 is more like it (but not in the works, well the current A330 is already much improved).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23527 times:

Still think we have to see a 321 with a 38m wing option (or folding wing tips) to improve range and field performance, but I am not looking forward to the day I need to sit on one for 8 hours.

I would like to see either Airbus or Boeing do something interesting with the 330 or 767 where it could be a viable 757 replacement. Not sure how you could pull it off though.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23429 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Many thanks for the thoughts guys

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 3):
If I remember correctly, their next "big" project will be replacement of A320 family, after 2025. When NEO was studied, Airbus stated it is an interim project until new material technology is mature enough to be used in construction of their new aircraft.

My specific question in this thread was "what is next". Airbus will start running out of development tasks in 2015/2016

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
Agree - all the signs are that the proposed 779x, with 400-plus seats, is creating a whole new (large) market.

LOL. good luck in persuading A-net en-mass to dismiss the 747 as never having existed  
Quoting panais (Reply 7):
By 2018 Airbus should start considering the replacement of the A330-200 (the A330-300 size will be taken care of by the A350-800 optimisation project)

For what its worth I personally believe we won't see anything that's not based on the A320, A350 or A380 fuselages. I believe that that either the A350-800 optimisation will cover the A332 replacement, or we'll see another a350 derivative with smaller wings, engines etc

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 10):
There is a new article on aerotelegraph from today, in which CEO Enders is quoted with saying "the first in the row is the A 380, see link below, unfortuantely in German

I believe that he is referring to the A380 being "the first in a row IN THE A380 FAMILY", not in the development cycle for the business

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
I would optimize the A358 first. Then turn my attention away from A350 and let it mature up and put a serious dent into the backlog. In the mean time I would look at the A380 to see if a new engine and a weight elimination scrub could work to get its efficiency solidly down below the A351

Personally that's where my money is too, except I don't discount the A380 stretch

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range

That will be an A350 derivative IMO

Quoting parapente (Reply 22):
I do see RR offering a major upgrade- not sure about a total re engine with XWB's as it is often a bigger job than it appears on this forum (but could be wrong - often am).

Might be a big job, but it's one they've already done IMO.
given the timescales Airbus have gone a lot further in integrating the Trent XWB into its A380 test platform than is traditional for an engine test

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 34):
Interesting how Zvedza's law (for those who remember it) get's suspended when it suit's though . . .

LOL. Amazes me too.
trouble with Zvezda's laws was that they insisted on "all other things being equal". Wonderful! Except the never are   
his laws don't explain how EK's A380's with more seats generate a higher RASM than their 773ER's with less seats do.

To close, my favourites for the next task are:-

Optimise the A350-800
Improve and/or stretch the A380
Develop a TATL A321

On the "wait and see" list, either a simple stretch A350-1100 or a complex re-wing, re-engine IGW A350-1100, depending on how the "all-new"    market for the 777-9X pans out

Rgds


User currently onlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 23003 times:

I like this thread!

It is however a bit locked into current products and their evolutions/replacements. EADS has many engineers employed on non-civilian, and non-Airbus projects as well! How to keep the engineering team going? How about these ideas in addition to all the above:

ATR has the 42 and 72 models, if my memory serves me well. How about an ATR 100 or 120, still with LCY capability, seating 100 or 120, with range for 1500nm? Benefiting from the latest in engine technology. Airbus and propellers!

A civil-version of the A400 (after all, it is aimed at being certified at civilian standards)?

Other military aircraft (after the A400 and A330)

Helicopters?

Apart from that, I think it would be a good idea (if it isn't already on-going BAU) that Airbus was investing in the next generation NSA aircraft - no need to freeze any specs yet, but just to keep the industry pulse under close monitoring, and even to push it in some desired direction! An OEM can influence what the market thinks it wants, after all!

Supersonic - I dont think so! That day has gone now, thanks to the price of oil!

Last point - it seems we all assume that flying gets faster, and journey times get shorter. With current fuel prices, is it maybe time to revisit this point? Flying a relatively short distance (up to 2000nm), does it really matter if the flight is 4, 5, or even 6 hours? A legacy carrier at 2X$ in 4 hours versus an LCC at 1X$ in 6 hous? So how about a fuel-miserly low and slow 300 seater that can do 2000nm or (choose your own preference)nm? Is that an A300 version 2015? Or an ATR300!



A decision on the 100-140- seat market (leave it to the newcomers, or get back there)?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4934 posts, RR: 40
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 22932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
To close, my favourites for the next task are:-

Optimise the A350-800
Improve and/or stretch the A380
Develop a TATL A321

On the "wait and see" list, either a simple stretch A350-1100 or a complex re-wing, re-engine IGW A350-1100, depending on how the "all-new"    market for the 777-9X pans out

I could easily live with that. Now let us wait and see what will be decided by the executives in charge at Airbus. I am sure it will be a sensible decision they will be making.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 22702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
I think most of us accept that the A350-800 in its current form is sub-optimised. Airbus could launch a re-work of the A358 to make it fully competitive with the 787-8/9 at the bottom end of the range.

With the lead the 787-8 and 787-9 have, I wonder if Airbus feels it's worth the effort to really spend money on optimizing it.

If you're an A330-200 operator who wants to stay Airbus, it's not like the A350-800 as it currently exists is a dog. And for those who seem to be willing to switch (and there have been many), once you have the 787-8 and 787-9, would you not just keep adding them? So I wonder if the market is there to justify an expensive revision.



Quoting astuteman (Thread starter):
Mid-range - the A350-900R and -900F are possibilities - the former I see as almost a freebie on the back of the A350-1000, the latter I don't see as Airbus's next most pressing priority.

As "R" looks like it will now stand for "Regional", the A350-900R is a given.

I remain skeptical about an A350-900L with greater than 16,000km design range as I believe the 777-8 will offer better revenue potential on such missions thanks to it's greater capacity.

I do think Airbus will offer an A350-900F, but with the 777F already securing orders and a 777-8F on the way, I wonder how well it will fare...

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 38):
A380R for China

I don't see China (nor India) going to VLA short-haul like Japan did. I think we'll see a more fragmented narrowbody-centric domestic market like we have in the United States, with 787-10s and A350-900R and A350-1000R on select domestic trunk routes at peak times.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 22239 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
I remain skeptical about an A350-900L with greater than 16,000km design range as I believe the 777-8 will offer better revenue potential on such missions thanks to it's greater capacity.

On the other hand, I expect the A350L to have a (much) lower trip/operating cost. Depending on how big the future ULH market is going to be, the A350L might capture a nice share.

It doesn't need to sell in big numbers and it will be the base model for the future freighter.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
I do think Airbus will offer an A350-900F, but with the 777F already securing orders and a 777-8F on the way, I wonder how well it will fare...

But these are different sized airplanes. If or when the cargo market regains again, I think there is place for both models.

Here are Airbus latest forecast numbers for the cargo market:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...-freighter-orders-in-20-years.html

And besides, Boeing said to be studying an 787 freighter model for post 2020 too.

[Edited 2013-10-16 12:16:29]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 836 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 22085 times:

What are the next projects for Airbus? And Boeing?

Most people in this thread seem to assume that there will only be evolution, but no revolution, with either upgrades coming to existing models or aircraft families being enlarged with new sub-types.

I am not denying one or two new models being launched, but what comes afterwards? What comes after 2020 for both companies?

Until 2020 both could have this line-up:
Airbus Boeing
A319NEO 737-7
A320NEO 737-8
A321NEO 737-9
A330regional 787-8
A350-800 787-9
A350-900 787-10
A350-1000 777-8
777-9
A380-800

Probably new models might be a 900R, launched together with a 1000R and 1100 for the A350 family and the rumoured 787-8, -9 and 10LR with a -11 to roundup this family. Also the A380 could see some A350-like improvements. The 747 might still be produced as a freighter and VIP-aircraft.


But overall Boeing and Airbus will have very old aircraft families in the narrowbody (737/A32x) and VLA range (779/A380). And both will have a perfect, but technology maxed out aircraft family in the midsize widebody range (787/A350). Btw forgive me for calling the 779 and A388 old, but both are based on initial designs from the early 1990ies.



So whats next? REVOLUTION!



I think both companies could aim for something completely new for ALL three to four sizes for aircraft families. Both could do something like what Boeing had aimed for with their Y1/Y2/Y3 project. "One aircraft family" ranging from 120 to 600 seats. Apparently this would be split up in narrowbody and widebody aircraft, and probably this even would be three to four aircraft families for both companies, but they could do a real revolution, even if this still would be tubes with wings. This could be three to four aircraft famlies designed TOGETHER, all sharing the cockpit to nearly 100%, all with two engines, with the highest possible compatibility of spare parts, all being launched within 5 to 6 years, produced for 20 to 30 years. Fact will be after 2018-2020, both companies will have a huge amount of engineering staff at hand and both will have lots of experience with CFRP and other high-tech materials from the 787 and A350. They could both not launch a new aircraft for 10 years afterwards, but then offer the greatest revolution since the 707 and 747.


Carsten


User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1426 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21978 times:

Instead of stretching the 320, would it make sense to shrink the 330, add new engines, with some aerodynamic improvements and position it between A320 and B787?

There is still a market for the 757/787-3 market and Airbus might target that next, as I believe it will give more bang for the buck.

A bit surprised about Enders statement of A380 enhancements being taken up next. The VLA market (counting 778/779s too) is still limited. Wonder how much improvement they can get out of A380 economically, and still being appealing to airlines.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):
On the other hand, I expect the A350L to have a (much) lower trip/operating cost. Depending on how big the future ULH market is going to be, the A350L might capture a nice share.

