RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:55 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
I expect Boeing will use a version of the GEnx for their MOM, possibly the engine could be developed form the GEnx-2B67B used for the B748.
- I expect a MOM will use a 90-106" fan (2,25-2,7m), with 40k-64k lbf engines (180-285kN).

2 years ago I would have said it would definitely be a Pratt GTF. They have tested a slightly higher ratio gearbox already. This would allow a larger 90" fan added to the current PW1100G core. The core generates a set shaft horsepower to spin the front fan. By spinning a larger fan slower allows you to produce more thrust from the same shaft horsepower. Bypass ratio would be around 15:1. With a 150T maximum takeoff weight and a nice modern wing they would only need 25% extra thrust from the PW1100G.


CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Airbus has two options:
1) A longer A322 and/or a larger wing on the A32xNEO (A325/A326)
2) A smaller wing for the A33xNEO (A335/A336).

I too think the A335/A336 is the way to go. Making the A330 smaller while improving medium haul efficiency would add some space between the A350. Currently the A339 offers 90% of the capability of the A359.

The A338 is clearly overwinged for the cabin size. The A310's much lighter wing box and landing gear design would still be sitting at Airbus somewhere. It would bolt right up to the current A330 fuselage. The current A330 fuselage could be shortened to whatever length required. So half of the R&D is already done. You just need a wing. The A310's wing would also be very close to the correct size, add some big raked winglets and job done. With modern fuel efficient engines you wouldn't need the same amount of fuel (weight) to fly the same medium haul flights. So the wing may appear small but it would work well.

Engines play a big part it turned the A339 into a ULH machine. An A310 with new engines would allow for fuel to be reduced and the weight put towards a stretch while keeping the range the same. All while keeping the same small wing.

Fuselage length would be left up to airbus, but I assume it would be no shorter than the A310 (46m) and no longer than the A338 (58m) probably around the length of the A300 (54m). The short model would fly further. How big they could go would depend on how much thrust the Boeing MOM engines produce.

Airbus has the quickest response for a widebody MOM.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
Lets also drop my A330-10 brain-fart here.
Could a A330NEO MTOW 249mT with the A345 frame length (A339 stretched by 4.3m, to ~68m) be a nice addition to Airbus line up. It's ment as regional plane with 440 seats, or ~6000NM with 300 seats. (I know it will compete with the A359.) list price a little over $300mln?

The 787-10 is selling well and it is the similar capacity as the smallest 777. It works for Boeing but wouldn't for Airbus. The 787-10 is selling because its carbon, 5% more cabin area yet weighs 5% less empty than the 772.

The A330-10 would have the same cabin area and weigh the same. Hard to find exact numbers but the A330NEO will be at least 5T heavier than the A330CEO. Even best case numbers it would be same cabin area and at most 5% lighter. So half of the advantage that the 787-10 has over the 772.

When an aircraft has 'double' the improvement a benchmark usually the sales aren't double but become a 10 fold.

So if the 787-10 sells 500 aircraft a A330-10 may sell only 50.
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:09 am

Re RJMAZ.Nice thoughts regarding the 330/310 parts.No doubt would make a 'good' aircraft.But not good enough against a brand new state of the Art aircraft as Boeings will be.I believe the trick from Airbus' PoV will be to 'push' Boeing as far away as possible from their 321 NEO family by making the existing aircraft as desirable (and cheap) as is humanly possible.Perhaps a small stretch to 250 one class pax (they proposed it 15 years ago so we know it's possible) ie a 322.Perhaps finding a way to add a little more range with their A321NEO LR.(4.2-4.4 knm).
So Boeing are forced into the 250 -270 pax area with 5+knm range.That will protect Airbus' existing advantage in the narrow bodied area.

At some point in time they will need a new aircraft in the 300/310/330 space.The further they push Boeing into that space the easier it will be.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:21 am

Couprace wrote:
Like it or not Airbus just does not make a lot of money and could not keep up with Boeing in an investment battle.


See, that is why Boeing must use program accounting. perfect fly paper for simpletons.

While cash flow looked good they accumulated $30++b of deferred "assets".
That is why you have to do the banana to banana comparison A vs B on the also published by B unit cost accounting metric.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:22 am

Maybe it is time for a reality check. The fuselage of the A330 has nothing in common with the A310 except for the diameter. All other parts are designed for the loads the A330 was designed to carry, so every load bearing part would have to newly designed to match the lower MTOW of a A360 and that means a completely new design that won´t be done any faster than starting with a blank page, because deciding the fuselage diameter is something done in the definition phase and long before you start with the actual technical design.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:12 pm

seahawk wrote:
Maybe it is time for a reality check. The fuselage of the A330 has nothing in common with the A310 except for the diameter. All other parts are designed for the loads the A330 was designed to carry, so every load bearing part would have to newly designed to match the lower MTOW of a A360 and that means a completely new design that won´t be done any faster than starting with a blank page, because deciding the fuselage diameter is something done in the definition phase and long before you start with the actual technical design.

That's completely opposite to what I've been told. All the longerons and frames positions are unchanged. The fuselage is very light as its only carrying the payload of the passengers, so not much difference at all. The A310 wing box would bolt right up to the current A330 fuselage.

The front third of the fuselages are pretty much identical. Its the smaller stretched extensions in the fuselage that are usually slightly stronger.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6828
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:41 pm

seahawk wrote:
Maybe it is time for a reality check. The fuselage of the A330 has nothing in common with the A310 except for the diameter. All other parts are designed for the loads the A330 was designed to carry, so every load bearing part would have to newly designed to match the lower MTOW of a A360 and that means a completely new design that won´t be done any faster than starting with a blank page, because deciding the fuselage diameter is something done in the definition phase and long before you start with the actual technical design.


I think there is really a need for a reality check here. The A330 was developed from the A300/310. The A300/310 was not designed to carry the loads the A330 is carrying, so it starts out much lighter, it had to be beefed up for the A330/340. I hardly imagine that Airbus has thrown away all information regarding the A300/310 and that could be a good starting point for a new smaller twin. The A300/310 is actually exact where the size requirements for a MoM seems to concentrate. If price is a big concern, an al/li fuselage can be perhaps more economical to manufacturer. than a CFRP one, without it being significantly heavier. If there is a need for freight, the A300/310 took LD3. The big drawback of the A300 and only less so on the A310, was range, something that would have put it squarely in the MoM area. The disadvantage against a 767 was range and range only. The A310 had a slightly lower OEW than a 767-200 while carrying more payload.
Starting out with a A310, you would start out with the lightest wide body twin designed up to now.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Vladex wrote:
It's an outdated rule especially for narrowbody short flights .


