Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Theseus
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:37 pm

keesje wrote:
If it can fly across the Atlantic with 180 people in a decent 2 class cabin, it's a MoM for most airlines and competing with a whole bunch of larger aircraft.

Image


Naive question here, but what is called "MOM" ? To me, more than 350 seats is hardly "Middle Of Market", this is solid 77W / A35K territory...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:45 pm

Theseus wrote:
keesje wrote:
If it can fly across the Atlantic with 180 people in a decent 2 class cabin, it's a MoM for most airlines and competing with a whole bunch of larger aircraft.

Image


Naive question here, but what is called "MOM" ? To me, more than 350 seats is hardly "Middle Of Market", this is solid 77W / A35K territory...


I would only guess that some operators in certain regions would love a high-capacity, short- to medium haul airliner optimized for their specific needs. The 77W/A350 can cover those but probably not as efficiently as they'd like.

Sounds to me like they'd be currently seeking either the A321 or the A330ceo. Hence, the Boeing talk of a MoM. Just my two cents.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:57 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
keesje wrote:
I assume Leahy says he feels he doesn't have to invest in a A322. Now.



The A321 is printing money, and will do so for a long time to come. Half of the A320 family production will become A321 in 2017. Why risk cannibalizing your own success?


The brighter guys ( or gals ) start their new project when the current one runs best.
You have the money, you have the time, and things will invariably turn down for the "still selling perfectly" item.
( IMU what the playoff between B management and the quarterlies doesn't easily allow and every time you put
a brilliant but limited pimp on your bestseller the event horizon for the new model receedes further into the future).
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:00 pm

WIederling wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
keesje wrote:
I assume Leahy says he feels he doesn't have to invest in a A322. Now.



The A321 is printing money, and will do so for a long time to come. Half of the A320 family production will become A321 in 2017. Why risk cannibalizing your own success?


The brighter guys ( or gals ) start their new project when the current one runs best.
You have the money, you have the time, and things will invariably turn down for the "still selling perfectly" item.
( IMU what the playoff between B management and the quarterlies doesn't easily allow and every time you put
a brilliant but limited pimp on your bestseller the event horizon for the new model receedes further into the future).


So you have a business with essentially one competitor. Your competitor is on the ropes and has few ways to challenge your latest and greatest product. And your brighter guys suggest the smart thing to do would be to spend MORE MONEY on a new product that will only compete with your latest and greatest product....?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:05 pm

WIederling wrote:
The brighter guys ( or gals ) start their new project when the current one runs best.
You have the money, you have the time, and things will invariably turn down for the "still selling perfectly" item.


Not in a duopoly. ATR for example is not investing into a new program because they basically own the turboprop market. And I do not see Airbus investing in a A322 unless they have no other choice.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:22 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
ATR for example is not investing into a new program because they basically own the turboprop market. And I do not see Airbus investing in a A322 unless they have no other choice.


ATR also has its headquarters in Toulouse, and Airbus owns a large share of ATR, if I remember correctly. I could see Airbus buying the remaining shares of ATR and investing in new or upgraded regional aircraft (70-120 seats segment). The aircraft designers at Airbus needs a new project now that the A350-1000 and the A330neo nears completion.
 
Theseus
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:44 pm

Another element to decide when to start developing the next generation is the readiness of technology.
For instance, what about the next generation of engines ? What impact will it have on the airframes ? If this impact is huge (e.g., necessitating larger fans or un-ducted fans), starting the work on the next airplane too early may mean ending up quickly a situation where the airframe does not work so well with the engines of the future, and having to work around that.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1772
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:22 pm

This is why as aviation enthusiasts we need at least a 3rd manufacturer. @PlanesNTrains and @KarelXWB explain it well above. With a Duopoly, it would be frivolous to spend on a new aircraft or iteration when you really don't need too.

Heck in a few years, airline can choose any plane they want, as long as it is an A320A/350 or 737/7787.

