Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:01 pm

benbeny wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I´d go for option 3. Maybe there is no market for such plane. The "waiting for Boeing" argument makes no sense, if there is a market segment big enough to make it worthwhile to explore with the MoM in competition, it surely should be worth taking without the MoM launched.

Strangely enough, I agree. We've seen so many arguments in favor of 'non-replaceable' mighty B752 and B753, but seeing so many B752 and B753 being converted to freighter versions or being retired without direct replacement, has made me questioning: is it really non-replaceable, or do the airlines have better alternatives?
Surely if the demand is high enough, it's cheaper in a long term to draw a cleansheet design rather than build 737MAX, but apparently the demand for 757 replacement isn't there or the alternatives are good enough for airlines.


? Most 757 operate(d) in the US. We we see a large influx of A321's at Delta, AA, Spirit, Hawaiian, JetBlue and United to close the line if Boeing doesn't get it's act together rapidly. If the 757 is being replaced by any aircraft type, we have to go to Mobile to see which one. taking that as a given, Boeing said they were aiming at something larger. Although I agree with Lightsabre a NB probably fills a bigger segment.. Maybe a big NB ;)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing%20MoM%20NMA%20NSA%20A321%20keesje%20Airbus%20Design%20Engine%20Wing%20737_zpscrrkvmms.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10452
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:12 pm

Dutchy wrote:
B787-10 is kind of medium range widebody, I guess.

I think 5000-6000 nm is about the minimum you will see from a widebody nowadays. I doubt airlines would be interested in something that has less than TATL range a la the A300 anymore. Would be a bit odd to design this great new MOM aircraft that has less range than the A321LR.
 
DFW789ER
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:20 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:16 pm

hilram wrote:
airbazar wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Personally think the A330-300 is too large with over 400 seats. Around 300 seats with a 24 seat regional-J cabin would have been perfect sized. Time for Airbus to NEO the A300?

Nope. As others have alluded to that size segment will probably be addressed in the next generation of aircraft family such as Boeing's MoM and Airbus's next narrowbody family, so likely quite a few years into the future. In the shorter term, we're much more likely to see a stretched A322. Boeing customers can still order 767's.

I don't think the passenger version of 767 is still available. Just cargo.


I believe so. I did the Everett plant tour a few years back and there was a 763 on the mline. The guide pointed it out, I think it was destined for Uzbekistan, Air Astana, can't recall.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10452
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:21 pm

Boeing still gives the 763ER pax a list price, suggesting that it is still available for purchase. I suspect the cost of building a 763 pax does not differ all that much from the F version, so Boeing is still willing to offer it even if no airline has bought one in years.

Note that Boeing does not give any 762/764 list prices.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:54 pm

Airbus once thought about an A330-500. I think the fuselage would have been a bit shorter than the -200. Only ILFC was interested as I recall. I think it would have been too heavy.

Isn't the A310 wing pretty advanced? Would it be possible to build a modernized A310 with a slightly streched fuselage? Maybe some wing modification would be required.
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
Channex757
Posts: 2390
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:07 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:08 pm

The A300 was designed back in the days when the only real competition was the DC10-10, L1011 and larger 727 versions. The spread in fuel efficiency between the models was pretty hefty.

Nowadays with new ultra-efficient engines and manufacturers being willing to certify 'regional' versions with lower weights and lower thrust settings on their longhaul widebodies the same pressures for an A300NEO just won't be there. The original A300 was a major improvement on existing designs whereas an A300NEO just wouldn't offer much of anything against a derated A330, for example.

Lightsaber's point above about the future is probably the most important. It is all down to which manufacturer bites the proverbial bullet and comes up with a genuine game-changer design rather than trying to eke out those last few points of performance of the existing tube and twin motor design. That is where Airbus might well have been better off investing the A380 billions, in hindsight. The short/medium haul trunk routes could now be seeing a lifting body shaped people mover flying today. Boeing would then have been persuaded to join the party and the technology would have been into its decades of refinement by now, producing the 500+ seaters eventually when market conditions are better.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:11 pm

Considering India has more than 1 billion inhabitants, very few people actually fly regularly. The focus must be on cost, cost and cost in order to get significant market growth. The potential is definitely there.

The benefit of new and fuel-efficient engines grows with range, and the other main benefit of new aircraft is less maintenance. For domestic traffic in India (short range - 2 to 3 hours), and in a country where labor cost are very low (ref. maintenance), I would think it could be a good choice to buy used A330-300. There are many of these available for a low price, and India could further develop in country specialized maintenance facilities for the A330s, thus keeping cost down.

