Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
9Patch
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:19 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
We read this a lot these days. Also in the BA A380 thread.
Pursuit of market share may reduce unit margin, but the idea is that it's compensated by volume. The added volume is literally the added market share.

"We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:29 pm

The A321LR is maxed out in volume, fuel, and payload. To add fuel without changing the outline, they had to capture unused internal volume. So the ACTs and the ability to reconfigure go away. Spaces beside the ACTs and between the ACTs get converted to fuel. Space in the wheel wells gets converted to fuel. 4 extra tons.

Somebody please link where it was reported that the 321XLR will gain a container position over the 321LR
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1802
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:41 pm

9Patch wrote:
Waterbomber2 wrote:
We read this a lot these days. Also in the BA A380 thread.
Pursuit of market share may reduce unit margin, but the idea is that it's compensated by volume. The added volume is literally the added market share.

"We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume.

Waterbomber2 never said Airbus was losing money on every sale.
When you are reducing your sales price to increase market share, it doesn't mean you're selling at loss; it means you're reducing your margin per unit, in hopes to compensate with higher sales.
If my margin was 2 and I was selling 100 per year, my profit would be 200; now, if my margin is down to 1 per unit but I am able to sell 300 per year, my profit is now 300. Overall higher profit driven by much higher sales volume. Numbers of course are not real numbers, but you get the idea.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4284
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:15 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
keesje wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Mods seem to have locked it overnight and deleted latest posts (about what’s involved in certifying the structural modifications). Here’s the link: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1400225


Yes, didn't see the latest posts, but wondered why it is locked. Just unlock, I would suggest. I've been wondering what airbus is doing to add this much range, with compromusing already challenged belly capacity at the A321LR. I wond er if the rumoured "Plus" slight 2 meter stretch is the solution. It adds OEW, but could solve the belly capacity question.


That thread wasn't just locked.. it was butchered. Keesje your photos were removed and my questions about those fotos was removed. Maybe the whole thread turned sideways and the MODs just took a broad stroke approach? Who knows? Man, sometimes it's just hard to participate on this site. I'm going to take a timeout. Adios.

The thread was locked in accordance with forum rules. Threads inactive for longer than six months should remain dormant unless the user seeks moderator approval. Please see "thread bumps" in the forum rules.
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:32 pm

What would the hypothetical range of a straight stretched A220-500 look like? I’ve always thought that was a natural addition to the A220 family and now that Airbus has taken on the program, would be curious if they would actually stretch the A220. I would guess initially the A220-500 would be somewhere in the 2700nm range? Surely they could thrust bump and increase MTOW to push range to over 3,000nm and the plane can effectively fly all currently flown A320CEO flights for significantly lower costs.
Zac
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:58 am

jagraham wrote:
The A321LR is maxed out in volume, fuel, and payload. To add fuel without changing the outline, they had to capture unused internal volume. So the ACTs and the ability to reconfigure go away. Spaces beside the ACTs and between the ACTs get converted to fuel. Space in the wheel wells gets converted to fuel. 4 extra tons. Somebody please link where it was reported that the 321XLR will gain a container position over the 321LR


One of the Leeham reports (now paywalled) had a schematic diagram plus an explanation. Basic point was that the integral tank would occupy a) an existing void between gear bay and aft hold and b) the hold space currently occupied by two ACTs in the LR plus c) interstices between the the ACTs and the fuselage skin. From memory Leeham said it would still theoretically be possible to put an ACT in the forward hold of an XLR but for MTOW reasons it would not in practice be useful. So... the belly tank occupies hold space currently taken up by two ACTs. That leaves space for three ACTs in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. Assuming the Leeham information remains correct. By contrast the standard LR configuration requires two ACTs in the aft hold and one in the forward hold (though schematics I have seen suggest that the single forward ACT actually uses two spaces...)
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:33 am

If the A321XLR becomes a thing, I could see JetBlue or Lufthansa desiring to be the launch customer, with United right behind them. Lufthansa has a JFK spec for a narrow-body TATL plane, wanting to be able to reach JFK from any major airport in Germany. The A321LR will be the route starter for B6's London routes, but an XLR would likely allow B6 to reach every South American capital and possibly some secondary cities (like MDZ) from FLL if the range is at least 4100 nmi.

