• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:47 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
I don't think this plane is going to be for segments as short as ATL-LGA or ORD-DFW (although you could see it there occasionally). I think the narrowbodies are going to be awfully had to beat there. I think this plane is going to have to make it's hay in the 2,500-5,000 mn segment.


Perhaps not so much in the United States, but over in Asia there are hundreds of widebodies flying shorter routes. BKK-SIN, HKG-TPE, CAN-PEK, etc are dominated by widebodies and are all under 1500 miles. This is where many A330s are found and I believe where many of the proposed 797 will be used. This is a market where an A321plus may not have competed well since it may have been too small.

The US market is changing due to all the consolidations among airlines so I am curious if US airlines are interested in a small widebody for domestic use. Historically they have not been used much domestically.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:48 am

The shelving of this program could be as simple as this:

AB - we’d like to get your team together and discuss some nex gen ideas for 321?.....

Airline- hold on you want to talk to me about a new plane when you can’t deliver what we have on order?


A few calls like this can lead to the decision apparently made today.

aB delivered about half their target for the first quarter so I can imagine it’s all hands on deck time.

Not where they want to be but if they ameliorate the problem by shifting resources good for them.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4486
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:38 am

I don't think anybody, including Airbus, Boeing, the engine makers and airlines, have much more than the smallest clue as to what will happen next in the MOM segment.

Basically, Boeing is pushing a somewhat lighter 767, with smaller engines, lower payload and less range. Airlines might be lining up in theory...but they were also lining up, in theory, for the NMA...and we ended up with the MAX.

Airbus pausing a potential upgrade to a totally oversold aircraft and shifting a bunch of engineers around the company, doesn't really tell us much anew bout anything, and is probably much ado about nothing.
What the...?
 
dare100em
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:44 am

It’s interesting how naïve a lot of contributors here are. It seems that people really think you can take a design / simulation engineer – which is working on some A320neo+ using ANSYS or CATIA - and just shift that gay to the production plan-ning staff and – magically – give him some “tasks” to improve the production rate of the A320neo.

This is absolute insane. An engineer needs at least a year – if already experienced – to really get into a complete different field, a newbie more like 2 years. The first few month would mean MORE work and disruptions for the production engineers, not LESS.

I call bullshit on the “resource shifting”. I just think Airbus tactically is not willing to confront airlines with new concepts will the existing planes don’t came of the plants and – to a lesser extend – Boeing still is quite on what the 797 really will be.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7276
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:03 am

I think it is mostly an engine issue. With the GTF so troublesome, offering a version even more depending on ETOPS certification is simply not on the cards right now. So may it should say delayed not shelved.
 
Peterwk146
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:22 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:04 am

It may be as simple as the airlines not wanting what Airbus is offering, so Airbus is having a rethink of their programme strategy for SA developments.
 
parapente
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:27 am

Peterwk146
Of course you could be right.However I think it -at least in part- unlikely.It now appears that the 'plus' was a small stretch that was to be applied to both the A320 and the A321.There is no detail but highly likely to be 2 small stretches fore and aft.They would have the effect of taking both models out to their most efficient pax numbers.IE 200 (one class) for the A320 and 250 pax for the A321.This is obviously a good thing for one class LCC's but equally gives more flexibility to 2/3 class operators.
Indeed it was only a couple of weeks ago when an Airbus representative stated that the new exit arrangements had allowed for A321 certification to 250 pax (surprise!)
Yes in both cases range would suffer a little.In the case of the A320 it has plenty anyway.However the A321LR needs all that it can get.But no one has said that the A321 would become defunct the stretch could simply be called the A322.
I find it hard to believe that airlines would not like these two clear improvements.What is there not to like?
The danger is all on Airbus' side.Airlines would just defer existing orders and wait for the better product.So I fully understand Airbus deferring this project.
As for the 'plus plus' which is described as a re wing (and perhaps engine?).Here you may be right.They may prefer the 'other guys' ideas.But even then...Having a choice (A vs B) is great for airlines as they can play one against the other.In any case it costs them not a penny to 'like it'.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:03 am

dare100em wrote:
It’s interesting how naïve a lot of contributors here are. It seems that people really think you can take a design / simulation engineer – which is working on some A320neo+ using ANSYS or CATIA - and just shift that gay to the production plan-ning staff and – magically – give him some “tasks” to improve the production rate of the A320neo.

This is absolute insane. An engineer needs at least a year – if already experienced – to really get into a complete different field, a newbie more like 2 years. The first few month would mean MORE work and disruptions for the production engineers, not LESS.

I call bullshit on the “resource shifting”. I just think Airbus tactically is not willing to confront airlines with new concepts will the existing planes don’t came of the plants and – to a lesser extend – Boeing still is quite on what the 797 really will be.

How do you know that the design engineers working on the A320+ are gay? :biggrin:

[ Sorry, I know it's a typo, but I could not resist the urge to make a joke... ]

As for the substance of your comments, in reply #48 Lightsaber gave us a different take:

lightsaber wrote:
I have worked mostly R&D my whole career. But every so often I work a few months optimizing production and then go back to R&D now knowing better ways to design stuff to be made.

