JoeCanuck wrote:

Richard28 wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

I dug up a story on that flight. They flew for 11 hours, but at only at a reported 425 knots with 162 pseudo humans on board. Flying at their normal cruise speed would cut the range and duration significantly.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgol ... b31fcd1b74

Maybe this is a dumb question but if significant range and fuel usage gains can be made by flying 17% slower then why not just do that?

If a passenger is looking at 2 direct flights one takes 7hrs one takes 8hrs are they even going to notice there is a difference let alone differentiate towards the shorter flight? More so if the flights leave at different times.

Most of these routes would also be the only route to that airport so there is nothing to compare them to anyway other than another flight with a connection, in which case any direct flight would be superior.

XLR, Plus and plus-plus are not even in direct competition, as they will have different times to market.

XLR - will be fast
Plus - is the medium term solution
Plus-Plus - is the one that will take the most time but will still be available before the MoM arrives

It is quite likely that 2 of those 3 options will see the light of day. Strategically it makes sense to do the XLR first to grab easy customers and delay the plus/plus until the MoM has been defined and launched.

Earlier on Airbus (Leahy) told the A321LR really was a puzzle to get everything in. With the 3 ACT's eating up luggage space & equipment needed to be relocated. One or two additional ACT's could be placed, adding ~500NM each. Realistically passenger luggage capacity would become a (even bigger) issue.. Maybe if you do 150 passenegrs in 3 classes? A fourth ACT & just bulk, with an overflow into the cabin (dedicated space)?


E.g. 2 extra ACT's on top of the A321LR 3 ACT's.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1393699

seahawk wrote:

A warmed over A321 will not be a challenge to the MoM.

It has from day 1.

Chemist wrote:

You could call it the XLB for extra little baggage.

STO ? Swim Trunks Only

I do not believe that Airbus will offer an A321XLR and just add a fourth ACT.

I believe we will see slightly bigger wingtanks and they have found some extra usable volume near or in the wing box.

Going from removable ACTs to non removable tanks, could also add some tankage volume. That tank would not need to conform to the form of the cargo hold and its size would not be restricted to fit the cargo doors. Taking up the same length, but having a different form, including being higher, offering more volume than the standard ACT. It would also be possible to play slightly with the length the tank would take up, as the cargo holds are not an exact fit for the number of ULDs they are able to load.

I would assume the A321XLR offering more tankage than the A321LR with 3 ACT, while offering the same or more cargo space.

Airbus already increased the size of the ACTs for the LR - presumably to a more conformal shape. Hard to imagine there's scope to increase them further.

Agreed but fuel is uber heavy stuff! They will have to upgrade the MLG somewhat and one imagines they are getting close to the single bogey limit esp in terms of pavement loading.No doubt there is a little wriggle room or they would not be suggesting it.
One assumes that if they do (as they said they would) increase production rates then slots automatically become available to sell the craft.Existing 321's ordered can be upgraded to the new XLR -for an additional cost one imagines.

keesje wrote:

boxeebox wrote:

Earlier today, the CEO of JetBlue mentioned that Airbus was floating the idea of an XLR (Extra Long Range) model of the A321. Has anyone else heard of this? I can't seem to find anything on it.

-Box

This CEO better first checks with Newbiepilot and Revelation, any Airbus NEO Plus or Plus-Plus is shelved. Management shake ups, hurt feelings, huge production issues, senior a.net members, don't underestimate this. Facts are stubborn things.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1391201&start=250

Thanks for the shout-out, K-man, but I don't think the JetBlue CEO needs to consult with a.net to understand the difference between a stretch (A320+), a new CFRP wing (A320++) and "The A321XLR - with more fuel capacity but no extra seats or aerodynamic redesign - is a compromise bet that Airbus hopes will fend off Boeing for the smallest upfront investment."

Three guesses on where the investment really is going, and first two don't count.

keesje wrote:

Well in this case, it seems he hit the wall with his shelving story. And many where enthousiastically jumping after him, without looking any further. Sometimes you have that when people love the idea. Maybe he selected his sources for succes? You tell me.

Airbus is considering it’s options and every option seperately or in combination has it’s cost & benefits. The reference against where these trade-offs are made are also moving. To fly blind on what somewhat said at one point at a place and time and consider that leading for a shift, will result in many surprizes. Repeatedly. Reent history show. Every option is open.