A major change needed, however, would need to be to go to dual bogeys to better distribute the weight, as well as a tail-strike protection figure from over-rotation with what would likely be another stretch.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:34 am

TranscendZac wrote:
What would the hypothetical range of a straight stretched A220-500 look like? I’ve always thought that was a natural addition to the A220 family and now that Airbus has taken on the program, would be curious if they would actually stretch the A220. I would guess initially the A220-500 would be somewhere in the 2700nm range? Surely they could thrust bump and increase MTOW to push range to over 3,000nm and the plane can effectively fly all currently flown A320CEO flights for significantly lower costs.


As most flights are below 1500 nm there is no need to push the range. Just keep it light to be more economic in the shorter routes. If some one needs more range, then A320 would do it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:41 pm

tealnz wrote:
Mods seem to have locked it overnight and deleted latest posts (about what’s involved in certifying the structural modifications). Here’s the link: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1400225


Yes, didn't see the latest posts, but wondered why it is locked. Just unlock, I would suggest.
I've been wondering what airbus is doing to add this much range, with compromusing already challenged belly capacity at the A321LR. I wond er if the rumoured "Plus" slight 2 meter stretch is the solution. It adds OEW, but could solve the belly capacity question.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:55 pm

If the A321XLR is a real plane would Airbus try to announce the plane during the Paris airshow?
 
tomcat
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:42 pm

keesje wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Mods seem to have locked it overnight and deleted latest posts (about what’s involved in certifying the structural modifications). Here’s the link: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1400225


Yes, didn't see the latest posts, but wondered why it is locked. Just unlock, I would suggest.
I've been wondering what airbus is doing to add this much range, with compromusing already challenged belly capacity at the A321LR. I wonder if the rumoured "Plus" slight 2 meter stretch is the solution. It adds OEW, but could solve the belly capacity question.


Tealnz has already provided the answer to your questionning:
tealnz wrote:

One of the Leeham reports (now paywalled) had a schematic diagram plus an explanation. Basic point was that the integral tank would occupy a) an existing void between gear bay and aft hold and b) the hold space currently occupied by two ACTs in the LR plus c) interstices between the the ACTs and the fuselage skin. From memory Leeham said it would still theoretically be possible to put an ACT in the forward hold of an XLR but for MTOW reasons it would not in practice be useful. So... the belly tank occupies hold space currently taken up by two ACTs. That leaves space for three ACTs in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. Assuming the Leeham information remains correct. By contrast the standard LR configuration requires two ACTs in the aft hold and one in the forward hold (though schematics I have seen suggest that the single forward ACT actually uses two spaces...)


I'd add that by adding this integral fuel tank capacity, the result (before any possible structural reinforcement) is the XLR having a lower OEW than the LR fitted with 3 ACTs, while having a greater fuel capacity and leaving more belly volume available for passenger bags & cargo than in the LR. The higher MTOW will thus ensure that the XLR can take-off with a decent payload at max fuel. The extra MTOW (5 tons?) will be mostly devoted to additional fuel compared to the LR, giving it an extra 1.5 hour endurance if we assume that the fuel burn will not look that good while the aircraft is still heavy (above the 97 tons MTOW of the LR). Adding the PIP that is already excepted for the P&W engine somewhere 2022/23, the XLR could easily be good for 4700nm if the reported XLR configuration is correct. By the way, what is the actual range of the LR?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:55 am

tomcat wrote:
keesje wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Mods seem to have locked it overnight and deleted latest posts (about what’s involved in certifying the structural modifications). Here’s the link: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1400225


Yes, didn't see the latest posts, but wondered why it is locked. Just unlock, I would suggest.
I've been wondering what airbus is doing to add this much range, with compromusing already challenged belly capacity at the A321LR. I wonder if the rumoured "Plus" slight 2 meter stretch is the solution. It adds OEW, but could solve the belly capacity question.


Tealnz has already provided the answer to your questionning:
tealnz wrote:

One of the Leeham reports (now paywalled) had a schematic diagram plus an explanation. Basic point was that the integral tank would occupy a) an existing void between gear bay and aft hold and b) the hold space currently occupied by two ACTs in the LR plus c) interstices between the the ACTs and the fuselage skin. From memory Leeham said it would still theoretically be possible to put an ACT in the forward hold of an XLR but for MTOW reasons it would not in practice be useful. So... the belly tank occupies hold space currently taken up by two ACTs. That leaves space for three ACTs in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. Assuming the Leeham information remains correct. By contrast the standard LR configuration requires two ACTs in the aft hold and one in the forward hold (though schematics I have seen suggest that the single forward ACT actually uses two spaces...)