I don't consider in misinformation to have the people who design aircraft help accelerate production. They know what can and cannot be changed and the cost to recertify an assembly. Every aerospace manufacturer does this.

You don't change the number of engineers on a project, you shift the focus. Perhaps the engineers designing the A320++ didn't fully understand the capabilities of 3D printing. Just as I learned casting spending a mere six weeks redefining how most of the parts I designed were made. The form fit and fuction didn't change. I then changed how one little part was designed so it was casting, 3D printing, or machining friendly. We cut 90% of the cost out of a part just by making it so no one cared how any detail was made except for 20 cuts. Every other manufacturing tolerance was at least tripled. The parts looked a little funny to those of us used to designing for CNC machining.

Allowing the supply people to bid casting shops against 3D printing changed the bidding game. It also ensures the part is good for late in life support (3D printing was cheaper for small batches, casting for the years thousands are made). Because casting shops plan work 6 to 8 months in advance, it allows a surge in production by good old CNC machine shops when that is all that is available too. For it is worth spending a few thousand more per aircraft to surge production. (Right now 3D printing and casting shops are too busy).

This is what I believe Airbus is doing.

Lightsaber

I guess the difference is that the engineers presumably are not switching from design to production planning, but instead moving from logical design to physical design i.e. moving from optimizing functionality to optimizing ease of manufacture?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
fsabo
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:08 am

Revelation wrote:
dare100em wrote:
It’s interesting how naïve a lot of contributors here are. It seems that people really think you can take a design / simulation engineer – which is working on some A320neo+ using ANSYS or CATIA - and just shift that gay to the production plan-ning staff and – magically – give him some “tasks” to improve the production rate of the A320neo.

This is absolute insane. An engineer needs at least a year – if already experienced – to really get into a complete different field, a newbie more like 2 years. The first few month would mean MORE work and disruptions for the production engineers, not LESS.

I call bullshit on the “resource shifting”. I just think Airbus tactically is not willing to confront airlines with new concepts will the existing planes don’t came of the plants and – to a lesser extend – Boeing still is quite on what the 797 really will be.

How do you know that the design engineers working on the A320+ are gay? :biggrin:

[ Sorry, I know it's a typo, but I could not resist the urge to make a joke... ]

As for the substance of your comments, in reply #48 Lightsaber gave us a different take:

lightsaber wrote:
I have worked mostly R&D my whole career. But every so often I work a few months optimizing production and then go back to R&D now knowing better ways to design stuff to be made.

I don't consider in misinformation to have the people who design aircraft help accelerate production. They know what can and cannot be changed and the cost to recertify an assembly. Every aerospace manufacturer does this.

You don't change the number of engineers on a project, you shift the focus. Perhaps the engineers designing the A320++ didn't fully understand the capabilities of 3D printing. Just as I learned casting spending a mere six weeks redefining how most of the parts I designed were made. The form fit and fuction didn't change. I then changed how one little part was designed so it was casting, 3D printing, or machining friendly. We cut 90% of the cost out of a part just by making it so no one cared how any detail was made except for 20 cuts. Every other manufacturing tolerance was at least tripled. The parts looked a little funny to those of us used to designing for CNC machining.

Allowing the supply people to bid casting shops against 3D printing changed the bidding game. It also ensures the part is good for late in life support (3D printing was cheaper for small batches, casting for the years thousands are made). Because casting shops plan work 6 to 8 months in advance, it allows a surge in production by good old CNC machine shops when that is all that is available too. For it is worth spending a few thousand more per aircraft to surge production. (Right now 3D printing and casting shops are too busy).

This is what I believe Airbus is doing.

Lightsaber

I guess the difference is that the engineers presumably are not switching from design to production planning, but instead moving from logical design to physical design i.e. moving from optimizing functionality to optimizing ease of manufacture?


When you have experience in manufacturing you tend to design components that are easier and cheaper to manufacture. It is also important to design engineers to be able to walk to the factory floor and talk with production engineers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:17 am

fsabo wrote:
When you have experience in manufacturing you tend to design components that are easier and cheaper to manufacture. It is also important to design engineers to be able to walk to the factory floor and talk with production engineers.

True, but does it make sense that the engineers working specifically on the A320+ stretches all could move to A320 family manufacturing/production related tasks?

It would seem to suggest that (a) a lot do have the ability to work on such tasks and (b) there are a fairly large number of such tasks needing to be addressed.