A model, ER, and LR is about the only diversity that is left. Gone are the days of MD80s 737s A320s 757s 727s covering the same segment.
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:47 am

Regardless of what the true interpretation of MOM is, Leahy was clearly discussing the 757 size range which they will enjoy a nice market share of in 5-10 years once more 757s are retired and more A321s replace them especially in the US.
 
lutfi
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 6:33 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:25 am

lightsaber wrote:
The A321 owns the market until something better comes along. The A321NEO is as best optimized for the 2 hour mission. 'As best' as a modern CFRP wing would be lighter and folding wingtips would allow a more efficient aspect ratio and new wings have better underside laminar flow.

There is a MoM opportunity. But is there enough of a business case for a new design? The reality is the A321LR has been given the opportunity to perform missions beyond its optimal range compared to a design optimized for longer missions.


I participated in the design of a 7500nm range engine/airframe. We ended up with two concepts. The preferred design cost about 5% more to fly to 7500nm, but about 3% less to 5000nm. IMHO the A321NEO, due to the old school wings and re-engine is effectively beatable with a new design at the 3+ hour mission.


Lightsaber


Correct - but what % of B762/B757 flights are > 3hours? That's always the problem I see with MOM - probably more efficient to "misuse" an A321LR and/or a B787/A330 that can also do other missions successfully than design a new aircraft for this product gap. Heck - the Japan domestic B787 was as close to MOM as we have seen, and that got cancelled
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:04 am

Imho these remarks and the story about the 737-1000 imho show one basic points and that is that airlines want the airframes to be cheap and are not willing to pay a significant extra amount for extra capabilities. If airlines would arrive in Toulouse demanding a A322 and screaming "shut up and take my money", Airbus would launch it quickly. The same with the MoM, if airlines line up demanding a MoM and willing to pay for it, Boeing would have launched it already.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:00 am

What would be 737-10 selling points over the A321NEO ?

- Fleet commonality
- Price
- ..

Maybe this is more about holding on until something better comes along.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:02 am

Delivery Slots and Delivery Date....
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2574
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:47 am

ikolkyo wrote:
How is that pitch like at 240 seats Mr. Leahy?


Exactly the same of a 757 with 240 seats. No surprises there.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:35 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
keesje wrote:
I assume Leahy says he feels he doesn't have to invest in a A322. Now.

The A321 is printing money, and will do so for a long time to come. Half of the A320 family production will become A321 in 2017. Why risk cannibalizing your own success?

With a minimal -10X project, I don't see Boeing prodding Airbus to do an A322. What customers will Airbus net with an A322 that they'd lose to the hypothetical -10X without it? I can't think of very many, if any at all?

Boeing needs the Max-10X because it knows that without it, future sales of the Max-9 will be heading close to zero. It needs the Max-10X to be a placeholder in the market before a clean sheet replacement design for the B737 arrives after 2025.

JL is correct - Airbus will continue to compete with the A321 for the next 3-5 years. With continuous improvements, it should still be a strong competitor in the market. Airbus will be able to re-wing, re-engine (enhanced PW geared turbofan, enhanced CFM LEAP) and/or stretch the A321 if its customers express a demand for a larger aircraft with longer range.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:47 am

seahawk wrote:
Delivery Slots and Delivery Date....


Delivery slots? The entire 737 family is sold out until 2021 or so.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:48 am

KarelXWB wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Delivery Slots and Delivery Date....


Delivery slots? The entire 737 family is sold out until 2021 or so.


The A320 line is not better off.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:09 am

All this is a bit like politics..... one can not (or will not) see past their own allegiance.
( I'm a Boeing fan)
Truth is though, the A321 is a really good plane which has found it's own really valuable
niche. (757, except for range) It could so easily be turned into a real 757, by copying
Boeings ideas. (747-8, 777x.... new wings!)
No doubt way faster than an all new MOM might come to market.
 
Deepinsider
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:19 am

Of course....Boeing, knowing this, may well use it's own ideas, as above,
and forget the MOM for now. Bring on those beautiful new wings. Only
trouble is, the body is just a bit too small. Try going to the rest room
when there is a service trolley around. (as it will inevitably be if we've got
757 range.)
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:34 am

Deepinsider wrote:
All this is a bit like politics..... one can not (or will not) see past their own allegiance.
( I'm a Boeing fan)
Truth is though, the A321 is a really good plane which has found it's own really valuable
niche. (757, except for range) It could so easily be turned into a real 757, by copying
Boeings ideas. (747-8, 777x.... new wings!)
No doubt way faster than an all new MOM might come to market.