The A330-300s should be re-configured Air Asia X style, with 9 abreast and all seats in economy class. In this configuration the A330 can seat 440 passengers, and Indians love to bring lots of baggage when traveling filling up the large cargo bays. Older A330-300 have shorter range and lower MTOW, so there is probably no need to down paper it to a "regional". With this high seating density, lots of passengers bags and some cargo, an older A330-300 will be near MTOW for a 3 to 4 hour flight, making it ideal for this kind of missions. A huge advantage for the A330 is the flexibility for high payload (high MZFW) on short range flights.

A330-300 could replace to A320 family aircraft.
Last edited by reidar76 on Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
MrGtheSheepA346
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 6:16 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Which airlines are using A330-200 in regional configuration? Keen to see their seating config.

Few. EK was one of the last.

It generally doesn't make sense to use the A332 in regional configuration, when the A333 offers a significant seat increase at an almost negligible cost increase, while still being able to perform any regional route (or fit into any airfield) that an A332 can.


Turkish Airlines and Air Europa operate the A332 on many European (Air Europa even on domestic) routes though. It isn't that rare.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:04 pm

keesje wrote:

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance.


A simple stretch of the A321 would have the same weight as an A321 and would therefore have the same wing loading. It would trade range for seating capacity. If I were and airline in India, I'd jump all over this.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:08 pm

BawliBooch wrote:
Question: The AB3 was the perfect size for this operation but with that ruled out, how suitable is the A330-200 for short-range (2-3 hour) high-frequency flights? With 18J seats in 2-2-2 layout with 40" pitch, How many economy seats can we squeeze into an A332 with a 30" pitch and 2-4-2 layout vs 3-3-3 layout? What are the corresponding figures for the A330-300 Regional? The higher cycles will have an impact on maintenance costs, but overall I think they would a huge CASM advantage?


For shorter routes, a 737/A320 has a lower casm than an A330. The narrow bodies are more optimized for short range, and the wide bodies just carry to much structure to be efficient at short range flying.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:57 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Question: The AB3 was the perfect size for this operation but with that ruled out, how suitable is the A330-200 for short-range (2-3 hour) high-frequency flights? With 18J seats in 2-2-2 layout with 40" pitch, How many economy seats can we squeeze into an A332 with a 30" pitch and 2-4-2 layout vs 3-3-3 layout? What are the corresponding figures for the A330-300 Regional? The higher cycles will have an impact on maintenance costs, but overall I think they would a huge CASM advantage?


For shorter routes, a 737/A320 has a lower casm than an A330. The narrow bodies are more optimized for short range, and the wide bodies just carry to much structure to be efficient at short range flying.


Among others ANA and JAL fly tons of widebodies on short routes, so the calculus is not that simple.
 
Swadian
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:55 pm

A super narrowbody with the size and range of a DC-8-63 would be better than a A300NEO IMHO. The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range.

JAL seems to be using less widebodies on domestic flights. They've retired some 772s and 773s without replacement (unlike ANA, JAL does not use domestic 787).
Last edited by Swadian on Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TC957
Posts: 3761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:57 pm

Navion wrote:
Boeing actually offered the 787-3 which had a different wing and much lower weight but still with the high technology of the 787 family. There wasn't enough interest.

That was a few years ago now when the 787 program was in trouble with all the delays to start with.
I feel Boeing should look again now at a light-weight mid-range 783 and 784 ( 789 fuselage length ) to compete with the A330R.
Surely airlines in India and China would be interested, not to mention the Korean and Japanese big two.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:43 pm

Getting 240 people off of a single aisle plane takes time. 753 has widebody turn time. New tech won't fix that.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:48 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance.


A simple stretch of the A321 would have the same weight as an A321 and would therefore have the same wing loading. It would trade range for seating capacity. If I were and airline in India, I'd jump all over this.

How does that compute? Do the frames they add to the fuselage weigh nothing? Are you confusing MTOW with "weight" now?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:55 pm

I always felt the A300 was kind of the best plane ever built. I find it sick that airlines rather bring 6 daily flights to LHR than 3 A300s. But ok, I know the A300 is not new any more. We tend to forget that the A300 was not the only medium range wide body. Just remember the IL-86. A combination of a IL-86 boarding system (with the integrated airstairs and the place for the carry on luggage) and a modern twin would be a winner. Containers could improve turn around times, and since lcc only take baggage (no mail or cargo), there is no need for the space used by an integrated boarding system. The IL-86 was used as FR uses the B737 (which also carries it's stairs aboard). I think such a system would work quite well!
flown on: TU3,TU5,T20,IL8,IL6,ILW,IL9,I14,YK4,YK2,AN2,AN4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80,M87,
AB4,AB6,318,313,342,343,345,346,712,703,722,732,735,741,742,743,74L,744,752,753,763,772,77W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,
142,143,AR8,AR1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH...
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10452
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:11 pm

hilram wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance.