Why do you deem it outdated?

What would your alternative proposal be?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:46 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Maybe it is time for a reality check. The fuselage of the A330 has nothing in common with the A310 except for the diameter. All other parts are designed for the loads the A330 was designed to carry, so every load bearing part would have to newly designed to match the lower MTOW of a A360 and that means a completely new design that won´t be done any faster than starting with a blank page, because deciding the fuselage diameter is something done in the definition phase and long before you start with the actual technical design.


I think there is really a need for a reality check here. The A330 was developed from the A300/310. The A300/310 was not designed to carry the loads the A330 is carrying, so it starts out much lighter, it had to be beefed up for the A330/340. I hardly imagine that Airbus has thrown away all information regarding the A300/310 and that could be a good starting point for a new smaller twin. The A300/310 is actually exact where the size requirements for a MoM seems to concentrate. If price is a big concern, an al/li fuselage can be perhaps more economical to manufacturer. than a CFRP one, without it being significantly heavier. If there is a need for freight, the A300/310 took LD3. The big drawback of the A300 and only less so on the A310, was range, something that would have put it squarely in the MoM area. The disadvantage against a 767 was range and range only. The A310 had a slightly lower OEW than a 767-200 while carrying more payload.
Starting out with a A310, you would start out with the lightest wide body twin designed up to now.


And a 1960ies/70ies design that is outdated in everything from materials used to construction methods as well as CAD data probably. It is much easier to start with a new design for which you can also use experience gained with the A310.
 
Vladex
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:24 pm

WIederling wrote:
Vladex wrote:
It's an outdated rule especially for narrowbody short flights .


Why do you deem it outdated?

What would your alternative proposal be?


Widening the fuselage by a meter or so would make a great efficiency 4+4 narrowbody.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:44 pm

Vladex wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Vladex wrote:
It's an outdated rule especially for narrowbody short flights .


Why do you deem it outdated?

What would your alternative proposal be?


Widening the fuselage by a meter or so would make a great efficiency 4+4 narrowbody.


Rather obvious.
My question was more about _why you think it outdated_ and _why you think that more seats in a row would pose no risk_.
Murphy is an optimist
 
2175301
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797/MOM Discussion Thread

Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:46 pm

seahawk wrote:
I do believe it will be more a A310 than a 767. A 7 abreast design, no matter how optimized will always be in danger of an 8 abreast design coming a few years later and using the gains in engines and technology to offer similar trip costs but more seats. 3,5 seats per aisle is, no matter how you turn, it the worst ratio of nearly every practical airliner design apart from the 2-1 solutions. And there is no magic technology to fix this.


I disagree... there is a solution to that issue - and the heart of it is in the following...

parapente wrote:
I think we do owe Boeing some respect here.These are clever guys and one's who have pushed the envelope time and time again -usually getting it right long term.
If anyone knows (the good and the bad) about X7 twins ,they do,it's still being made 40 years on!
If anyone knows about overstretched single aisles (the good and the bad),they do,it's called the 753.

They perceive rightly or wrongly (I suspect the former) a market for a 220-270 seat family with a range of 5nm.
.
Their solution is a (patented) hybrid with the hight of a single aisle and the width of a narrow twin aisle.(Ovoid).Clearly made from carbon composite.
Is this better or worse than a long,circular, double width single aisle,fuse? (Metal).
Clearly they think so.I am sure there are many trade offs.But if that is their conclusion I am minded to believe them.

Edit by 2175301: Removed remainder of quote


What IF... Boeing comes up with an 8 abreast carbon fiber ovoid with periodic vertical reinforcements down the center to keep the carbon fiber hull weight down. Not great for cargo; but would be great for passengers service. I'm betting that they are at least looking at that; and if that is their final proposal I have no idea how Airbus responds except to duplicate the base design.

Have a great day,
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:42 am

seahawk wrote:
And a 1960ies/70ies design that is outdated in everything from materials used to construction methods as well as CAD data probably. It is much easier to start with a new design for which you can also use experience gained with the A310.

Outdated like the A330NEO?

No doubt the Boeing carbon clean sheet MOM would far outsell a A310NEO/A330-500.

But look at the 787 vs the A330NEO.

A330NEO cost $2 billion to develop and has 212 orders. Only $9 million per aircraft.

The 787 cost $32 billion to develop and has 1283 orders. Massive $25 million per aircraft.

The A330NEO was low risk, cheap to produce and has sold enough to make a decent profit.

Restarting production for the A310's wing, wing box, landing gear and doors would be doable. Fitting the engines used in Boeing's MOM would be straightforward. Shortening the A330's fuselage to reach the desired range target would be easy.

There are quite a few A310's in service. Airbus could use one of these to modify for flight testing.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:40 am

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
And a 1960ies/70ies design that is outdated in everything from materials used to construction methods as well as CAD data probably. It is much easier to start with a new design for which you can also use experience gained with the A310.

Outdated like the A330NEO?

No doubt the Boeing carbon clean sheet MOM would far outsell a A310NEO/A330-500.

But look at the 787 vs the A330NEO.

A330NEO cost $2 billion to develop and has 212 orders. Only $9 million per aircraft.

The 787 cost $32 billion to develop and has 1283 orders. Massive $25 million per aircraft.

The A330NEO was low risk, cheap to produce and has sold enough to make a decent profit.

Restarting production for the A310's wing, wing box, landing gear and doors would be doable. Fitting the engines used in Boeing's MOM would be straightforward. Shortening the A330's fuselage to reach the desired range target would be easy.

There are quite a few A310's in service. Airbus could use one of these to modify for flight testing.


The A310 is way more outdated than the A330. We are talking about a design the nobody invested much effort in during the last 25 years, while the A330 is still seeing constant improvements. The supply chain for the A310 is gone, the machines used to make the major parts are probably gone, the A330 fuselage is optimized for A332 to A343 length. The A310 is dead, let it stay dead.
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:21 am

If Boeing launch the 797 next year - obviously with a competition for a new 50klbs thrust geared fan then any response must follow that timing plan.So circa 10 years.More if Airbus waits a little to gauge response.
Using some variant of the 330 fuse must be seen in this light.Is it still going to be able to cut the mustard in 2030-40?I seriously doubt it.It has had a fantastically long and good run as it is.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:12 am

parapente wrote:
If Boeing launch the 797 next year - obviously with a competition for a new 50klbs thrust geared fan then any response must follow that timing plan.So circa 10 years.More if Airbus waits a little to gauge response.
Using some variant of the 330 fuse must be seen in this light.Is it still going to be able to cut the mustard in 2030-40?I seriously doubt it.It has had a fantastically long and good run as it is.