I imagine the difference will depend on whether the A350-900L is at her original spec (298t MTOW and 95k engines) or the revised A350-1000 spec (308t MTOW with 98k engines).



Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 63):
But these are different sized airplanes. If or when the cargo market regains again, I think there is place for both models.

There probably will be, but I do think Airbus is going to need to keep the A330-200F in production, as well, to better position itself against the "full range" of widebody freighters Boeing will be offering with the 767F, 789F, 778F and 748F. If they only offer the A359F, I fear it might be squeezed between the 789F and 778F just as the A332F has been squeezed somewhat between the 763F and 772F.

Quoting blrsea (Reply 65):
Instead of stretching the 320, would it make sense to shrink the 330, add new engines, with some aerodynamic improvements and position it between A320 and B787?

Such a plane would be very heavy for it's role and if they kept the current span, would not fit in gates designed for the A300/A310/757/767. And if they shrink the span, they will cripple the aerodynamics just as happened with the 787-3.

[Edited 2013-10-16 12:42:40]

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21769 times:

I see the two "low-hanging fruit" (that are nevertheless significant enough to require serious engineering commitment) as follows:

1) "Beefing up" of A321neo, including more fuel capacity, more wing area, and possibly a stretch. This would take care of the TATL narrowbody market and also give Airbus the option to produce a 753 replacement. The original 753 could have sold far more copies with better timing, and I think an Airbus "753" has real potential.

A wild card here would be to substantially revise the A321 fuselage to make the cargo hold deep enough to accommodate single-file LD3s.

2) Re-engining of A380. I feel sure about a re-engine (or at least heavy revisions to the current engines). I'm not so sure about the stretch. It would be a fabulous aircraft for the very heaviest trunk routes, but are there enough such routes?

The other projects seem more difficult to me.

A350 stretch: By the time Airbus would get this one done, it seems likely that the 777-9X would have already eaten a substantial chunk of the market. It would require more than a simple stretch in my opinion -- further changes to the wing and substantially revised engines, at a minimum. I think the fate of the 777-300A proved that an aircraft in that size class needs to be ready for true long-haul.

A330 improvements: The A330 is just too heavy to compete with the 787 in the long run, once 787 production is at 100%, unless it's radically discounted. Radical discounts undercut the business case for meaningful improvements. I see the current A330-300 selling for some years, with discounts and minor improvements, but no big changes.

A300 redux: The way to approach this size class is from the narrowbody direction, not the widebody direction. There is just no way that a small widebody can compete on efficiency. We learned this with the 767-200ER, we learned it with the A310, and we are even going to learn it in the future with the 787-8, once 787-9s are showing up in volume. Until we change the way aircraft are built, it will be exceedingly difficult to build a competitive long-range airliner smaller than an A330-300 or 787-9.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21532 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
To close, my favourites for the next task are:-

...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
On the "wait and see" list, either a simple stretch A350-1100 or a complex re-wing, re-engine IGW A350-1100, depending on how the "all-new"    market for the 777-9X pans out

Agree on all accounts.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range
That will be an A350 derivative IMO

It would be tempting because of the existing CFRP fuse but I think that at 9-abreast it would be very stubby/short and I wonder about its efficiency at those proportions.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 39):
we will see most likley an A350-1100 (simple stretch)

Is a ~460m area 64.8m span wing able to take on the additional drag of a further stretch even if it has the same MTOW?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 39):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
I don't see an A389 in the cards in the near future.
I do see it. I am firm believer we will see it in the early 2020's.

I hope you are right. Here are some of my thoughts:
>It sounds to me like EK has backed away from an A389 and instead is looking for A388 engine improvements while other A380 customers have stated their interest in keeping their fleet A380 fleet small or reducing orders (LH, AF, VS, others).
>I see the stretch having fewer customers, not more, and I think Airbus aims to broaden market appeal rather than delve into the niche even further.
>I don't see customers using the space they have now in a way that indicates they need more space in the aircraft.
>Such a program would probably want to coincide with EK A380 replacement but that starts in 2020 but does not seem to be close to launch.
>I see an A389 competing with an A388 instead of a 77x so those sales may not be incremental (they would get them anyway!).
>There are other ways to improve CASM without stretching: 11 abreast seating, improved engines, aircraft lightening, folding wing tips, aerodynamic improvements, new cart storage and galley modernization...

I do see it happening eventually, just not in the 'early 2020s'

tortugamon


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21505 times:

New engines for the A380 will not help airframe engineers at Airbus, it's mostly the engines manufacturers working (and they're not really looking for work at the moment).

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 60):
ATR has the 42 and 72 models, if my memory serves me well. How about an ATR 100 or 120, still with LCY capability, seating 100 or 120, with range for 1500nm? Benefiting from the latest in engine technology. Airbus and propellers!

ATR has already been talking about a 90-110 seater.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 60):
A civil-version of the A400 (after all, it is aimed at being certified at civilian standards)?

It's certified to civilian standards to be able to fly in civilian airspace more easily. I doubt there is a market for it in civilian guise, it's old Soviet airframes territory for decades to come.

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 60):
Other military aircraft (after the A400 and A330)

Who is looking for airliners derived military equipment at the moment (the only thing they could offer that would make sense) ? Most have already ordered Boeing equipment, and if new customers appear it wouldn't really make sense to go Airbus.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21344 times:

BTW since we're talking 2030 too, don't forget electric/hybrid planes :

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-...nced-Concepts/VoltAir-concept.html



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21394 times:

*** Airbus A 380-1000 ***

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21370 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 64):
So whats next? REVOLUTION!



I think both companies could aim for something completely new for ALL three to four sizes for aircraft families. Both could do something like what Boeing had aimed for with their Y1/Y2/Y3 project. "One aircraft family" ranging from 120 to 600 seats. Apparently this would be split up in narrowbody and widebody aircraft, and probably this even would be three to four aircraft families for both companies, but they could do a real revolution, even if this still would be tubes with wings. This could be three to four aircraft famlies designed TOGETHER, all sharing the cockpit to nearly 100%, all with two engines, with the highest possible compatibility of spare parts, all being launched within 5 to 6 years, produced for 20 to 30 years. Fact will be after 2018-2020, both companies will have a huge amount of engineering staff at hand and both will have lots of experience with CFRP and other high-tech materials from the 787 and A350. They could both not launch a new aircraft for 10 years afterwards, but then offer the greatest revolution since the 707 and 747.

How is this revolution?

If someone could make it possible to travel very cheap between London and New York in 1 hour, that would be revolution because it would change the whole aviation industry and the way we travel.

IMO



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 836 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21154 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 72):
How is this revolution?

If someone could make it possible to travel very cheap between London and New York in 1 hour, that would be revolution because it would change the whole aviation industry and the way we travel.

IMO

Super-Sonic aircraft won't happen, except they use ramjet-technology flying up in the stratosphere. But this is unrealistic for another 50 years IMHO.

But a real Y1-3 like family of aircraft has never been produced or even tried. The A318 up to A340 cockpit is close. But overall that is still far away from what a second generation of CFRP airliners with a commonality of cockpit and parts in all sizes. This would save a huge amount of money. This is not the revolution we a.nutters might want, it might be boring, but would be a game changer cost-wise.

We all know there has to be a new narrowbody family at one point. And the 747 currently shows that a family of aircraft can't be updated forever (as sad as it is in this case). The same will be valid for the A380 and 777. So we already have a case to start the development of a new narrowbody for both companies; some airlines already requested that before the NEO and MAX. We will have a case for a new VLA, too, in 2025 at latest. And one you start with "Y1" and "Y3" you might close the gap with developing "Y2", too, replacing 787s and A350s from 2030 onward.

And if you don't wanna call it revolution this is still something different than talking about updates of existing aircraft families. This would be something new and game changing...


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 21033 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 73):
but would be a game changer cost-wise.

I would partly agree if it reduces costs with 50 to 70%.

Quoting CARST (Reply 73):
And if you don't wanna call it revolution this is still something different than talking about updates of existing aircraft families. This would be something new and game changing...

But from a passenger point of view, nothing changes. I still have to go to the airport 2 hours in advance, board the tube and travel 10+ hours.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 836 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20926 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74):
I would partly agree if it reduces costs with 50 to 70%.

50% sounds realistic 15 years from now. Year 2028 engines, CFRP, alloys, the commonality of parts and cockpit crew, why not?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 74):
But from a passenger point of view, nothing changes. I still have to go to the airport 2 hours in advance, board the tube and travel 10+ hours

Agreeing with you here, but I don't expect the passenger experience to change that much in the next 40 year or so. Oil won't be cheaper in 15 years, new technologies won't be ready then, this could be a revolution inside the possibilities at this time. Perhaps we'll talk about a fuel-cell airliner in 40 to 50 years... ^^


User currently offlinehh65man From Australia, joined Feb 2013, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20727 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Blended Wing Body would be my guess. They make sense to me.....

User currently offlineNeutronStar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19769 times:

If I were Airbus, I'd prolly leave the A380 alone and worry about the next-generation A320. Boeing will be well-advanced on the 737 replacement, and that is a market that is only seeing growth. To leave the A320 behind while working on the A380 would be a mistake, as the A380 will likely be the only VLA left standing past 2020, and the 777X may put pressure on it, the A380 will be your only option for those huge seat counts, as the 748i may not make it, unless Boeing pulls something out the air.

