SteelChair
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:33 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Sokes wrote:
seahawk wrote:
How about mostly nothing.

Few changes and no clean sheet model sounds likely.


I doubt the A220-500 will appear. The range of the A220-300 is already below average compared to the 737 and A320 family. My estimates is a 3.7m simple stretch would bring range to below 2500nm. That is not very flexible. A MTOW increase to maintain range will be too expensive.

The A330NEO production line will be on life support in 2028 at a rate of 1-2 aircraft per month.


What is the range of the traditional 149 seat aircraft, ie., 727, 737-300, A320ceo, and MD88? Imho 2,000nm is more than enough to fill those markets....the densely traveled domestic US markets east of a line from DFW to MSP. Airlines are tired of buying too much airplane just to make manufacturers rich, they're not gonna do it again.....5 abreast with a GTF is unbeatable for less than 2,000nm....mho.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Optimised the wing for shorter ranges than the A350

shorter than 350 - yes
but shorter range than 787 means leave market to 787, we can discuss 767neo as direct imagination of this
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:04 pm

SteelChair wrote:
What is the range of the traditional 149 seat aircraft, ie., 727, 737-300, A320ceo, and MD88? Imho 2,000nm is more than enough to fill those markets....the densely traveled domestic US markets east of a line from DFW to MSP. Airlines are tired of buying too much airplane just to make manufacturers rich, they're not gonna do it again.....5 abreast with a GTF is unbeatable for less than 2,000nm....mho.

The airlines aren't buying too much plane though. The brochure ranges are with a medium density cabin and no extra cargo. They are very optimistic and do not take into account headwinds in one of the directions.

The 3000nm range figure of the A220-300 is with 140 passengers 2 class. With full economy that drops down to 2500nm. At max payload the A220-300 ACAP shows a range of only 2000nm. With headwinds to cover both directions that would be down to 1800nm.

The A220-500 straight stretch at max payload would probably only do routes up to 1200nm in the real world. Unless the airline was going to fly it with a low density cabin the A220-500 would not be very flexible.
 
Sokes
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
You can easily fill a 797 with all the fellow a-netters that declared the A330 dead over the last 15 years.

Orders stand at 1700 (+400 A340s) and counting..

Stop making things up. No one declared the A330 dead 15 years ago. 15 years ago in 2004 the A330 order backlog was at its peak with 7 years of production at the 2004 production rate.
...
However today, A330 production is at less than half of the peak production and the backlog is the lowest it has been in 20 years. Boeing is now producing 3 times as many 787's as A330's each month. The A330 backlog and production rate has been in steady decline. At the current rate of decline it will be on life support in 2028 with a production rate of 1-2 aircraft a month.
...


While keesje's 15 years remark was unfortunate, he has a point. I find it rather unpredictable what will be the future of the A330 Neo.
Do airlines have a problem with the A330 or with Rolls-Royce?

1)Only 30 + 28 Iran Air orders for A330 Neo since 20.4.2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... deliveries:
2016 was the year with " a non-cash impact of £4.4bn period-end mark-to-market revaluation of our derivatives "
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press ... sults.aspx

2)A350 had a huge jump in orders in 2013, afterwards rather quiet. The A350 had it's first commercial flight in January 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries

3)News release 28.2.2019:
p.13:
"There was a mark to market loss on the Group’s hedge book of £(2,144)m (2017: gain of £2,648m).
These reflect the large hedge book held by the Group (e.g. USD $37bn); and the weakening of sterling, against the US dollar (1.35 to 1.28) in 2018. At each
period end, our foreign exchange hedge book is included in the balance sheet at fair value (‘mark to market’) and the movement in the year included in reported financing costs."
p.15:
"While another relatively quiet year for orders, we expect this to pick up in the next few years driven by replacement cycles of both medium and large widebody
aircraft."
p.26 shows that assets are smaller than liability thanks to a 1,052 bn £ negative equity.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Fil ... elease.pdf

I would appreciate if somebody could add how many B787 customers since 2016 have chosen GE and RR respectively.
With interests as low as they are and negative equity apparently legal Trent 1000 and Trent 7000 may end up to be good engines in a few years.
Good engineers and well, managers, are no contradiction.
But would you order them today?