A simple stretch of the A321 would have the same weight as an A321 and would therefore have the same wing loading. It would trade range for seating capacity. If I were and airline in India, I'd jump all over this.

How does that compute? Do the frames they add to the fuselage weigh nothing? Are you confusing MTOW with "weight" now?

It would have the same MTOW so the same max wing weight loading. Granted in service the larger aircraft will generally have higher wing loading as it typically will be heavier, but "pushing wing loading" really won't be a huge issue for most routes unless you think the A321's max wing loading is a problem
Ty134A wrote:
I always felt the A300 was kind of the best plane ever built. I find it sick that airlines rather bring 6 daily flights to LHR than 3 A300s. But ok, I know the A300 is not new any more. We tend to forget that the A300 was not the only medium range wide body. Just remember the IL-86. A combination of a IL-86 boarding system (with the integrated airstairs and the place for the carry on luggage) and a modern twin would be a winner. Containers could improve turn around times, and since lcc only take baggage (no mail or cargo), there is no need for the space used by an integrated boarding system. The IL-86 was used as FR uses the B737 (which also carries it's stairs aboard). I think such a system would work quite well!

If you are not concerned with cargo than frankly the 767 is better in most scenarios than the A300. That is the big problem with an "A300Neo"- Boeing could easily counter with the "767Max" at likely a lower investment.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:00 pm

hilram wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think a simple stretch of A321 into an A322 would push wing loading / performance.


A simple stretch of the A321 would have the same weight as an A321 and would therefore have the same wing loading. It would trade range for seating capacity. If I were and airline in India, I'd jump all over this.

How does that compute? Do the frames they add to the fuselage weigh nothing? Are you confusing MTOW with "weight" now?


I'm giving both planes the same maximum take off weight. The A321 carries more fuel, and the simple stretch A322 carries more fuselage and passengers. But from the wing's point of view, it's the same weight.

Anything that significantly changes the MTOW is no longer a simple stretch, and would cause lots of changes to wings, engines, landing gear, etc.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:08 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Question: The AB3 was the perfect size for this operation but with that ruled out, how suitable is the A330-200 for short-range (2-3 hour) high-frequency flights? With 18J seats in 2-2-2 layout with 40" pitch, How many economy seats can we squeeze into an A332 with a 30" pitch and 2-4-2 layout vs 3-3-3 layout? What are the corresponding figures for the A330-300 Regional? The higher cycles will have an impact on maintenance costs, but overall I think they would a huge CASM advantage?


For shorter routes, a 737/A320 has a lower casm than an A330. The narrow bodies are more optimized for short range, and the wide bodies just carry to much structure to be efficient at short range flying.


Among others ANA and JAL fly tons of widebodies on short routes, so the calculus is not that simple.


ANA and JAL both have runway slot limitations. I don't know that's such a big problem in India.

In the absence of slot limitations, the calculus is quite simple. For short range flights, narrow bodies cost less and allow for increased frequency. It's a win all around. That's why almost everyone chooses this option.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27045
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:50 pm

TC957 wrote:
Navion wrote:
Boeing actually offered the 787-3 which had a different wing and much lower weight but still with the high technology of the 787 family. There wasn't enough interest.

That was a few years ago now when the 787 program was in trouble with all the delays to start with. I feel Boeing should look again now at a light-weight mid-range 783 and 784 ( 789 fuselage length ) to compete with the A330R.Surely airlines in India and China would be interested, not to mention the Korean and Japanese big two.


With the extra OEW now baked into the design, the 52m span to fit into ICAO Code D gates absolutely cripples the aero performance. Even if the 787 program had tracked to spec, ANA and JAL likely would have swapped most, if not all, of their 787-3s for 787-8s as the latter is more economical beyond 500km due to the massive aero improvement of the 60m span.
 
COKMCI
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:36 am

Some of the possible widebody routes in india

DEL – BOM
DEL – CCU
DEL – AMD
DEL - HYD
DEL – BLR
DEL – MAA
DEL – COK
DEL – TRV
DEL – PNU
DEL – GAU
BOM – CCU
BOM – AMD
BOM - HYD
BOM – BLR
BOM – MAA
BOM – COK
BOM – TRV
BOM – GAU
CCU – BLR
CCU – MAA
CCU – HYD
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:01 am

What about a 787 with a new wing optimized for 4000 nautical miles. Will it be too costly to procure due to cfrp?

sv11
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:05 am

anshabhi wrote:
BestWestern wrote:
Air India has lost domestic market share because they can't compete with more nimble, better run, lower cost, commercial carriers.