Quoting hh65man (Reply 76):

I think someone may have the rights to that design, I think I've heard somewhere.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19471 times:

Airbus is smart and they are not going to launch something without understanding what Boeing might do in response. If Airbus plans something cheap/expensive simple/complex and the Boeing response is cheap/simple they may rethink it.

I wonder if the 777-9x sells very well and Airbus then decides that it should look more closely at doing a simple stretch on the A351, will Boeing respond by stretching the 779x again? The 779x wing is big enough. The rotation angle would need figuring out but it would take a stretch to ~81m to get to the wing/length proportions of the 77W and a 455+ seat three-class twin :-0.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19365 times:

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 77):
Boeing will be well-advanced on the 737 replacement

I really don't think Boeing can set the agenda on this - technology will drive it. Prior to the NEO launch, everything was pointing to a mid 2020's step change in available technology. RR and GE had their respective open rotor projects, P&W had their 2025 next gen GTF and the EU clean skies programme (and it's NASA counterpart whose acronym escapes me) had a raft of technologies from (more) laminar flow wings through fuel cell APU's to green disposal of aircraft. All broadly aiming for technology demonstrators in the middle of this decade, to raise the TR level ready for selection onto projects at the end of the decade, and EIS in the middle of the next. That's why, when the NEO was launched, no Boeing board in it's right mind would ever approve a single aisle replacement to enter service in 2019, say, with the very real risk of rapid obsolescence. The irony is, like a self destructing prophecy, the NEO made possible by "2025" also pushed the prospective date out. This interesting article on the laminar flow wing mentions the timeframe moving out to 2030 and the wiggle room it gave the R&D guys:

Quote:
“We have now a bit more time which is very good for us, because there are still a lot of challenges in the development of the technology. In the end, we are happy that the timeframe is not as close as it was before,” Koenig says.

The EIS date for the narrowbody replacement is particularly pertinent to this thread since it informs the amount of resource available and also whether a clean sheet program is likely or desirable. I would argue that there is absolutely no way that Airbus will commence the most important project in over 40 years after a 16 year gap from the A350. And there's only one gap in their product line, which points at tortugamons suggested aircraft being a very strong possibility;

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range.

The interesting thing for me is whether any of the technologies targeted for the 2025 single aisle will be ready for inclusion on this hypothetical aircraft.

All this has brought to mind a chart Keesje used to post from time to time. Things have changed a bit since - the 783 died a death and the single aisles and A330's have shifted right - but it shows where the gap in the market is.



[Edited 2013-10-16 16:53:10]


You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19337 times:

About commonality between various sizes of planes I doubt it's possible in any meaningful way. The only way to do it would be to use building blocks like Lego for all systems that need to grow with size. For example the same main wheels, but the narrobody uses 4, the intermediary 8-12, the big ass one 16-20, something like that. Then for the packs, 2, 6, 12, etc. I'm pretty sure that that would mean more weight, more maintenance, more cost, more many things, instead of gains.

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 77):
Boeing will be well-advanced on the 737 replacement

When would that be ? Airbus will probably take the wait and see approach with the next narrowbody, they have the advantage now so they can wait for Boeing to announce something. Of course in reality they'll rather see what they're working on, who they're hiring, consulting with, what they do with NASA, etc. Boeing does the same. It's a game of chicken.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 18898 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 79):
The interesting thing for me is whether any of the technologies targeted for the 2025 single aisle will be ready for inclusion on this hypothetical aircraft.

The one thing we do know is that any model that tries to take over this space will want to stay firmly away from the NEO/MAX. The 757 was consumed by their growth in range and efficiency and there is no reason to assume that the growth will stop anytime soon.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 79):
All this has brought to mind a chart Keesje used to post from time to time. Things have changed a bit since - the 783 died a death and the single aisles and A330's have shifted right - but it shows where the gap in the market is.

Other than my problems with the 764 having less seats than a 763 and other errors in technicalities, Keesje's graph is not a terrible indication of the market opportunity.

Here is the challenge: how much less fuel can a light aircraft that is designed for 5knm burn while flying that route versus an existing 787/A350 aircraft? Would airlines elect for lower operating costs while sacrificing significant permanent (not a derate) capability?

This graph below shows that the seat mile costs for a 787 is actually at its lowest around 4knm and it does not go much higher out to 7knm missions and actually gains efficiency relative the competition on longer routes. The steep part of the graph is where there is significant opportunity but that is firmly in Max/NEO territory and there is not much hope of a wide body being more efficient at these lengths.


source: leeham news but I think it is a Boeing presentation.

tortugamon


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2323 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 18787 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 59):
Develop a TATL A321

Amen!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 67):
1) "Beefing up" of A321neo, including more fuel capacity, more wing area, and possibly a stretch. This would take care of the TATL narrowbody market and also give Airbus the option to produce a 753 replacement. The original 753 could have sold far more copies with better timing, and I think an Airbus "753" has real potential.

A wild card here would be to substantially revise the A321 fuselage to make the cargo hold deep enough to accommodate single-file LD3s.

I think Airbus should develop an A325, with a folding bigger wing to give it range, make the fuselage to accept LD3 and keep the weight low offering a max density of 170 pax. If they can make it economical, keep the price low, a lot of them will sell on TATL and long thin routes from USa to Latin America or Europe to Africa. Id love to see a Mini Raccoon!

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 17767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
I remain skeptical about an A350-900L with greater than 16,000km design range as I believe the 777-8 will offer better revenue potential on such missions thanks to it's greater capacity

It undoubtedly will. The A359"L" will offer significantly lower operating cost though. And by offering even greater range than the 777-8X will have a sweet spot beyond which the 777-8X's capacity advantage will become eroded. The question as always remains "what is the size of the market"
The A350-900L is of course virtually a "freebie" on the back of the A3510 (and A359F if and when it happens)

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 67):

Nice post. My only comeback would be on this

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 67):
A350 stretch: By the time Airbus would get this one done, it seems likely that the 777-9X would have already eaten a substantial chunk of the market. It would require more than a simple stretch in my opinion -- further changes to the wing and substantially revised engines, at a minimum. I think the fate of the 777-300A proved that an aircraft in that size class needs to be ready for true long-haul.

Depending on what they do, Airbus could make some significant changes to create an A350-1100 and still have it in service within 2 years of the 777-9X. They could be offering it in 2015/2016 and we all know that merely offering the plane is enough to capture market share

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 77):
If I were Airbus, I'd prolly leave the A380 alone and worry about the next-generation A320. Boeing will be well-advanced on the 737 replacement, and that is a market that is only seeing growth. To leave the A320 behind while working on the A380 would be a mistake

LOL. I don't think that Boeing will be looking to launch NSA in the 2015 - 2017 timeframe somehow. 2023 - 2025 is the earliest I see either of the OEM's launching a new narrowbody

Referring to the OP question, the issue I see for airbus is that the "gaps" in its line up are small ones, at the bottom, and at the top, of the A350 line-up, created by positioning the A350 the way they did.
I find it difficult to buy into an all-new airframe for either of these as I don't believe the gap is big enough.
They certainly have nothing to fear in narrowbody space just now   

I think the lower gap is going to get plugged by a combination of more capable NEO's and lighter A350's until NSA comes along.
The upper gap is the interesting one.
An A350-1100 lite?
An A350-1100 heavy?
Or do they cheer up a vast raft of A-netters by pulling the plug on the A380?
Then create their own all new family in a version of Y3 positioned above the A350 and going beyond the 777-9X in capacity?
That's the only all new family I can think of within the next decade.

However, because I don't think they will give up on the A380 in the next decade, I don't see it happening then

Rgds
Rgds


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 17618 times:

747 cargo replacement is one possibility. The A330 needs replacing and the A358 is not the replacement. They could start studying the NSR. I don't know if the market for re-engined A380s is any better than the market for the current one.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 17574 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
I do think Airbus will offer an A350-900F, but with the 777F already securing orders and a 777-8F on the way, I wonder how well it will fare...

The hard sell on a A359 today is that it takes away slots that could be passenger A350. Couple that with the problem of the A330F no where near paying off yet, I just don't see it for this gen of A350. Let the A330F wind down the A330 line as passenger orders dry up (which has been blocking A330F orders anyway). Then when you do your A350 tech update or NG, look to see if the F makes sense then.

Its pretty certain that the 777-200 would have made a pretty terrible frieghter compared to what they got by waiting till the -300ER/-200LR generation.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17337 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
With the lead the 787-8 and 787-9 have, I wonder if Airbus feels it's worth the effort to really spend money on optimizing it.

The current 787 backlog stretches into 2019-2020. Projects like the 787 and A350 are here to stay until 2030 at least. Thus an optimized A358 entering the market just before the end of the decade might gather a few nice sales in the 2020-2030 window.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17326 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Its pretty certain that the 777-200 would have made a pretty terrible frieghter compared to what they got by waiting till the -300ER/-200LR generation.

How is an 787 freighter going to work than? The 777-200 lacks range, an issue both 787 and A350 won't have.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17355 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
...If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range. Something that could take more passengers and fly them further, with some cargo, beyond an A321 TATL NEO but well below A359R territory.

The A322neo concept by keesje  

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2r3uihx.jpg

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA321A322NEOStretch757_2_zps9d26113d.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17174 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 67):
1) "Beefing up" of A321neo, including more fuel capacity, more wing area, and possibly a stretch. This would take care of the TATL narrowbody market and also give Airbus the option to produce a 753 replacement. The original 753 could have sold far more copies with better timing, and I think an Airbus "753" has real potential.

I think that this makes a lot of sense.