Maybe there is still a (french) fraction within Airbus that is lobbyin for something entirely new, to be build in TLS of course. And Paris is (somehow) putting money on the table for it.

They will do what in the end to board get convinced of, is te best. And does that change over time ? Imagine it never would..

From what I have read and can quote sources on everything is that

A. A321plus = stretch and weight increases
B. A321plus plus = stretched, weight increases, and composite wing
C. Those studies were shelved and resources were redirected to production issues
D. A321XLR is now being proposed which is a simpler and cheaper range upgrade without a stretch or aerodynamic modifications

You were correct that Airbus never stopped design work on A321neo. What they appear to have done is significantly scaled back the investment and are studying a much simpler change

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

boxeebox wrote:

Earlier today, the CEO of JetBlue mentioned that Airbus was floating the idea of an XLR (Extra Long Range) model of the A321. Has anyone else heard of this? I can't seem to find anything on it.

-Box

This CEO better first checks with Newbiepilot and Revelation, any Airbus NEO Plus or Plus-Plus is shelved. Management shake ups, hurt feelings, huge production issues, senior a.net members, don't underestimate this. Facts are stubborn things.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1391201&start=250

Thanks for the shout-out, K-man, but I don't think the JetBlue CEO needs to consult with a.net to understand the difference between a stretch (A320+), a new CFRP wing (A320++) and "The A321XLR - with more fuel capacity but no extra seats or aerodynamic redesign - is a compromise bet that Airbus hopes will fend off Boeing for the smallest upfront investment."

Three guesses on where the investment really is going, and first two don't count.

I think Keesje does not either understand or want to believe that A321plus and A321plus plus actually referred to specific designs going on at Airbus. Those designs appeared to be shelved and resources redirected. The A321XLR range enhancement is not the same thing and appears to be a simpler range extension without a stretch or aerodynamic changes.

I think some great reporters got us insight to what is going on internally at Airbus, which we don’t usually get. Airplanes aren’t designed in photoshop after all.

Newbiepilot wrote:

.I think some great reporters got us insight to what is going on internally at Airbus, which we don’t usually get. Airplanes aren’t designed in photoshop after all.

I agree with that.

A decade or so ago we used to get a lot of visibility on Boeing from ST and AvWeek and very little visibility to things going on inside Airbus. Now AvWeek has more focus on Airbus with reporters on the ground in Europe, and Reuters, Bloomberg, FG and others provide good Airbus coverage too.

I wish it would be recognized for what it is: professional journalists who have professional editors and big readership bases to answer to. We're lucky to have it.

Some here just can't accept that because it doesn't fit with their own personal narratives.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The thing is, Airbus and Boeing tend to ignore the Tim Hepher's of this world and rename a project in an eye blink. Network developments and conservative scenario's often are a better base to predict fleet development. Alternatively you can select (unconfimed) qoutes strenghtening your case and generalize on them. If they don't fit it is always possible to state it's far more complicated, instead of agreeing you where convinced a bit easily maybe.

Or you guys can continue to ignore what industry insiders keep saying and that all of these news reports are just selected leaks from higher ups that want to drive the narrative and conversation.

If you think for a moment that Airbus has shelved a rewing for A321 you should stop posting on this forum.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The thing is, Airbus and Boeing tend to ignore the Tim Hepher's of this world and rename a project in an eye blink. Network developments and conservative scenario's often are a better base to predict fleet development. Alternatively you can select (unconfimed) qoutes strenghtening your case and generalize on them. If they don't fit it is always possible to state it's far more complicated, instead of agreeing you where convinced a bit easily maybe.

Constantly renaming the same project sounds like an internal nightmare for a company like Boeing and Airbus, especially if outside suppliers are involved. It is kind of important that everyone involved is clear on what the project is, constantly renaming it goes against that goal. I suspect that it is more likely that they have multiple competing projects of different scope going on at the same time (ala XLR, plus, plus plus) and Airbus/Boeing ultimately choose one (or more) to commit and move forward with (which then might get renamed into some thing more marketing friendly).

Some people seem to forget that the 321 is by far the best selling plane in its segment. Airbus is in no dire need to produce something new. IMO they just look at different options to make it even better. They either go simple (XLR) or 322. It is very misleading to think that Airbus is only focusing on production and not development.

Imho most of the debate is just based on a narrow interpretation "of the projects being shelved". In the end it can mean they gave up, or that the shelved them for some time. Imho it is the later, because the production lines simply can not make a ++ version at the moment without having to delay deliveries of already ordered NEOs. So imho they are very likely to do the simple XLR and the A322++, but the A322+ will come (launch) in 3-5 years, while the XLR could launch this year.