Maybe Airbus should just take over Rolls Royce. At any rate I see no risk that RR disappears from the market.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 3000nm range figure of the A220-300 is with 140 passengers 2 class. With full economy that drops down to 2500nm. At max payload the A220-300 ACAP shows a range of only 2000nm. With headwinds to cover both directions that would be down to 1800nm.

The A220-500 straight stretch at max payload would probably only do routes up to 1200nm in the real world. Unless the airline was going to fly it with a low density cabin the A220-500 would not be very flexible.

If this is so, it's a very strong point.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:00 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Optimised the wing for shorter ranges than the A350

shorter than 350 - yes
but shorter range than 787 means leave market to 787, we can discuss 767neo as direct imagination of this

Not at all. The A330NEO as we see it today can not match the 787 at its own game. The A330NEO really has no advantage in any performance metric it is simply priced to sell and to keep Boeing honest on 787 pricing.

A huge portion of 787-8's are flying routes under 2000nm. Optimising the A330NEO for shorter routes would have gained an advantage over the 787 that grew even bigger as the route becane shorter.

The current A330-800 is simply too capable with massive range and is well outside of the sweetspot. Airbus could never bring the A330-800 back into the sweet spot without a smaller wing and a lower MTOW. Had Airbus fitted a carbon wing, cleansheet engines and a lighter centre section things would be very different.

Most aircraft the empty weight seems to be around 50-55% directly proportional to the MTOW. So dropping the MTOW by 50T should allow the empty weight to be reduced by 20-25T if everything is scaled perfectly. Now lets take the worse case scenerio that a lightweight A330 only lost half of that weight due to keeping many existing heavy parts. You'd still have a highly capable aircraft.

Had Airbus set the A330NEO MTOW to say 200T and then built a cleansheet wing and engine optimised fornthis lower weight it would easily be 10T maybe even 15T lighter. It would smash the 787 on shorter routes. The A330-800 would be selling in big numbers as it would be in the 6500-7000nm sweet spot.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1070
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:30 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
What is the range of the traditional 149 seat aircraft, ie., 727, 737-300, A320ceo, and MD88? Imho 2,000nm is more than enough to fill those markets....the densely traveled domestic US markets east of a line from DFW to MSP. Airlines are tired of buying too much airplane just to make manufacturers rich, they're not gonna do it again.....5 abreast with a GTF is unbeatable for less than 2,000nm....mho.

The airlines aren't buying too much plane though. The brochure ranges are with a medium density cabin and no extra cargo. They are very optimistic and do not take into account headwinds in one of the directions.

The 3000nm range figure of the A220-300 is with 140 passengers 2 class. With full economy that drops down to 2500nm. At max payload the A220-300 ACAP shows a range of only 2000nm. With headwinds to cover both directions that would be down to 1800nm.

The A220-500 straight stretch at max payload would probably only do routes up to 1200nm in the real world. Unless the airline was going to fly it with a low density cabin the A220-500 would not be very flexible.


I believe that you analysis is flawed.

The US3 don't fly single class.

Who cares about cargo? Passenger airlines buying donestic airplanes based upon cargo capability is an a.net myth imho.

airBaltic has flown RIX-AUH (2715nm great circle distance) nonstop with a CS300 configured with 145 seats. I do not know if they were payload restricted.

The existing A220 has almost the same wing area, fuel capacity, and 5 abreast seating as the MD80 series but burns 40-45% less block fuel. The A220 MTOW is comparable to the MD80 series. The A220 can fly over 8 hours on internal fuel (empty) with reserves.....weights will be the limiting factor. 4 hours will be no problem for the 500.

The notional A220-500 will have more range than the MD80, 727, or 733 had.....at least 500nm by my back of the napkin math....maybe more. And the A220-500 will be significantly lighter than the A319NEO or the B737-7MAX (assuming it flies again).. ...somewhere between 5 and 10,000 lbs. But thats ok, those planes aren't selling anyway....hmmmm.
 
rrbsztk
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:50 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
What is the range of the traditional 149 seat aircraft, ie., 727, 737-300, A320ceo, and MD88? Imho 2,000nm is more than enough to fill those markets....the densely traveled domestic US markets east of a line from DFW to MSP. Airlines are tired of buying too much airplane just to make manufacturers rich, they're not gonna do it again.....5 abreast with a GTF is unbeatable for less than 2,000nm....mho.