Aircrafts have grown bigger for the last decade. Wee see that Airbus is hardly selling any 319NEO, the marked has shifted to 320/321 from 319/320 so in order to capitalize on this shift Airbus needs new wing that suits the heavier variants and in the meantime opens up the possibility of 322, a 757-300 size frame.

The simple way would be to create new carbon wing that incorporates the thecnology from 350 and mate it to the excisting 320/321 fuse just like Boeing did when the created the 737NG wing just after they build the 777

Before this was not an option because of engine availability, but if the GTF works out like expected that platform could be extended in to the 38K territory


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17076 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 87):
How is an 787 freighter going to work than? The 777-200 lacks range, an issue both 787 and A350 won't have.

I don't think anyone expects a 787F to exist for quite some time. It already has a pretty massive jump in MTOW in the -9 version, but that doesn't mean a 788F is justified.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17062 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90):
I don't think anyone expects a 787F to exist for quite some time. It already has a pretty massive jump in MTOW in the -9 version, but that doesn't mean a 788F is justified.

Boeing themselves said to be studying an 787F for post 2020.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17034 times:

How would the economics of a 1750nm range turboprop twin using the Europrop 11,000 HP engine compare with A320/737? The lower turboprop cruise speed would not greatly increase flight time on shorter routes eg intra-European under 1500nm.

Would there be a worthwhile market (say 2000 over 20 years) for such an aircraft if Airbus were to offer it? Or are the days of the larger turboprop over?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 17003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect the 787 freighter will be based on the 787-9 platform, not the 787-8.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16850 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 85):
Let the A330F wind down the A330 line as passenger orders dry up (which has been blocking A330F orders anyway).

I don't see A330 sales blocking A330F sales as much as the cargo marking loosing steam. The A330F order book isn't necessarily full of genuine orders at this point either.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90):
I don't think anyone expects a 787F to exist for quite some time. It already has a pretty massive jump in MTOW in the -9 version, but that doesn't mean a 788F is justified.

Boeing has mentioned they are going to be base the 787 freighter on the 787-9. I think this is response to engine makers finding more thrust, internal research into a possible 787-10IGW lending attributes to the freighter, or its an effort to put more pressure on the A350 program.

Quoting art (Reply 92):
Or are the days of the larger turboprop over?

If gas price increases dramatically then it could have some more days in the sun. Boeing once offered one to LH decades ago based on a aft fuse attached non-duct turbo prop but alas gas prices dropped and it lost steam. I think there is good money in flying slower for cheaper on short missions and the bigger and heavier that are 737/A320s get the more opportunity there is as long as they can more than match efficiency gains.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16805 times:

According to the backlog of both the B 787 and A 350 that production of the now offered Passenger versions will occupy both programs for a while.
Extra version will appear when the backlog starts to come down. So I will not hold my breath to wait for further versions including freighters in both programs in the near future.
Airbus has the A 330-200F and Boeing the B 777-200F as well as the B 747-8F. The market is not that big that we will see new freighter versions in the near future.

In the single aisle programs of both Boeing and Airbus are in refresh and drown in orders.

So the next development at Airbus I expect, is a refresh of the A 380 and some development in the area between the A 321 and A 350-800.


User currently offlinejetsetter1969 From Australia, joined Jul 2013, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

is a 200 seat narrowbody cheaper to manufacture and run compared to a 200 seat widebody? i heard or read once that boeing had planned a 767-100 but the airlines were not really keen on the idea.

cheers
Dave


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12868 posts, RR: 46
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NeutronStar73 (Reply 77):
If I were Airbus, I'd prolly leave the A380 alone and worry about the next-generation A320. Boeing will be well-advanced on the 737 replacement, and that is a market that is only seeing growth.

Seriously? I don't see neo or MAX replacements much before 2030 and likely to move further away, not closer. The timing of their replacements will be driven by new engine development and the need for GE and PW to recover their massive investments in LEAP-X and GTF first.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16549 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):
Other than my problems with the 764 having less seats than a 763 and other errors in technicalities, Keesje's graph is not a terrible indication of the market opportunity.

OK, a typo, but given that the A330 will be obselete in the timeframe we're discussing, it does demonstrate that there will be exactly zero offerings where the were once many.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 81):
Here is the challenge: how much less fuel can a light aircraft that is designed for 5knm burn while flying that route versus an existing 787/A350 aircraft?

It's not just about less fuel -> lower mtow -> less structure -> less fuels burn. There are other ways you can optimize your airframe around shorter sectors:
  • You might opt for a lower cruise speed of say, mach 0.82
  • You might give more weight to climb performance vs cruise
  • You might optimise the structure for more cycles
  • You might design for faster turnarounds (brakes for example)

All of which will distance you from the A350 above, and the 787 you are likely to be competing against. As will the fact that you're a decade and a half along in technology. For example the fuel cell APU looks like a possibility from the article I linked earlier:

Quote:
The agreement will add to the airframer’s previous research into fuel cell technology and build a technology demonstrator to be flight-tested in 2015. The plan is to offer this to a new aircraft development team at “technology readiness level 6 (TR6)” about one year later, Axel Krein, Airbus senior vicepresident research and technology, says.

There could be a clue in that. The article is post-NEO and in the same article the Laminar wing guys have evidently had their timeframe pushed out. But the fuel cell tech, which the article states is not retrofitable, could be offered to a new aircraft development in 2016.   



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16002 times:

Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 96):

is a 200 seat narrowbody cheaper to manufacture and run compared to a 200 seat widebody?

Yes and it is not very close. If look at my reply #81 you will see seat mile costs for Boeing proposed figure (probably aggressive) for a 787-8. You can find various operators costs for single aisles in various threads here if you do a search. Something to put in perspective: A321s seat 185 in two class configuration and use ~30klbf engines while 788s seat 242 in three class configuration but need more than double the engine thrust. Its hard to beat single aisle economics with only a fractionally larger wide body.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 98):
it does demonstrate that there will be exactly zero offerings where the were once many.

Well to be fair, there are zero offerings with the max range where there were once many. There are many more capable aircraft now and that technology did not exist before.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 98):
It's not just about less fuel -> lower mtow -> less structure -> less fuels burn. There are other ways you can optimize your airframe around shorter sectors:
You might opt for a lower cruise speed of say, mach 0.82
You might give more weight to climb performance vs cruise
You might optimise the structure for more cycles
You might design for faster turnarounds (brakes for example)

True, is a downward spiral of savings. Lower structure weight means lower fuel burn means you have to carry less fuel which further reduces fuel burn, etc. Everything above sounds very reasonable. However the A332 had a higher fuel burn than a 764 and the A332 outsold it many times over because it was more capable. With this less capable aircraft the economics have to be significantly lower to motivate a buyer as they will have less operational flexibility.

I think it there is an opportunity for Airbus for sure.

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 98):
The article is post-NEO and in the same article the Laminar wing guys have evidently had their timeframe pushed out. But the fuel cell tech, which the article states is not retrofitable, could be offered to a new aircraft development in 2016.

It looks like using laminar flow on the engine nacelles is going to be widely adopted and Boeing has HLF on the vertical stabalizer on the 789 so that technology may be able to spread. It would be interesting to see if it could work on such a complex/moving structure like wings.

Fuel cells and even solar is a fascinating concept as well. Not having to carry fuel just to burn it later is a technology disrupter of real potential.

tortugamon


User currently offlinejetsetter1969 From Australia, joined Jul 2013, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 15705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so if the immediate need is to upgrade the a380 and the a330 is beginning to become obsolete then is the case there to develop an a360? which would be the successor to the a330 which could envelope the void between the a321neo and the a350-800? if it had the composite technologies, GTF and represented the same perfomance gains over the a330 that boeing touted over the 767 with the 787 then wouldnt that be a market beater/ void filler?

cheers
Dave


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 15730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airbus doesn't need to create a new model to slot between the A321-200 and the A350-800. If they can get the MTOW to 100t and 35k engines, that should be plenty.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 15731 times:

Quoting jetsetter1969 (Reply 100):
so if the immediate need is to upgrade the a380 and the a330 is beginning to become obsolete then is the case there to develop an a360? which would be the successor to the a330 which could envelope the void between the a321neo and the a350-800? if it had the composite technologies, GTF and represented the same perfomance gains over the a330 that boeing touted over the 767 with the 787 then wouldnt that be a market beater/ void filler?

That would be a waste of time/money IMO, I expect the the B737/A320 successors to have 240-250 seats anyway, and those will fill the existing gap.

[Edited 2013-10-18 02:14:21]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 386 posts, RR: 22
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 15676 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 97):
Seriously? I don't see neo or MAX replacements much before 2030 and likely to move further away, not closer. The timing of their replacements will be driven by new engine development and the need for GE and PW to recover their massive investments in LEAP-X and GTF first.

There are more thinking in the way you do:

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/20...ussion-about-b757-replacement.html

The way MAX and neo are selling like hot cakes speaks to itself, I guess!


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1662 posts, RR: 10
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 15660 times:

Re Stitch above.
As you (more than anyone) will know. The core of the GTF has been designed to a max engine thrust of 40K lbs.So 35K is certainly possible indeed probable (but you would not want to go much higher than 35K as you would encounter service inerval issue I imagine).
MTOW is 93.5 and has been for a fair while. So there is the missing 6.5t. I don't suppose Airbus has taken MTOW to the max (but obviously don't know).I don't know whether there is a maximum imposed on pavement loading/ tyre pressures (these things are outside my knowledge).But if not then one imagines it might be possible.