@50% of deliveries expected this year the A321 is not a niche airplane.
( if you go back in time there used to be a 45/45 relationship between A319 and A320 and a 10% niche of A321)

In step with increased efficiencies ( visible in extended range ) the
capacity window of interest for airlines has moved up all the time. .. and accelerating? not sure.
( transport statistics don't show this in an adequate way as they are quantized by capacities as available.)

While currently sitting in the middle of this window the market has only glancing interest in the 739(MAX or not) .
Rather intriguing question if this would change for a 7310MAX. would it fall below that magic min range?
The counter here could be that for when this plane becomes available
the window of interest has moved further on and would be centered on A321+ size.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:50 am

I fail to see why people are so bearish about new planes. By 2020 Airbus and Boeing will have line-ups that are so modern as never before in history. Airlines have placed large orders recently. It is is time to bring in some money.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:59 am

Deepinsider wrote:
All this is a bit like politics..... one can not (or will not) see past their own allegiance.


Welcome. You must be new here. :wave:
With one or two exceptions on page one of this thread, I think everyone's been generally well-behaved.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:02 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
My big worry for Boeing is that Airbus is indeed working on the next MOM-ish design, while Boeing continues to study the market, as they've been doing seemingly forever. At some point, they need to just jump in and build something (something that makes sense, of course). If Airbus eventually develops the A360 and it's MOM-ish before Beoing can react, then Boeing will be in a real world of hurt going forward and Airbus will truly own that segment of the market. Well, more power to them for planning properly and taking the airplane building biz by the proverbial horns if that happens.


Airbus will do NOTHING before Boeing does because they don't need to. They have the Lion's share of the narrowbody market so there's no need for them to push ahead with a new design while they're sitting in the clover. If Boeing does finally announce a new design is in the offing, Airbus has time to study it and prepare a response. Even if BCA does launch a new MOM design, Airbus might counter it with further developments of the A320 family, including a new wing, a further stretch and higher operating weights for increased range. But UNTIL Boeing gets serious about going forward with a MOM airplane, Airbus WON'T do anything because they don't need to. They're sitting pretty now and they won't launch a new development effort until they HAVE to. Why spend the money to do any more when they've got the bulk of the NB market locked up. Boeing would be lucky to maintain a 36 to 40% share with its current 737 MAX offerings thanks to the upsizing preference among many carriers which is boosting A321NEO sales beyond where even Airbus had forecasted. They're in the driver's seat right now.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:10 pm

AvObserver wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
My big worry for Boeing is that Airbus is indeed working on the next MOM-ish design, while Boeing continues to study the market, as they've been doing seemingly forever. At some point, they need to just jump in and build something (something that makes sense, of course). If Airbus eventually develops the A360 and it's MOM-ish before Beoing can react, then Boeing will be in a real world of hurt going forward and Airbus will truly own that segment of the market. Well, more power to them for planning properly and taking the airplane building biz by the proverbial horns if that happens.


Airbus will do NOTHING before Boeing does because they don't need to. They have the Lion's share of the narrowbody market so there's no need for them to push ahead with a new design while they're sitting in the clover. If Boeing does finally announce a new design is in the offing, Airbus has time to study it and prepare a response. Even if BCA does launch a new MOM design, Airbus might counter it with further developments of the A320 family, including a new wing, a further stretch and higher operating weights for increased range. But UNTIL Boeing gets serious about going forward with a MOM airplane, Airbus WON'T do anything because they don't need to. They're sitting pretty now and they won't launch a new development effort until they HAVE to. Why spend the money to do any more when they've got the bulk of the NB market locked up. Boeing would be lucky to maintain a 36 to 40% share with its current 737 MAX offerings thanks to the upsizing preference among many carriers which is boosting A321NEO sales beyond where even Airbus had forecasted. They're in the driver's seat right now.


So you mean there is a sizeable number of airline willing to buy a newly designed MoM style aircraft and they would be willing to pay the higher price of a new design, yet Airbus sits patiently until Boeing moves, so that both can now enter this market and share the orders.