I'd add that by adding this integral fuel tank capacity, the result (before any possible structural reinforcement) is the XLR having a lower OEW than the LR fitted with 3 ACTs, while having a greater fuel capacity and leaving more belly volume available for passenger bags & cargo than in the LR. The higher MTOW will thus ensure that the XLR can take-off with a decent payload at max fuel. The extra MTOW (5 tons?) will be mostly devoted to additional fuel compared to the LR, giving it an extra 1.5 hour endurance if we assume that the fuel burn will not look that good while the aircraft is still heavy (above the 97 tons MTOW of the LR). Adding the PIP that is already excepted for the P&W engine somewhere 2022/23, the XLR could easily be good for 4700nm if the reported XLR configuration is correct. By the way, what is the actual range of the LR?


The LR is specified at 4000NM. I don't see large voids around the LR's 3 ACT's. Significant addition fuel is required for 4700NM. The LR is critical on belly space for luggage. I've not seen any drawings & I don't believe in miracles. I'm curious!
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:33 pm

Leeham did a series of reports last year on the XLR. By their account the new integral belly tank would use a void behind the gear bay plus the space occupied by two ACTs in the aft hold plus space freed up by removal of cargo handling system. Add it all up and you get a tank holding the equivalent of four ACTs worth of fuel or 12,000l. At the time they were reporting range of 4500nm. Other reports since then talk of 4700nm. We haven't seen anything calling into question the basic Leeham analysis on configuration and performance. If the new tank only needs the space currently occupied by two aft ACTs in the LR you're left with space for three containers in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. No miracles required.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:53 pm

tealnz wrote:
Leeham did a series of reports last year on the XLR. By their account the new integral belly tank would use a void behind the gear bay plus the space occupied by two ACTs in the aft hold plus space freed up by removal of cargo handling system. Add it all up and you get a tank holding the equivalent of four ACTs worth of fuel or 12,000l. At the time they were reporting range of 4500nm. Other reports since then talk of 4700nm. We haven't seen anything calling into question the basic Leeham analysis on configuration and performance. If the new tank only needs the space currently occupied by two aft ACTs in the LR you're left with space for three containers in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. No miracles required.


Tealnz, usually when it sounds to good to be truth, it is.. Looking at the volumes, the ACT's aren't wasting much space, fixed tanks need strurcture too and I failed to find the huge void between the center tank and wheel well.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:01 pm

If you think that pic is an accurate representation of the centre section with two ACTs in the aft hold I think you're beyond help buddy.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:22 pm

tealnz wrote:
Leeham did a series of reports last year on the XLR. By their account the new integral belly tank would use a void behind the gear bay plus the space occupied by two ACTs in the aft hold plus space freed up by removal of cargo handling system. Add it all up and you get a tank holding the equivalent of four ACTs worth of fuel or 12,000l. At the time they were reporting range of 4500nm. Other reports since then talk of 4700nm. We haven't seen anything calling into question the basic Leeham analysis on configuration and performance. If the new tank only needs the space currently occupied by two aft ACTs in the LR you're left with space for three containers in the aft hold and the full five in the forward hold. No miracles required.


Does that mean that they are removing the ability to carry cargo containers? I was under the impression that some airlines are choosing bulk loading for the A321LR since more will fit in the plane when bulk loaded. The ACTs reduce volume in the cargo hold so they can’t afford to use containers which further reduce useable volume.
 
ptwings
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:34 pm

tealnz wrote:
If you think that pic is an accurate representation of the centre section with two ACTs in the aft hold I think you're beyond help buddy.


I don't know if it is representative or not but here goes the version with the 3 ACT (FWD ACT, AFT ACT1 and AFT ACT2) of current LR

Image

Image

With an integrated tank they will gain some space and weight but I also don't believe in the 4700nm figure, which anyway I don't even know where that information came from. I think most of the operators aren't interested in the ULDs/containers too, maybe they redesign somewhat the lower deck to gain some space here and there?
 
tomcat
Posts: 597
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:00 pm

ptwings wrote:
tealnz wrote:
If you think that pic is an accurate representation of the centre section with two ACTs in the aft hold I think you're beyond help buddy.