Or (c) this really is an information warfare campaign (see my earlier detailed post on this...): they're really not moving and this is mostly to pacify customers and investors or perhaps a change of tone if not a panic move by the new Airbus management team.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1214
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:22 am

dare100em wrote:
It’s interesting how naïve a lot of contributors here are. It seems that people really think you can take a design / simulation engineer – which is working on some A320neo+ using ANSYS or CATIA


Not to put too fine a point on it - if you think ANSYS and CATIA have much to do with this you're not really qualified to judge others.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:59 pm

Let's start with three words: Brexit, CSeries and NMA.
It is very likely that by the middle of this year Airbus will have 50.01% stake in the CSeries program. When that happens Airbus can offer narrow-bodies with capability from 100 to 240 passengers. The A320 family is wider than the 737 thus more comfortable, but less fuel efficient. The A321 is prefered above the 737-9 and -10 because of this.
The CSeries is narrower than the 737, thus more efficient but less comfortable at 6-abreast, at 5-abreast it's more comfortable and most likely it has the same efficiency.
Currently the A320NEOs are performing beter at longer range flights. I think Parapente wrote very nicely how stretching the NEOs would improve their efficiency at the cost of range. But the 737MAX and A320NEO are already equally efficient. If Airbus would do the A320NEO+ (being a small stretch) the NEO+ would have beter efficiency than the 737.
If Airbus sqeazes the 737 from both the bottom (CSeries) and the top (A320NEO+), this would most likely triger Boeing to launch a clean sheet narrow body 737 replacement (the NMA). Airbus has a reaction for this the A320++, but because of Brexit they can't develop it at this moment. (They can't decide where place the CFRP wing production facilities because of the uncertainties around Brexit.)
Besides both the CSeries and the A320NEO are in ramp-up phase, as is the A350XWB. Both the CSeries and the A320NEO are experiencing ramp-up problems at this point. If Airbus and Bombardier succeed in their ramp-ups, the A320NEO will be produced at rate 63-70/month and the CSeries at rate 12-18/month. That's a combined production rate of 75-88/month. AFAIK the 100-240 seat narrow-body market forecasts estimate a total requirement of roughly 40 000 narrow-bodies around 2036. With a estimated plane life of 25 years, this requires a global production rate of 133 1/3 /month. 75 of 133 = 56.25% | 88 of 133 = 66%. Besides Boeing, also Comac and UAC are competing in the narrow-body market. Thus Airbus (and Bombardier) are striving to capture the majority of the narrow-body market. But at this point they can't respond to a cleansheet NMA from Boeing, thus Airbus delays it's A320NEO improvements. This avoids order deferrals, and decreases the pressure on Boeing to improve their narrow-body product offering.
This same pressure to improve product theory applies on the A330 and 787/797MOM. Maybe Boeing should watch out, because they could trigger Airbus to improve the A330 family mayor. Boeing is lucky Airbus has to deal with all the ramp-up problems, slow A380 market and Brexit, otherwise Airbus could improve the A330 a lot (possibly cleansheet with same cross-section) and jeopardize Boeings cash-cow the 787.
Let's end with a impression I've got. Boeing talks louder than it acts (US business style, lots of speculation and talk about new developments) , Airbus acts louder than it speaks (EU business style, very closed lipped about long term developments). I've no preference for an approach, both have their good and bad sides. But I think this causes the misconception of Airbus waiting for Boeing to develop something.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1663
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:11 pm

CFRPwingALbody wrote:
If Airbus and Bombardier succeed in their ramp-ups, the A320NEO will be produced at rate 63-70/month and the CSeries at rate 12-18/month.


The current CSeries supply chain is already finding it tough to reach 12 /month.

Going beyond this will require significant investments by large sub-assembly suppliers in facilities (and time for those facilities to come on stream). There are some investments in facilities already underway, but I'm not sure what they will allow the rate to go up to. Certainly, you won't see 18/month this side of 2020.
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:44 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
CFRPwingALbody wrote:
If Airbus and Bombardier succeed in their ramp-ups, the A320NEO will be produced at rate 63-70/month and the CSeries at rate 12-18/month.


The current CSeries supply chain is already finding it tough to reach 12 /month.

Going beyond this will require significant investments by large sub-assembly suppliers in facilities (and time for those facilities to come on stream). There are some investments in facilities already underway, but I'm not sure what they will allow the rate to go up to. Certainly, you won't see 18/month this side of 2020.

AFAIK rate 4 is very difficult at this point. The bottle neck is cabin outfitting. Investments have to be made in the CSerier production proces to solve this..(off topic, but possibly not)
 
SC430
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:57 pm

 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1210
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:17 am



A fact based on a “vision”? Or won’t happen.

When they show metal, I’ll believe. Until then it’s just more and more PR trying to get customers hooked with vague definitions and capabilities. Every airline wants a different thing and B is over promising a miracle. Time will tell if the corpse of the 797 joins the one from the project that the MAX killed...
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:11 am

Flyglobal wrote:
par13del wrote:
So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797....Airbus inside sources have confirmed that Boeing cannot make a business case so it is pointless for Airbus to continue the study, the A321 will reign supreme for another 10 years or so while the MAX10 brings up the rear.
Cool.....


Option 1) That is not a completely unrealistic option. It could be that they do a 767 Neo plus, or the 787-8; 787-7 or so instead
Option 2) While they are doing so, do a new Narrow Body design when new engines are available..
Option 3) Airbus realizes that they need to do a revamped 338, better 36x, or better come with a new Family of aircrafts


Flyglobal


Where does one get a new, efficient engine for the 767?
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1407
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:12 am

Jayafe wrote:


A fact based on a “vision”? Or won’t happen.