Airbus and Boeing are both in the market of making money and if enough airlines are willing to pay the extra costs of a new design and can formulate clear design requirements, they will give the airlines what they want, regardless what the other might be doing.

Imho the most likely current situation is that there are way too few airlines willing to pay the extra money for a MoM that fits in between the A321 and the 787-8/A330 to make the project worth the effort. It might even be that airlines are not even interested in a A322 if it means that it is more expensive than a A321. (same for the 737)
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:20 pm

Duopoly economics. Neither of the airframers has an incentive to develop the latest and greatest. They will both milk the cow until there is no drop left. Airbus has no need to develop an A322, because it has no challenger in the market. Should Boeing launch an MoM, then Airbus would be forced to react, but in the meantime, they'll sit back and enjoy the ride.

Not in a duopoly. ATR for example is not investing into a new program because they basically own the turboprop market. And I do not see Airbus investing in a A322 unless they have no other choice.
Those are the words from Airbus, as a shareholder, not from ATR, whose previous CEO, as well as shareholder Alenia, were eager - and ready - to launch the model, but were blocked by Enders & Bregier. ATR's "overambitious" CEO has since been replaced by a more milk-the-cow-friendly one.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:55 pm

"Leahy,methinks thee protests too hard"!
Interested to know what others think.But here is an alternative scenario.
Of course right now the very,very last thing Mr Leahy would announce is an A322.Why? Well because the next 2 years will be a gloves off fight for the remaining short term orders for the A321NEO vs the 7310.It will also be a time to complete all the sales campaigns for the A321NEO NEO LR.So the very last thing he would want to do is muddy the water with a potential new variant.
The accepted logic ( including me) is that why would you do it if the only competition is yourself......But is it?
Thoughts.
There are over 700 767's flying around just getting older.The ones that needed an immediate change will have bought the 788.But once the 789 came out orders stopped indeed went into reverse.The 9 has far better economics,one might say that the 788 is 'too much plane' for the job many (most)? Airlines need it to do.
Then there is the A332.At one time it was the best selling variety of the 330 family.But not now as can be seen from the NEO (will it even be made)? Again it's economics don't stack up with its bigger brother.None the less there are still circa 500 flying around waiting to be replaced by something.Airbus would certainly want it to be them rather than Boeing.
What makes the A321(LR) so attractive against the 752 is the enormous 30% fuel saving on every trip.It is frankly off the planet.An airline will forgive a lot of shortcomings if it can get that sort of fuel saving!
So we have seen in the past (and present) an aircraft does not have to be 'spot on' in fact they rarely are.It just has to be the 'best/nearest'.
Now these aircraft (767/332)seat around 250 in 2 class config and about 290 in one class.Of course there range is far far higher.And yes if long range is a key requirement then no A320 will match that requirement.However a huge number of 762's and 332's do not need or use the range.Perhaps transcontinental would be a key range marker at circa 3,000 nm?
So my question is this.
What,in about 2 years time Leahy announces a 'simple' stretch.Perhaps only 3 extra rows of seats (18 seats).Something that effectively required no additional 'messing about'. And trade range for pax.So range drops ( relative to the 321lr) from 4K nm to 3k nm.But seating went up ( one class) from 240 to 258.And perhaps 225 in 2 class.
Now of course 225 is not the 250 that a 762 can carry.But - and I think it's a very very big But.Instead of using very ancient 70k thrust engines you are using state of the art gtf engines of half that power.The fuel savings could literally be HALF!
So yes it would not be as capable as a 762 - of course not.But with a fuel saving and operating saving and landing fee saving etc etc I think they might just beat a path to your door and join a queue that was lengthening by the minute.
Ok just some amateur rambling thoughts.But I bet they are not lost on a pro' like Leahy.I just wonder...
 