Ah yes. On any day, AI tickets are 20-30% more expensive than LCCs because people know the service is better and the tickets sell easily. But AI is losing on low capacity and expensive tickets. What no other airline offers in India:
Image

https://m.facebook.com/AirIndia/photos/ ... &source=48

I won't mind if AI focusess more on international sector however.

Same as every other leagcy around the world and customers have voted withpockets that LCCs better suit their needs.
BawliBooch wrote:
Personally think the A330-300 is too large with over 400 seats. Around 300 seats with a 24 seat regional-J cabin would have been perfect sized. Time for Airbus to NEO the A300?

If 400 seats are too many then probably narrowbody would be enough.

sv11 wrote:
What about a 787 with a new wing optimized for 4000 nautical miles. Will it be too costly to procure due to cfrp?

sv11

Like the derated "A350 regional" ?

seahawk wrote:
I´d go for option 3. Maybe there is no market for such plane. The "waiting for Boeing" argument makes no sense, if there is a market segment big enough to make it worthwhile to explore with the MoM in competition, it surely should be worth taking without the MoM launched.

321 itself is a less capable MoM...

lightsaber wrote:
Everyone, lets not forget the 787-10. :biggrin:
Isn't that the 'short haul' widebody? ;)

keesje wrote:
When the A330/A340 family was developed using the A300 fuselage, cockpit and tail, the big wingbox and wing were developed to carry the higher MTOW's, fuel, LDG's and engines. That is why the A330 has the OEW it has. It's made for 300 passengers and cargo doing long flights.

To get back to an efficient shorter range aircraft, the heavy wing, wingbox etc. would have to be replaced to create a light efficient aircraft for this segment.

Image

Airbus has done proposals for a light widebody. The issue is with CFRP, it adds so little cost on short missions to optimize for more range, so the design grows.

I think Boeing is on the right path with a large narrowbody for the MoM. Turn times do not matter so much for longer missions and I personally do not believe large airframes will serve much on sub 2-hour missions. Not enough to pay for a truly optimized airframe.

Airbus went into a design study and kept finding a little more range helped sales and ended up with a 7,200nm+ plane! With a stretch for shorter routes.

IMHO it will take a change in configuration to re-optimize the size. For example, I've seen from Airbus lift body and BWB concepts that make *far* more sense for the discussion we're having.

Lightsaber

wait, who say MoM will be a NB?
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:01 am

MrGtheSheepA346 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
BawliBooch wrote:
Which airlines are using A330-200 in regional configuration? Keen to see their seating config.

Few. EK was one of the last.

It generally doesn't make sense to use the A332 in regional configuration, when the A333 offers a significant seat increase at an almost negligible cost increase, while still being able to perform any regional route (or fit into any airfield) that an A332 can.


Turkish Airlines and Air Europa operate the A332 on many European (Air Europa even on domestic) routes though. It isn't that rare.


AB flew them to Mallorca or the Canary Islands, Air europa flies them between the Spanish mainland and the Canary Islands. It is not much of a problem, surely it is not the most efficient plane for the route, but if you look at fleet usage it might be and those short routes help to raise the utilisation of the frame. That is imho the big problem of the MoM. It might be better than a A330NEO or 787 on a 3000nm route, but only if you can fully replace the 330/787 with it. If it just means that the 330/787 sits on the ground doing nothing the numbers look very differently.
 
User avatar
BawliBooch
Topic Author
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:24 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:04 am

COKMCI wrote:
Some of the possible widebody routes in india
DEL – BOM
DEL – CCU
DEL – AMD
DEL - HYD
DEL – BLR
DEL – MAA
DEL – COK
DEL – TRV
DEL – PNU
DEL – GAU
BOM – CCU
BOM – AMD
BOM - HYD
BOM – BLR
BOM – MAA
BOM – COK
BOM – TRV
BOM – GAU
CCU – BLR
CCU – MAA
CCU – HYD

The deployment of AB3 fleet in the early 80's was very efficient and a fine example of clever scheduling to maximise connections and peak hour flights on routes.

eg BOM-CCU-GAU-DEL-GAU-CCU-BOM-DEL
DEL-MAA-TRV-MAA-DEL-BOM
MAA-BOM-BLR-BOM-MAA-SIN-MAA-BOM
and so on.