I don't know if it is representative or not but here goes the version with the 3 ACT (FWD ACT, AFT ACT1 and AFT ACT2) of current LR

Image

Image

With an integrated tank they will gain some space and weight but I also don't believe in the 4700nm figure, which anyway I don't even know where that information came from. I think most of the operators aren't interested in the ULDs/containers too, maybe they redesign somewhat the lower deck to gain some space here and there?


Going by the A320 and A321 airport planning documents, I estimate that the forward and aft cargo compartments are separated by about 7 meters. According to the page 7 of the doc [http://www.ewshm2014.com/Documents/Nantes_Airbus.pdf], the A320 center wingbox is 3m long. Allocating a generous 2m length for the main landing gear well, this leaves 2 meters of available space. This space contains the flap actuation engine and probably some hydraulic systems. I could conceive that Airbus has found a way to better use that space in order to at least partially turning it into a fuel tank.

According to the A321 airport planning document again, the usable volume of the aft cargo compartment (non-bulk) is 23m3, while its water volume is 25.7m3. By considering the water volume, the gain is approximately 0.5m3 per container considering the cargo compartment section alone. Going to an integral section and saving the volume of the ACT structures themselves, the gain would easily reach 1m3 per ACT position.

All in all, the 4t (not 5t) MTOW increase between the LR and the XLR could be completely dedicated to additional fuel capacity (allowing at least 1 hour of additional cruise range), while the weight saved by the removal of the 3 ACTs (about 1.5t) could go to structural reinforcement and extra catering to cover extended flight duration. I find that such modifications would be consistent with the Airbus statement that the "the A321 “still has lots of potential”" (*). To me the XLR doesn't look like an optimized aircraft for its mission (because its pushing the MTOW for the available L/D characteristics of its wing and because of its fairly low cruising speed), but it's putting the A321 potential to good use without seemingly resorting to ugly compromises. I guess we'll know soon enough what the market thinks about it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1OJ14X
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:35 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Does that mean that they are removing the ability to carry cargo containers? I was under the impression that some airlines are choosing bulk loading for the A321LR since more will fit in the plane when bulk loaded. The ACTs reduce volume in the cargo hold so they can’t afford to use containers which further reduce useable volume.

No, my understanding from what's been published is that they would remove the cargo handling system only in the area under the new belly tank. There would still be space, with regular cargo handling system, for three containers in the aft hold and the forward hold would be unchanged.

tomcat wrote:
According to the A321 airport planning document again, the usable volume of the aft cargo compartment (non-bulk) is 23m3, while its water volume is 25.7m3. By considering the water volume, the gain is approximately 0.5m3 per container considering the cargo compartment section alone. Going to an integral section and saving the volume of the ACT structures themselves, the gain would easily reach 1m3 per ACT position.

:checkmark: Hadn't spotted the water volume number before. Neat way of capturing the potential gains from an integral tank.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:06 pm

New Leeham article https://tinyurl.com/y6n3h8lr has an updated assssment on real-world value of an XLR. Main points:

- The larger fuel volume is needed to stay in the air longer than the present nine hours of the A321LR. The A321XLR adds another hour and a half to the A321LR’s capability. This longer flying time translates to an additional 500nm of range with the same passenger load.
- This takes the A321 from a reliable London to New York aircraft to a Frankfurt to Chicago jet. While the A321LR could cover the east US to west Europe, the XLR extends this to mid-US to mid-Europe.

Above assessment assumes either a domestic two-class cabin of around 200 seats or a three-class cabin (16-20 lie-flats in business) of 150-160 seats.

Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:00 pm

in old times there a vertical stabiliser fuel tank for this
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9390
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:17 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Nice link. What is 63 per month in aircraft per year? 670? It seems going to higher production is temporarily off the table.

It does imply the A321xlr is going to be offered.

Ohh... Don't pull a Sinclair by announcing a better future product before its time...

Lightsaber


about 750. This year they are ramping to 60 and expect to deliver around 700.
 