Noshow
Posts: 1665
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:14 pm

As the A321neo hits the nail of today's market something slightly bigger would certainly sell as well for growth minded airlines. Not everybody wants to step up to widebodies. Especially for Asia some bigger single aisle would make sense. Not sure how much additional weight a A321-wing could carry without losing much commonality.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2574
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:40 pm

Pity..I would have loved an A322 with a DC-8-60ish look!!! :-)
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:41 pm

A lot of the 321 orders are the result of built up demand for a MOMish plane. The vast majority of 373/321 will not ever be used for that long a flight. Note that is not saying there is no large niche for the 321. There is.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
...The same with the MoM, if airlines line up demanding a MoM and willing to pay for it, Boeing would have launched it already.


From what I've read, airlines are willing to pay for the MoM, just not at prices that Boeing is willing to sell. Even if Boeing had already closed the price gap, there hasn't been a rush to launch the MoM because the engines for it do not yet exist, and aren't expected to until 2024–2025.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:26 pm

NYCRuss.Exactly.A new plane would 'force majeur'be expensive.Hence the attractiveness of a'simple' A322 stretch.It would not be as good as a new plane.But perhaps 'good enough'.But it would be quick to market and dead cheap.This 'min size' MOM could 'just' use the existing engines (particularly the gtf).As you say anything bigger and they would have to wait for a new engine and all the associated costs.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:43 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
seahawk wrote:
...The same with the MoM, if airlines line up demanding a MoM and willing to pay for it, Boeing would have launched it already.


From what I've read, airlines are willing to pay for the MoM, just not at prices that Boeing is willing to sell. Even if Boeing had already closed the price gap, there hasn't been a rush to launch the MoM because the engines for it do not yet exist, and aren't expected to until 2024–2025.


If you do not launch the MoM, there will be no engines. By 2025 there is a window for a new generation of engines, but if you want them to be ready by 2025, you need to give the engine makers a plane to hang them on. And if you do not want to single source early on you would be starting the down selection process early. Which means a program launch in the next 2 years, which means valid and detailed concepts should be presented this year or the next.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:38 am

I have guesstimated that a list price for a 5000nm, 240 (12J/228Y) pax A322 would be in the range of $185MMish. Not suré this would cannibalize/nibble at the 330s.
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:16 pm

I (still) think there is significant market potential for an aircraft that can reliably do North Atlantic citypairs. IMO the A321LR, just like the 752, comes a little short for this. Issue is there is little incentive for Airbus, there is no competitor in sight at this stage.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:29 pm

How much could the range of the A321neoLR (A322) be improved by making the main undercarriage 8 wheels instead of 4 today, which could result in more MTOW? An airline likely to be interested is one that will want to replace transatlantic 757s, or one who may want to penetrate deeper into smaller markets (like TK into Africa or DY/D8 for smaller markets) and carry cargo on those frames (the A321 can accept the LD3-45). Adding the extra wheels could lead to an easy 170-180 seat configuration for TATL A322 in a 3-class configuration---J, W, Y).
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:43 am

I don't see a need for a stretched A321. We have the A330 (and 787) if an airline require higher capacity for short to medium haul flights into a slot constrained airport. If the airport isn't slot constrained, it will be better to just increase A321 frequency. Higher aircraft utilization is also a reason to use A330/787 on high demand, shorter haul routes. I can't find the reference now, but Leahy once said (in relation to the launch of the A330 regional) that the average for the A330 is a 1800 nm flight.

One of the many benefits of the A321 is the C gate compatibility. Its actually a D class aircraft in air, but C gate on the ground. There are lots of C gates (max wingspan 36 meters) available, and the A321 is the highest capacity aircraft that can use a C gate. Another is its ability to fly into smaller airports that can't handle a widebody. Its runway performance and containerized cargo system are other benefits. It is also a highly flexible aircraft that can be used on medium to long haul segments, or with ACT removed can be used on short haul flight at high density (soon also with 240 passengers onboard). Any stretch of the A321 would erase the many of these benefits.

Being able to cut costs and offer cheaper tickets, while still makeing a profit, is what drives the industry and acquisition of new aircraft. Squeeze in more seats, demand extra for luggage and seat reservation, paying extra for food and drinks etc., has all been done. Lowering salaries for crew, using new fuel efficient aircraft, and high aircraft utilization, has also been done. I only see one major untapped area, and that is more direct flights. A direct flight is shorter, which saves fuel and crew costs. It also saves all costs associated with transfer at a hub, including passengers taxes, aircraft landing fees, terminal costs, baggage handling etc. and costs accruing when connections at hubs are lost. Even Y-passengers might be willing to pay a little extra for the convenience of a direct flight and shorter travel time.