That warmed over 321 stands to make a lot of money over the next 7 years. Airbus can do whatever it wants with that pile of money.

My sincere hope is that somebody builds a true MoM plane that can be a proud successor the 757/767 family. So Airbus will need to probably stretch and re-wing the A321 and call it the the A322 if they like. A warmed over A321 with another ACT won't cut it imho.


Boeing will obviously need to do a clean sheet design that will need to keep costs down and have a efficiency delta at least 10-15% better than a 763.

The 757/767 family sold well over 2,000 commercial frames. The market is there. Right now the market is ceded to Airbus because Boeing has effectively abandoned the field. At this point I'd love to see either manufacturer step up to the plate with a true (not compromised) MoM plane.

tealnz wrote:

Airbus already increased the size of the ACTs for the LR - presumably to a more conformal shape. Hard to imagine there's scope to increase them further.

They are still removable and have fit into the cargo hold and through the cargo doors. If you do non removable ACT, shorten the cargo hold and fit them between cargo hold and wing box, I imagine they could have a different shape. You would have to install them before you join the fuselage parts.

The ACTs both on the ceo and neo seem to have a similar size, around 2,950 l, or 790 US gallon, per ACT. They have to fit the same hold and have to be installed and removed through the same cargo doors on both types.

LAX772LR wrote:

B6JFKH81 wrote:

boxeebox wrote:

I heard it from the CEO today at a company forum.

Soooooo.....you took internal information and made it public? Someone didn't read the Blue Book or Social Media/Forum policy....

Soooooo, is this like your first time on an AvGeek forum or something? That happens all the time.

Still bad practice. There are some people that violate NDA's on here....

RalXWB wrote:

Some people seem to forget that the 321 is by far the best selling plane in its segment. Airbus is in no dire need to produce something new. IMO they just look at different options to make it even better. They either go simple (XLR) or 322. It is very misleading to think that Airbus is only focusing on production and not development.

How tightly do you define the segment? 737-8s and A320neos have outsold the A321 by a significant margin. With that said i agree therr isnt a dire need for something new

I would call it narrowbody with more than 200 seats or 200 - 240 or is there an official name for the Segment?

seahawk wrote:

Imho most of the debate is just based on a narrow interpretation "of the projects being shelved". In the end it can mean they gave up, or that the shelved them for some time.

Google ( https://www.google.com/search?q=shelved ... 8&oe=utf-8 ) gives us:

shelve
SHelv/
verb
past tense: shelved; past participle: shelved
2.
decide not to proceed with (a project or plan), either temporarily or permanently.
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
synonyms: postpone, put off, delay, defer, put back, reschedule, hold over/off, put to one side, suspend, stay, keep in abeyance, mothball; More
abandon, drop, give up, stop, cancel, jettison, ax, put over, table, take a rain check on;
informalput on ice, put on the back burner, put in cold storage, ditch, dump, junk
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
antonyms: execute

So it is not a narrow term, it includes either postponement or cancellation.

AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now ) gives us:

Airbus is pushing out a decision on whether to go ahead with upgrades of its A320neo family aircraft, as the company continues to face tough challenges in ramping up narrowbody production and with the in-service A320neo fleet. “We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development.

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

Fuel is going higher at the moment, this makes something like this less desirable. I would think if Airbus were to stretch the A321 that would be a more desirable play vs adding fuel tanks. What market would this A321 super long range be targeted at? With no cargo revenue and a long thin routes, higher CASM, lower RASM, whose domain is this? Legacy carriers? Doesn't seem like an equation for ULCCs.

airzona11 wrote:

Fuel is going higher at the moment, this makes something like this less desirable. I would think if Airbus were to stretch the A321 that would be a more desirable play vs adding fuel tanks. What market would this A321 super long range be targeted at? With no cargo revenue and a long thin routes, higher CASM, lower RASM, whose domain is this? Legacy carriers? Doesn't seem like an equation for ULCCs.

The a321lr was a 7,000 lbs MTOW increase. I think it represented about 400 miles of range. There might be an airline that needs a few hundred miles of more range. Perhaps an airline like jetblue wants to fly to Germany ir Italy without fuel stops from JFK or WOW wants ti fly to the US west coast or Middle East from KEF. An extra fuel tank and a small MTOW increase may get them there.