The airlines aren't buying too much plane though. The brochure ranges are with a medium density cabin and no extra cargo. They are very optimistic and do not take into account headwinds in one of the directions.

The 3000nm range figure of the A220-300 is with 140 passengers 2 class. With full economy that drops down to 2500nm. At max payload the A220-300 ACAP shows a range of only 2000nm. With headwinds to cover both directions that would be down to 1800nm.

The A220-500 straight stretch at max payload would probably only do routes up to 1200nm in the real world. Unless the airline was going to fly it with a low density cabin the A220-500 would not be very flexible.


I'm guessing that ACAP is pre MTOW increase since that isn't being "finalized"until next year. How much would that increase ranges by compared to thesenumbers?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:01 am

Revelation wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Your rant ignores the rumored A320.5. Such a plane, when paired with the A220-500 and the A321 XLR seems possible to me. It fills the gap. The low fuel consumption of the GTF totally changes the mission profile of the 320 imho and makes it more 319ish, ie, too big and too heavy for 149 seat markets. Thus, the 220-500.

I have a hard time seeing Airbus spending money developing A320.5 and A220-500 just to compete with... Airbus.

They are better off spending their money getting CSALP to the point where they can build A220s profitably, and saving the rest for the big check they will need to cut to buy BBD out of the program.


I don't think it's about competing with themselves, necessarily.

I posted some numbers on the orders thread.
The A320 series has 5 870 orders in backlog, and A321's are 43% of those, or 2 500.
That backlog is 9 1/2 years production based on last year's 625 deliveries.
And the A321 percentage just keeps on growing. In fact the A321 backlog is now eating into the A320 backlog, especially with the Air Asia conversion of 250 frames.

Airbus has 3 issues with the A320 series (all good ones, but issues nonetheless)

1. It just can't build them fast enough. Full stop.
2. An increasing proportion of the backlog is becoming A321's which are harder to build and have more impact on FAL facilities (one of the reasons that Airbus are looking at the production process that doesn't get aired nearly enough).
3. NMA may spark a demand for a bigger A320 (an XLR based A322 say) that affects production even more.

Deliberately moving the A220 into A320 territory and dramatically increasing output is one option that Airbus could look at to alleviate the 3 issues above. I don't think it is outside the realms of feasibility to see the A32X production over the next decade transition to predominantly A321, with an increasing number of A322's, and a decreasing number of A320's, offset by increasing numbers of A220-500 and A220-300.

The attraction of that option will to some extent depend on how Airbus feel they need to respond to NMA (if it actually happens).
If they don't intent to react with an all-new frame, then pressure for bigger and more capable A32X series will definitely grow.
The A220 could help by relieving capacity demands at the bottom.

The option may also depend on a emerging need to respond to an all-new super-producible Boeing narrowbody (NSA) should THAT ever appear.
But the question that was posed in the OP was about the next 10 years ...

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:53 am

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Your rant ignores the rumored A320.5. Such a plane, when paired with the A220-500 and the A321 XLR seems possible to me. It fills the gap. The low fuel consumption of the GTF totally changes the mission profile of the 320 imho and makes it more 319ish, ie, too big and too heavy for 149 seat markets. Thus, the 220-500.

I have a hard time seeing Airbus spending money developing A320.5 and A220-500 just to compete with... Airbus.

They are better off spending their money getting CSALP to the point where they can build A220s profitably, and saving the rest for the big check they will need to cut to buy BBD out of the program.


I don't think it's about competing with themselves, necessarily.

I posted some numbers on the orders thread.
The A320 series has 5 870 orders in backlog, and A321's are 43% of those, or 2 500.
That backlog is 9 1/2 years production based on last year's 625 deliveries.
And the A321 percentage just keeps on growing. In fact the A321 backlog is now eating into the A320 backlog, especially with the Air Asia conversion of 250 frames.

Airbus has 3 issues with the A320 series (all good ones, but issues nonetheless)

1. It just can't build them fast enough. Full stop.
2. An increasing proportion of the backlog is becoming A321's which are harder to build and have more impact on FAL facilities (one of the reasons that Airbus are looking at the production process that doesn't get aired nearly enough).
3. NMA may spark a demand for a bigger A320 (an XLR based A322 say) that affects production even more.