I tend to agree. If Airbus is able to squeeze LD3's in a 5,5m wide 8-abreast fuselage A330 replacement around 2027-2030 might be the right time to wave off the A300 fuselage after a good service life. By that time the A330NEO investment has long been returned and Airbus can move to a more suitable complement of the A350. Along with extending the A320 series from below they might have enough of an answer. Something like this:

A360
A330 successor, 8-abreast, 5.5m wide, LD3 capable, MTOW 205T, 60m wingspan, 59.000 lbf GTF engine architecture shared with A380NEO

A360-500, 57m, 243 seat 3-cl, 6800nm
A360-600, 64m, 287 seat 3-cl, 5900nm


Ideally one perhaps would want a longer range variant and a shorter (52m wingspan) one. However I think they'll consider designing two MTOW variant is too expensive so they'll stick to the longer range variant and let airlines abuse it on shorter legs. Although because of the reduced range in comparison to the A330 it will be less of a problem. Sharing the engine with a lightweight A380NEO improves the business case of both models.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
brindabella
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:51 am

morrisond wrote:
Given Airbus's purchase of the C-Series - I can't see the NMA being anything other than a 7W Ovoid Fuselage so it can be reused for NSA. 8W and 9W are just way too big.

The 8W and 9W solution seems to be an A-Net created Design. I might have missed something but where has there been any information in the press that the solution would be 8W or 9W?

We have seen Boeing patents for the Ovoid 7W and many mentions of a light twin aisle.

Isn't it time to push the Boundaries a bit on Airframe design? The Ovoid 7W twin aisle in Carbon while not easy - makes sense from a weight/size standpoint. Plus the fact that the Carbon skin needs to be thicker than necessary to account for impact loads at single aisle size gives you extra strength to help keep the Fuselage from trying to return to an oval.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but what am I missing? Are we just bored with discussing Single aisle and 7W Ovals so we are exploring larger cross sections?


It's a good point. And yes, all the reports that I have seen quoted also seem to refer to 7w - probably. And calculations here on a-net concluding the new 797 fuse-profile would give a perimeter only say 3% more than that of a A320 round fuse certainly got my attention. So maybe you are right and it is to be 7w.

But it's hard not to find oneself continually pulled towards 8w as a better and especially a lower-risk solution.

It starts with the obvious advantage in geometrical (structural) efficiency, of which you are doubtless fully aware.
Which than carries-on to yet another iteration of assessing the likely Airbus competition.
The choice is between going up (8w) and more directly competing with the A330 versus staying down (7w) & competing with the A321neo. Simple, IMHO.
Far better to stay a goodly distance from direct one-on-one competition with the 321, which is likely to be a tougher nut to crack.

Then there arises an opportunity best illustrated in RJMAZ terrific study - the 797 family as he shows is not only across the 762 and 763 space, but really will take-over the A332/8 space also. (Short-medium sectors only, of course. Leave the long sectors to the 789).

And the 797-9 neatly side-steps one-on-one competition with the 321 by replacing two of them at once(!).

Finally, maybe the BA designers are keeping a weather-eye peeled for their images in posterity. It would be a very, very bad look if Airbus again improved an 8w product, which was thus able to overcome a SECOND Boeing 7w type(!).

:(

cheers Bill
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:26 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
And a 1960ies/70ies design that is outdated in everything from materials used to construction methods as well as CAD data probably. It is much easier to start with a new design for which you can also use experience gained with the A310.

Outdated like the A330NEO?

No doubt the Boeing carbon clean sheet MOM would far outsell a A310NEO/A330-500.

But look at the 787 vs the A330NEO.

A330NEO cost $2 billion to develop and has 212 orders. Only $9 million per aircraft.

The 787 cost $32 billion to develop and has 1283 orders. Massive $25 million per aircraft.

The A330NEO was low risk, cheap to produce and has sold enough to make a decent profit.

Restarting production for the A310's wing, wing box, landing gear and doors would be doable. Fitting the engines used in Boeing's MOM would be straightforward. Shortening the A330's fuselage to reach the desired range target would be easy.

There are quite a few A310's in service. Airbus could use one of these to modify for flight testing.


Well, it's impossible to concentrate the entire 787 development cluster-f***k into just a few sentences, of course.
Do all clean-sheet developments cost $32Bn?
Of course not.

I am waiting to see just where the 797 takes 2 of it's 3 major innovations:
A) CFRP barrel fuselage.
B) "more-electric" systems.
(The first innovation was the tremendously successful carbon wing. No issue there.)

We have known for some time that the 787 CFRP barrel-section fuse is deliberately thicker (& therefore heavier) than it needed to be.
Call it Version 1.0 as implemented on the 787.

The "more-electric" electrical system was the cause of an in-flight fire during testing.

Major, major drama.

The Boeing electrics design-team then had to produce a completely-new system at great speed.
I would expect the instructions to the team at that time would say a great deal about the requirements that the new system must be absolutely safe & dependable; but much, much less about efficiency.
Call the existing version on the 787 Version 0.1, say.

So, assuming these are employed on the 797, then all that (gruesome) development history should nevertheless lead to much better characteristics and performance by the CFRP barrel fuse V2.0 and the "more-electric" technology V2.0.

$32Bn is a helluva lot of money to get such technologies working well, of course.
No argument there. But maybe all the cash hasn't been wasted.

We will see!

cheers Bill
Billy
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:45 pm

brindabella wrote:
I am waiting to see just where the 797 takes 2 of it's 3 major innovations:
A) CFRP barrel fuselage.
B) "more-electric" systems.
(The first innovation was the tremendously successful carbon wing. No issue there.)
The Boeing electrics design-team then had to produce a completely-new system at great speed.


Aerowise the 787 (wing and all) manages to be on par with the (said to be senile A330)

You'll never see a cylindrical barrel section from Boeing ever again.

The "completely-new electrics thingy" was a heavy stainless steel box and significantly tuning
down some charging and use parameters.