Newbiepilot wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

Fuel is going higher at the moment, this makes something like this less desirable. I would think if Airbus were to stretch the A321 that would be a more desirable play vs adding fuel tanks. What market would this A321 super long range be targeted at? With no cargo revenue and a long thin routes, higher CASM, lower RASM, whose domain is this? Legacy carriers? Doesn't seem like an equation for ULCCs.

The a321lr was a 7,000 lbs MTOW increase. I think it represented about 400 miles of range. There might be an airline that needs a few hundred miles of more range. Perhaps an airline like jetblue wants to fly to Germany ir Italy without fuel stops from JFK or WOW wants ti fly to the US west coast or Middle East from KEF. An extra fuel tank and a small MTOW increase may get them there.

Makes sense, it just seems that isn't a very efficient way for airlines to accomplish those goals. Long and thin routes work if they can fill them with high yielding traffic. Hauling more fuel is going to make these flights very thin on the margin side. I think it shows another reason for a 763 replacement that is needed.

That they shelved the studies for the plus and the plus plus does not mean that they stopped everything. There was the work done recently on a carbon fibre wing box for the 320 family. There will be other such continuous improvements works happening. What will have happened is that the teams will have been scaled back to the so called low hanging fruit and the future opportunities buckets.

If they could make the CF wingbox work, save weight and get extra fuel volume stored that sounds like it would be a win win. They could introduce it slowly say just on 321 XLR planes as they got experience.

I am not saying it will happen - but the development teams are always active looking for ways to add value to Airbus and by that their customers.

Lufthansa wrote:

It depends if they want to increase the wing or not? If they go down that path, while more expensive, would also allow for an A322 stretch, which might be just enough to cause Boeing some headaches with their MoM proposal. Think of the thing basically as a modern DC-8.

You are kidding, aren't you? (I'm sure you are). By today's standards they would be able to squeeze more than 320 seats into a DC-8 fuselage, including the necessary additional lavs and exits.

Here are some examples of lengths of single-aisle aircraft, in meters:

44.51 A321
46.61 B707-300
47.32 B752
52.32 VC-10
53.12 Il-62
54.47 B753
57.04 DC-8-63

For the imperialistic-minded gals and guys: a meter is slightly more than a yard plus 3⅓ inches.

mjoelnir wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Airbus already increased the size of the ACTs for the LR - presumably to a more conformal shape. Hard to imagine there's scope to increase them further.

The ACTs both on the ceo and neo seem to have a similar size, around 2,950 l, or 790 US gallon, per ACT. They have to fit the same hold and have to be installed and removed through the same cargo doors on both types.

But the ACTs on the LR are bigger - 3,121 l vs 2,992 l for the standard NEO.

keesje wrote:

This CEO better first checks with Newbiepilot and Revelation, any Airbus NEO Plus or Plus-Plus is shelved. Management shake ups, hurt feelings, huge production issues, senior a.net members, don't underestimate this. Facts are stubborn things.

c'mon dude. don't drag the thread down to that level. play nice.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A warmed over A321 will not be a challenge to the MoM.

It has from day 1.

I agree with Keesje here... the A321NEO is just an absolute runaway success in any incarnation by any metric. A321 is a great plane that had a great foundation and has seen just the right amount of incremental improvements over the years to be a challenge to things above and below it's footprint. Just a great plane.

(Yes Keesje, I still think the 737 MAX 9, even the MAX 10, have their place as well in established Boeing fleets... but no denying that the A321NEO is just incredible.)

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho most of the debate is just based on a narrow interpretation "of the projects being shelved". In the end it can mean they gave up, or that the shelved them for some time.

Google ( https://www.google.com/search?q=shelved ... 8&oe=utf-8 ) gives us:

shelve
SHelv/
verb
past tense: shelved; past participle: shelved
2.
decide not to proceed with (a project or plan), either temporarily or permanently.
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
synonyms: postpone, put off, delay, defer, put back, reschedule, hold over/off, put to one side, suspend, stay, keep in abeyance, mothball; More
abandon, drop, give up, stop, cancel, jettison, ax, put over, table, take a rain check on;
informalput on ice, put on the back burner, put in cold storage, ditch, dump, junk
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
antonyms: execute

So it is not a narrow term, it includes either postponement or cancellation.

AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now ) gives us:

Airbus is pushing out a decision on whether to go ahead with upgrades of its A320neo family aircraft, as the company continues to face tough challenges in ramping up narrowbody production and with the in-service A320neo fleet. “We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development.

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

I think if they really mean cancelled...they will say cancelled. If they don't, they are leaving their options open. I liken it to how Boeing kept pretty much mum about the MAX, while they were pushing the NSA like crazy. They never mentioned it unless directly asked, and even then, they'd answer with an offhand, "yah...we could, but our focus is the NSA".

It turns out, they were pretty much ready to go when AA pulled the trigger on the 320, and there was a lot more involved in MAXxing the 737, than NEOing the 320.

These guys love their semantics. If there's any wiggle room, they'll run with it, which makes for much more interesting propaganda, which feeds speculation...which is free advertising. These guys change their minds....sorry, reevaluate...more often than most folks change socks.

No design is final until EIS and no concept is cancelled until it's plans are deleted, prototypes are crushed and tooling is turned into door stops.

Aren't Airbus being like McDonnell Douglas? Toying around with the A320, stretching its A321 derivative trying to make it do anything possible?

Maybe they, too, also need a new clean sheet A360 design.

Needless to say the 737 Max 10 was a McDonnell Douglas-style decision. Stretching the crap out of a 50-year-old airframe... yeah.

Just bring back the damned domestic/short-to-medium haul widebody. There has to be a point of diminishing returns on stretching narrowbodies at some point...

DarthLobster wrote:

Just bring back the damned domestic/short-to-medium haul widebody. There has to be a point of diminishing returns on stretching narrowbodies at some point...

DC-8-61/63 have 57m length and still work. A321 is just 44m

Why would Boeing throw away money to develop a DC-8 Max?

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho most of the debate is just based on a narrow interpretation "of the projects being shelved". In the end it can mean they gave up, or that the shelved them for some time.

Google ( https://www.google.com/search?q=shelved ... 8&oe=utf-8 ) gives us:

shelve
SHelv/
verb
past tense: shelved; past participle: shelved
2.
decide not to proceed with (a project or plan), either temporarily or permanently.
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
synonyms: postpone, put off, delay, defer, put back, reschedule, hold over/off, put to one side, suspend, stay, keep in abeyance, mothball; More
abandon, drop, give up, stop, cancel, jettison, ax, put over, table, take a rain check on;
informalput on ice, put on the back burner, put in cold storage, ditch, dump, junk
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
antonyms: execute

So it is not a narrow term, it includes either postponement or cancellation.

AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now ) gives us:

Airbus is pushing out a decision on whether to go ahead with upgrades of its A320neo family aircraft, as the company continues to face tough challenges in ramping up narrowbody production and with the in-service A320neo fleet. “We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development.

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

That is what I meant. I think they could not even launch a plus-plus today, as it would be a little strange to go to the airlines and say: "Look we have this new A322, with a new wing, more fuel and nearly 4X00nm range that we will have developed in 5 years. Would you like some? But please not too many and not before 2025, as our production facilities can not make the planes at the moment."

StTim wrote:

That they shelved the studies for the plus and the plus plus does not mean that they stopped everything. There was the work done recently on a carbon fibre wing box for the 320 family. There will be other such continuous improvements works happening. What will have happened is that the teams will have been scaled back to the so called low hanging fruit and the future opportunities buckets.

What is guaranteed is that the in house engineering teams are not sitting around doing nothing, they are working on something.

They could be looking at incorporating their more electric wing technology, the could do A330neo style changes with the wing fuselage fairing, flap tracks, wing twist, wing extension, variable camber technology. There is a lot of technology they have developed on other types which is begging for inclusion into the A320.

With a FBW basis, they have the ability to make changes that would not be possible otherwise.

FatCat wrote:

The whole discussion around the "new MoM" amazes me.
I mean, Boeing had the perfect plane - 757 - and discontinued it.
Now it seems that all the Carriers are looking for a new 757 but neither Boeing nor Airbus can build such a plane.
But opening the drawer, taking out the blueprints from 1983 and putting the 757 back in production with new carbon fiber wings and body and new fuel efficient engines is so absurd? Will not a move like this save millions of US$ and leave Airbus picking up the crumbs from the floor?
It's a sincere question - although surely already answered before

What you're proposing would cost more than a clean sheet not less.

Upgrading an aircraft over decades getting to that result might make sense because you incrementally spend, and get results. But slapping a carbon wing and carbon "skin" on a basically unchanged 757 would not work at all.