When they show metal, I’ll believe. Until then it’s just more and more PR trying to get customers hooked with vague definitions and capabilities. Every airline wants a different thing and B is over promising a miracle. Time will tell if the corpse of the 797 joins the one from the project that the MAX killed...


It looks to me like price is the biggest problem. The airlines want to have a MOM that doesn't cost much more than a narrowbody when it will obviously be closer to the price of a widebody. Which makes sense since it will be a widebody.

Airbus have to get the current A320NEO problems sorted out. They might have a large backlog of orders but customers will remember the problems with the current delay in deliveries and engine issues. Fixing the production problems will also presumably alos enable a reduction in costs with more scope for bigger profits or bigger discounts.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7276
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:43 am

And with the recent aggressive 787 sales campaigns, the price of the MoM will have become even more of a problem.
 
parapente
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:13 am

Airbus has shelved their 'plus' A320 products as neither the existing airframe or engines are in a manufacturing position to deliver to the timetable envisaged ('2years earlier than the 797').
The 797 pax/range specs (as we know them) seem (to me) to be a dead ringer for the old A310 (200 and 300 ).Might Airbus consider creating a 2025 version?Obviously using the new 797 45- 50klbs engines,which could be hung on a set carbon wings.It would at least offer a different type of MOM with huge cargo opportunities.Its not as if the 330 production line is going to be over used!
 
DartHerald
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:26 am

An updated A310 is an interesting alternative as it was a fairly technologically advanced plane for its time, and although a lot of it might be brand new there are presumably savings to be had from recycling the old design and incorporating new features such as the composite door frames recently introduced on the A350. The A310 wasn't the best looking machine in the sky but it would be nice to see it make a comeback!
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:49 am

I think the A310 is replaced by the A321NEO. I do agree that a replacement for the A300 and a smaller winged A338 could be nice additions to Airbus product offering. I guess MTOW of 180 to 200 mT would be the right size. range of 4000-5000NM for the A332/A338 version. (also a A333/A339 regional, could be nice.)
I think this could be a A332++, new nose/cockpit, new CFRP wing, new center segment, new tale and lower trust engines. Ohoh; that's a clean sheet design. And no engines available at this point.
Is that the same for the A320NEO++ (CFRP wing, new nose & cockpit = Clean sheet design) !?
Good for another 20year production run (2025-2045) ?!
 
Kikko19
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:14 am

agree, between a new a310 and a321++ I cannot see any alternatives it's either 6 or 6 abreast... the engines (and new wings ?) should be the key for the new entrants
 
parapente
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:55 am

To be honest it's probably a rubbish idea but I started thinking about it when their was all that dialogue about Asian countries wanting plenty of cargo space but the reverse foe the US (and Europe? Dunno).
I am not familiar with the A310 at all other than Wiki!But it's impossible not to see the close similarities in core performance (pax and range) with the 797.
One assumes they have access to the origonal (lighter) MLG for this aircaft and indeed everything else must be around somewhere.But the totally updated 338 is a pretty good starting point.
They are bound to know the projected thrust /weight /size of the proposed 797 engine I would have thought.From which the wing design would be drawn.
What attracted me to the thought (assuming the 797 is X7 ovoid - and thus LD 45's?) is that it would offer a very different propersition to the market.Rather than any 'me too'.Bound to be slightly lower efficiency for pax as it's a fatter metal fuse.But offering huge cargo capabilities instead.Oh and shouldn't cost too much.
Anyway fun to speculate.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:17 am

parapente wrote:
I am not familiar with the A310 at all other than Wiki!But it's impossible not to see the close similarities in core performance (pax and range) with the 797.
One assumes they have access to the origonal (lighter) MLG for this aircaft and indeed everything else must be around somewhere.But the totally updated 338 is a pretty good starting point.

Quite a few people have mentioned this over the last year.

The A310, A300 and A330 all share the same fuselage cross section. The stringer and longerons positions all line up and they have the same tail and nose. In theory you could buy a used A330-200 and an A310 and make a stretched A310. The A310 and A300 wingbox and landing gear is much lighter and smaller. Notice the lack of the bulge where the landing gear gear is.

Image

I would assume Boeing would have a contract with GE regarding the scaled up LEAP engine stopping them selling the engine in that thrust range to Airbus. They wouldn't want a lightweight A330 stealing the show with similar weights to the old A300.

Basically insert an A310 size and weight wingbox and landing gear underneith into the current in production A330-800 fuselage tube. Fit a higher aspect ratio carbon wing more optimised for short ranges. Use GE's mom engines. This is what the A330NEO should have been, not this overweight poor man's A350.
 
parapente
Posts: 2653
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:29 am

Thx RJMAZ
Very illuminating pair of pictures.Guess it would be even more dramatic with an A310!The change in the undercarriage and 'bulge' is not something I had realised.Certainly the different sizes of wing are very evident and would be even more so with the 338.
I guess the total lack of an engine is what stopped them doing this previously.But I guess they could have always asked one of the engine OEM's! Never any harm in asking!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:37 am

The idea was considered years ago on a.net at least :wink2: Keeping the A330-200/800 fuselage etc and renew the wingbox, wing, engines and landing gear, radically cutting empty weight and capability for an aircraft optimized as A310 replacement.