The fuselage of the A321 does not need lengthening. The A321 needs more range than the A321LR can offer, and wings that have been optimized for long haul. I think the best way forward is to develop a new derivate of the A321, retaining the fuselage but with new CFRP wings. Let's call this aircraft A322, since we aren't talking about a replacement of the current A321, just a new variant. With new lightweight wings optimized for high altitude cruising, with A350 wing technology, with more fuel stored in the wings, that is more weight closer to the lift, which at the same time is freeing up cargo bay space (no ACTs). New wings optimized for high altitude cruising also means widebody speed. Such an A322 would be an ideal plane for opening up direct service on medium to long haul flights. Connecting new city pairs thru direct service also increases traffic, which equals growth.

The CEO of Norwegian, which have ordered 43 787 Dreamliners (if I remember correctly), said during a press conference that the A321LR was even more fuel efficient than the 787. This was said when Norwegian converted 30 aircraft of their 100 A320neo order to the A321LR. Norwegian configures their long haul aircraft with 10% Y+ and 90% Y. In this configuration their A321LR will have 220 seats, compared to a 787-8 with 290 seats. The CEO said that the combination of not having to sell so many seats and still have that good fuel efficiently per seat, is why he ordered the A321LR. Smaller aircraft have a lower trip cost (important when you can't fill the seats), and higher flexibility for a different utilization during the low season. Smaller aircraft also mean lower risks when opening new routes. I think many LCC, that are considering starting up long haul flights, would prefer to add a long haul A320 family narrowbody to their fleet, instead for investing in a new widebody fleet like Norwegian has done.

Airbus should further enhance these properties of the A321LR, creating a longer range aircraft, a narrowbody optimized for long haul within the A320 family. The next step in cost cutting will come by flying direct, avoiding the high costs at hubs and shortening flight time. This requires smaller, longer haul capable aircraft than what is available today.
Last edited by reidar76 on Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
StTim
Posts: 3731
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:53 am

There is some interesting things that could do this A322. We know Airbus are working on a new efficient way to make wing boxes from CFP. This may allow a stronger lighter more fuel space wing box for the A322.

Next we have the folding wing concept coming along with the 777x. If this, and I assume it will, works well - the new A322 wing could have this to retain class C gates but be much better for long haul in flight.

Finally the GTF will continue to get better as they start to push the hot section.

I suspect in another 5 years we may get to the launch point.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:56 am

I think there definitely is a market e.g. large city pairs like Berlin - Boston, Philadelphia - Amsterdam or Munchen - Detroit that are always on the balance of having or not justifying a direct flight. The 762 and 757 aren't capable of doing so reliably, profitable. A capable 4500NM/200 seat A322 could really shake things up. Certainly flown from big hubs like e.g. JetBlue operates.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:09 pm

StTim wrote:
There is some interesting things that could do this A322. We know Airbus are working on a new efficient way to make wing boxes from CFP. This may allow a stronger lighter more fuel space wing box for the A322.

Next we have the folding wing concept coming along with the 777x. If this, and I assume it will, works well - the new A322 wing could have this to retain class C gates but be much better for long haul in flight.

Finally the GTF will continue to get better as they start to push the hot section.

I suspect in another 5 years we may get to the launch point.


Interesting....

Summery:
- possible lighter weight wing box (made of CFP), with more fuel space in the center tank
- possible new lighter weight wing (made of CFP), with more fuel space in the wing
- reduced need for ACTs in the cargo bays. This reduce weight and frees up space.
- P&W GTF continues to push the hot section and they have said that the engine will get composites fan blades like the LEAP. This reduces weight.
- possible optimized wingspan for long haul due to folding wing tips. Optimized wings saves fuel and folding wings retains C gate compatibility.
- aerodynamic performance of new optimized wings reduces fuel burn, thus increasing range.