Carmitage
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:47 pm

Airbus has 11.5 rate months per year on the A320 (and 11 on the WBs),

so annual rate 60 on A320 = 11.5 x 60 = 690 (and rate 63 is 724 annually).
Rate 10 on the A350 is 11 x 10 = 110 per year

No idea why (maybe the WB FAL has two weeks more holiday?)
 
tphuang
Posts: 5297
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:43 am

tealnz wrote:
New Leeham article https://tinyurl.com/y6n3h8lr has an updated assssment on real-world value of an XLR. Main points:

- The larger fuel volume is needed to stay in the air longer than the present nine hours of the A321LR. The A321XLR adds another hour and a half to the A321LR’s capability. This longer flying time translates to an additional 500nm of range with the same passenger load.
- This takes the A321 from a reliable London to New York aircraft to a Frankfurt to Chicago jet. While the A321LR could cover the east US to west Europe, the XLR extends this to mid-US to mid-Europe.

Above assessment assumes either a domestic two-class cabin of around 200 seats or a three-class cabin (16-20 lie-flats in business) of 150-160 seats.

Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...


I haven't read the entire article since it's behind the paywall. But if the last part is true, then what advantage does 33neo or 787 have outside of cargo space?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:34 am

tphuang wrote:
I haven't read the entire article since it's behind the paywall. But if the last part is true, then what advantage does 33neo or 787 have outside of cargo space?

Beyond the same parameters, access to slot restricted airports, half the crew if the smaller planes need to fly in fairly short succession, half the time, and more range.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
tphuang
Posts: 5297
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:01 pm

Devilfish wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I haven't read the entire article since it's behind the paywall. But if the last part is true, then what advantage does 33neo or 787 have outside of cargo space?

Beyond the same parameters, access to slot restricted airports, half the crew if the smaller planes need to fly in fairly short succession, half the time, and more range.


Basically if you don't require more range, then no additional advantage. If flying 250 people lose money and 150 does not to a slot restricted airport, then I would much rather fly the smaller plane
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:47 pm

tealnz wrote:
Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...


This adds real context to the gap that Boeing are trying to fit their NMA into.

That market gap is extremely small.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:58 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...


This adds real context to the gap that Boeing are trying to fit their NMA into.

That market gap is extremely small.

The NMA has to be better than the NEO on these type of routes otherwise it shouldn't be launched, but it has always been that way. Of course if the NEO can do more routes in your network, it might not be worth the trouble to add another type.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:11 pm

I imagine Boeing will launch the NMA regardless - the 737 has clearly reached a dead end in terms of future development and the NMA probably justifies itself just in proving technologies and production techniques for a future NSA. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the XLR gets the volume: it’s an easy add-on for any airline with the the A320 (same pilot pool, support etc) and at low cost and risk.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1723
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:14 pm

tphuang wrote:
tealnz wrote:
New Leeham article https://tinyurl.com/y6n3h8lr has an updated assssment on real-world value of an XLR. Main points:

- The larger fuel volume is needed to stay in the air longer than the present nine hours of the A321LR. The A321XLR adds another hour and a half to the A321LR’s capability. This longer flying time translates to an additional 500nm of range with the same passenger load.
- This takes the A321 from a reliable London to New York aircraft to a Frankfurt to Chicago jet. While the A321LR could cover the east US to west Europe, the XLR extends this to mid-US to mid-Europe.

Above assessment assumes either a domestic two-class cabin of around 200 seats or a three-class cabin (16-20 lie-flats in business) of 150-160 seats.

Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...


I haven't read the entire article since it's behind the paywall. But if the last part is true, then what advantage does 33neo or 787 have outside of cargo space?

What does that mean though? I was under the impression that the 787 had slightly better seat mile cost than the A330neo when configured similarly. I would assume the seat miles costs of the 787-10 are quite a bit better than the 787-8 too. So what exactly are we comparing to? The other obvious answer is space. If you need a larger premium cabin or just have more economy demand than the A321xlr can handle.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:16 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...

This adds real context to the gap that Boeing are trying to fit their NMA into.

That market gap is extremely small.

The NMA has to be better than the NEO on these type of routes otherwise it shouldn't be launched, but it has always been that way. Of course if the NEO can do more routes in your network, it might not be worth the trouble to add another type.

It appears all the grandfathering that the A321 is getting is a real benefit.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:20 pm

I assume we’re all in favour of it ... when it’s properly done.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:24 pm

tealnz wrote:
I assume we’re all in favour of it ... when it’s properly done.

I don't think you'd get that impression reading all the FUD content in the grandfathering thread.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:31 pm

There are some real issues around the MAX including the regulators’ actions. But if you look at the NG, 777, 330neo and 320neo it’s not obvious to me that there are demonstrable systemic problems.
 