By my book getting lots of things right in the second round isn't really unsurpassed engineering exellence.
Testing, fiddling, fumbling must happen well before you produce a new airframes first samples for certification.
Murphy is an optimist
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:33 pm

The A300 had a wingspan of only 44,84m (147.1'), and the A310 only 43,9m (144').
I think a A335/6 performance is beter with a larger wing than the A310 and A300.
In the ideal world Airbus develops both the A322; A325; A326 and A335; A336. But in reality they will have to choose one two options.
Airbus is constantly developing improvements for their plane families. I think the new cockpit, new A330 nose, and A330 MTOW increase could be developed within these improvement projects.
The development of a larger A325/6/7 and/or smaller A335/6/7 are most likely to expansive, so this will be dedicated development projects.

Could Airbus create a freighter range with the A335; A338 and A33K?
The A33F MTOW 233mT has a payload capacity of 65-70mT. Possibly with the new nose the A338F MTOW 245mT could carry 75mT.
A A33KF with MTOW ~280mT could possibly carry 95mT. The A335F with ~200mT MTOW could maby carry 50mT.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:08 pm

I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.

The 789/A339 comparison shows no step change improvements have been realized recently. It's mainly engines.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1362827

So if Boeing goes for a widebody NMA, they are probably replacing 767s, A332/3 and 788s in a niche role.

And leave Airbus to prosper in the (huge) 200-250 seat 2000-4000NM segment.

Not sure if that's wise. The 73 is clinging on..


Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:20 pm

keesje wrote:
So if Boeing goes for a widebody NMA, they are probably replacing 767s, A332/3 and 788s in a niche role.

And leave Airbus to prosper in the (huge) 200-250 seat 2000-4000NM segment.

Not sure if that's wise. The 73 is clinging on..


If Boeing commit to the widebody NMA, and a couple of months later Airbus unveil an A320.5 and a CS500, the 737 line would be selling based on fleet commonality and delivery slot congestion. That would be a terrible market position to have to carry for the 7+ years it'd take Boeing to get NMA sorted - unless they shoulder the risk of running two programs at once, one of which is possibly key to long term future in commercial aerospace.

As you said, not sure if that's wise...!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1466
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:56 pm

brindabella wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Given Airbus's purchase of the C-Series - I can't see the NMA being anything other than a 7W Ovoid Fuselage so it can be reused for NSA. 8W and 9W are just way too big.
....

It's a good point. And yes, all the reports that I have seen quoted also seem to refer to 7w - probably. And calculations here on a-net concluding the new 797 fuse-profile would give a perimeter only say 3% more than that of a A320 round fuse certainly got my attention. So maybe you are right and it is to be 7w.

The thought that the NMA cross section should be useable for a 180-seater goes in the right direction. The 737 market will be more important for Boeing than the MOM market. Because only a fraction of all sold medium range aircraft were small widebodies in the recent past.

Like-for-like any single-aisle design will have better economics. In other words: a new super dupper high tech CFRP 7W design might match single aisle economics, but only if you compare with 30-50 year old single aisle designs. A new super dupper high tech CFRP 6W design could make obsolete a 7W MOM anytime.

IMO it only takes a decision on Airbus' side, to lengthen the C-Series and the 737 market share will fall below 30%. The Airbus investment would be a fraction of anything, Boeing would have to spend for any sort of a reply. In fact the only possibility, that I can see as a response to a 160 seat C-Series, would be a completely new single aisle design. Even the 7W cross section would be a very tough starting point to compete against a modern real single aisle plane. A 7W 180 seat aircraft would only have the cabin length of a ERJ190.

brindabella wrote:
The choice is between going up (8w) and more directly competing with the A330 versus staying down (7w) & competing with the A321neo. Simple, IMHO.

Have you thought about the market size? In the same time, while some hundreds A330NEOs will ship, some thousands A321NEOs will ship...

For Boeing this means, that they IMHO better participate in the market, where the opponent is the A321NEO, than in the market, where they struggle against the A330NEO for some breadcrumbs....

Therefore I predict, that Boeing will reprioritize and take care of the bottom of their product range first. IMHO the MOM died on the day Airbus purchased the C-Series. The 737 is far too vulnerable right now.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
parapente
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:51 pm

There seems to be a new assumption that the 737MAX is just clinging on due to earlier production slots.This is patiently untrue.

The 737-7 is selling the 319 is not.The 737-8 is selling incredibly well.It also seats 200 if required (the magic number according to Ryanair),the A320 cannot do this.
They have now launched the 230 seat MAX10 which is selling well (although many although by no means all are -9 conversations at this early stage).No it cannot TATL but it can Trans -con happily.
What Boeing are clearly saying from their research (they might be wrong but that's a different argument).Is that -
1.For longer trips 4knm is simply not enough.Certainly it's very limiting (real distances) TATL.They say circa 5knm is required/sweet spot.
2.For longer trips 200 pax is not enough.They say circa 250 (2class) is required/sweet spot.
3.They are also saying that for 250-270 max pax you need a super slim twin X7 twin aisle.
4.For such an aircraft you need 45-50klbs thrust engines.
5.From circa2030-2050 ish They envisage a market developing for up to 5000 of said aircraft.

Are they right,are they wrong?Who the hell knows.
Lets see if they put a $10bn bet on it or not.
However it is true that they need to be very sure that their 737 line can hold their NB share whist all that is going on.Their weak spot will be 230-240 one class pax.Certainly in the next 10 years.Which is why a small 321 stretch right now might harm them - to which they would have no possible response.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:00 pm

The 737-7 is selling the 319 is not.

59 vs 51. I see your quantum leap in sales.
( -7 pressed cheaply into the market to "fend off" C-Series ? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:03 pm

parapente wrote:
There seems to be a new assumption that the 737MAX is just clinging on due to earlier production slots.This is patiently untrue.


Really?

parapente wrote:
The 737-7 is selling the 319 is not.


Sales of both variants are in the gutter. Its like a skinhead boasting about winning a hairdryer in a raffle.

parapente wrote:
The 737-8 is selling incredibly well.It also seats 200 if required (the magic number according to Ryanair),the A320 cannot do this.


Now what if Airbus decided to do a "shrink" of the A321 to carry 200 passengers?


parapente wrote:
They have now launched the 230 seat MAX10 which is selling well (although many although by no means all are -9 conversations at this early stage).


Yes, not all are -9 upgrades, but more than a few are. Yet the A321 continues to be the market leader, in sales and in profits per frame.


parapente wrote:
1.For longer trips 4knm is simply not enough.Certainly it's very limiting (real distances) TATL.They say circa 5knm is required/sweet spot.
2.For longer trips 200 pax is not enough.They say circa 250 (2class) is required/sweet spot.
3.They are also saying that for 250-270 max pax you need a super slim twin X7 twin aisle.
4.For such an aircraft you need 45-50klbs thrust engines.