I mean Boeing has incrementally upgraded the 737 yet there is no carbon wing or skin in sight on that one.

zeke wrote:

StTim wrote:

That they shelved the studies for the plus and the plus plus does not mean that they stopped everything. There was the work done recently on a carbon fibre wing box for the 320 family. There will be other such continuous improvements works happening. What will have happened is that the teams will have been scaled back to the so called low hanging fruit and the future opportunities buckets.

What is guaranteed is that the in house engineering teams are not sitting around doing nothing, they are working on something.

They could be looking at incorporating their more electric wing technology, the could do A330neo style changes with the wing fuselage fairing, flap tracks, wing twist, wing extension, variable camber technology. There is a lot of technology they have developed on other types which is begging for inclusion into the A320.

With a FBW basis, they have the ability to make changes that would not be possible otherwise.

Indeed. It seems clear there is a growing need in the middle segment, with the retiring of 757, 767, A300, A310 fleets and growing regional traffic. I've seen many radical A320 studies come by over the years. New tails, lower fuselages etc. Probably they are looking at the feasibilities of the many technical options available and making case by case trade-off's, taking into account TRL, ROI and long term regional / NB strategies.

https://www.insidecomposites.com/composite-challenges-for-the-airbus-a320s-successor/

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Imho most of the debate is just based on a narrow interpretation "of the projects being shelved". In the end it can mean they gave up, or that the shelved them for some time.

Google ( https://www.google.com/search?q=shelved ... 8&oe=utf-8 ) gives us:

shelve
SHelv/
verb
past tense: shelved; past participle: shelved
2.
decide not to proceed with (a project or plan), either temporarily or permanently.
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
synonyms: postpone, put off, delay, defer, put back, reschedule, hold over/off, put to one side, suspend, stay, keep in abeyance, mothball; More
abandon, drop, give up, stop, cancel, jettison, ax, put over, table, take a rain check on;
informalput on ice, put on the back burner, put in cold storage, ditch, dump, junk
"plans to reopen the school have been shelved"
antonyms: execute

So it is not a narrow term, it includes either postponement or cancellation.

AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now ) gives us:

Airbus is pushing out a decision on whether to go ahead with upgrades of its A320neo family aircraft, as the company continues to face tough challenges in ramping up narrowbody production and with the in-service A320neo fleet. “We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development.

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

That is what I meant. I think they could not even launch a plus-plus today, as it would be a little strange to go to the airlines and say: "Look we have this new A322, with a new wing, more fuel and nearly 4X00nm range that we will have developed in 5 years. Would you like some? But please not too many and not before 2025, as our production facilities can not make the planes at the moment."

If there is a market & technology isn't ground breaking, it can be done. A320 family production rate rises are under consideration. News wings could be a challenge .. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-underlines-brexit-threats-to-uk-operations-449655/ but than, Boeing has no facility, engines at all & can make promises to the airlines.

Would there be a possibility to fit additional fuel into the horizontal stabilizer, as they do it on the 330/340?

keesje wrote:

If there is a market & technology isn't ground breaking, it can be done. A320 family production rate rises are under consideration. News wings could be a challenge .. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-underlines-brexit-threats-to-uk-operations-449655/ but than, Boeing has no facility, engines at all & can make promises to the airlines.

No, it can not be done, if you do not have the production capacity to built the plane. When Boeing talks about the MoM it is logical that they plan on building a production line for it. Airbus on the other hand seems not decided if they want to add a FAL for the XLR/plus/plus-plus or if they want to wait until the demand for the normal NEO reduces and an existing FAL (FAL4 in Hamburg) could take the job.

And as long as this decision is not made, they can not offer the plane, as setting up the production facility would be the most time consuming task. (about 3-4 years for a new FAL)

if we accept it as fact that Airbus have worked out a way of eaking out a little additional range (it can't be that much as the whole aircaft is pretty maxed out ).It must be because dome customers have asked for it.If we guess that they have found -what- An additional 5%? So an additional 200nm with full (206 2 class) pax.Who would be the obvious beneficiaries of this ''xlr'?
One airline I imagine is LH as they have publicly stated that they would like a little more range.But that's the translantic route (I guess).Is there anywhere else that circa 200nm (might be a bit more who knows -but can't be much more,fuel is so heavy) Is 'gold dust' for route planners.

seahawk wrote:

No, it can not be done, if you do not have the production ca...............is setting up the production facility would be the most time consuming task. (about 3-4 years for a new FAL)

So Boeing can offer anything because they will build the new facility / get engines etc. but Airbus cannot. Because they don't have the existing facilities & that takes time..