Deliberately moving the A220 into A320 territory and dramatically increasing output is one option that Airbus could look at to alleviate the 3 issues above. I don't think it is outside the realms of feasibility to see the A32X production over the next decade transition to predominantly A321, with an increasing number of A322's, and a decreasing number of A320's, offset by increasing numbers of A220-500 and A220-300.

The attraction of that option will to some extent depend on how Airbus feel they need to respond to NMA (if it actually happens).
If they don't intent to react with an all-new frame, then pressure for bigger and more capable A32X series will definitely grow.
The A220 could help by relieving capacity demands at the bottom.

The option may also depend on a emerging need to respond to an all-new super-producible Boeing narrowbody (NSA) should THAT ever appear.
But the question that was posed in the OP was about the next 10 years ...

Rgds


Given the fact new slots are sparse the coming decade, an A320.5 could be an opportunity for Airbus to improve TO / Margin based on the current backlog. Airbus could charge ~USD10mln for an A320Plus over an A320NEO. If 1500 A320NEO get upgraded to a A320Plus, that represents an extra value of USD15 Billion based on the current backlog. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/01/airbus-2018-price-list-press-release.html#media-list-document-document-all_ml_0

Am A320Plus could lead to a slight flattening of A321 sales, but that would be a Sales responsibility to manage the protfolio by price.

1500 A320 Converions isn't irrealistic, airlines have been asking for it, ordered slightly bigger 737-800s because of it. Additionaly, the risk is there it hits you down the road if you simply ignore (big) customer requirements over longer periods. A lean 199 seats / 3 cabin attendant aircraft is the holy grail of efficiency. That's why Ryan got it & Airbus has been stuffing 186 seats in the A320 (introducing micro lavatories/ galleys etc.)

An A320Plus would drop the737-8 strongest selling point, 2 rows more than the A320, but way cheaper than a (significantly bigger (42 seats..) heavier A321.
If Boeing would launch an NSA as a response, that would do something to the 737MAX backlog and lead to 8 daimond sales years for the NEO, while taking a look at their own future A300 / A310 / A332 replacement aicraft and boosting the A220 family etc.

Image
Boeing slide 2017, I think they are right the 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 all three fall inbetween the A320NEO and A321NEO.. The A220s effectively took over the 737-7/A319 market segment already.

Personally I think a 737 replacement is back on the table in Seattlle/ Chicago. They need a credible long term NB road map to keep on board the 737MAX customer base. Of course they'll deny until they have a plan.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:02 pm

keesje wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I have a hard time seeing Airbus spending money developing A320.5 and A220-500 just to compete with... Airbus.

They are better off spending their money getting CSALP to the point where they can build A220s profitably, and saving the rest for the big check they will need to cut to buy BBD out of the program.


I don't think it's about competing with themselves, necessarily.

I posted some numbers on the orders thread.
The A320 series has 5 870 orders in backlog, and A321's are 43% of those, or 2 500.
That backlog is 9 1/2 years production based on last year's 625 deliveries.
And the A321 percentage just keeps on growing. In fact the A321 backlog is now eating into the A320 backlog, especially with the Air Asia conversion of 250 frames.

Airbus has 3 issues with the A320 series (all good ones, but issues nonetheless)

1. It just can't build them fast enough. Full stop.
2. An increasing proportion of the backlog is becoming A321's which are harder to build and have more impact on FAL facilities (one of the reasons that Airbus are looking at the production process that doesn't get aired nearly enough).
3. NMA may spark a demand for a bigger A320 (an XLR based A322 say) that affects production even more.

Deliberately moving the A220 into A320 territory and dramatically increasing output is one option that Airbus could look at to alleviate the 3 issues above. I don't think it is outside the realms of feasibility to see the A32X production over the next decade transition to predominantly A321, with an increasing number of A322's, and a decreasing number of A320's, offset by increasing numbers of A220-500 and A220-300.

The attraction of that option will to some extent depend on how Airbus feel they need to respond to NMA (if it actually happens).
If they don't intent to react with an all-new frame, then pressure for bigger and more capable A32X series will definitely grow.
The A220 could help by relieving capacity demands at the bottom.