That is all well and good, but its extremely difficult to cover that and the conventional meat of the narrowbody market in one airframe.

parapente wrote:
5.From circa2030-2050 ish They envisage a market developing for up to 5000 of said aircraft.
Are they right,are they wrong?Who the hell knows.
Lets see if they put a $10bn bet on it or not.


Its a big bet. Potentially bet the company levels if the 737 has to solider on till near 2030 without replacement. You've possible A320.5, possible CS500, MC-21 and C919 all potential threats to the 737-8 and 737-10.

It'd be brave. I wouldn't be sure whether to admire their balls or curse their foolishness!

parapente wrote:
However it is true that they need to be very sure that their 737 line can hold their NB share whist all that is going on.Their weak spot will be 230-240 one class pax.Certainly in the next 10 years.Which is why a small 321 stretch right now might harm them - to which they would have no possible response.


Its not just a possible response, its a technical product good enough to allow price margins. I'd worry that a A320.5 with the PIPS P&W are talking about would put the -8 in its weakest competitive position ever and if the same PIPs were to go onto A321, then the -10 would also be suffering.

I suppose, if they stopped the buybacks etc then they could fund R&D easily enough.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:28 pm

Another metric: What WN, Alaska, and Ryan want will be what the Boeing using Asian airlines will want. Without the first three Boeing will have to have some really good orders from other airlines. But good orders from the first three would settle the launching issue - also most of the size and range metrics.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:38 pm

July 2018, Farnborough would be a feasible time to launch a bigger A320 subseries, sporting bigger wings, range and capacity.

Including commitments and conversions from a few big A321 operators from 5 or 6 continents.

And Boeing might again conclude 4 years is a bit long discussing to fully understand what is required.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2716
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:56 am

keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



I don’t know what you are referring to. There hasn’t been a narrowbody that can carry 200 people over 4000nm since the DC-8s were retired almost 30 years ago. A 757 can’t do that even in ideal circumstances.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3155
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

RJMAZ wrote:
But look at the 787 vs the A330NEO.

A330NEO cost $2 billion to develop and has 212 orders. Only $9 million per aircraft.

The 787 cost $32 billion to develop and has 1283 orders. Massive $25 million per aircraft.

The A330NEO was low risk, cheap to produce and has sold enough to make a decent profit.


If looking at it plainly as an investment, you have to consider: What new technologies did the A330neo development pay for that could be used in other programs? None.

Trying to make a comparison of a re-engine with a clean sheet investment payoff is just wacky.
Conservatives against Trump
 
WIederling
Posts: 6045
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:02 am

incitatus wrote:
Trying to make a comparison of a re-engine with a clean sheet investment payoff is just wacky.


Funny that you demand advantage for the 787 spending spree that is invariably denied the A380 and Airbus.

Boeing sunk most of its money into "not learning" but into curlicues designed to look pretty in their
bookkeeping model: to wit trying to sell the "single digits" and refurbishing the terrible teens at excessive
cost and binding humungous amounts of workforce just for moving the cost for the frames from R&D (direct loss )
to deferred production ( an asset ).
What they really spent on learning was to a part for things that the next generation does not need
( water cooling electronics ) or is a cul de sac altogether ( like barrel sections )
Distributed manufacturing ( what they tried to copy from Airbus ) seems to have been reduced
as a "learning effect".
Last edited by WIederling on Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:06 am

I bet that the more electric system will prevail with future generations, as the air contamination of the bleed air systems will not be tolerated much longer. And if you need a complex filter system, the more electric system, which needs no filters, is the better solution.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:22 am

seahawk wrote:
I bet that the more electric system will prevail with future generations, as the air contamination of the bleed air systems will not be tolerated much longer. And if you need a complex filter system, the more electric system, which needs no filters, is the better solution.


787 use the APS filters already & electricity can create smoke / fumes in the cabin too
https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/donaldson-honors-the-boeing-company-for-787-dreamliner-s-quot-innovation-in-action-quot-and-aps-installation-html/

It will be interesting to see if Boeing selects the 787 approach for the 797 too.

E.g. if Airbus / Boeing go for full CRFP fuselage on NB too, using panels that can be produced everywhere / shipped in bulk by an old 767 instead of Beluga / Dreamlifter might be the smarter solution.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6828
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:44 am

seahawk wrote:
I bet that the more electric system will prevail with future generations, as the air contamination of the bleed air systems will not be tolerated much longer. And if you need a complex filter system, the more electric system, which needs no filters, is the better solution.


I would assume that electric pressurizing of cabin air comes with a weight penalty. First you have the heavier generator to produce the power and than you have the electrical driven air pumps. If the aim is to not use bleed air directly you could drive air pumps with compressed air.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:45 am

seahawk wrote:
The A310 is way more outdated than the A330. We are talking about a design the nobody invested much effort in during the last 25 years, while the A330 is still seeing constant improvements. The supply chain for the A310 is gone, the machines used to make the major parts are probably gone, the A330 fuselage is optimized for A332 to A343 length. The A310 is dead, let it stay dead.

The A330 first flew 25 years ago. The A310 first flew 35 years ago. It's not that much older.

The A330 uses the same materials and production techniques. So if the A330NEO is not out of date a now A310 stretch would not be out of date either.

The fuselage, nose, tail and systems for a A310NEO are in production with the A330. Producing the wing box and wings again would take a fraction of the effort of a clean sheet.

The short thick and medium haul market is many times larger than when the A310 was being produced. So what didn't sell then will probably sell now. Obviously with new engines to bring the fuel burn down.
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:59 am

A modernized A310 would definitely be the quickest answer by Airbus. The question will be does Airbus really need to do it, even when the theoretical Boeing MoM is finally announced?
A313 343 B703 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

AA AI CO CL DE DL EA KL LH N7 PA PQ SK RO TW UA YR
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:29 am

keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.

There has never been a narrowbody and widebody aircraft with similar range and technology.

A longer ranged aircraft will always be heavier and have worse fuel burn per passenger.

When the A300 flew the 737 had half the range.
When the A310 flew the 737 still had half the range.

The 757 being the longest range narrowbody in the 1980's still had less range than any widebody on the market.