CCU-BOM-DEL-SXR-DEL-BOM-CCU
Mr.Kapoor's favorite poodle!
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:55 am

sv11 wrote:
What about a 787 with a new wing optimized for 4000 nautical miles. Will it be too costly to procure due to cfrp?

sv11


Yes, I think it will be to expensive for short routes, because the fuel consumption has lower importance for these missions.

I would see more chances for a 767 or A330/A310 hull with small CFRP wings. You could produce the hulls rather cheap on the existing assembly lines, but the CFRP wings would allow extreme shapes which are not possible with alluminium.

The big question would be the engine. To be competitive to a A321NEO, you need similar engines but for at least 200kN thrust. I'm not sure if Pratt or CFM will invest in upscaling their GTF/LEAP engines for such a niche aircraft.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:34 pm

jagraham wrote:
Getting 240 people off of a single aisle plane takes time. 753 has widebody turn time. New tech won't fix that.

If it is a wide body instead of narrow body, it would still have "widebody turn time"?
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:01 pm

A A300neo or A310neo is the A330 fuselage with a lot of weight removed. If somebody here talks about a 767MAX a A300/310 neo would be the similar case for Airbus. Both would fit the place of the MOM.
The A300/310 takes standard LD3 containers.
I can not imagine seeing a A300neo or 767MAX, my bet is on big single aisle frames in that category, but if Airbus would try for a new wide body smaller than the A330-200/800 the A300/310 would be a good starting point. Same fuselage, perhaps the same wing box, same MLG, new wings, new engines and the A330 latest cockpit. It would be a stubby frame, but if made light enough it could be effective.
 
benbeny
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:36 pm

c933103 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Getting 240 people off of a single aisle plane takes time. 753 has widebody turn time. New tech won't fix that.

If it is a wide body instead of narrow body, it would still have "widebody turn time"?

Widebody has larger doors, I think that means less time to pass through for the same number of people with the same number of door opened compared to narrowbody.
In Japan we can see 744 and 773 turned around in less than narrowbodies time...
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:52 pm

benbeny wrote:
Widebody has larger doors, I think that means less time to pass through for the same number of people with the same number of door opened compared to narrowbody.


The doors are seldom the limiting factor. The limiting factor are passengers blocking the aisle while stowing their hand luggage. Therefore a short dual aisle widebody has benefits here over a long single aisle aircraft of the same capacity. But the best solution in this regard is most propably a single aisle with a very wide aisle were passengers can pass each other.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:00 pm

benbeny wrote:
c933103 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Getting 240 people off of a single aisle plane takes time. 753 has widebody turn time. New tech won't fix that.

If it is a wide body instead of narrow body, it would still have "widebody turn time"?

Widebody has larger doors, I think that means less time to pass through for the same number of people with the same number of door opened compared to narrowbody.
In Japan we can see 744 and 773 turned around in less than narrowbodies time...

I was reading that it is about the stage length they are doing.
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
benbeny
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:03 pm

c933103 wrote:
I was reading that it is about the stage length they are doing.

I think turnaround time is usually meant for the time needed by the airplane staying on the ground offloading and loading passengers and cargo...
JoergAtADN wrote:
The doors are seldom the limiting factor. The limiting factor are passengers blocking the aisle while stowing their hand luggage. Therefore a short dual aisle widebody has benefits here over a long single aisle aircraft of the same capacity. But the best solution in this regard is most propably a single aisle with a very wide aisle were passengers can pass each other.

Well, yes, but as other posters said above, that will incur not insignificant weight penalty. Maybe we should consider highspeed train for sectors less than 500 miles instead if it's possible.
 
Swadian
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:42 pm

Ty134A wrote:
I always felt the A300 was kind of the best plane ever built. I find it sick that airlines rather bring 6 daily flights to LHR than 3 A300s. But ok, I know the A300 is not new any more. We tend to forget that the A300 was not the only medium range wide body. Just remember the IL-86. A combination of a IL-86 boarding system (with the integrated airstairs and the place for the carry on luggage) and a modern twin would be a winner. Containers could improve turn around times, and since lcc only take baggage (no mail or cargo), there is no need for the space used by an integrated boarding system. The IL-86 was used as FR uses the B737 (which also carries it's stairs aboard). I think such a system would work quite well!


I personally like the Il-86, but with only 106 built, I don't think it should be compared to the 737.

benbeny wrote:
c933103 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Getting 240 people off of a single aisle plane takes time. 753 has widebody turn time. New tech won't fix that.