Doesn't Airbus have options too? E.g. a dedicated A32XLR line in Mobile & wings build by e.g. Spirit or Mitsubishi ?

parapente wrote:

if we accept it as fact that Airbus have worked out a way of eaking out a little additional range (it can't be that much as the whole aircaft is pretty maxed out ).It must be because dome customers have asked for it.If we guess that they have found -what- An additional 5%? So an additional 200nm with full (206 2 class) pax.Who would be the obvious beneficiaries of this ''xlr'?
One airline I imagine is LH as they have publicly stated that they would like a little more range.But that's the translantic route (I guess).Is there anywhere else that circa 200nm (might be a bit more who knows -but can't be much more,fuel is so heavy) Is 'gold dust' for route planners.

Dropping in an extra ACT for 500NM fuel is easy. But you run into luggage space restrictions. You need a solution there.. Maybe a half size ACT.. ?

Today in the UK there has been a lot of whinging and whining from Airbus's Tom Williams and their UK boss about things which might go wrong with Brexit. You can take your choice that it is Project Fear again (more deja vue) or that is essential that the UK Govt immediately obey the edict from a manufacturer with an axe to grind.

More importantly there is (accidental?) mention of a new wing design (type not mentioned) coming up for sign off this summer, with the implied threat that it will not be built in UK if UK govt does not obey the Airbus edict.

You can be sure that UK Govt is already doing its best to get to the same objectives as Airbus, but the EU27 are behaving as if the £80 billion of EU27 surplus goods the UK buys from them annually matters little. Mind you, by the time Brexit arrives there will likely be no EU for the UK to negotiate with.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it maybe is a new or modified A321 wing they are letting slip about.

Egerton wrote:

Today in the UK there has been a lot of whinging and whining from Airbus's Tom Williams and their UK boss about things which might go wrong with Brexit. You can take your choice that it is Project Fear again (more deja vue) or that is essential that the UK Govt immediately obey the edict from a manufacturer with an axe to grind.

More importantly there is (accidental?) mention of a new wing design (type not mentioned) coming up for sign off this summer, with the implied threat that it will not be built in UK if UK govt does not obey the Airbus edict.

You can be sure that UK Govt is already doing its best to get to the same objectives as Airbus, but the EU27 are behaving as if the £80 billion of EU27 surplus goods the UK buys from them annually matters little. Mind you, by the time Brexit arrives there will likely be no EU for the UK to negotiate with.

Your guess is as good as mine, but it maybe is a new or modified A321 wing they are letting slip about.

No, no, the A321 Plus Plus has been shelved, somebody said so only a month ago.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

No, it can not be done, if you do not have the production ca...............is setting up the production facility would be the most time consuming task. (about 3-4 years for a new FAL)

So Boeing can offer anything because they will build the new facility / get engines etc. but Airbus cannot. Because they don't have the existing facilities & that takes time..

?

Boeing is currently offering paper planes and ideas, same as Airbus.

The only difference is that Boeing has 2 choices while Airbus has 3.

Boeing:
1. build the MoM on a new production line
2. do not build the MoM

Airbus.
1. build the plus/plus on a new production line
2. build the plus/plus on an existing production line
3. do not build the plus/plus

As long as they have not made their choice, neither can actually offer contracts for the planes.

parapente wrote:

if we accept it as fact that Airbus have worked out a way of eaking out a little additional range (it can't be that much as the whole aircaft is pretty maxed out ).It must be because dome customers have asked for it.If we guess that they have found -what- An additional 5%? So an additional 200nm with full (206 2 class) pax.Who would be the obvious beneficiaries of this ''xlr'?

As PR will be fielding LR's to MEL, SYD and DEL, it's a good bet that they have inquired about a further range extension for AKL. But it has to be another 500nm at least, and it would be for no more than a couple or so frames at most.

The big fish is the background demanding range might be United. I think Airbus engineers had to get creative/ squeze out every square foot to get the LR where it is. It seems if significant more range is needed something would have to give in. E.g a significant fuel system redesign, moving luggage into the cabin,..

keesje wrote:

The big fish is the background demanding range might be United.

Honestly interested in why you believe they would want a frame with 18-22 hour endurance and what routes they would use it on.