If there was a heavy 757ER or 757-100 long range shrink it would have burnt more fuel per passenger than a standard 757-200. So we have no actual data to say a narrowbody burns less fuel per passenger.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:00 am

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I bet that the more electric system will prevail with future generations, as the air contamination of the bleed air systems will not be tolerated much longer. And if you need a complex filter system, the more electric system, which needs no filters, is the better solution.


787 use the APS filters already & electricity can create smoke / fumes in the cabin too
https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/donaldson-honors-the-boeing-company-for-787-dreamliner-s-quot-innovation-in-action-quot-and-aps-installation-html/

It will be interesting to see if Boeing selects the 787 approach for the 797 too.

E.g. if Airbus / Boeing go for full CRFP fuselage on NB too, using panels that can be produced everywhere / shipped in bulk by an old 767 instead of Beluga / Dreamlifter might be the smarter solution.


This is the system used to filter the recirculated cabin air and not the fresh air.

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The A310 is way more outdated than the A330. We are talking about a design the nobody invested much effort in during the last 25 years, while the A330 is still seeing constant improvements. The supply chain for the A310 is gone, the machines used to make the major parts are probably gone, the A330 fuselage is optimized for A332 to A343 length. The A310 is dead, let it stay dead.

The A330 first flew 25 years ago. The A310 first flew 35 years ago. It's not that much older.

The A330 uses the same materials and production techniques. So if the A330NEO is not out of date a now A310 stretch would not be out of date either.

The fuselage, nose, tail and systems for a A310NEO are in production with the A330. Producing the wing box and wings again would take a fraction of the effort of a clean sheet.

The short thick and medium haul market is many times larger than when the A310 was being produced. So what didn't sell then will probably sell now. Obviously with new engines to bring the fuel burn down.


Considering how badly the A330NEo does against the 787, I fail to see much of a business case for a A310NEO against the 797.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:14 am

Another thing I am pondering.

Look at the history of the A330-200 vs. the A330-300.

Since the introduction of the -200 in 1998, it had more deliveries every year (apart from one) than the -300 until 2009.

This obviously means airlines greatly value range above a minimum threshold, even against the much superior CASM of the -300. Only when the MTOW increases to the -300 allowed for range increases did it surpass the -200 in demand.

So from that:
1. Are there any other examples that back up my conclusion? If so...
2. What is this threshold?
3. Is the MoM going to be above it in any guise?
4. Will the variants that don't meet it sell in significant numbers.
5. Will the variants that do meet it really be cannibalising 787 sales?


Right now, I'd think the market analysis suggesting there is a MoM niche in both capacity and range that is suitable for a dedicated program to be at least as optimistic as the premise of the big city pairs that launched the A380.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:31 am

Sure.

767(non ER) vs ER
A300 development from B2 to 600R
A310-200 vs A310-300

Imho the sweet spot seems to be around 5000nm.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1066
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:36 am

Vladex wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Vladex wrote:
It's an outdated rule especially for narrowbody short flights .


Why do you deem it outdated?

What would your alternative proposal be?


Widening the fuselage by a meter or so would make a great efficiency 4+4 narrowbody.


Safety rules are not written for the OEM's or airlines' profits! Duh...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:12 am

seahawk wrote:
Sure.

767(non ER) vs ER
A300 development from B2 to 600R
A310-200 vs A310-300

Imho the sweet spot seems to be around 5000nm.

Thanks for the other examples.

But, 5000nm? Is it not a lot higher than that?

The original A330-301 did ~5,600nm, even the -3002 only did ~5,800 nm (but with better payload-range obviously).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6517
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:13 am

Amiga500 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Sure.

767(non ER) vs ER
A300 development from B2 to 600R
A310-200 vs A310-300

Imho the sweet spot seems to be around 5000nm.

Thanks for the other examples.

But, 5000nm? Is it not a lot higher than that?

The original A330-301 did ~5,600nm, even the -3002 only did ~5,800 nm (but with better payload-range obviously).


It always depends on the range/payload curve for each individual model, but I think effective 5000nm without too many load restrictions could be around the mark that makes a difference for airlines.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:57 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



I don’t know what you are referring to. There hasn’t been a narrowbody that can carry 200 people over 4000nm since the DC-8s were retired almost 30 years ago. A 757 can’t do that even in ideal circumstances.


The A321LR is specified just for that & is creating continued headaches in other HQ's. You are correct any TATL city pairs further than coast to coast need more range, but apparently a little

However, hard evidence – in the form of airlines and leasing companies placing orders for or publicly expressing strong interest in the aircraft – is growing that, at the bottom end of Boeing’s hoped-for NMA market, the A321LR version of the Airbus A321neo could carve out a respectable chunk of the market before Boeing decides to launch any NMA programme.

Able to carry from 180 to more than 200 passengers in reasonable two-class or single-class comfort on routes of 4,000nm – in other words, offering ample range to operate most transatlantic routes between Western Europe and Eastern North America – the A321LR is winning a rapidly growing fan base.

http://www.mro-network.com/airframes/does-a321lr-complicate-middle-market-aircraft-segment

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
bigjku
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:03 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Another thing I am pondering.

Look at the history of the A330-200 vs. the A330-300.

Since the introduction of the -200 in 1998, it had more deliveries every year (apart from one) than the -300 until 2009.

This obviously means airlines greatly value range above a minimum threshold, even against the much superior CASM of the -300. Only when the MTOW increases to the -300 allowed for range increases did it surpass the -200 in demand.

So from that:
1. Are there any other examples that back up my conclusion? If so...
2. What is this threshold?
3. Is the MoM going to be above it in any guise?
4. Will the variants that don't meet it sell in significant numbers.
5. Will the variants that do meet it really be cannibalising 787 sales?


Right now, I'd think the market analysis suggesting there is a MoM niche in both capacity and range that is suitable for a dedicated program to be at least as optimistic as the premise of the big city pairs that launched the A380.


That is an interesting theory seeing as the A380 program has to be the biggest market forecast FUBAR of the jet age with the possible exceptions n of all the supersonic stuff.
 
brindabella
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:07 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
brindabella wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Given Airbus's purchase of the C-Series - I can't see the NMA being anything other than a 7W Ovoid Fuselage so it can be reused for NSA. 8W and 9W are just way too big.
....

It's a good point. And yes, all the reports that I have seen quoted also seem to refer to 7w - probably. And calculations here on a-net concluding the new 797 fuse-profile would give a perimeter only say 3% more than that of a A320 round fuse certainly got my attention. So maybe you are right and it is to be 7w.