CHRISBA35X
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:40 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:39 pm

I think adding range and TOW for the current A321NEO-LR will serve to keep Boeing on their toes for the MoM/797 by pushing the envelope as far as possible.

What will emerge will be a clean sheet design that should handily beat an A321 now or in the future as it has far better aerodynamics and a much more optimized wing. Airbus's thinking is that for the 797 to be an absolute slamdunk to utterly end the A321 in current or future guises as a contender, it will have to be double-digit percentages better on fuel burn, range/payload etc. By pushing the A321 as far as it will go, Airbus are forcing Boeing into a fairly tight spot. What *should* emerge from this is a superb 797 that is more capable than if Airbus had left the A321 alone. But imagine if Boeing spend all those billions on creating this new 797/MoM airframe only for single-digit advances where it counts, needing to embed all those development costs into a higher ticket plane that costs a lot more for a little more capability. I don't for one minute think that will happen, but A is at least asking the questions, which is something that benefits us all eventually. A fascinating battle.

I also wonder if we may see a A33NEO vs 787 situation where the updated older airframe gets close enough to the more expensive and more advanced newer jet that there is at least a fight not a one-sided bloodbath.

Question (ive not been on here for over ten years so be nice) - how much scope is there in the larger end of the A220 design to add more range to bring it into a battle like this? I understand it wont get near on payload / size but what if you could bring it up to a 150 seat sort of size, could it foreseeably ever have 752/A32LR sort of range or is that impossible with current wing structures and weights?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:40 pm

tealnz wrote:
There are some real issues around the MAX including the regulators’ actions. But if you look at the NG, 777, 330neo and 320neo it’s not obvious to me that there are demonstrable systemic problems.

Some prefer to assume some sort of contagion exists with no proof of any such thing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
NZ321
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:07 pm

Not to mention environmental efficiencies which will be weighing heavy on decisions around future more efficient design. This aspect is notably absent from above discussion yet sure to be a factor in any decision. From my perspective, more stringent regulations need to be brought forward in relation to approval / certification of future aircraft derivatives and clean sheet designs. What does this aspect tell us about the direction of the MMA and A320 family replacement?
Plane mad!
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:10 pm

How about exterior shock body type fuel tanks? Drop tanks even?
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:13 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
tealnz wrote:
Just to make it truly interesting, Leeham conclude the seat-mile cost will be the same as an A330neo or B787. But with a trip cost low enough to make a route viable with ~140 pax per departure. Fun times ahead...


This adds real context to the gap that Boeing are trying to fit their NMA into.

That market gap is extremely small.

The NMA has to be better than the NEO on these type of routes otherwise it shouldn't be launched, but it has always been that way. Of course if the NEO can do more routes in your network, it might not be worth the trouble to add another type.


Absolutely agreed on the former. There will be a crossover on mission length where NMA is better than 321.

There is this chart on short/med range flights:

Image

I don't know how true it is, indeed I somewhat question it, but anywayz, assuming its right...

Does an airline buy a plane for 1% of the flights[1] the A321 ULR cannot do*, the 15% of flights[2] that the NMA is better than the A321ULR or the 84% of flights[3] where the A321 is better than the NMA?

*and uses an A330/B787 sub-optimally on these.

[1], [2] & [3] actual numbers plucked from my arse to illustrate the picture :D Even then, its much more nuanced than this as the performance gap will vary by mission length and effect will be weighted by mission length [i.e. a 1% fuel burn advantage means less on a 1000 nm flight as opposed to a 1% fuel burn disadvantage on a 4000 nm flight].


I still simply don't see the capability gap where Boeing can put a twin-aisle $20 billion program into. A 757-ish replacement (think MC21-400 kinda thing) that later morphs into the groundwork of the 737 replacement would work in my eyes - but they need to look at the overall two programs joined rather than NMA standalone. Will the executive "next financial quarter is king" board think that far ahead?

But anyway - this is kinda off topic on a thread about the A321 - although I suppose adds information on the competitive environment.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:17 pm

NZ321 wrote:
Not to mention environmental efficiencies which will be weighing heavy on decisions around future more efficient design. This aspect is notably absent from above discussion yet sure to be a factor in any decision. From my perspective, more stringent regulations need to be brought forward in relation to approval / certification of future aircraft derivatives and clean sheet designs. What does this aspect tell us about the direction of the MMA and A320 family replacement?

Such consideration of future directions deserve their own thread, IMO.