I guess no ones talking (Airbus) about it as at this point in time no one knows what efficiencies the engine (or aircraft) will operate at. These things will be known when the first GTF equiped 320 flies (and I don't know that date either!).
But -if they can pull it off -as you say - no need to develop any new aircraft!


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 15407 times:

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 98):
It's not just about less fuel -> lower mtow -> less structure -> less fuels burn. There are other ways you can optimize your airframe around shorter sectors:
You might opt for a lower cruise speed of say, mach 0.82
You might give more weight to climb performance vs cruise
You might optimise the structure for more cycles
You might design for faster turnarounds (brakes for example)

All of which will distance you from the A350 above, and the 787 you are likely to be competing against. As will the fact that you're a decade and a half along in technology.

Incidentally, Aviation Week just published an article discussing the absence of such an optimized aircraft in the market.

It notes that the recently-launched A330-300 Regional cannot significantly beat the per-seat operating costs of current narrowbodies, and will be bested (in terms of economics) by the upcoming NEOs.

The article's conclusion:

"The A310 and 757 were dropped instead of reengined. With today's general upward drift in demanded aircraft size, and high fuel prices that punish excess weight, they may have been popular if given a second chance."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_10_14_2013_p26-624608.xml&p=1

[Edited 2013-10-18 05:40:28]

[Edited 2013-10-18 05:42:23]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 15278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Considering the A321 and 737-900 families have received almost 2.5 times the orders of the 757 family, I think the market has expressed itself quite clearly that it finds the current narrowbodies on offer to be capable enough and that they do not feel a pressing need for a high-performance large narrowbody platform.

User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2830 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 15065 times:

I am a little bit suprised no one mentioned an open-rotor based aircraft. Of course it's not the next project for those who work in the departments responsible for production, upgrades of existing models etc. but what about the research departments?

Snecma just completed another test series and they will continue later this year. In 2015 they want to make tests with afull-scale engine and they say serial production could start in 2025.

I also think it will take a bit longer until we see the first aircraft with open rotos but just saying...

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ests-scale-model-open-rotor-engine


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 15013 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
If they can get the MTOW to 100t and 35k engines, that should be plenty.

If they can get that far (and assuming they also add some wing area), I think an A321 stretch also becomes plausible. I see a longer narrowbody as the best way to fill the capacity gap.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 14925 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 88):
The A322neo concept by keesje

The thing with that concept is it's cabin it's lengthened over 4 meters relative to 321, yet it seats far fewer pax in a 2 class layout. Granted, I know you don't wedge folks in for TATL crossings, and that pax carry more luggage for such a trip, but still....

A321NEO 2 class layout yields 185pax
A322Concept 2 class layout yields 168pax



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 14900 times:

A long ranged NB only used on its intended routes will be a good assets for sure. A 4500nm capable aircraft sucks at 1500nm routes, as do a 1500nm aircraft at 4500nm ranges. The belief that one size fits all is flawed and with energy cost on the rise the market will dictate. It is also a utter waste to have a 7500nm+ WB flying sub 4500 nm routes with 200 seats.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 14793 times:

How much work would it be to hang the GEnx2b engines on the A330? The 748 engines must be a notch above the best A330 engines today? Not as good as a 788 but still a good aircraft? The NEO program is about a billion in cost?

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 14646 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 106):
Considering the A321 and 737-900 families have received almost 2.5 times the orders of the 757 family, I think the market has expressed itself quite clearly that it finds the current narrowbodies on offer to be capable enough

I have a hard time accepting that if you are in the market for a 150+ seat narrow body you have to essentially chose between 4 models. You would think with 7,500 backlogged orders all of these customers with varying route structures and climates there would be more choice.

If you want to fly 200-250 people less than 3,000nm the answer seems to be 'tough luck, add a frequency'. And if you want to fly that similar number of people more than 3,500nm it seems to be 'buy a paper derate 300-seat A330 and sell more seats'.

Airlines soon will have a choice of at least three aircraft in the 3-class 350-400 seat space, four aircraft in the 2-class 150-185 space but none in the 2-class 185-285 seat space?

Clearly A321s and 739s are extremely capable at replacing 95% of the 1979-designed 757s in operation but I am curious what a 2014 generation 757+ looks like. I hope you are wrong on this one bud even if you the chances of that are slim.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 14539 times:

I think the 757R market is larger than many think, WBs have grown both in capacity and range, the old short ranged WBs are leaving in great numbers now. And what is to say a 757R is a 100% copy of the original, it might just be something different. Many seem to never get past the shape and form of the 757 when discussing this market segment.

739 to 788 is a huge gap as is A321 to A358, hardly what I see optimizing fuel efficency compared to what the market holds today.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14509 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
If you want to fly 200-250 people less than 3,000nm the answer seems to be 'tough luck, add a frequency'. And if you want to fly that similar number of people more than 3,500nm it seems to be 'buy a paper derate 300-seat A330 and sell more seats'.

Airlines soon will have a choice of at least three aircraft in the 3-class 350-400 seat space, four aircraft in the 2-class 150-185 space but none in the 2-class 185-285 seat space?

Well, airlines seem to be comfortable with it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
Clearly A321s and 739s are extremely capable at replacing 95% of the 1979-designed 757s in operation but I am curious what a 2014 generation 757+ looks like. I hope you are wrong on this one bud even if you the chances of that are slim.

By the time Boeing or Airbus can bring a real 757 successor to the market, the B737/A320 successors will be around the corner too and I expect the biggest model to have 230-250 seats anyway.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinesassiciai From UK - Scotland, joined Jan 2013, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14473 times:

ATR72 will grow, Dash8 will grow. The turboprop is not dead!

Why is this thread almost devoid of speculation of turboprops as a member of the next gen for short haul flight? Speed may be of the essence when flying 6000nm in today's technology, but when flying 500nm, economics is maybe more important than speed!

Earlier I postulated an ATR120, or even more. But this seems to be a very unpopular opinion, despite its economic possibilities as fuel prices rise ever more!


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14425 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 113):
739 to 788 is a huge gap as is A321 to A358, hardly what I see optimizing fuel efficency compared to what the market holds today.

Agreed.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
Well, airlines seem to be comfortable with it.

Well there is US and FI but you are right that there does not seem to be too many airlines clamoring for this product.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 114):
I expect the biggest model to have 230-250 seats anyway.

I do not expect that much growth in the NSA. I can see 15% growth over existing large single aisles but that tops out under 215.

I've always liked the idea of launching the fuse for the NSA in a 215-250 seat jet (wherever it falls) and then later build the 160-185 seat versions with the smaller wing down the road when it and the market and ramp is ready. Essentially test out all of the technology and gradually work into the big models so you can keep production up. Engines are just one reason why that is probably not realistic.

tortugamon


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14421 times:

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 115):
Why is this thread almost devoid of speculation of turboprops as a member of the next gen for short haul flight?

Because the topic says "Airbus" and not ATR/Bombardier?



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14407 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 116):
I do not expect that much growth in the NSA. I can see 15% growth over existing large single aisles but that tops out under 215.

The A321 can already seat 220 pax and this number will be increased to 236 from 2017. I expect its successor to be a bit larger and 250 seats seems reasonable.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 14338 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 118):
The A321 can already seat 220 pax and this number will be increased to 236 from 2017. I expect its successor to be a bit larger and 250 seats seems reasonable.

I see. You are talking 1 class dense and I was talking 2 class typical.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 14304 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 119):
I see. You are talking 1 class dense and I was talking 2 class typical.

It doesn't differ much from the 757-200 (the best selling 757).

> A321neo: 185 2-class / 220 (236) 1-class, range 3200nm
> B752: 200 2-class / 239 1-class, range 3900nm

As you can see, any A321 successor should easily match or exceed those numbers.

And then there is timing. A realistic EIS for an 757 successor would be 2020-2025, while the B737/A320 successors may come not much later (2025-2030). Therefore, why wasting money on 1 jet while a whole new A320 family can handle the job too.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 14212 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 120):
And then there is timing. A realistic EIS for an 757 successor would be 2020-2025, while the B737/A320 successors may come not much later (2025-2030). Therefore, why wasting money on 1 jet while a whole new A320 family can handle the job too

A stretched A 321 with a new wing and bigger engines could be around 2020 - 2021. I do not see a NSA before 2030.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 14195 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 121):
A stretched A 321 with a new wing and bigger engines could be around 2020 - 2021. I do not see a NSA before 2030.

This sounds like a big expense for something that will last no longer than 10 years?

[Edited 2013-10-18 15:00:16]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 14193 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 120):
> A321neo: 185 2-class / 220 (236) 1-class, range 3200nm
> B752: 200 2-class / 239 1-class, range 3900nm

You may be taking the range in high density formats but I have the A321 NEO at 3,650nm and a 752 (w/ winglets but everyone that needs range has them) with 4,100nm. Indeed an A321 NEO successor and even a beefed up A321 NEO TATL would do the job.

But you miss my point. I am talking about the gap between 185-285 seats in two class density or 220+-360+ one class density of which a 757 replacement is only a small part of that lower range. Even an A321 NEO replacement like you mention takes you up to 250 seats in one class density it would still leave 100+ seats in between that and the next largest aircraft (I hope we don't see it but I guess you could fit 381 seats in a 788; 440 seats on an A358  ). And capability more than doubles with that 100+ seat jump in capacity. So it is over a 100 seat difference.

AA is fitting its A321 Trans Con with 102 seats vs a United 787 sits ~219. Slightly different formats but I think there is room for something in between these in capacity and range. I think OEMs are gun shy because they don't want to be directly in the path of the A320/B737 path which is understandable.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 120):
B737/A320 successors may come not much later (2025-2030)

I see efficiency improving by around 15% in 15 years so I think 2030 is the earliest that we would see a NSA replacement from either OEM.

tortugamon


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 14094 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122):
This sounds like a big expense for something that will last no longer than 10 years?

