Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Considering Response To A 757/767 Successor  
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

According to this AviationNow article, Airbus is making noises about responding to a possible Boeing 757/767 successor.

I´m pretty sure this is not much more than a little saber-rattling at this stage, but Airbus will certainly have a few conceptual ideas about an A300 successor, as has been discussed at length.

They´re probably moving into position just in case Boeing should try to go there instead of - or in addition to - the Sonic Cruiser. No signs of being in a rush, however.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A 757/767 successor? I was thinking Airbus would be looking into a successor for the A300/A310 mainly, not 757/767. Hope something comes out of this, the A310/A300 are old technology now.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

You would think Airbus would be just a little busy to start another new project. Then again, I'm sure they can find the resources for it. Yeah sure


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

He means that Airbus builds off what Boeing has. Boeing has the 747 and Airbus IS BUILDING the A380. Who was first in building planes? Boeing or Airbus? That's what I thought.


I think that 753 fills the passenger gap between the 762 and 752. I dont think airbus needs a replacement for the 757/767. I think they need to worry about replacing the A300 and A310.


All IMO!



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Klaus -- No signs of being in a rush, however.

That's for sure! (just think it's typical PR posturing, especially in light of lacklustre market conditions right now, and so a bit of a press-release vacuum at Farnborough this time around).

As for what both companies actually do --especially in this capacity category-- in a couple years' time, could easily be radically different from what each is currently saying that they'll be doing.


User currently offlineLubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

nothing will ever replace the 757. you can consider that a threat Big grin

User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Dont get me wrong here . I love both Boeing and Airbus. I hate anti-boeing or anti-airbus posts ..

Cheers
Charles





Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Flyingbronco05,

It's a little something called "competition". Without it, you would've have many different aircraft and they wouldn't be of high quality like they are now.

Whoever builds first doesn't mean squat in the business industry. Airlines go for what they think is better for them and not what is first.

So don't bring that up.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 41
Reply 8, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Flyingbronco - don't forget who was the first to offer a widebodied twinjet, and the first to offer a twin and a quad using the same wing... Sorry, but the argument holds little water.

Regardless, I think you are all making an issue out of a non-issue - the point is Airbus is reported to be looking at a new aircraft for the market sector currently occupied by the 757 and 767 (and yes, the A300/A310).

Lets see if we can rescue this thread a bit and pull it back on track - I wonder what the possibility is of a wing design that Airbus can mate either to a longer A32x fuselage, or a shorter widebody fuselage. I know the centre section would be different between the narrow and wide bodies, but otherwise, they could use the same wing. Hey presto: a longer range (or a larger) narrow body, and a shorter range widebody...

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

I´d guess for a shorter widebody. Keeping at least some kind of commonality with the 330/340 seems very tempting. Boeing´s mess with 5 different fuselage types across 6 separate aircraft families doesn´t look like something to be repeated...

But I agree, at this time they´re just telling their customers they´ll match anything Bowing might come up with, so customers´ long-term strategies should still go with Airbus. Not much more than making public noises, so far.

Still the first time I´ve heard Airbus say anything about replacing the 300/310...  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offline747-451 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2417 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Competition is good. And I agree that a new "A300/310" replacement would benefit greatly by utilizing technology/airframe components with the A330/340.

User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

I don't think Boeing can afford to wait with a new generation B757/ A310/ B767/ A300 suucessor very long.

Every 332 order puts more pressure on them to shelve SC and come up with something better then 762/3/4.

Airlines are not standing in line for e.g. 737-600/900, 767-200ER, 767-400ER, 757-300 and 747-400 at this moment.

Only relying on 777 versions and 737-700/800 is not enough ...





User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

My guess is that Airbus may be working on what amounts to a Next Generation A300B.

Imagine sometthing about the size of an A300B1 or A300B2 but with a tail derived from the A330, an all-new wing, and new technology engines. Now imagine the plane powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 556 or 560 engines, and that's the plane Airbus may be working on.

Would LH buy such a plane? I think they'll buy it in a New York minute.  Smile Especially now that LH has chosen the Trent 870 for the A380-800, they could easily buy the A300NG with Trent 556 or 560 engines.


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

>>>My guess is that Airbus may be working on what amounts to a Next Generation A300B.

Imagine sometthing about the size of an A300B1 or A300B2 but with a tail derived from the A330, an all-new wing, and new technology engines. Now imagine the plane powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 556 or 560 engines, and that's the plane Airbus may be working on.
<<<

I heard Airbus approached FDX a couple years back with such an idea. Essentially an upgraded A300 with FBW. I'm not sure what became of this.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

747-451 --And I agree that a new "A300/310" replacement would benefit greatly by utilizing technology/airframe components with the A330/340.