The environmental community should see A321XLR as an improvement. Airbus is taking advantage of unused space and is avoiding use of inefficient aux cargo fuel tanks in favor of a weight saving and space maximizing design. This will allow airlines to "right size" their operation to avoid using heavier aircraft and in many cases avoid using older, less efficient aircraft.

Hopefully the environmental community sees it this way.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
Hopefully the environmental community sees it this way.


Don't be stupid. Aircraft all make noise and burn horrible kerosene which kills bambi.

Now I'm off back to my cave to eat berries (assuming I find any on the way), hunt wild beasts and be at one with nature. :roll:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:28 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
I still simply don't see the capability gap where Boeing can put a twin-aisle $20 billion program into. A 757-ish replacement (think MC21-400 kinda thing) that later morphs into the groundwork of the 737 replacement would work in my eyes - but they need to look at the overall two programs joined rather than NMA standalone. Will the executive "next financial quarter is king" board think that far ahead?

Thing is, if what we're being told is right, approximately 1000 or so engineers are already working on NMA (minus what if any got pulled off to support the MAX fix) and NMA would have already been pitched to the board by now if it wasn't for the MAX tragedy, and that level of spend must be visible to the board, so it must have their tacit approval.

If the pitch was readied for the board, clearly it was done with a pretty good modelling of what A321XLR would do to the market opportunity, yet we were told the pitch was ready to be presented to the board.

And yes, we can imagine the idea of NMA being an important if not mandatory tech precursor to a MAX replacement was part of the pitch, because clearly if it was not, some board member would ask about why it was not.

Yes, a lot of "ifs", but still, the sources we have in the aviation media have not reported anything like NMA has been shut down and a new Plan B is in place.

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Hopefully the environmental community sees it this way.

Don't be stupid. Aircraft all make noise and burn horrible kerosene which kills bambi.

Now I'm off back to my cave to eat berries (assuming I find any on the way), hunt wild beasts and be at one with nature. :roll:

Watch out for the wild beasts hunting you! :biggrin:
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
If the pitch was readied for the board, clearly it was done with a pretty good modelling of what A321XLR would do to the market opportunity

For you techies...any chance of the Blade Project feature getting on the XLR and improving its forecast range to put it closer to where the NMA might be :?:

https://www.airbus.com/search.html?q=BL ... tage-all-1


A further 500nm or so of range increase (if possible) would be very competitive...will Airbus await the NMA's final definition before incorporating such feature on a long-rumored A322? :scratchchin:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:38 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the pitch was readied for the board, clearly it was done with a pretty good modelling of what A321XLR would do to the market opportunity

For you techies...any chance of the Blade Project feature getting on the XLR and improving its forecast range to put it closer to where the NMA might be :?:

https://www.airbus.com/search.html?q=BL ... tage-all-1

A further 500nm or so of range increase (if possible) would be very competitive...will Airbus await the NMA's final definition before incorporating such feature on a long-rumored A322? :scratchchin:

I am not an expert, but after doing some research for posts in our tech-ops forum, I think the answer is no, I think an all-new wing built to new levels of precision would be needed, and although the BLADE program has brought positive results, industrialization of the technology is not expected till the late 2020s ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthro ... _in_Europe ).

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... de-project points out some of the real world challenges:

Noting that laminar flow is "much better at lower speed, but requires transonic airflow," BLADE project leader Daniel Kierbel points to many so-called "imperfection" factors that can inhibit NLF generation on an "industrial" wing. External considerations include wing leading-edge and surface erosion or contamination (de-icing fluids and grease, dents, dust, insects, and scratches); atmospheric disturbance; and acoustic disturbance and vibration.

Internal factors include deformation of fastener heads and joints, gap-filler material, local and "global" wing deformation, and system integration.

So, the precision needed is not just relative to the initial construction of the airfoil (which is a huge challenge to begin with), but things such as the typical deformation of fasteners, joints and filler materials once in service all are problematic.

Keep in mind BLADE is a research vehicle being maintained to pristine levels not seen in airline service.

The article ends with:

The A340BLADE exercise has "no link to any possible future aircraft program," Airbus said.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think an all-new wing built to new levels of precision would be needed, and although the BLADE program has brought positive results, industrialization of the technology is not expected till the late 2020s

Thank you very much...very enlightening. :thumbsup:


Revelation wrote:
The article ends with:

The A340BLADE exercise has "no link to any possible future aircraft program," Airbus said.