Usually their is an overlap between generations I do not see all versions of an potential "NSA" in one year.

If we look at your lower prediction for an NSA, 2025 that would give the B 737 MAX 8 years and the A 32X neo also only 10 years. 2030 brings it only to 13 and 15.
The B 737-900ER, EIS 2007 will be replaced with 737-9MAX around 2017.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 7 hours ago) and read 14134 times:

Scott Hamilton has an informative post about a 757 replacement.

>Entry-into-service for what we will dub the 757R is envisioned for 2025-2027, leaning toward the former.
>The combined sales figures demonstrate that Boeing is trailing badly in the 180-220 seat single-aisle sector, with a mere 29% share of the market and even worse with the 737-9 at just 27.5% of re-engined competition. To recapture this market, Boeing has to proceed with a new airplane.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...t-should-be-the-next-new-airplane/

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 6 hours ago) and read 14079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 108):
I see a longer narrowbody as the best way to fill the capacity gap.

I believe that the "Capacity Gap" is as unfounded as the "Bomber Gap".  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
I have a hard time accepting that if you are in the market for a 150+ seat narrow body you have to essentially chose between 4 models. You would think with 7,500 backlogged orders all of these customers with varying route structures and climates there would be more choice.

And I have a hard time believing that they're clamoring for more choice when these customers have taken delivery of over 10,000 current generation narrowbodies (A320+737NG families) with another 7500 on order.  
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
If you want to fly 200-250 people less than 3,000nm the answer seems to be 'tough luck, add a frequency'.

And the world's carriers seem to be doing fine with that strategy.



Folks needs to remember that, like the 747, the 757 was bought at first for it's range, not it's capacity. When the 757 launched, the A320 family didn't exist, the 737 Classic family couldn't cross a continent (and could even struggle on a mid-con) and the 727-200ADV needed to trade payload volume and weight for fuel volume and weight to make a mid-con, much less a transcon mission.. Heck, the only narrowbody platforms that could match it on range were the 707 and the DC-8 and neither of them were exactly paragons of efficiency.  

Now the 737-900ER and A321-200 can comfortably make it across the US and EU, as well as around Southeast Asia. The 757 has been pulled from service by most of it's customers outside of the United States, and the US carriers held on to them more because they were already paid for then they did because they needed the range and capacity. Now that consolidation has helped improve their health, they're showing them the door as fast as the European and Asian customers did.



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 125):
Scott Hamilton has an informative post about a 757 replacement.

No real argument there. The 737 is poor platform for a long airplane due to how low it sits to the ground. Even if they do not shoot for 757-200 range / 757-300 capacity, they need something that sits higher off the ground so they can put better engines on it.

The 737 MAX might very well become the next 737 Classic - a relatively short-term bridge to NSA (just as the 737 Classic was a relatively short-term bridge to the 737 Next Generation).

[Edited 2013-10-18 16:58:22]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 14074 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 126):
the 757 was bought at first for it's range, not it's capacity

Very true. And this aircraft that I am talking about would be purchased for its capacity (economics) not its range...

The 737 classic entered service ~6 years after the 757 and came with a range of ~2,400nm so the 757s 3,900nm (before winglets) was a welcomed addition for trans continental. No doubt. I believe that the challenge for this generation of single aisle aircraft is transatlantic instead of transcontinental. And I think many of us envision the Max and the NEO knocking on that door now.

But the spirit of the 757 was to first fly further than before and then secondarily carry more people. I think this new aircraft would first be about carrying people more efficiently while also flying a little further. Range would need an increase but not as significant as the range disparity of 737 classic vs 757. Max/NEOs are coming in around 3,700nm and this new aircraft may need around 4,700nm for comfortable transatlantic (maybe include ORD to Western Europe routes) with similar seat economics of a Max/Neo but more revenue from cargo and seats.

Not sure where the sweet spot is but ~250 seats in two-class (think a310/757-300 but with actual sales this time  ) maybe with folding wing tips to fit at A321/737 gates. But key to it all would be to have similar seat costs vs the MAX or NEO if they can't do it, it probably won't work. Efficiency first, range second.

tortugamon


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 14093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 125):
The combined sales figures demonstrate that Boeing is trailing badly in the 180-220 seat single-aisle sector, with a mere 29% share of the market and even worse with the 737-9 at just 27.5% of re-engined competition

Right from the outset I've believed that the A321NEO was the plane that Boeing had to worry about..

Quote:
airlines we talk to universally tell us the A321neo is more capable than the 737-9.

It would appear that it is

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 122):
This sounds like a big expense for something that will last no longer than 10 years?

I actually don't think that it needs to be particularly expensive to make an A321 based 757 replacement. I think the airframe only requires another 5-6t MTOW.
I think that means that the engine is pretty much there anyway with the existing NEO engines.
The wings I see as being a fancy extension to the existing wing, maybe even a folding one, rather than an all-new wing.

As you say, the sales window may only be 10 -15 years, and the changes would only be meaningful in an A321, so "tweaks" rather than "new" is where I think the action is

rgds


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5533 posts, RR: 13
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 5 hours ago) and read 14009 times:

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 2):

One could only hope! Or at least maybe a blended wing project



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13767 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 117):
Quoting sassiciai (Reply 115):
Why is this thread almost devoid of speculation of turboprops as a member of the next gen for short haul flight?

Because the topic says "Airbus" and not ATR/Bombardier?

Any reason why Airbus should not consider a turpoprop that is considerably larger and with more range than anything available from ATR/Bombardier/Embraer? Of course that would be subject to Airbus seeing a worthwhile market.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 131, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13751 times:

Quoting art (Reply 130):
Any reason why Airbus should not consider a turpoprop that is considerably larger and with more range than anything available from ATR/Bombardier/Embraer? Of course that would be subject to Airbus seeing a worthwhile market.

Maybe because ATR is part of EADS, which airbus is also a part of?



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13596 times:

Open-Rotor could be a topic for NSA though. But that needs a final definition of future noise limitations.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 133, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13201 times:

Quoting art (Reply 92):
How would the economics of a 1750nm range turboprop twin using the Europrop 11,000 HP engine compare with A320/737? The lower turboprop cruise speed would not greatly increase flight time on shorter routes eg intra-European under 1500nm.[/quote

I believe that engine to be extremely expensive.

[quote=817Dreamliiner,reply=117]Because the topic says "Airbus" and not ATR/Bombardier?

Well ATR is 50% owned by EADS, currently rebranding into "Airbus group".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 134, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13170 times:

Great thread. Thanks, Astuteman.

I agree with many others that it would be unwise for Airbus to go without all-new project for two decades or so (between the launch of the A350 and that of the A320 successor). It would have to re-learn how to launch an airplane at the start of one of its most important and challenging projects ever… To keep an aircraft engineering workforce of the Airbus/Boeing league into shape, in my view you need an all-new project at least once a decade. The problems with the A380 (launched 14 years after the A330/A340 family) and the B787 (launched 14 years after the B777) attest to the risks of violating this rule. The A350 (launched 6 years after the A380) attests to the benefits of adhering to it…

I see two and a half appealing options for all-new projects in the next few years: a short-haul widebody, a 100-150 seat small jet, and ATR’s proposed 90-seat turboprop.

The short-haul widebody is a longtime favorite of mine. See, for example:
AirAsia CEO Wants A330Neo,350 800 Not A Good Plane (by Gonzalo Jan 23 2013 in Civil Aviation)#46

I think the market for it exists (as illustrated by Airbus feeling the need to launch regional variants of its A330 and A350 families, and Boeing offering the ill-fated B787-3), it is growing, and it will grow a lot more as the economies of large and populous countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia continue to develop and as megacities become larger and more numerous.

Already, the world’s busiest air routes are very busy, and they all are relatively short:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_passenger_air_routes

Existing products, and conceivable derivatives of existing products, do not offer optimized solutions for this kind of routes:

- Increasing frequencies makes sense only up to a point, and you cannot keep on flying ever larger swarms of narrowbodies into slot-constrained airports.
- Longer narrowbodies can provide neither the necessary capacity nor the required quick turn-around times. It takes a long time to board and de-board 200+ people via a single aisle, unless you can do so from the front and rear simultaneously. But modern airport infrastructure is not made, and cannot easily be adapted, to allow simultaneous boarding from the front and rear of an aircraft (the wings kind of sit in the way…).
- Modern widebodies, and their de-rated (A330 Regional) and/or clipped (B787-3) derivatives, are too heavy, too expensive, and far from optimized for short hops. The built-in long-haul capability cannot easily be taken out…

The best solution, as I currently see it, is a light-weight widebody that can be operated pretty much like a narrowbody, that can be integrated as seamlessly as possible into narrowbody fleets, and that is uncompromisingly optimized for short-haul operations.