Image

Empty weight of the A310 was 80t, A330-200 ~ 120t.

A reduction of ~ 30t empty weight should be feasible. It would be a good freighter too. However I never saw/ heard Airbus considering this.

Maybe it would still be to expensive to build operate in the massive <1500NM <270 seats single class segment. It's still would be a big machine and you can't fantasize away direct operating costs. Even if you stuff in many extra seats the airlines aren't asking for.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:06 pm

Elementalism wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
mikejepp wrote:
I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?


THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....


The A330 is the same size as the 787. How would a plane that large attack from above? It serves a completely different role than a proposed MOM plane.


Well, say the A321LR can do 90% of what the proposed 797 can do. Being as it is already developed it will be cheaper than the 797. It will also be cheaper to operate,
as it is smaller, single aisle and up to date with latest engine technology etc.
For the 10% of Routes I give you a A330 for dirt cheap for every 10 A321LR you order. Is it too big? Yes. But the price will be lower than that of the 797. Again, because it is
already developed and because I make my money on the A321LR sales. Is it more expensive to operate? Yes, but due to the lower aqcuisition cost you can operate it for many many years until you reach a break even point.
Even if the MOM Market is 1000 planes. Spreading 20B$ across 1000 planes is already 20M a piece that you can't discuss away..... Is it half that, then 40M etc.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:49 pm

InsideMan wrote:
Even if the MOM Market is 1000 planes. Spreading 20B$ across 1000 planes is already 20M a piece that you can't discuss away..... Is it half that, then 40M etc.

Some counter points:

Boeing CEO just said he sees the market as 4000 frames. Even if they get half, it's 2000 frames.

This is not a $20B project. They've already built the wing factory in KPAE. They're already squatting on land in KCHS. This will be the 3rd wing they've done based on 787 tech. Systems will be 787 tech. Construction of CFRP parts is now well understood. When they did 787 they had to stop and re-do everything since they didn't understand lightening protection. They didn't understand what fasteners to use with CFRP. Those kinds of things are now solved problems.

And the whole point of the exercise is to position the product so it's more appealing than A321neo and possible simple follow ons.

If they get it right, it will be creating a market for itself, and not be viewed as the same kind of product as an A320 family member, just like 787 is viewed differently than A330.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1663
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:06 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Image


Yeah but, no but yeah but...

There is much more to it than just "a bulge".

That "bulge" also has important connotations for Whitcomb's area-rule.

edit: Not the best image I've seen of it, but you can see from the light shining down it, that its much more than simply "a bugle".
Image
Last edited by Amiga500 on Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:07 pm

keesje wrote:
The idea was considered years ago on a.net at least :wink2: Keeping the A330-200/800 fuselage etc and renew the wingbox, wing, engines and landing gear, radically cutting empty weight and capability for an aircraft optimized as A310 replacement.

Empty weight of the A310 was 80t, A330-200 ~ 120t.

A reduction of ~ 30t empty weight should be feasible. It would be a good freighter too. However I never saw/ heard Airbus considering this.

Maybe it would still be to expensive to build operate in the massive <1500NM <270 seats single class segment. It's still would be a big machine and you can't fantasize away direct operating costs. Even if you stuff in many extra seats the airlines aren't asking for.
]


If Airbus is shelving the A321plus, I really don’t see them going for an A330-800 shrink. There are no orders for the A338. Apart from me questioning the feasibility of removing 30tons from the A338, I don’t see Airbus investing billions in an airplane that is a shrink of an airplane no one wants (A338). The A321plus looked much more promising, but it appears Airbus can’t close the business case and wants to focus on A320neo production instead for now.
 
texl1649
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:22 pm

So the same folks arguing there's no NMA need, would advocate for investing a billion dollars to create a 30 ton lighter A338 with a similar EIS?

Somehow I don't think Airbus goes this route, right on the heal of cancelling the A32X future option/derivatives project. If they want to maintain 40 percent of widebody deliveries through 2030 they are going to need a new frame.
 
morrisond
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
InsideMan wrote:
Even if the MOM Market is 1000 planes. Spreading 20B$ across 1000 planes is already 20M a piece that you can't discuss away..... Is it half that, then 40M etc.

Some counter points:

Boeing CEO just said he sees the market as 4000 frames. Even if they get half, it's 2000 frames.

This is not a $20B project. They've already built the wing factory in KPAE. They're already squatting on land in KCHS. This will be the 3rd wing they've done based on 787 tech. Systems will be 787 tech. Construction of CFRP parts is now well understood. When they did 787 they had to stop and re-do everything since they didn't understand lightening protection. They didn't understand what fasteners to use with CFRP. Those kinds of things are now solved problems.

And the whole point of the exercise is to position the product so it's more appealing than A321neo and possible simple follow ons.

If they get it right, it will be creating a market for itself, and not be viewed as the same kind of product as an A320 family member, just like 787 is viewed differently than A330.