If it is a wide body instead of narrow body, it would still have "widebody turn time"?

Widebody has larger doors, I think that means less time to pass through for the same number of people with the same number of door opened compared to narrowbody.
In Japan we can see 744 and 773 turned around in less than narrowbodies time...


Those widebodies use both L1 and L2, which means widebody gates. The Japanese aren't using the 744 anymore and some of the 773 Domestics have been retired. If one's using widebody gates anyway, one could do the same with a super narrowbody and turnaround fine, but with lower CASM than a widebody and more flexible uses. For example, an A300neo would probably not sell in the Americas, whereas a DC-8-62/63 equivalent probably would.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:04 pm

There definitely would be demand for a modern A300/310-200 specifically designed for short to medium routes, but I doubt there would be enough demand to make the project financially attractive to Airbus

All the subsequent widebodies have big heavy wings, and are designed for much longer routes.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:11 am

AirbusA6 wrote:
There definitely would be demand for a modern A300/310-200 specifically designed for short to medium routes, but I doubt there would be enough demand to make the project financially attractive to Airbus

All the subsequent widebodies have big heavy wings, and are designed for much longer routes.


Why not take an A300-600. Keep the landing gear. Otherwise put in A330-800 systems and cockpit. Put on a new carbon fiber wing and new engines.
 
benbeny
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:24 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
AirbusA6 wrote:
There definitely would be demand for a modern A300/310-200 specifically designed for short to medium routes, but I doubt there would be enough demand to make the project financially attractive to Airbus

All the subsequent widebodies have big heavy wings, and are designed for much longer routes.


Why not take an A300-600. Keep the landing gear. Otherwise put in A330-800 systems and cockpit. Put on a new carbon fiber wing and new engines.

Cause developing new wing isn't cheap. That's why we tend to see same or slightly modified wings across aircraft families. It's cheaper to develop same wing for families instead of tailoring each version with different type of wing.
Anyhow, A300 fuselage was developed into A330 and A340, so I think the proposal was already done before.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:07 am

"The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range"

That is the funny thing about A.net, where everything, even a 4-engine, 50s Technology plane is better than the most successful product in its segment, the A321.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10452
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:58 am

RalXWB wrote:
"The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range"

That is the funny thing about A.net, where everything, even a 4-engine, 50s Technology plane is better than the most successful product in its segment, the A321.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Nothing he said was wrong. Take off your Airbus blinders (based on your posting history impossible I know) and you will see that the A321 is not the largest most capable narrowbody every built.
 
RalXWB
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:36 pm

Polot wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
"The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range"

That is the funny thing about A.net, where everything, even a 4-engine, 50s Technology plane is better than the most successful product in its segment, the A321.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Nothing he said was wrong. Take off your Airbus blinders (based on your posting history impossible I know) and you will see that the A321 is not the largest most capable narrowbody every built.


It must be hard for you to live in a world where not everybody wears the same blinders like you are.
Did I say largest, most capable? No! I meant the most important thing with most succesful: sales figures.
Anyway, have a good life!
 
FGITD
Posts: 815
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:37 pm

He's not entirely wrong though. The suggestion that a Dc-8 is a more qualified plane for 2016, compared to a 321 is laughable. Regardless of bias. The 321 might not be the greatest airplane ever in its role, but it's the best available at the moment.

The industry professionals, engineers, pilots and pretty much everyone who actually works with aircraft has made it very clear that most of the aircraft listed in this thread are past their time. Yet one of this website's favorite hobbies is pulling them back up and insisting they would be superior to anything these days.

An A300 with a new cockpit, new wing, and new engines is new model, not a new option. This thread is like the airplane ship of thesus.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10452
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:45 pm

RalXWB wrote:
Polot wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
"The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range"

That is the funny thing about A.net, where everything, even a 4-engine, 50s Technology plane is better than the most successful product in its segment, the A321.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Nothing he said was wrong. Take off your Airbus blinders (based on your posting history impossible I know) and you will see that the A321 is not the largest most capable narrowbody every built.


It must be hard for you to live in a world where not everybody wears the same blinders like you are.
Did I say largest, most capable? No! I meant the most important thing with most succesful: sales figures.
Anyway, have a good life!

He never said anything about sales figures. He never even brought up the A321 in that manner. You did. He is not even talking about the same segment!

FGITD wrote:
He's not entirely wrong though. The suggestion that a Dc-8 is a more qualified plane for 2016, compared to a 321 is laughable. Regardless of bias. The 321 might not be the greatest airplane ever in its role, but it's the best available at the moment.