The option may also depend on a emerging need to respond to an all-new super-producible Boeing narrowbody (NSA) should THAT ever appear.
But the question that was posed in the OP was about the next 10 years ...

Rgds


Given the fact new slots are sparse the coming decade, an A320.5 could be an opportunity for Airbus to improve TO / Margin based on the current backlog. Airbus could charge ~USD10mln for an A320Plus over an A320NEO. If 1500 A320NEO get upgraded to a A320Plus, that represents an extra value of USD15 Billion based on the current backlog. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/01/airbus-2018-price-list-press-release.html#media-list-document-document-all_ml_0

Am A320Plus could lead to a slight flattening of A321 sales, but that would be a Sales responsibility to manage the protfolio by price.

1500 A320 Converions isn't irrealistic, airlines have been asking for it, ordered slightly bigger 737-800s because of it. Additionaly, the risk is there it hits you down the road if you simply ignore (big) customer requirements over longer periods. A lean 199 seats / 3 cabin attendant aircraft is the holy grail of efficiency. That's why Ryan got it & Airbus has been stuffing 186 seats in the A320 (introducing micro lavatories/ galleys etc.)

An A320Plus would drop the737-8 strongest selling point, 2 rows more than the A320, but way cheaper than a (significantly bigger (42 seats..) heavier A321.
If Boeing would launch an NSA as a response, that would do something to the 737MAX backlog and lead to 8 daimond sales years for the NEO, while taking a look at their own future A300 / A310 / A332 replacement aicraft and boosting the A220 family etc.

Image
Boeing slide 2017, I think they are right the 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 all three fall inbetween the A320NEO and A321NEO.. The A220s effectively took over the 737-7/A319 market segment already.

Personally I think a 737 replacement is back on the table in Seattlle/ Chicago. They need a credible long term NB road map to keep on board the 737MAX customer base. Of course they'll deny until they have a plan.


I'm somewhat agnostic about the A320.5 concept.
If I look at the (nice) problems I identified for the A32XNEO family, I struggle to see how the A320.5 answers them.

Selling A320's is not a problem. despite having the highest delivery rate of any narrowbody in the history of jet aviation, Airbus have a 9 1/2 year backlog for A32X. The fact that the 737-8 specifically is still a strong competitor due in some part to its 2 extra seat rows hasn't remotely dented A320 family sales. In fact I'd venture to argue that the 737-8 also benefits from earlier (whilst still long) availability - the 737 backlog is 1 500 frames lower than the A320.
Airbus need to be building more planes...

The A320.5 whilst commanding a higher price in the market will also be slightly more expensive to build, and more significantly, take slightly longer to build too, making it even harder for Airbus to ramp up.
Finally the revenue from a higher price A320.5 is likely to be more than offset by some portion of sales deflecting away from the A321, which is even more valuable in the market, hence I see the added revenue as somewhat of a zero sum gain.

But mostly, Airbus need to be building more planes
That's the advantage I see from the option of growing both the A220 output and its product range

As an enthusiast it's nice to imagine an A320 that has a capacity matched to the 737-8. sounds fun.
But that of itself won't kill the 737-8 which has advantages of:-
commonality with 737 fleets
strength on shorter sectors
earlier availability.

So I'm not seeing the business case.
If sales of A320's were drying up I might get it, but with 3 350 in backlog and orders still coming in. :scratchchin:

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:02 pm

An A320Plus would be slightly ( 2 rows) bigger than 737-8, but still 3-4 rows shy of the A321. An A320Plus might bring in more money than an A320. And the first 1500 would be mostly conversions. It's about making more money while disrupting your competitors long term portfolio planning.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:15 pm

N14AZ wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
Innovations before 2030:
- The wing of tomorrow project, including flapping wings.

It already flew.....
Image
.... as a model ;-)

Amazing video: one flight with "stiff" wings and another one with flapping wings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTfWlOU6Lic

There was a press release by Airbus several weeks ago and I even wanted to start a thread about it...


A fuselage doesn't fall from the sky because the wing has enough lift for wing + fuselage.
How do free hinged wingtips add lift?
Or is there a lock mechanism which is released only when turbulent air is ahead?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Topic Author
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus product range 2028

Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:55 pm

Sorry guys for not responding earlier. As a none language thinker it’s not always easy for me to respond in time to all the points being made with the quality of argumentation to my liking.