The other thing to consider with costing of the NMA is that if they continue to use Program Cost accounting and launch NMA with NSA together (albeit NSA being delivered 3-5 years later) they could possibly amortize the cost of development, and early production of the common elements over a lot of frames....This could include major systems architecture, Nose, Front Fuselage barrel, Rear Fuselage/tailplane, Development of the Oval 7W cross section. The unique elements of NSA vs NMA could be different Wing/Wingbox, and gear - the tailplane may even be able to be reused with fly by wire.

It is not inconceivable that they could be amortizing these costs over 8,000 - 10,000 frames (I would say 2,000 - 4,000 NMA and 6,000 - 8,000 NSA). Even if the whole program cost $30B that is only $3.75 Million per frame worst case - at $20B and 10,000 frames that is only $2M per frame - relatively peanuts.

I would guess they don't necessarily have to launch them at the same time either - just state that they will use a lot of NMA when they do NSA so they can spread the costs over the production run of both and give airlines comfort that NMA will be very cross compatible with NSA in terms of Maintenance and training.

My last thought for the morning - if the Boeing CEO is mulling 4,000-5,000 NMA - it's not going to be 8W - it will be 7W and will basically be an NSA with Larger Wings/ Gross weights - but done first to get the bugs out at lower volumes, and optimize weight before moving on to NSA.
 
stant62
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:09 pm

Are the casting shops really that busy? Maybe I'm reading the market wrong, but Arconic's recent public comments regarding pricing challenges seem to conflict with that comment.

Also, how serious of a threat is 3-D printing to the casting shops in terms of obsolence? I assume we're still years away from a truly cost competitive environment given the currently low cost of casting components.

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
bigjku wrote:

I have worked mostly R&D my whole career. But every so often I work a few months optimizing production and then go back to R&D now knowing better ways to design stuff to be made.

I don't consider in misinformation to have the people who design aircraft help accelerate production. They know what can and cannot be changed and the cost to recertify an assembly. Every aerospace manufacturer does this.

You don't change the number of engineers on a project, you shift the focus. Perhaps the engineers designing the A320++ didn't fully understand the capabilities of 3D printing. Just as I learned casting spending a mere six weeks redefining how most of the parts I designed were made. The form fit and fuction didn't change. I then changed how one little part was designed so it was casting, 3D printing, or machining friendly. We cut 90% of the cost out of a part just by making it so no one cared how any detail was made except for 20 cuts. Every other manufacturing tolerance was at least tripled. The parts looked a little funny to those of us used to designing for CNC machining.

Allowing the supply people to bid casting shops against 3D printing changed the bidding game. It also ensures the part is good for late in life support (3D printing was cheaper for small batches, casting for the years thousands are made). Because casting shops plan work 6 to 8 months in advance, it allows a surge in production by good old CNC machine shops when that is all that is available too. For it is worth spending a few thousand more per aircraft to surge production. (Right now 3D printing and casting shops are too busy).

This is what I believe Airbus is doing.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:57 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The idea was considered years ago on a.net at least :wink2: Keeping the A330-200/800 fuselage etc and renew the wingbox, wing, engines and landing gear, radically cutting empty weight and capability for an aircraft optimized as A310 replacement.

Empty weight of the A310 was 80t, A330-200 ~ 120t.

A reduction of ~ 30t empty weight should be feasible. It would be a good freighter too. However I never saw/ heard Airbus considering this.

Maybe it would still be to expensive to build operate in the massive <1500NM <270 seats single class segment. It's still would be a big machine and you can't fantasize away direct operating costs. Even if you stuff in many extra seats the airlines aren't asking for.
]


If Airbus is shelving the A321plus, I really don’t see them going for an A330-800 shrink. There are no orders for the A338. Apart from me questioning the feasibility of removing 30tons from the A338, I don’t see Airbus investing billions in an airplane that is a shrink of an airplane no one wants (A338). The A321plus looked much more promising, but it appears Airbus can’t close the business case and wants to focus on A320neo production instead for now.


It doesn't make Airbus customers proud when Toulouse focuses on further future developments, when they have problems meeting their short term commitments.

This "Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study" "News" by "two people familiar with the matter"; I wouldn't read too much "Shifting Strategies" in it.

Unless we want it to :wink2:

Image
Last edited by keesje on Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7389
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
parapente wrote:
I am not familiar with the A310 at all other than Wiki!But it's impossible not to see the close similarities in core performance (pax and range) with the 797.
One assumes they have access to the origonal (lighter) MLG for this aircaft and indeed everything else must be around somewhere.But the totally updated 338 is a pretty good starting point.

Quite a few people have mentioned this over the last year.

The A310, A300 and A330 all share the same fuselage cross section. The stringer and longerons positions all line up and they have the same tail and nose. In theory you could buy a used A330-200 and an A310 and make a stretched A310. The A310 and A300 wingbox and landing gear is much lighter and smaller. Notice the lack of the bulge where the landing gear gear is.

Image

I would assume Boeing would have a contract with GE regarding the scaled up LEAP engine stopping them selling the engine in that thrust range to Airbus. They wouldn't want a lightweight A330 stealing the show with similar weights to the old A300.

