mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:19 pm

I just had this brilliant idea after lunch  Smile. Perhaps it was wrong for Airbus to go bigger, instead they should've aimed at a plane sized between 757/A321 and 787-3?!

My reasons behind this, they could've used the "old" A300 diameter but build it using newest technology, CFRP, barrels, light but fast wing and calculate it such that the sweet spot lies in the 150-250 pax area with medium up to very long range.

They would've had enough power plants to choose from, maybe even something revolutionary from P&W, and I imagine the market should be huge, all the 757/A321/A300-600/A332/767-200ER/A340-200 needing replacement etc.

Does this make sense to you, what are your thoughts?

Have a nice day
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4918
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:32 pm

Offering a smaller long-range superefficient plane is an interesting idea-the only problem is that Airbus is not ready to jump on the CFRP barrel bandwagon yet, unfortunately. The only problem I see is that this is essentially what Boeing tried with the 757, and while it was successful it did not burn any barns down. It seems that most airlines flying extremely long routes want somewhat larger planes, and it seems that the 787 has hit just about the right spot. In trying to answer it Airbus obviously had three choices; compete head to head with essentially the same plane, go larger or go smaller. Going head to head probably would have been a poor choice, as they were so far behind; they must have decided that the market was bigger on the larger side, and for long-range flying I suspect they were right.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:38 pm

They proposed an A330-500 a while ago, with about A300 capacity, and the interest of the airlines was low. I also think that they will speak with their major costumors on a regular basis. I always wonder that a twin jet with Trent 500 and 150 tons MTOW would ideally fit into the hole.

It looks as if there is no really big interest by the airlines currently - or their interests are too different. You have a long list of aircrafts to replace - looks like it is not simple to do it with one series - and to be sure to sell 1000 frames.

As example, A300 replacements need rather low wing spans, since there aren't enough parkings for larger spans available at many airports. A short wing is not "light but fast".

What I see, is that a future narrow body will allow for a version with larger MTOW to get something like a A321LR.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:38 pm

Very big development cost, very small market.
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:43 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 1):
The only problem I see is that this is essentially what Boeing tried with the 757, and while it was successful it did not burn any barns down. It seems that most airlines flying extremely long routes want somewhat larger planes, and it seems that the 787 has hit just about the right spot.

But we see a big 757 revival transatlantic routes nowadays, I wonder if this "true" 787-3 would've stimulated the p2p market even more, all those Ryanairs, Air Berlins, Southwests etc eagerly wait for smaller wide bodies in order to attack the establishment on intercon routes...
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:47 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 2):
They proposed an A330-500 a while ago, with about A300 capacity, and the interest of the airlines was low. I also think that they will speak with their major costumors on a regular basis. I always wonder that a twin jet with Trent 500 and 150 tons MTOW would ideally fit into the hole.

But I guess that was "old tech", no new materials and engines. What I meant was keeping the diameter and the 2-4-2 config, but make her a bit shorter and hitech: lighter, faster, meaner...  Smile
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4918
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead?

Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:50 pm

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 4):
But we see a big 757 revival transatlantic routes nowadays

I wonder how much of this is due to price/availability; i.e. 757's being replaced on domestic routes by smaller planes freeing them up, and thus being available relatively cheaply to fly the Atlantic. What are leasing rates for 757's compared, say, to A321's or 767's? It wasn't very long ago that the 757 line was shut down; there certainly was no demand for new ones, and I doubt that even if the line were still open that many airlines would be buying them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airzona11, Dalmd88, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], Google [Bot], hkcanadaexpat, hOMSaR, ikolkyo, itisi, jaybird, MaxxFlyer, OMP777X, rotating14, SInGAPORE_AIR, terminalc, Tewks, tlecam, TWA772LR, usflyer msp, VirginFlyer, Yahoo [Bot] and 255 guests