All of the above, while retaining the A321 fuselage length, combined with only a slight MTOW increase, the A321neo engines will be powerful enough. I think that with all these things an A322 could do flights with up to 10 hours scheduled flight time with 200 passengers onboard (2 class) and 220 passengers (1 class). This would be a game changer and a true MOM aircraft. I think Airbus will launch something like this around 2020 with EIS 2025.
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:35 pm

Airbus will not decide anything about an A322 until Boeing started a MOM airplane. It depends only on Boeing how much Airbus has to do, to overplay Boeings MOM plane. If they can't outperform the MOM technically, they will do the opposite, they will keep the A321 as it is, but sell it to a price below the MOM production costs.

And finally, the decision about a MOM competitor will depend on the available engines, currently the engines for the A321 sized planes are the most efficient engines at all. Will any engine supplier develop an engine with similar efficiency for the size of Boeings MOM? If yes, it could be also an option to use this engine for a shrinked A330.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:21 pm

I think there is a cost effective way to grow the A321. I would stop thinking about a new wing, but rather look at evolving the wing. It could be a wing root extension or a proportional growth. It should be possible to keep the MLG, but a new wing box could be necessary, in that case CFRP. A bigger span should not be a big bother, there are enough gates used by 757/767 today.
With bigger wings and a MTOW slightly above 100 t the current biggest GTF should be sufficient. As the engines grow, MTOW could grow, leading perhaps to a four wheel boogie. A stretch should be easy and with a four wheel boogie the rotation point could be moved to the back wheels, giving a good angle of attack at rotation. A good field performance would follow.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:54 pm

Thanks for the interesting post, reidar76. I agree the gate issue very well could be significant.

reidar76 wrote:
The fuselage of the A321 does not need lengthening. The A321 needs more range than the A321LR can offer, and wings that have been optimized for long haul. I think the best way forward is to develop a new derivate of the A321, retaining the fuselage but with new CFRP wings. Let's call this aircraft A322, since we aren't talking about a replacement of the current A321, just a new variant. With new lightweight wings optimized for high altitude cruising, with A350 wing technology, with more fuel stored in the wings, that is more weight closer to the lift, which at the same time is freeing up cargo bay space (no ACTs). New wings optimized for high altitude cruising also means widebody speed. Such an A322 would be an ideal plane for opening up direct service on medium to long haul flights. Connecting new city pairs thru direct service also increases traffic, which equals growth.


You might find the thread on CFRP wings for 737 in tech-ops interesting: viewtopic.php?p=19296075

I think the points in #4 are pretty interesting. CFRP might not be that big a win in the narrowbody space, even without considering the manufacturing issues. It's interesting to read that the MRJ moved away from CFRP very late in the development process, even after the CFRP parts were designed.

One thing mentioned here a few times is that the A32x wing suffers from relatively low internal fuel volume relative to the 737NG era wing. I think that's surely one area for improvement for a future A32x wing, but I don't know if it's significant enough to tip the balance towards making a new wing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2056
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 6:24 pm

I don't know if this is just an A.net myth or not but haven't it been said that the biggest problem with a strectched A322/ 737-11, and the old 757,
that the turn around time would be too long? If you have 250 pax in a narrowbody and all have to board/deplane through one door (unless there are two jetbridges available)
wouldn't it take too long time to unload/load the passengers?
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:13 pm

Hello,

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:
I don't know if this is just an A.net myth or not but haven't it been said that the biggest problem with a strectched A322/ 737-11, and the old 757,
that the turn around time would be too long?


that depends on the route were you use this plane. On long range routes, the influence is not so significiant, but on the shorter routes were the A321 is used nowadays, it is.

It's also a question if you use a jetbrige at a terminal, or air stairs at a field position. In the later case you can use the rear exit too and the effect is much lower.

Jörg
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:41 am

JoergAtADN wrote:
Hello,

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:
I don't know if this is just an A.net myth or not but haven't it been said that the biggest problem with a strectched A322/ 737-11, and the old 757,
that the turn around time would be too long?


that depends on the route were you use this plane. On long range routes, the influence is not so significiant, but on the shorter routes were the A321 is used nowadays, it is.

It's also a question if you use a jetbrige at a terminal, or air stairs at a field position. In the later case you can use the rear exit too and the effect is much lower.