Something along these lines:

- A size similar to, or somewhat smaller than, the A330, with two fuselage lengths seating about 300-400 people in a single-class configuration.
- A fuselage with a width similar to that of the A330 but with a double-bubble shape similar to the XWB, offering more space at shoulder- and head level. This should allow comfortable 8-abreast seating, as well as high-density 9-abreast seating that is less uncomfortable than in today’s A330. The comfort levels should be comparable to 9- respectively 10-abreast in an A350. For the envisaged size, the narrower fuselage should be more efficient and allow greater cargo capacity than the A350 cross-section.
- An OEW well below 100 tons, and a MTOW of no more than 170-180 tons, with no built-in growth potential.
- A range of about 3,000 NM with a full load (including cargo).
- Wings that are optimized for good field performance, rapid climb, and a narrowbody-like cruise speed of about Mach 0.78. A wingspan of 50-55 meters is probably sufficient. With folding wingtips, it could fit in B767-sized gates.
- Optimized engines (including for high cycles). No de-rated engines from long-haul widebodies. Perhaps scaled-up GTFs or LEAPs. You probably need about 50,000-60,000 lbs of thrust per engine.
- Ability to operate comfortably from 2,000 – 2,500 meter runways, and narrowbody-like pavement loading. This will allow operations from airports that currently do not typically see widebody service.
- Cockpit commonality with the A320 family and, to the extent feasible, similar handling characteristics. Cabin and emergency equipment that is similar to that on the Airbus narrowbodies. This should allow crews to be deployed flexibly on narrowbodies or short-haul widebodies as needed.
- Optimized for high cycles and short turn-around times.
- A purchase price that is well below that of long-haul widebodies. A list price in the order of magnitude of $150-200 million would seem right, based on Airbus’s current prices (see: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/co...ID=dam_frontend_push&docID=14849).

If launched in 2015, such an aircraft could enter into service around 2022-23 (provided the engine maker(s) can deliver), when the A330 line will likely be winding down. I can easily see a market for a couple of thousand of these things over a 20-year period following a 2022 EIS, without significant negative impact on A350 sales. And, by supporting scale increases in the operations of hub airports, it may help A380 sales…


The second option is the 100-150 seat jet. This is a less appealing option in terms of the potential market. Not in the least because, unlike the short-haul widebody, it would face a lot of competition. However, it is strategically appealing.

The A318 is as good as dead (after never really living, it was pretty much stillborn). The A319 has become the marginal member of Airbus’s narrowbody family, and is being threatened by competition from outside the Airbus-Boeing duopoly (first and foremost, Bombardier and Embraer).

Airbus and Boeing face two strategic options: one is to leave the 100-150 seat market to their emerging challengers, allowing these challengers to grow and become more capable. The other is to confront the challengers. The battle ground for such a confrontation is the 100-150 seat market. Assuming that the eventual A320 successor family will be somewhat bigger than its predecessor family, a dedicated 100-150 seat solution would have a long-term future in Airbus’s portfolio.

Both the short-haul widebody and the 100-150 seat jet are suitable options as “dress rehearsal” for the launch of the A320 successor.

The half option is ATR’s 90-seat turboprop. ATR has indicated that it would be difficult to launch this plane without the help of Airbus’s engineering resources (in part because ATR has not launched an all-new aircraft since the 1980s…).

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_06_20_2013_p0-590236.xml
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/AW_08_05_2013_p38-601644.xml
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...urboprop-without-eads-partner.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-90-seat-turboprop-project-380273/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...roval-of-90-seat-turboprop-381418/

I think the market for a 90-seat turboprop is there, I think ATR should go ahead with it and Airbus should assist, but I think that, as a project, it is insufficient in itself to keep Airbus’s engineers in good shape.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 10):
CEO Enders is quoted with saying "the first in the row is the A 380,

I think something got lost in translation there. He was talking about the A380-800 being the first member of the A380 family...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 12):
...If I could see a new program it would be a new A300 CFRP and regional aircraft with 5knm range and a simple stretch with ~4,400nm range.
Quoting BaconButty (Reply 16):
Smack in the middle is 2022 - ripe for launch in 2015. But what will it be?
My bet - Something in the A300 and early A330 space.

  

Quoting r2rho (Reply 24):
Don't forget the new Beluga, too

There is no avoiding this one...

[Edited 2013-10-19 18:14:34]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 135, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13148 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Scipio (Reply 134):
The short-haul widebody is a longtime favorite of mine.

I think the market for it exists (as illustrated by Airbus feeling the need to launch regional variants of its A330 and A350 families, and Boeing offering the ill-fated B787-3), it is growing, and it will grow a lot more as the economies of large and populous countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia continue to develop and as megacities become larger and more numerous.

Existing products, and conceivable derivatives of existing products, do not offer optimized solutions for this kind of routes.


The A300 and 767 families were excellent short-haul widebodies, and yet eventually both were only built as freighters. And the 787-3 meets most of your criteria (it's 10 tons lighter than the 787-8, had an MTOW almost 60 tons lighter, it first in ICAO Code D gates without the need for folding wingtips and it had very fuel efficient engines.



Quoting Scipio (Reply 134):
I can easily see a market for a couple of thousand of these things over a 20-year period following a 2022 EIS, without significant negative impact on A350 sales.

I am very skeptical the market would be a 10th that, and I believe it would have an impact on the A350 as they'd be sold at the expense of the A350-900R (for those inclined to purchase an Airbus).


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 136, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13096 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):
The A300 and 767 families were excellent short-haul widebodies, and yet eventually both were only built as freighters. And the 787-3 meets most of your criteria

If you draw a circle 3,500nm around NYC and you will find three cities in three different countries on two different continents with over 5 Million people; thats it 3. You draw that same circle around Singapore and you get more than 30 cities with more than 5 Million people. Now they don't all love to fly (thank God) but they are getting the appetite.

For many years Boeing/Airbus have largely made products for US and European operators and for the most part they worked in Asia too or they were forced to (747D). However, I just can't picture that many people flying in their region nearly exclusively on 737s/A320s and regional versions of 787s/A350s. I am not sure when the change has to happen, but it has to happen.

tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 137, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):
However, I just can't picture that many people flying in their region nearly exclusively on 737s/A320s and regional versions of 787s/A350s. I am not sure when the change has to happen, but it has to happen.

We might very well see fragmentation and frequency service the SE Asian market. They have the room to support huge airports that can handle flocks of narrowbody services and for the trunk routes and times, the "regional widebodies" might do very well (a number of those routes grew on the backs of 747-200s and 777-300s).


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12938 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 128):
Right from the outset I've believed that the A321NEO was the plane that Boeing had to worry about..

I am a huge fan of the 739ER. However, have never once hesitated to suggest the A321NEO was going to be a much better plane than the 9MAX.

As someone fond of the 9MAX, what disappoints me most is that Boeing doesn't have any growth left in the frame. However, I truly believe Airbus could do 1 more minor stretch..... The A322.

I'm seeing folding wings... Double Boggie (like they used to do for A320s on unimproved runways in Africa), 285-200pax... TATL.. It won't be weight constrained, but might be fuel volume limited.... Maybe a belly tank?



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12930 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 134):
- A size similar to, or somewhat smaller than, the A330, with two fuselage lengths seating about 300-400 people in a single-class configuration.
- A fuselage with a width similar to that of the A330 but with a double-bubble shape similar to the XWB, offering more space at shoulder- and head level. This should allow comfortable 8-abreast seating, as well as high-density 9-abreast seating that is less uncomfortable than in today’s A330. The comfort levels should be comparable to 9- respectively 10-abreast in an A350. For the envisaged size, the narrower fuselage should be more efficient and allow greater cargo capacity than the A350 cross-section.
- An OEW well below 100 tons, and a MTOW of no more than 170-180 tons, with no built-in growth potential.
- A range of about 3,000 NM with a full load (including cargo).

You cannot have widebody fuselage and narrowbody weights. This is what the 787-3 tried to do.

You should look at the Greenliner that Keesje proposed. 320 all economy, 72 tons OEW, 4,000nm range and that was in 2007.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 140, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 12688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 138):
As someone fond of the 9MAX, what disappoints me most is that Boeing doesn't have any growth left in the frame. However, I truly believe Airbus could do 1 more minor stretch..... The A322.

I agree with you, and the disappointment I guess is that Boeing seem to be making a very good job of keeping the 737 relevant - but we now seem to be reaching the point where the age of its origin is finally hitting the buffers of what is possible without an engineering task that would be prohibitive relative to an all-new frame.

No blame to Boeing on that - no other aircraft has the pedigree that the 737 has.

But I do think we'll see Boeing moving first in the all-new narrowbody field.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 134):
Great thread. Thanks, Astuteman

My pleasure. It's a curious topic IMO as I feel that Boeing's future developments are easier to chart - something I ascribe to the progressive logic of their current and proposed line-up with no real gaps.

Airbus have these curious little gaps surrounded by very capable platforms.
I'm definitely stocking up on popcorn  

Rgds


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7109 posts, RR: 46
Reply 141, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12354 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 140):
But I do think we'll see Boeing moving first in the all-new narrowbody field.

I agree with you here. I certainly hoped Boeing would have gone with the NSA instead of the MAX, but I fully understand why they did not; they rightly perceived that the market was not going to wait for them, especially after the 787 fiasco and the fact that after Airbus's own fiasco with the A380 they seemed to have gotten their act together with the A350 and the NEO. So the MAX is clearly a stopgap, and as soon as the 777X project is in hand I expect Boeing to start serious work on the NSA. In fact, I am certain they have a substantial amount of work going on on it right now, but it has to take a back seat until the 777X and MAX programs are at a point where they can spare engineering resources. As to Airbus, I agree with your original post that it is imperative for Airbus to have a project to keep its engineering team happy; but as a diehard Boeing fan I feel it would be traitorous for me to suggest what it should be. However, I will venture to say that in spite of my repeated posts about the lack of a viable business case for doing anything with the A380, it is a very tempting target for Airbus if the primary motivation is to keep the engineers employed. And that is all I will say on the subject.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 926 posts, RR: 10
Reply 142, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12107 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):
The A300 and 767 families were excellent short-haul widebodies, and yet eventually both were only built as freighters.