I think it'd be a big project (i.e., new airframe), and so probably at least two variants planned for, right from the start, like say 2-class capacities of ~220 passengers and ~260, . And a widebody interior--I figure anything over 200 passengers would pretty much have to be from a marketing standpoint, not just to distinguish it sufficiently from the A321 but also make it desirable for thinner transoceanic service. Possibly even 2-3-2 seating à la 767, which I think would be real nice indeed  Smile

I'd say at least another eighteen months or so -- just around the time the A380 is hopefully about to take to the skies-- before they'll announce something definitive about what they're going to do.




User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Though the article is indeed interesting, I think common sense has prevailed long before and any Boeing move to create such a successor to the 7 5-6 7 family will surely be opposed by an Airbus offering.

The only thing that was nice to read was "Airbus does not believe Boeing is committed to building its proposed high-speed, long-range Sonic Cruiser, Leahy said. The Sonic Cruiser likely is a "PR stunt" to mask its true aim of developing a new-generation replacement for the 757/767, he said."

How long are we going to keep going with tube with wings?

Maybe it could be 4 - 4 8 abreast seating. A 1.5 aisle aircraft instead of a narrow/widebody.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Singapore Air -- How long are we going to keep going with tube with wings?

You might not wanna hear this, Singapore Air, but... very probably for a big chunk of the rest of anyone's life, around here on this forum Big grin (gonna be at least twenty years or so --technology willing-- before things like flying wings --or saucers, or whatever-- step in to replace 'the standard config' that's being used now.

Maybe it could be 4 - 4 8 abreast seating. A 1.5 aisle aircraft instead of a narrow/widebody.

Oh you mean maybe something like a theatre or concert hall  Smile I don't know, I don't think folks at or one-seat-away-from the windows would put up with that, for very long (unless the seats and in-between-space were huge but in which case what's the point, may as well go with a twin-aisle instead).


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Right now would be the perfect time to launch a 757/767 successor. Airbus has it's plate pretty full right now with the A380. They would be stretching resources thin if they were to launch a new aircraft at this point. That and their checking account.

User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1522 times:

What the market needs now is 200-250 seater . B777 is too big while B767 is kind of old in technology . A330-200s has been selling like hotcakes as Boeing does not have any planes currently to compete with A330-200 , B767-400ER maybe ?

I feel that the Boeing Sonic cruiser will not solve the problem for replacement of B757/B767s . They should come up with a brand new design which directly competes with A330-200s ( i am a big A330 fan through ).


My 2 cents worth .




Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1379 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1485 times:

767-200/300 technology isnt any more modern than that of the A300-600R and 310. Theire technology is old but it isnt that old they still use some modern components. The 310 does not compete with the 757 which some people seem to think, to different segments.


Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1450 times:

Faster. Faster. Faster.

Sorry, but the wheel needs re-invented. It's the 21st Century people. Remember orbiting hotels, cities on the moon, the Pan Am rocket to space stations? Jeezus, whatever happened to imagination? A lot of you people would have us flying the same twin engined pencils from now until the end of time. If all you're doing is looking to perfect a hull to put new and better avionics and entertainment systems in, my advice is buy a portable DVD player and some cough syrup. Cause you're still gonna be fartin around for hours upon hours up there.

I feel the need for speed.


User currently offlineCmchardyfl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2002, 175 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1426 times:

All Airbus needs to do is shrink the A330-200. They have already talked about such an aircraft, possibly called the A330-100. Smaller than the A300, but slightly larger than the A310. That would be the perfect plane that would fit nicely in the 757-767 category. I believe an A330-100 would sell like hotcakes.

I know there is slightly more to it than just shrinking the fuselage, but Airbus already has the components and the technology to build such a plane relatively quickly.

I can't remember exactly where I read the article about a possible A330-100, but I believe there was a short one in Airliner World.

Anyway that's my thoughts. Contrary to my thoughts however, if Airbus saw the demand for an aircraft such as the A330-100, I would have thought such a project would already be well underway.

Cheers

Chris


User currently offlineB20XX From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1412 times:

cmchardyfl,

The smaller A330 that Airbus has talked about for a while is the A330-500 (don't know why they picked up -500 instead of -100). Airbus may still launch it but I read a few time that its problem it that it is too heavy. (same reason Boeing shelved the B777-100: shrink tends to be too heavy).