Jörg


For an A321LR/ future A322 seatcounts will probably never top 200. Therefor a second door / bridge will mostly not be selected by the airlines. On longer flights there is often more flexibility in between flights anyway.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:19 pm

keesje wrote:
JoergAtADN wrote:
Hello,

Thunderboltdrgn wrote:
I don't know if this is just an A.net myth or not but haven't it been said that the biggest problem with a strectched A322/ 737-11, and the old 757,
that the turn around time would be too long?


that depends on the route were you use this plane. On long range routes, the influence is not so significiant, but on the shorter routes were the A321 is used nowadays, it is.

It's also a question if you use a jetbrige at a terminal, or air stairs at a field position. In the later case you can use the rear exit too and the effect is much lower.

Jörg


For an A321LR/ future A322 seatcounts will probably never top 200. Therefor a second door / bridge will mostly not be selected by the airlines. On longer flights there is often more flexibility in between flights anyway.

Image

Theta not quite the case as lower density A321s will still use the 8 door configuration and if the fuselage is stretched 2L is there but in a better position. Why remove a helpful tool if you don't need that space for anything else. Also not that if they stretch it any longer which they certainly would have to do with an A322, it would be the size of the 757 which seemed to need 6 doors and 4 overwing exits or 6 doors and 2 half doors and with a plane of that length it would make perfect sense to have 4 doors in front of the wing and either 4 overwing exits and 2 doors at the back, or the original 4 doors behind the wing.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:06 pm

767333ER wrote:
keesje wrote:
JoergAtADN wrote:
Hello,



that depends on the route were you use this plane. On long range routes, the influence is not so significiant, but on the shorter routes were the A321 is used nowadays, it is.

It's also a question if you use a jetbrige at a terminal, or air stairs at a field position. In the later case you can use the rear exit too and the effect is much lower.

Jörg


For an A321LR/ future A322 seatcounts will probably never top 200. Therefor a second door / bridge will mostly not be selected by the airlines. On longer flights there is often more flexibility in between flights anyway.

Image

Theta not quite the case as lower density A321s will still use the 8 door configuration and if the fuselage is stretched 2L is there but in a better position. Why remove a helpful tool if you don't need that space for anything else. Also not that if they stretch it any longer which they certainly would have to do with an A322, it would be the size of the 757 which seemed to need 6 doors and 4 overwing exits or 6 doors and 2 half doors and with a plane of that length it would make perfect sense to have 4 doors in front of the wing and either 4 overwing exits and 2 doors at the back, or the original 4 doors behind the wing.


Airbus offers to remove the door 2. Airlines love the revenue space / cabin flexibility it creates and seldom use it.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:59 pm

Boarding over Door 1 and Door 2 makes no sense on a single aisle aircraft, because their is only ony way to the aft. For a Single Aisle aircraft you need simultaneous boarding over Door 1 and Door 4 to improve the dwell time.

To use two jetways with these doors you need a special terminal design like in CGN: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flughafen ... nal_C5.jpg

With stairs, this is possible on every field position.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Leahy: A322 Not Needed, "We Own This (MOM) Market"

Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:15 pm

JoergAtADN wrote:
Boarding over Door 1 and Door 2 makes no sense on a single aisle aircraft, because their is only ony way to the aft. For a Single Aisle aircraft you need simultaneous boarding over Door 1 and Door 4 to improve the dwell time.

To use two jetways with these doors you need a special terminal design like in CGN: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flughafen ... nal_C5.jpg

With stairs, this is possible on every field position.

It must if airlines generally board with that door if the plane is equipped. Whether it be a 757, A330, or 777 airlines tend to board exclusively with the 2L door unless they have the double attachement jetway. Think of it this way, anyone in front of 2L will not be getting in the way of anyone behind. Now let's say the length of the cabin behind 2L is the about the same as the A320's cabin. Now an A320 takes less time to board than an A321 because it's shorter which means less aisle and less people waiting for others to do their business in the aisles. If you get the people in front of 2L out of the way as you would if you boarded from 2L, you have much the same experience boarding if you are in the cabin behind 2L as you would on an A320.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!

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