He never said the DC-8 was a more qualified plane for 2016. Lets actually go back an look at the FULL comment, rather than the odd snippet RalXWB quoted:

Swadian wrote:
A super narrowbody with the size and range of a DC-8-63 would be better than a A300NEO IMHO. The DC-8-63 had much greater capacity than an A321LR and DC-8-62 had much greater range.

JAL seems to be using less widebodies on domestic flights. They've retired some 772s and 773s without replacement (unlike ANA, JAL does not use domestic 787).


This is a thread talking about a plane larger than the A321 but smaller and less capable than a A332/788, frequently referred to as "Middle of Market" or MoM now. The OP asks if a modernized "A300neo" would be a product worth pursuing now, in part to help fill that hole. All Swadian suggests is that a super narrowbody similar in size and capability to the DC-8 super 60s would be better than the proposed A300neo. That is a perfectly valid opinion, and is commonly debated here (should the MoM be a narrowbody or widebody?). He brought up objective FACTS as to why the DC-8-60 size/capability could work (some versions larger than a A321, and some versions can fly further) to highlight how this "super narrowbody" can be a MoM aircraft with its own separate market. I think we are all intelligent enough to recognize that Swadian was talking about a modern "super narrowbody" with modern engines and technology, not that Boeing should dust off and restart DC-8-60 production.

Note that Swadian never mentioned the A321 and this proposed "super narrowbody's" possible sales performance against it. Drawing conclusions about that based on that one comment from Swadian says more about ones self and confidence in the A321....
 
Swadian
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:32 pm

FGITD wrote:
He's not entirely wrong though. The suggestion that a Dc-8 is a more qualified plane for 2016, compared to a 321 is laughable. Regardless of bias. The 321 might not be the greatest airplane ever in its role, but it's the best available at the moment.

The industry professionals, engineers, pilots and pretty much everyone who actually works with aircraft has made it very clear that most of the aircraft listed in this thread are past their time. Yet one of this website's favorite hobbies is pulling them back up and insisting they would be superior to anything these days.

An A300 with a new cockpit, new wing, and new engines is new model, not a new option. This thread is like the airplane ship of thesus.


When did I say that? I said the DC-8-62/63 was more capable than a A321 (which, in terms of range and capacity, it was) and that a modern narrowbody with equivalent (to the DC-8) capability would be better than an A300neo. I did not suggest putting the DC-8 back into production.

Similarly, stubby widebodies (i.e. 762) and short-range widebodies (i.e. 783) have largely failed, while the success of the A321 itself suggest that airlines want an even larger, more capable narrowbody, regardless of whether Boeing or Airbus builds it. Yes, 753 failed, but it didn't have transatlantic range. A hypothetical super narrowbody would have a short version of 157' length and 5500nm range and long version of 187' length and 4250nm range. Long version would have to use widebody gates or built-in airstairs to reduce turnaround time, but CASM could be amazing. Powerplant could be enlarged GTFs of 40k and 45k thrust, respectively.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2311
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:30 am

Swadian wrote:
FGITD wrote:
He's not entirely wrong though. The suggestion that a Dc-8 is a more qualified plane for 2016, compared to a 321 is laughable. Regardless of bias. The 321 might not be the greatest airplane ever in its role, but it's the best available at the moment.

The industry professionals, engineers, pilots and pretty much everyone who actually works with aircraft has made it very clear that most of the aircraft listed in this thread are past their time. Yet one of this website's favorite hobbies is pulling them back up and insisting they would be superior to anything these days.

An A300 with a new cockpit, new wing, and new engines is new model, not a new option. This thread is like the airplane ship of thesus.


When did I say that? I said the DC-8-62/63 was more capable than a A321 (which, in terms of range and capacity, it was) and that a modern narrowbody with equivalent (to the DC-8) capability would be better than an A300neo. I did not suggest putting the DC-8 back into production.

Similarly, stubby widebodies (i.e. 762) and short-range widebodies (i.e. 783) have largely failed, while the success of the A321 itself suggest that airlines want an even larger, more capable narrowbody, regardless of whether Boeing or Airbus builds it. Yes, 753 failed, but it didn't have transatlantic range. A hypothetical super narrowbody would have a short version of 157' length and 5500nm range and long version of 187' length and 4250nm range. Long version would have to use widebody gates or built-in airstairs to reduce turnaround time, but CASM could be amazing. Powerplant could be enlarged GTFs of 40k and 45k thrust, respectively.

The 753 offers something like a 15% CASM advantage over the 762, partly due to the improved structural efficiency.