On timing:


Yes 2030 or later is more realistic.


On production rates:


The production rates was more of a maximum that model range would reach, not start at.


On A220 production sites:

Design the new one to be as efficient as possible, then temporally halt Canada FAL to get it close to that standard and then maximize output. It is not meant to produce small amounts at each FAL, it is designed to provide relatively large amounts at each FAL (just not 737/A320 amounts).


On the A360:


Reasons to go for an A360 instead of the A330 reasons for the A360:
1 It and it’s production line can be designed to be produced as efficiently as possible (as is the hot topic currently)
2 The A330 has out-evolded it’s required range bracket, it’s also too close to the A350 thus the production range is not addressing the market as effective as it should.
3 Stunning fuel efficiency gains are to be had (and required as aviation will not be let of the environmental hook in the same way much longer).
4 Cabin environment improved
5 A330-800 as alternative to the NMA might fool a very small percentage of the investment community, but no fleet purchasing process will consider it as such.
6 It designed to take over from where the original A330 left of, but got over capable for. I reckon it would be Airbus’ take on what they could realistically do to minimize the gap in the middle of the market with a widebody. The market will be “huge” by widebody standards, hence the 15+ production rate.
7 The A330 fuselage/sea width is too wide for current standards and too close to the A350.


I will split point 3 again in four parts:

1 Much lighter fuselage being slightly smaller and made from composites
2 Designed from the get go with additive manufacturing in mind, making full use of its advantages
3 New geared engines
4 A new state of the art very high aspect ratio wing leading to a strong reduction in drag.


To expand further on the wing, an A360 as described would be in a very unique position to see huge gains in wing efficiency without having to resort to things like folding wings:

1 At around 200t MTOW the 65m gate restriction would not be a problem for a very AR wing. A 60m wing on a 200t MTOW would yield very good induced drag numbers.
2 Flexible/negative lift wing ends would limit bending moment at the wing root and thus allow this very large wingspan wing to not have an overly large weight penalty.
3 The large wingspan would also provide a larger portion of laminar flow
4 Use of composites would mean weight would be further reduced compared to an A330 tech level wing.


On: A220 + A320 + engines

viewtopic.php?t=1400805

Personally I do think there will be a market for 70+ A320 and 30+ A220 with updates, especially if Boeing goes ahead with NMA. The MAX wouldn’t cut it any more and will only linger on with further reduced margins (read near zero).

Rolls-Royce and Airbus have a shared commercial and strategic interest to get RR back into the NB market. Given that, I think it would seem unlikely that the tech RR is currently developing would not end up on an Airbus NB. It’s the biggest market after all.


On A330:

Will live on in small numbers for military and perhaps as a freighter if their would be any demand.


A322


A321XLR will only take a small part of the NMA. A322 could take another small part and would again be high margin, low risk proposition.


On the business case for the A320.5:


There should be no reason to let the A220-500 and A320 overlap more than necessary at the moment when they have the combined A220/A320 production strength as mentioned. The A320 is having more than the required range due to SFC improvements. The A320.5 is a way to translate that back into lower CASM. I don't see how a simply stretch would take significantly longer to built or be significantly more expensive to produce. I don't think it would be wise for Airbus to ramp up too far beyond 70 planes a month anyway. I will be too large a concentration of industrial resources into a single type. Long term that is not a safe position to be in.

I'm with Keesje that the increase in margin would be there as it simply positions the plane better in the market relative to the require range bracket as well as relative to a possible A220-500. Yes it would take away some revenue from the A321, but it is cheaper to produce so margins might be better anyway and as Keesje has argued, the gap between the A320 and A321 is quite large.

After NMA, the A220/A320 variants/production rate onslaught will force Boeing to do something about the narrowbody market. It's better to have the best possible combination of A220-A320 variants ready when that happens (eventually).



Personally I reckon if Boeing is to launch NMA, it will allow Airbus to respond with the above approach, cause Boeing would not have any resources left to answer Airbus’ onslaught with A220/A320 variants and production rates. If Boeing goes ahead with a NSA, Airbus range could look quite different.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.

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