User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1400 times:

Heavymetal

Hey Heav,

Faster. Faster. Faster.

I empathise, believe me (I was caught up in that Pan-Am 2001 Blue Danube and boots were made for walkin' mystique too. I remember building Revell models of the Boeing SST, fer cryin' out loud Big grin ) . I don't mind pushing --and allocating resources -- for getting new and imaginative projects underway. Just that.. well sheesh you probably see yourself, lots of problems still around and not really that much money --or will-- to cope with it, either. So folks are going to have to sort out priorities, even though that might not be such a fun thing, to see pointed out.

A lot of you people would have us flying the same twin engined pencils from now until the end of time. If all you're doing is looking to perfect a hull to put new and better avionics and entertainment systems in, my advice is buy a portable DVD player and some cough syrup.

Okay Heav,-- fair 'nuff and again I hear what you're sayin'-- just let's see wha' happens with the SC project though, deal? (because I guess that'll be a real bellwether of where things are gonna be headed pioneerwise in the industry, for at least the next ten/fifteen years or so).

Cause you're still gonna be fartin around for hours upon hours up there.
I feel the need for speed.


Is it just to go fast and that's that, 'cause if so, maybe negotiate a good seat deal on Concorde or even maybe those freelancing MiG-29 pilot-sponsored joyrides if they're still doing that kind of thing these days, then just sit back and drink in -- because... barring that or a Dennis Tito-type ride into space, you're not gonna get it, least not anytime soon. And otherwise, where are you in such a hurry to fly to, anyway?






User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1389 times:

B20XX Airbus may still launch it but I read a few time that its problem it that it is too heavy.

Yeah (just look at the A318's drawbacks, for instance, evidence of this albeit on a smaller scale), so I figure it would have to be a new --and big-- project with a new airframe entirely, except maintaining the usual great deal of cockpit commonality with the rest of the product line.





User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 58
Reply 25, posted (12 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1389 times:

I'm 99.9% sure you will never see Airbus build the A330-500X nor Boeing the 777-100X. These airplanes are simply not economical. For the A330, it has already been shrunk once to the -200. That is an amazing aircraft, which occured because the wing was optimized for the -300, and therefore had inherent capacity for a small shrink with increased range. However, double-shrinking an airframe, and trying to market it for regional routes, simply does not work. Hence the reason no one wants the A318. Of course, you'll always get a customer who needs a long-range aircraft with a small capacity (long thin routes), but these will be few and far between.

With the proposed 777-100X, you had a slightly different approach, but the same result. Until the A380, Boeing and Airbus had a different philosophy when designing their aircraft. Boeing has always built their wings with inherent growth built in. They design the wing from the outset with plans to eventually stretch the aircraft, which would then optimize wing performance. Thus, you get a high-performance longer-range base model, with the ability to easily stretch the airframe for more capacity (see 767-200 to -300, 777-200 to -300). At Airbus, the idea was always to optimize the wing configuration for the particular model they had in mind. Thus, a simple shrink down the road has never been a problem, but a stretch has always run into limitations when trying to use the same wing. That's why the A320 and especially the A319 are such great performers, but the A321 is only so-so with recent improvements finally satisfying its range limitations. That's also why the A330-200 is such a great aircraft, but the A340NG program cost $3.5 billion, while Boeing only spent @ $1 billion on the 777LR program.

Getting back to the 777-100X, and keeping in mind what I just said, you see that the aircraft would be overly built, employing way too much weight for the missions it would be intended for.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Considering Rival To New Boeing Aircraft posted Fri Apr 6 2001 14:43:42 by B757300
ATW: Airbus Considering Revisions, Delays To A350 posted Wed Oct 25 2006 07:48:30 by Leelaw
Delta's Response To USAir posted Sat Nov 18 2006 16:19:39 by AtlBill
Airwise.com Says Airbus Not Committed To 350 Yet posted Sun Nov 5 2006 23:33:09 by SSTsomeday
Airbus Dropped Program To Add Winglets To A320s posted Fri Oct 6 2006 21:15:02 by Terryb99
RUMOR: AirOne(AP) Considering Service To USA In 07 posted Mon Oct 2 2006 20:11:34 by Nycfly75
What Will Happen To AA 767 At LAX? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 15:38:08 by AAFan
UA Denver Promotion- Response To DL SLC Buildup? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 20:13:04 by SlcDeltaRUmd11
LAB To Get 2 767's Next Week posted Sat Aug 12 2006 18:24:13 by Cbartolucci
What Happened To Jat's 767? posted Wed Aug 9 2006 22:49:37 by UN_B732