Were they saying the exercise was pretty much useless...one would be at a loss for what else they could apply knowledge gained from it...a space program :confused:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:44 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The article ends with:

The A340BLADE exercise has "no link to any possible future aircraft program," Airbus said.

Were they saying the exercise was pretty much useless...one would be at a loss for what else they could apply knowledge gained from it...a space program :confused:

Nice catch.

I think they are just trying to manage expectations.

This is an R&D program.

The results indicate they are on the right track, but they still have some hurdles to cross.

It reminds me of how GE was able to show CMCs were adventageous a decade or more ago, but didn't show up in real products till recently.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:22 pm

Whatever Airbus said above the BLADE program, together with most of the clean skies related work, is absolutely aimed at the replacement single aisle. In an article about the A340 demonstrator:
Airbus has regularly pushed back the devel-
opment of a next-generation, single-aisle air-
craft and predicts a clean-sheet successor will
not arrive before 2030, blaming the unavailabil-
ity of new powerplants for the later arrival.
We have now a bit more time which is very
good for us, because there are still a lot of challenges in the development of the technology.
In the end, we are happy that the timeframe is
not as close as it was before,
” Koenig says.
This indicates that the decision to re-engine
the A320 has pushed the production of an all-
new aircraft further back

http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default/fi ... aS6mIPZFp0

So this laminar flow tech is clearly too soon for the XLR. On the other hand, 2023/4 is too late for the straightforward A321 with an MTOW boost and extra integral tankage - while the programs were called "plus" and "plus plus" that version was talked about in 2021. So something between that and a new wing and re-engine? Maybe wing root extensions? Maybe like the original A350 where they reproduced the wing and did some selective replacement with CRFP? Really interested to see what they do.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:25 pm

BaconButty wrote:
Whatever Airbus said above the BLADE program, together with most of the clean skies related work, is absolutely aimed at the replacement single aisle.

So this laminar flow tech is clearly too soon for the XLR. On the other hand, 2023/4 is too late for the straightforward A321 with an MTOW boost and extra integral tankage

And it doesn't seem too far off either..... :o .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... am-458152/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24565
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Devilfish wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
Whatever Airbus said above the BLADE program, together with most of the clean skies related work, is absolutely aimed at the replacement single aisle.

So this laminar flow tech is clearly too soon for the XLR. On the other hand, 2023/4 is too late for the straightforward A321 with an MTOW boost and extra integral tankage

And it doesn't seem too far off either..... :o .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... am-458152/


A quote:

Partridge’s brief is to develop a production approach that will reduce the manufacturing cost for a composite single-aisle wing to match that of the metal wing on today's A321. Additionally, the system will need to support output of 60 aircraft per month within two years of a programme launch – “the critical bit of the target”, she notes – and be capable of reaching rate 100 at a later stage.

That's quite a "brief".

If you do the math, they want to finish this demo program by early 2022 and the GKN exec interviewed said it'd be ideal to have a program launch within 2 years of that end date.

Yet the article says Airbus believes it needs a better engine to justify the big spend, and that won't appear till at least 2030.

And of course it's nice to just harvest cash from the A320neo family as long as that is sustainable.

So the result seems obvious: spend the money on an "A322" wing that will fix any remaining fuel tanking issue the A321 has and be much more optimized for something bigger than the 200+ pax / 4500nm+ market that A321XLR is about to cover, to really narrow the NMA's market.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: Airbus to launch longer range A321 and not chase market share

Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:11 pm

Devilfish wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
Whatever Airbus said above the BLADE program, together with most of the clean skies related work, is absolutely aimed at the replacement single aisle.

So this laminar flow tech is clearly too soon for the XLR. On the other hand, 2023/4 is too late for the straightforward A321 with an MTOW boost and extra integral tankage

And it doesn't seem too far off either..... :o .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... am-458152/

I'd like to point to to this NASA graphic for space technologies (can be adapted to apply to aircraft technologies of course).
Image
I see BLADE in TRL 5 or 6, depending on how you want to see the outboard part of the wing Airbus tested. To be ready for aircraft certification, it needs be at TRL 8 or above. For use in aircraft operations, it needs to be at TRL 9. So, I'd conclude, as earlier posters and Airbus themselves have been saying, it's going to take a while till you see BLADE technology on a plane rolling up to your gate.

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