The thought that the NMA cross section should be useable for a 180-seater goes in the right direction. The 737 market will be more important for Boeing than the MOM market. Because only a fraction of all sold medium range aircraft were small widebodies in the recent past.

Like-for-like any single-aisle design will have better economics. In other words: a new super dupper high tech CFRP 7W design might match single aisle economics, but only if you compare with 30-50 year old single aisle designs. A new super dupper high tech CFRP 6W design could make obsolete a 7W MOM anytime.

IMO it only takes a decision on Airbus' side, to lengthen the C-Series and the 737 market share will fall below 30%. The Airbus investment would be a fraction of anything, Boeing would have to spend for any sort of a reply. In fact the only possibility, that I can see as a response to a 160 seat C-Series, would be a completely new single aisle design. Even the 7W cross section would be a very tough starting point to compete against a modern real single aisle plane. A 7W 180 seat aircraft would only have the cabin length of a ERJ190.

brindabella wrote:
The choice is between going up (8w) and more directly competing with the A330 versus staying down (7w) & competing with the A321neo. Simple, IMHO.

Have you thought about the market size? In the same time, while some hundreds A330NEOs will ship, some thousands A321NEOs will ship...

For Boeing this means, that they IMHO better participate in the market, where the opponent is the A321NEO, than in the market, where they struggle against the A330NEO for some breadcrumbs....

Therefore I predict, that Boeing will reprioritize and take care of the bottom of their product range first. IMHO the MOM died on the day Airbus purchased the C-Series. The 737 is far too vulnerable right now.


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. And yes, it has always been my view that this "small widebody" would be one half of a family of two closely-related types, recapitulating the 757/767 joint development. I understand that the joint development during the 1970s saved some 30% in costs due to concentrating on commonality.
In this case I would see the 6w NSA and the 8w797 as being the closely-related pair to be developed together.

As you say, I also see a strong need for Boeing to counter the A321neo & it's developments.
The MAX10 seems to have had an excellent reception, (better indeed than many were expecting, including me); but there is much more to the A321neo's capabilities than just the 1,000 NM task;
and as things go right now, the 321neo/322/323whatever will have a highly lucrative market-sector all to themselves, with Airbus again able to charge a substantial premium.

In particular:

1) I see the NSA would start at the A321 gauge or a little above- EG 190-210 seats /2 class. That is, contrary to the usual sequence, the first NSA model built might well be the "stretch". There are major time-elements in all this, of course. And for those years to come, the A321 and its' developments will go from strength-to-strength.
Boeing will just have to "suck it up"!
:ashamed:
2) I've always wondered about the A330neo development, as it seemed to take the family away from it's great strengths:
- being medium-range led to a light structural weight/relatively low fuel-burn and operating cost;
- payload capacity is ideal for many carriers at 8w;
- and finally the family has the ongoing great advantage of a very low build cost due to it's historical success.

EG all the things that Willie Walsh is saying about being able to buy & operate cheap A330CEOs and being completely cost-competitive with the 787.


If my speculation proves to be right, and the A330neo is indeed something of a false step for Airbus, then Boeing has an historic opportunity to dominate the 8w and 9w widebody classes.**
(See the excellent RJMAZ designs, especially the 797-9 at 8w. RJMAZ may/may not be right that it can economically replace 2 NBs in the short-range market; but to me it's also a short-medium range A332 successor, and one against which the A338 would probably be unable to compete).

Finally, I realise that the subject of "Free Cash Flow" is very fraught and controversial for many here - but I have to say that a heap of analysts seem adamant that the Boeing FCF is going through the roof; and the BA stock-price seems to be visibly following it.

I don't know enough to make a judgement one way or the other - but if there is indeed any truth to it, then a clear consequence is that Boeing's financial capacity is going to be enough to easily repeat the concurrent 757/767 development effort as I have outlined it above (EG 6w NSA + 8w797).
Sufficient technical/industrial capacity?
I have no idea.
Maybe OAG can help out?

(And again, as I suspect say Revelation might point-out, AS THINGS STAND with the new Boeing chief speculating about MAX production going straight through 60/month, then there is absolutely no reason for Boeing to care about an NSA or indeed the A321neo+ or ++ at the moment.
That is, both majors will have their work cut-out keeping production up to the MASSIVE market forecasts.
Maybe that is where the "smart money" would be - but that's no fun!
:mad: )



cheers Bill

(** - I rush to say that I am not discounting the A350 in any way whatsoever.
But maybe it will be seen as more of a specialist big-bore long-hauler rather than being in the middle of the WB markets.
I speculate that the A350 family may well become one of the all-time greats at what it does, and a truly worthy successor to the 777ER family.
Along the way the family will make bucketfuls of money for Airbus; and rightly so.
This is high praise indeed; but maybe to be able to do that so well makes it a bit big & expensive for many carriers, for whom the 787 family currently seems to be right in the "sweet spot").
Billy
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26969
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:33 pm

parapente wrote:
If Boeing launch the 797 next year - obviously with a competition for a new 50klbs thrust geared fan then any response must follow that timing plan.So circa 10 years.More if Airbus waits a little to gauge response.
Using some variant of the 330 fuse must be seen in this light.Is it still going to be able to cut the mustard in 2030-40?I seriously doubt it.It has had a fantastically long and good run as it is.


As Boeing and Airbus tend to avoid head to head competition, any form of response needs to be looked at the A320neo family. As the Reuters article mentions, stretching the A321 and putting new CFRP wings on the aircraft is a more plausible scenario.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2716
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



I don’t know what you are referring to. There hasn’t been a narrowbody that can carry 200 people over 4000nm since the DC-8s were retired almost 30 years ago. A 757 can’t do that even in ideal circumstances.


The A321LR is specified just for that & is creating continued headaches in other HQ's. You are correct any TATL city pairs further than coast to coast need more range, but apparently a little

However, hard evidence – in the form of airlines and leasing companies placing orders for or publicly expressing strong interest in the aircraft – is growing that, at the bottom end of Boeing’s hoped-for NMA market, the A321LR version of the Airbus A321neo could carve out a respectable chunk of the market before Boeing decides to launch any NMA programme.