Basically insert an A310 size and weight wingbox and landing gear underneith into the current in production A330-800 fuselage tube. Fit a higher aspect ratio carbon wing more optimised for short ranges. Use GE's mom engines. This is what the A330NEO should have been, not this overweight poor man's A350.


I would assume Boeing asking more than one engine manufacturer to make an offer for the 797 engines. So there will be several engine projects in that size.

The A330neo is hardly the size of the A350. The A330-800 sized tube would be quite large. Start with the A300 fuselage and and landing gear, A330 cockpit.
Either reuse the A300 wingbox or use the new Airbus composite wingbox, add a new wing, 53 m span, and new engines. Produce on the current A330 production line.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:38 pm

So we have various theories on why Airbus made this change. We know they want to increase production and are focusing resources on that.

1. One theory is that Boeing is getting cold feet about the MOM - and Airbus decides to delay their Plus/Plus-Plus project and focus on ramping on production of existing A320neo.

2. Another theory could be that Boeing has decided to go ahead with the MOM - and Airbus has realized that the Plus/Plus-Plus projects simply won't stand up to the competition. What if Airbus is re-arranging their resources to develop an all new narrowbody (or slim widebody) to replace the A320-series from 2025-2030? With the C-Series, Airbus will have a product that covers the 115-150 seat market. Maybe they have decided to develop a 150-250 seat A320-replacement with C-Series commonality?

I know, pure speculation and what-ifs. But speculation is fun.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18620
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:18 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
2. Another theory could be that Boeing has decided to go ahead with the MOM - and Airbus has realized that the Plus/Plus-Plus projects simply won't stand up to the competition. What if Airbus is re-arranging their resources to develop an all new narrowbody (or slim widebody) to replace the A320-series from 2025-2030? With the C-Series, Airbus will have a product that covers the 115-150 seat market. Maybe they have decided to develop a 150-250 seat A320-replacement with C-Series commonality?

Interesting. Earlier we read:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

If your suggestion is true, then Schulz is engaging in high level information warfare.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Wayfarer515
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:56 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study2

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:19 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
Queue up hype for the A390, which will probably launch 15 seconds after the 797. Wonder which big market that considers the number 9 lucky will be heavily pandered to by both manufacturers...


I think you mean China, but its the number 8 their lucky number. In any case, I think that the Chinese market will no longer belong to the West, if Comac fails the Chinese market will become MS-21 territory given the current geopolitical landscape, that and of course the MS-21 being a more efficient aircraft than the oldies from A and B.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:22 pm

Surprising...Like many, I always thought a two row stretch of the A320 would be huge blow to the 738. The one thing that keeps the 737 in the game is that B really hit the sweet spot with the 160-180 passenger 738. Otherwise the 737 lineup is weak.

Airbus has larger gap between A320 and A321, it can't be too expensive to fill it.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
Elementalism
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:27 pm

InsideMan wrote:
Elementalism wrote:
InsideMan wrote:

THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....


The A330 is the same size as the 787. How would a plane that large attack from above? It serves a completely different role than a proposed MOM plane.


Well, say the A321LR can do 90% of what the proposed 797 can do. Being as it is already developed it will be cheaper than the 797. It will also be cheaper to operate,
as it is smaller, single aisle and up to date with latest engine technology etc.
For the 10% of Routes I give you a A330 for dirt cheap for every 10 A321LR you order. Is it too big? Yes. But the price will be lower than that of the 797. Again, because it is
already developed and because I make my money on the A321LR sales. Is it more expensive to operate? Yes, but due to the lower aqcuisition cost you can operate it for many many years until you reach a break even point.
Even if the MOM Market is 1000 planes. Spreading 20B$ across 1000 planes is already 20M a piece that you can't discuss away..... Is it half that, then 40M etc.


Right now the LR does about 90% of the 757, a 40 year old design. So I would expect the 797 to bring forward efficiency. Meaning I wouldnt expect the LR to really be 90% of a 797 when all is said and done.

As for the rest. Anything is possible. Boeing could also give it away for free. What we do know is Boeing believes it is a 4K frame market, not 1k. History has shown the 757\767 are ~2400 frames in a different time in aviation. And the A330 is the size of a 787. The A330 Neo isnt exactly lighting it up vs the 787. It will not be able to compete with the 797 imo. Too expensive, too big, too much plane, too expensive to run.

And I don't expect this to cost 20 billion. A lot of the R&D for this was done with the 787 program. Now they need to take that and build a clean sheet MoM aircraft in the ~300-350,000 pound MTOW range that can do 4500-5000nm with 230-250 pax.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:31 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
So we have various theories on why Airbus made this change. We know they want to increase production and are focusing resources on that.

1. One theory is that Boeing is getting cold feet about the MOM - and Airbus decides to delay their Plus/Plus-Plus project and focus on ramping on production of existing A320neo.

2. Another theory could be that Boeing has decided to go ahead with the MOM - and Airbus has realized that the Plus/Plus-Plus projects simply won't stand up to the competition. What if Airbus is re-arranging their resources to develop an all new narrowbody (or slim widebody) to replace the A320-series from 2025-2030? With the C-Series, Airbus will have a product that covers the 115-150 seat market. Maybe they have decided to develop a 150-250 seat A320-replacement with C-Series commonality?

I know, pure speculation and what-ifs. But speculation is fun.


#2 is how I took this article. Though the CS Series twist is interesting. But I think Airbus realized unlike Boeing with their 737 line that the A321 frame\wing\design has reached its end point. To compete with the eventual 797 will require a clean sheet design.
 
SC430
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm

Jayafe wrote:


A fact based on a “vision”? Or won’t happen.

When they show metal, I’ll believe. Until then it’s just more and more PR trying to get customers hooked with vague definitions and capabilities. Every airline wants a different thing and B is over promising a miracle. Time will tell if the corpse of the 797 joins the one from the project that the MAX killed...


You sound a lot like John Leahy when the Dreamliner was announced. It's not that you don't think it will be launched, you just are hoping it won't be :)
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 1210
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:30 pm

SC430 wrote:
You sound a lot like John Leahy when the Dreamliner was announced. It's not that you don't think it will be launched, you just are hoping it won't be :)


You mix hate with reality.
I don’t see a business case.
Boeing doesn’t seem to be able for long to build a business case.
Every airline that opens its mouth has its own requirements and “particular” business case.
Even Airbus has stopped developments to cover that niche because it doesn’t see a business case.

I know it may hurt, but until there is metal, you are being blinded by hype.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:49 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
What if Airbus is re-arranging their resources to develop an all new narrowbody (or slim widebody) to replace the A320-series from 2025-2030? With the C-Series, Airbus will have a product that covers the 115-150 seat market. Maybe they have decided to develop a 150-250 seat A320-replacement with C-Series commonality?


This is something that crossed my mind too.

Being a first mover isn't all that bad if you time the market replacement wave right. Gives you the opportunity to lock in many key customers first.
 
User avatar
O530CarrisPT
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:05 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:09 am

InsideMan wrote:
Well, say the A321LR can do 90% of what the proposed 797 can do. Being as it is already developed it will be cheaper than the 797. It will also be cheaper to operate, as it is smaller, single aisle and up to date with latest engine technology etc.


The Airbus A321LR can do right now 90% of the flights performed by the Boeing 757 (at a lower cost in comparison with the 757), but that does NOT guarantee a priori that the A321LR will do 90% of what the proposed 797 can (the 797 will also touch the 767-200 segment).

InsideMan wrote:
For the 10% of Routes I give you a A330 for dirt cheap for every 10 A321LR you order. Is it too big? Yes. But the price will be lower than that of the 797. Again, because it is already developed and because I make my money on the A321LR sales. Is it more expensive to operate? Yes, but due to the lower aqcuisition cost you can operate it for many many years until you reach a break even point.


As Elementalism said, the A330 (and the A330neo) is the same size as the 787 Dreamliner.
So, the A330neo (or the A330ceo) is too much plane to be considered as a good replacement for the 757 and 767 (at least the 767-200). And as what've seen, the A330neo, although is a good airplane for the airlines which want an airplane to replace their A330s at a lower cost (in comparison with a 787/A350XWB), currently is in a delicated situation in question of gaining new orders in comparison with Boeing's 787 (which is helped by Boeing's decision to ramp up the production of the airplane).

InsideMan wrote:
Even if the MOM Market is 1000 planes. Spreading 20B$ across 1000 planes is already 20M a piece that you can't discuss away..... Is it half that, then 40M etc.


That assumption ignores that the 797/NMA will use many technologies developed originally for either the 777X or the 787. So, they can use the same technologies to develop a clean sheet 757/767 replacement with capacity up to 250 passengers and a range up to 9200km for LESS than $20 billion which you're claiming.
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:23 pm

I'm with Keejie on this one. I think there is a lot of life left in new versions 32xx. AB is just too busy w more pressing needs like delivering ordered AC.

I'm in the new product development business and customers just don't listen to new pitches when you have not delivered on promises.

I'm sure of only one thing; B will not build a 797 if it can be easily attached by a revised 32xx.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2191
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:39 pm

A and B are to a degree coasting with the NBs, 330, and 777s. 380, 350, and 787 are no longer new kids on the block. Boeing in this lineup is a bit longer in the tooth than Airbus. Boeing really needs to get a new model out, Airbus has a little more time. In the peculiar symmetry of the two, Airbus is now facing production ramp ups and efficiency pains, but a little less spectacularly that B with the 787. For Airbus there are huge profits ahead as they improve costs, eliminate snags in production and execute the backlog. It does give Boeing a couple years head start for the next model.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8525
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:49 pm

I don't know why anyone is throwing around $20 billion development costs for the 797, that is an absurdly high number. That would make the plane more expensive than the A350 program by several billion dollars.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7389
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus shelves A320neo-plus study

Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:55 pm

Polot wrote:
I don't know why anyone is throwing around $20 billion development costs for the 797, that is an absurdly high number. That would make the plane more expensive than the A350 program by several billion dollars.


Perhaps because the 787 did cost over 25 billion USD to develop.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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