After a distinguished career in passenger service. Isn't that a fairly normal lifecycle for an airliner?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):
And the 787-3 meets most of your criteria (it's 10 tons lighter than the 787-8, had an MTOW almost 60 tons lighter, it first in ICAO Code D gates without the need for folding wingtips and it had very fuel efficient engines.
Quoting panais (Reply 139):
You cannot have widebody fuselage and narrowbody weights. This is what the 787-3 tried to do.

The 787-3 was a great example of how not to make a short-haul widebody. The way to go is not to take a plane with an 8,000 NM range, clip its wings, derate its engines, and leave pretty much everything else as is (undercarriage, wing shape and structure, wingbox, large and heavy engines, ...). The 787-3 was at least 10 tons heavier than it should have been for the missions it was aimed at and for its size.

There are some interesting reads on this in past a.net threads:

787 Family Latest Information Release (by Widebodyphotog Oct 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)
Flightblogger: Boeing Considers Suspending 787-3 (by IAD787 Feb 20 2008 in Civil Aviation)
Boeing Will Likely Scrap 787-3 (by Stitch Feb 3 2010 in Civil Aviation)

If you were to start with a clean sheet, and design an aircraft that from nose to tail is optimized as a short-hauler that will never see a MTOW above 170-180 tons, you will end up with a very different animal from the B787-3.

Quoting panais (Reply 139):
You should look at the Greenliner that Keesje proposed. 320 all economy, 72 tons OEW, 4,000nm range and that was in 2007.

I have looked at it (long ago already, but I just had another look). I think it has a few problems:

- a twin-aisle approach in a narrowbody is not an economic use of floorspace
- it would not be able to carry standard LD3 containers
- the 4,000 NM range is more than what you need for an optimized short-hauler
- I'm not sure to what extent the long narrow fuselage is structurally efficient

http://s191.photobucket.com/user/kee...e_pics/media/greenliner-1.jpg.html

I think it is hard to make a cross-section in between that of the A320 and that of the A300/A330 work. 6-abreast and 7-abreast twin aisle configurations waste too much of the available floorspace on aisles, and once you get close to 300-seat capacity, I suspect airlines prefer to have a standard-size cargo hold.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 143, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 12029 times:

Quoting Scipio (Reply 142):
I think it is hard to make a cross-section in between that of the A320 and that of the A300/A330 work. 6-abreast and 7-abreast twin aisle configurations waste too much of the available floorspace on aisles, and once you get close to 300-seat capacity, I suspect airlines prefer to have a standard-size cargo hold.

  

And this is why I think any capacity level short of the A330/787 will have to be addressed by narrowbodies.

Unlike Stitch, I think there is room in the market (and a reason for being) for a larger narrowbody than we have today. Airbus could create one through some substantial revisions to the A321neo. Boeing could create one only as part of an all-new narrowbody family, but Leeham seems to think that's exactly what Boeing will do.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 144, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 143):
Unlike Stitch, I think there is room in the market (and a reason for being) for a larger narrowbody than we have today.

I'm more bearish on a "small widebody" then I am a "large narrowbody", but one possible issue with a narrowbody similar in length to the 757-300 (which would be the next logical step in size) is the time it takes to turn it around in terms of passenger disembarkation and embarkation if you are only a single door. And, unfortunately, one door is probably the way most airlines would operate as the dual-end jet-bridges UA tried at DEN were unsuccessful and using stairs would be quite slow.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11915 times:

Could it be relevant to start developing a one pilot cockpit for the next NB?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 146, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting abba (Reply 145):
Could it be relevant to start developing a one pilot cockpit for the next NB?

Regulatory and, especially, public perception issues probably won't allow it.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 147, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11895 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 144):
and using stairs would be quite slow.

As I understand it both Ryan Air and Easy Jet use two stairs for faster turn around than with the jet bridge.

Regarding a longer narrow body a LCC could use four stairs and somebody flying two class short or medium distance does not pack the plane that full.

Icelandair uses on the B 757 always the second door with business class passengers turning left, economy passengers turning right. I have not experienced problems with the turn around times.
I have been on the B 757-300 on flights from and to LHR, JFK and CPH. We are not called up earlier an usual on narrow body flights (B 737, A 320) and Icelandair is usually on time leaving.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1385 posts, RR: 2
Reply 148, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11879 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 146):
Regulatory and, especially, public perception issues probably won't allow it.

It could turn up more or less the same as the long ETOPS standards. The day when an airliner could be landed safely from a remote location in the very rare case when a pilot will not be able to do it is soon here (if not here already). As such remote back up pilots could be located almost everywhere in the world. Therefore, we will only need a few on guard at any time ready to step in if needed.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11877 times:

Imagine CASM for a 757-300 with the same level of upgrades as the 737/A320 will get. Must be one tough airframe to beat?

User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11775 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 141):
if the primary motivation is to keep the engineers employed.

Just to clarify, I (and I imagine others too) am not suggesting a european jobs creation program of the kind the more, er, parochial forum members might imagine. But rather the need to retain core in house competencies for the likely 16 year gap from A350 to A320RS EIS. And I personally doubt, given the complexity inherent in these projects, anything less than a new airframe will satisfy that requirement. Otherwise Airbus might find itself in the space occupied by the likes of Comac currently.

A300 - 1974
A310 - 1983 (9 Years)
A320 - 1988 (5 Years)
A330/340 - 1993 (5 Years)
A380 - 2007 (14 years or 12 years to planned EIS) *Almighty balls up*
A350 - 2014 (7 years)
A??? - 2022 - (8 years)
A320RS - 2030 (8 years)



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineBaconButty From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2013, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11756 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 149):
Imagine CASM for a 757-300 with the same level of upgrades as the 737/A320 will get. Must be one tough airframe to beat?

It will occupy the same relative place in the market that the turn-of-the-millenium 757-300 did. All 55 of them.



You could do with some brown sauce on that.
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 152, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11719 times:

I also like Scipio's short-range widebody… And I also believe it would be more than sad to see Airbus lose (waste) the engineering group that has surmounted the A380's crisis and planned and (up to now) so well executed the A350. Allow me a musical comparison: it is like a well-rehearsed orchestra, in some ways. Change the tune, it will sound well again.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 153, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 150):
Just to clarify, I (and I imagine others too) am not suggesting a european jobs creation program of the kind the more, er, parochial forum members might imagine. But rather the need to retain core in house competencies for the likely 16 year gap from A350 to A320RS EIS.

I'll echo your clarification - the notion that Airbus will turn their hands to anything just to reduce the social security bill got tiresome at least a decade ago ...   

rgds


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7109 posts, RR: 46
Reply 154, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11440 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 153):
I'll echo your clarification - the notion that Airbus will turn their hands to anything just to reduce the social security bill got tiresome at least a decade ago ...

And that is how I understand it as well. Keeping core competencies is a very important business decision.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10227 posts, RR: 97
Reply 155, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 11163 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 154):
And that is how I understand it as well. Keeping core competencies is a very important business decision.

Not being funny, but what you employ them on is, too ..........

Rgds


User currently offlineNav20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 156, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 11099 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 155):
Not being funny, but what you employ them on is, too ..........

Surely the 'opportunities for employment' are pretty clear, astuteman?

Airbus has urgently to 'progress' the 350-seat A350-1000 to counter the 778X. And, arguably, to develop an 'A350-1100' - or a totally new 400-plus-seat model - to counter the looming 400-plus seat 779X?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25687 posts, RR: 85
Reply 157, posted (1 year 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 11085 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 156):
Airbus has urgently to 'progress' the 350-seat A350-1000 to counter the 778X. And, arguably, to develop an 'A350-1100' - or a totally new 400-plus-seat model - to counter the looming 400-plus seat 779X?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have the thought the conceptual design work of the A350-1000 was already done. And from the sound of it, they've done some conceptual work on the A350-1100. I doubt that Leahy would have suggested it unless they knew it was possible.

Granted they may have a long way to go in the case of the latter, but it looks to me as if the A350 (XWB) may become what the A300 was: the base design from which the derivatives - the A310, the A330, the A340 and even the original A350 - derived.

mariner

[Edited 2013-10-20 23:44:35]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinebobdino From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11060 times:

Scott Hamilton interviewed Allan McArtor, the Chairman of Airbus Americas. Some interesting quotes from the article.

On the A380:

Quote:
“If I had my druthers, we’d stretch the A380,” McArtor told us. “It’s begging to be stretched.”

On a possible A350-1100:

Quote:
“We look at a lot of hypotheticals all the time,” he said. “Do we have a program to do that? No. Do we have a[n internal] proposal to do that? No. We’re pretty comfortable with the family of airplanes we have.”

On the A330, emphasis mine:

Quote:
“I think we can make incremental improvements to the A330 and probably keep the program going: a new engine, winglets, avionics,”


Lots of detail in the blog post. Well worth reading.

edit: here's the link: https://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/airbus-mcartor-on-vla-777x-757-replacement-and-airbus-future-products/

[Edited 2013-10-20 23:38:14]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13070 posts, RR: 35
Reply 159, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10902 times:

Quoting Nav20 (Reply 156):
Airbus has urgently to 'progress' the 350-seat A350-1000 to counter the 778X.

It is the other way around NAV20, the A350-1000 will enter the market 4 years before the 777-8X

> A350-1000 => 2017
> B777-9X => 2020
> B777-8X => 2021

[Edited 2013-10-21 00:32:49]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.