Able to carry from 180 to more than 200 passengers in reasonable two-class or single-class comfort on routes of 4,000nm – in other words, offering ample range to operate most transatlantic routes between Western Europe and Eastern North America – the A321LR is winning a rapidly growing fan base.

http://www.mro-network.com/airframes/does-a321lr-complicate-middle-market-aircraft-segment

Image


What is the hard evidence? How many A321LRs have been sold with its rapidly growing fan base? Do you have the numbers? There is a market for that plane, but only 100-200or so 757s were regularly operating routes over 3000nm. The A321LR is only a 7,000lbs MTOW upgrade over the A321neo. I am very curious how big of a chunk out of the NMA market will be the A321LR. It will be part of it, but how much is the big question?

It sounds like you backed off your original claim that I originally quoted

keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



There has been no narrowbody that can move 200 people over 4000NM since the DC8 so you can’t claim an observation that a narrowbody costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs. The A321LR is being marketed as capable of doing that. That market in the last 40 years has been flown by widebodies.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11082
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:48 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

I don’t know what you are referring to. There hasn’t been a narrowbody that can carry 200 people over 4000nm since the DC-8s were retired almost 30 years ago. A 757 can’t do that even in ideal circumstances.


The A321LR is specified just for that & is creating continued headaches in other HQ's. You are correct any TATL city pairs further than coast to coast need more range, but apparently a little

However, hard evidence – in the form of airlines and leasing companies placing orders for or publicly expressing strong interest in the aircraft – is growing that, at the bottom end of Boeing’s hoped-for NMA market, the A321LR version of the Airbus A321neo could carve out a respectable chunk of the market before Boeing decides to launch any NMA programme.

Able to carry from 180 to more than 200 passengers in reasonable two-class or single-class comfort on routes of 4,000nm – in other words, offering ample range to operate most transatlantic routes between Western Europe and Eastern North America – the A321LR is winning a rapidly growing fan base.

http://www.mro-network.com/airframes/does-a321lr-complicate-middle-market-aircraft-segment

Image


What is the hard evidence? How many A321LRs have been sold with its rapidly growing fan base? Do you have the numbers? There is a market for that plane, but only 100-200or so 757s were regularly operating routes over 3000nm. The A321LR is only a 7,000lbs MTOW upgrade over the A321neo. I am very curious how big of a chunk out of the NMA market will be the A321LR. It will be part of it, but how much is the big question?

It sounds like you backed off your original claim that I originally quoted

keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



There has been no narrowbody that can move 200 people over 4000NM since the DC8 so you can’t claim an observation that a narrowbody costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs. The A321LR is being marketed as capable of doing that. That market in the last 40 years has been flown by widebodies.


If you looked at the hard data I linked you could see where this is coming from. If the differences in weight / costs between similar sized NB and WB's would be close, we could have a discussion.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1362827

They aren't. Unless you move towards 300 passenger, than conventional 3-3 fuselages become long / relatively heavy.

Probably one of the reason Boeing has been dragging it's feet on MoM, NMA, 757 replacement for more than 5 years now.
https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4596/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2716
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:04 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:

The A321LR is specified just for that & is creating continued headaches in other HQ's. You are correct any TATL city pairs further than coast to coast need more range, but apparently a little


http://www.mro-network.com/airframes/does-a321lr-complicate-middle-market-aircraft-segment

Image


What is the hard evidence? How many A321LRs have been sold with its rapidly growing fan base? Do you have the numbers? There is a market for that plane, but only 100-200or so 757s were regularly operating routes over 3000nm. The A321LR is only a 7,000lbs MTOW upgrade over the A321neo. I am very curious how big of a chunk out of the NMA market will be the A321LR. It will be part of it, but how much is the big question?

It sounds like you backed off your original claim that I originally quoted

keesje wrote:
I think that moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs.

Using similar technology. That has been the observation over the last 40 years.



There has been no narrowbody that can move 200 people over 4000NM since the DC8 so you can’t claim an observation that a narrowbody costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs. The A321LR is being marketed as capable of doing that. That market in the last 40 years has been flown by widebodies.


If you looked at the hard data I linked you could see where this is coming from. If the differences in weight / costs between similar sized NB and WB's would be close, we could have a discussion.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1362827

They aren't. Unless you move towards 300 passenger, than conventional 3-3 fuselages become long / relatively heavy.

Probably one of the reason Boeing has been dragging it's feet on MoM, NMA, 757 replacement for more than 5 years now.
https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4596/


Hard data would be fuel burn and operating costs. Comparing OEWs isn't hard data to support your claim that "moving 200 people /25t over 4000NM using a NB costs less fuel and has significantly lower costs". Do you have actual hard data? No one is using A321s on 4000nm flights, but an airline like United knows the cost of the 757, 767, and 787 over that type of distance. The longest A320 family flights are only 3000 miles. Copa would have numbers for the 737NG since they have the longest flights on the older generation narrowbodies and Norwegian has numbers for the 737MAX and WOW Air for the A321NEO on transatlantic flights.

You have not shared any hard data supporting the capacity where narrowbodies or widebodies are more efficient. It appears you pulled 300 passengers out of thin air. The maximum number of seats ever certified on a narrowbody is 259, so clearly the transition point where widebodies are more efficient than narrowbodies is less than 300.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2716
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus weighs response if Boeing launches new mid-market model

Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:54 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Another thing I am pondering.

Look at the history of the A330-200 vs. the A330-300.

Since the introduction of the -200 in 1998, it had more deliveries every year (apart from one) than the -300 until 2009.

This obviously means airlines greatly value range above a minimum threshold, even against the much superior CASM of the -300. Only when the MTOW increases to the -300 allowed for range increases did it surpass the -200 in demand.

So from that:
1. Are there any other examples that back up my conclusion? If so...
2. What is this threshold?
3. Is the MoM going to be above it in any guise?
4. Will the variants that don't meet it sell in significant numbers.
5. Will the variants that do meet it really be cannibalising 787 sales?


Right now, I'd think the market analysis suggesting there is a MoM niche in both capacity and range that is suitable for a dedicated program to be at least as optimistic as the premise of the big city pairs that launched the A380.


I think the A330 is really unique. It always had a wing and structure to support higher MTOWs but didn't have the engines. The early Trent 700s and CF6s didn't have enough thrust to utilize the full capability of the airplane, which is why the A340 also existed. Higher weight and higher thrust versions of the engines helped the A330. It evolved in a rather unique way.

New airplanes are optimized with engines and wing designs right from the start. The days of significant evolving weight increases over the life of an airplane like the A330 (or 767, 747, 777, etc) allowing for ER/LR and other versions are mostly in the past. I think the A330-200/300 order mix is more based on evolving weights than any specific pivot point where range is more important than CASM.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos