Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:So what will happen? Leahy has been relatively quiet. That alone used to make Seattle nervous in the past.
Newbiepilot wrote:Words like weak, shy, quiet and nervous don't really describe what is going on at an engineering and manufacturing company like Airbus. I believe their product development team is looking at the market and where there is pontential. I think it is actually less A vs B cat and mouse game than it appears on these forums. It is pretty clear that there is a gap in the Airbus product line between the A320neo and A330neo. That gap has been around for decades, so this is nothing new.
Newbiepilot wrote:I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.
Newbiepilot wrote:Words like weak, shy, quiet and nervous don't really describe what is going on at an engineering and manufacturing company like Airbus. I believe their product development team is looking at the market and where there is pontential.
To rivals at Boeing, Mr. Leahy is a showman and his baiting of ''our friends in Seattle,'' the manufacturing base for Boeing, is infuriating. Boeing's weekly sales meeting used to kick off with a slide of a cartoon asking, ''Where's Leahy?'' Boeing has even hired an actor to play him at a sales conference to fire up the staff. ''John was the guy that at Boeing we loved to hate, and we blamed him for a lot of the losses that we experienced against him,'' said Toby Bright, a former sales chief at Boeing
seahawk wrote:Sometimes I think Airbus should launch more paper planes to keep people happy.
The new posts about NMA/MOM are actually so conflicting that they make a point to stay away from the concept. Sure if I promise unicorn sparkles, airlines are interested. Who would not love a twin aisle with single aisle economics covering anything from 200 to 270 pax and flying as far as 5000nm while still being competitive on short routes? And it should obviously not cost more than the single aisle solution adjusted by the extra seats.
KarelXWB wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:Words like weak, shy, quiet and nervous don't really describe what is going on at an engineering and manufacturing company like Airbus. I believe their product development team is looking at the market and where there is pontential. I think it is actually less A vs B cat and mouse game than it appears on these forums. It is pretty clear that there is a gap in the Airbus product line between the A320neo and A330neo. That gap has been around for decades, so this is nothing new.
Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'.
zeke wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.
What is your belief based upon, tea leaves, the direction the sun came up ? or actually something factual ??
It would be nice to work out what parts of your post is your opinion, and what is actually fact.
Can you clarify for us all how you know what their " engineering and strategy teams" are working on ?
flipdewaf wrote:I can't help but feel that Keesjes ideas of a new wing for the A321 and a new A322 are the logical next steps for airbus, the current wing works great on the current crop and if there was a bigger longer wing to aid longer range/higher weights then it would enable the gap to be filled "relatively" easily.
Newbiepilot wrote:When Airbus started to drop the A358 because it was not turning out to be a viable plane, they knew they couldn't leave a gap between the A321 and A359.
Balerit wrote:zeke wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that.
What is your belief based upon, tea leaves, the direction the sun came up ? or actually something factual ??
It would be nice to work out what parts of your post is your opinion, and what is actually fact.
Can you clarify for us all how you know what their " engineering and strategy teams" are working on ?
Whoa son, take it easy, anyone can express an opinion, whether they have facts or not.
It's like a computer. You think you are buying the best and latest technology now, meanwhile the backroom boys are already busy with the next design that is way ahead of your one. And I can't imagine all those design engineers now sitting there twiddling their thumbs because there is nothing new, I bet they are hard at work.
Stitch wrote:Well it could certainly be good for Boeing if Airbus is ignoring the MoM market because they believe the A321-200neo is good enough for it. Should Boeing find a ready market for whatever they come up with and launches, Airbus could have no answer ready and have to scramble to respond (perhaps creating a reversal of MAX / neo where Boeing takes a massive, if not insurmountable, market lead).
PlanesNTrains wrote:Stitch wrote:Well it could certainly be good for Boeing if Airbus is ignoring the MoM market because they believe the A321-200neo is good enough for it. Should Boeing find a ready market for whatever they come up with and launches, Airbus could have no answer ready and have to scramble to respond (perhaps creating a reversal of MAX / neo where Boeing takes a massive, if not insurmountable, market lead).
Were they truly ignoring it, perhaps, but I doubt that's an accurate statement. I'd guess within 6 months of an MoM launch that Airbus could move on an A322, and in the interim they've got years to sell hundreds more A321neos and cut the MoM business case off at the knees.
Waterbomber wrote:Airbus could do a simple stretch of the A321, with higher MZFW, same MTOW.
This way they can trade the range for more payload capacity, for trips up to 2000NM.
Any more payload and more range will quickly overlap with the A330NEO offerings and would be obsolete or make the A330 obsolete.
It would be more profitable to sell the A330 at a lower price than to invest in a new type.
Waterbomber wrote:Airbus could do a simple stretch of the A321, with higher MZFW, same MTOW.
This way they can trade the range for more payload capacity, for trips up to 2000NM.
Any more payload and more range will quickly overlap with the A330NEO offerings and would be obsolete or make the A330 obsolete.
It would be more profitable to sell the A330 at a lower price than to invest in a new type.
Newbiepilot wrote:I believe their product development team is looking at the market and where there is pontential. I think it is actually less A vs B cat and mouse game than it appears on these forums. It is pretty clear that there is a gap in the Airbus product line between the A320neo and A330neo. That gap has been around for decades, so this is nothing new.