Looking at the large NBs, the 752 and the DC8-62 are about the same size, ditto the 753 and DC8-63. A pair of NBs in the same size class with a new design and engines could be a winner.
 
User avatar
aerolimani
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:46 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:29 am

I'm sure Air Transat would be excited about an A300/310NEO. Of course, they'd wait until they hit the used market. :spin:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:57 am

The DC-8 was a long haul plane at the time it was sold. The 757 was a medium haul plane when it was sold. Apart from the 767, no other plane had the range without being much larger. Today even a CS100 has the range of an early 757 and 787/A330NEO are much more efficient on medium long routes than a DC-10 or 747.

Both sold not because of their size but also because of their range, that none of the smaller offerings could offer, while the planes having more range were much bigger and much less economic. This gap is much smaller today. New widebodies are more efficient and the standard single aisle designs have much more range.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:20 am

Dutchy wrote:
Spiderguy252 wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
Smarter utilisation of international widebody assests would make better sense to me. Don't they have 744s sitting around only operating to KSA? Could their utilisation not be reviewed to incorporate peak hour domestic services?


This is already happening. AI have started a double daily DEL-BOM-DEL with these birds a couple of weeks ago.

Image


Does anybody else feel that this is more a 70-ish advert then a 2017 one? :-)


You just read my mind Dutchy!!! I remember the old -I think it was PIA?- IAG adverts "Fly in 747 comfort to XXX!" :-)

Sooo classy!!!

BTW, 15.000 Rupees for a two hour J-class flight ona 747 is money well spent in my book. Time for a joint A.net excursion to India together?? ;-)
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:43 am

Slightly off topic.I was reading a Financial Times article yesterday on the effects of Brexit on the uk aerospace industry.With particular emphasis on wing manufacturing of course.The article picked up on the point that the UK did not (for once) get all the 350 carbon wing with upper and lower surfaces going to Germany and Spain....The article went on to say the 'Boeing was going to make their decision on their next new narrowbody (one assumes the MOM)'in the next 12 months'. (That's the key bit).The reason for mentioning this in the article was that Airbus would need to respond with a narrow bodied carbon aircraft in the same sector.
I has not read this before.I thought they were still mulling a 737-10 which we were due to hear about by the end of last year.Have I missed an announcement?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11466
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:49 am

parapente wrote:
Slightly off topic.I was reading a Financial Times article yesterday on the effects of Brexit on the uk aerospace industry.With particular emphasis on wing manufacturing of course.The article picked up on the point that the UK did not (for once) get all the 350 carbon wing with upper and lower surfaces going to Germany and Spain....The article went on to say the 'Boeing was going to make their decision on their next new narrowbody (one assumes the MOM)'in the next 12 months'. (That's the key bit).The reason for mentioning this in the article was that Airbus would need to respond with a narrow bodied carbon aircraft in the same sector.
I has not read this before.I thought they were still mulling a 737-10 which we were due to hear about by the end of last year.Have I missed an announcement?


Too early to say what the effects of Brexit are going to be. Much will depend on the structure, if it's going to be a hard Brexit, then yes, the effects will be tremendous. What it will mean for Airbus and their plant in the UK, nobody knows. The A350 wing can't be related to Brexit, that decision was taken long before anyone knew there was going to be a referendum, let alone the result of it.

I've mist the 73X announcement as well, so perhaps it hasn't been announced? Seems to me one is depended on the other, I don't think they will make a B737-10Max and a MoM, both will be fishing in the same pond.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:46 am

parapente wrote:
Slightly off topic.I was reading a Financial Times article yesterday on the effects of Brexit on the uk aerospace industry.With particular emphasis on wing manufacturing of course.The article picked up on the point that the UK did not (for once) get all the 350 carbon wing with upper and lower surfaces going to Germany and Spain....The article went on to say the 'Boeing was going to make their decision on their next new narrowbody (one assumes the MOM)'in the next 12 months'. (That's the key bit).The reason for mentioning this in the article was that Airbus would need to respond with a narrow bodied carbon aircraft in the same sector.
I has not read this before.I thought they were still mulling a 737-10 which we were due to hear about by the end of last year.Have I missed an announcement?

A stop gap 737-10 to be out by 2020 shall not conflict too much with a wide body MoM to be out in 2025?
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Time for a A300NEO?

Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:50 am

Actually, back to original post, if Indian airport slot/ airspace is not severely constrained then they can simply buy a dozen or so more A320 series instead of introducing a new type of WB just for domestic routes
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Nya! Nya! Nya! Nya!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!

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