Newbiepilot wrote:When Airbus started to drop the A358 because it was not turning out to be a viable plane, they knew they couldn't leave a gap between the A321 and A359. That is when we got the A330neo. Does Airbus feel that they need to fill in te gap between the A321 and A339? The A338 is not looking like it is going to get very far in the market, with only 6 orders so the gap has increased. Can Airbus either stretch the A321 or build a new plane and profit from a plane in the middle of the market category? I believe they have engineering and strategy teams working on defining that. This is about engineering a workeable plane given the constraints of the A321 or the expense associated with an all new plane. It is not about being, weak,shy, or nervous. It is a legitimate business case cost benefit analysis.
KarelXWB wrote:Question remains whether there is a real market between the A321 and A330.
Newbiepilot wrote:Zeke, again there is no need to be rude (tea leaves??). A belief is not a fact. It is what I think based on my observations and understanding of the industry. I have never talked directly with anyone in Airbus marketing or strategy, but I have talked to people who have spoken to them. My understanding is there is a product development team that includes engineering, strategy and finance where they evaluate the market and what opportunities exist. John Leahy is a spokesman. There is a whole team supporting him evaluating the market and I believe they are studying the Middle of the market to decide what Airbus should do. Both the A321LR and A330neo are airplanes that hit the top and bottom of the middle of the market and close the gap that was between the original A321neo and A350.
keesje wrote:if we add up the 757s, 767, A300, A310 and TU154 that are/were in service over the last 20 years, there is a significant market.
LAX772LR wrote:keesje wrote:if we add up the 757s, 767, A300, A310 and TU154 that are/were in service over the last 20 years, there is a significant market.
....but then subtract that sum by the amount of 737s, A32x, 787s, and A330s that have eaten into that number, both from below and from above.
Then the market might not be as significant as you're envisioning.
Stitch wrote:KarelXWB wrote:Question remains whether there is a real market between the A321 and A330.
I am of the opinion there has not been one (hence the lack of 767 family sales), but it seems that airlines may now be thinking there might be if they can get a frame significantly (~15%) more efficient than a 767.
strfyr51 wrote:In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??
seahawk wrote:The easy solution for Airbus is a new wing for the A321
Francoflier wrote:The $10 Billion question is, again: Is there a sufficiently large market for it?
KarelXWB wrote:Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'./
2175301 wrote:/KarelXWB wrote:Just because there is 'a gap' doesn't mean there is a business case. MOM is believed to be a niche market for some 1,000 airplanes. Not really worth investing $10 billion into this 'gap'./
I think Airbus or Boeing would have build a specific plane for a 1000 "niche" market. The problem is that the real MOM niche appears to many to be in the 200 - 400 plane range; and that is why no one is rushing to fill it. There is no way to justify the money for that small of a potential market.
Have a great day,
seahawk wrote:What people overlook is fleet scheduling.
Many of todays 757 and 767s are still in use, because they are paid off. Flying only 2 3000-4000nm sectors each day is no problem for them. A factory fresh MoM must either be quite cheap or must work on short sectors as well, to get up in utilisation. If you use longer range planes you can more easily schedule a mix of 3000nm and 5000+nm sectors, than for a plane limited to 4500nm.
keesje wrote:seahawk wrote:What people overlook is fleet scheduling.
Many of todays 757 and 767s are still in use, because they are paid off. Flying only 2 3000-4000nm sectors each day is no problem for them. A factory fresh MoM must either be quite cheap or must work on short sectors as well, to get up in utilisation. If you use longer range planes you can more easily schedule a mix of 3000nm and 5000+nm sectors, than for a plane limited to 4500nm.
Of course that's correct. I've seen comparisons in doc between 767 vs 757 and 757's vs A321. Add A321 NEO vs CEO efficiency improvements and it becomes clear AA and DL are replacing 757, 767's at a quick rate. Even now fuel is low and they give in on network flexibility & significant capacity. That said a real MoM would offer both capacity and medium range flexibility. I remember A330/A310 were used that way in Europe. A heavy short rotation in the early morning rush and then off over the Atlantic later in the morning.
strfyr51 wrote:In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??
enzo011 wrote:strfyr51 wrote:In all of this rhetoric didn't you guys see the point? The 797 will be built to take 2x2 LD3 containers and the 88x108 pallet. That's why it's a dual aisle airplane!
Expanding the A321 won't make it take dual LD3's Nor pallet loading, I'll bet the airplane will also be built for cargo or be able to be modified for cargo. you guys need to look farther than your noses to see the potential in a design. Who Else can utilize the design? What other capabilities can you incorporate into a design??
enzo011 wrote:The problem with this design would be the weight, how much would the OEW be compared to a stretched A321? The OEW of the A300 was 195 000lb and the OEW of the A321 is 107 000lb. That is 88 000lb difference. Could you cut this difference in half by new materials compared to the A300 and would the weight gain of the A321 with a stretch and new wing be 30% compared to the A321? Only then do you reach a situation where you will have some parity regarding weight which will be important to give airlines their single aisle economics they desire.