HP69 wrote:

I have insider info that the next Airbus clean-sheet will be the A390. It will replace the A380 and will be a 3-5-3 seating configuration for a 3-class capacity of about 450.

Are you being facetious? Is there a substantial demand for an A380 replacement? Or are you serious?

Seems like the market has spoken on VLAs and if my understanding: It's less about the A380 and 74-8 having 4 engines, than the lack of demand for the aircraft. I'm sure there would be a certain niche for it (*cough* Emirates *cough*), but would such an aircraft be able to sell enough frames to recoup the massive cost of development? And what sort of behemoth engine is on the drawing board (anywhere), that would be necessary to power such an aircraft? I have extremely strong doubts...

Not to mention what a nightmare 3-5-3 would be for those seated in such a configuration. I would be very surprised if that's what AB is cooking up as their next clean sheet design. Of course: I've been wrong before. Care to elaborate?

JamesCousins wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

The A330 will be phased out as it is already lacking orders. So, I thinkl the line-up will be as follows...

I can't say I agree with this, and feel people get far too caught up in the whole A330neo is dead rhetoric. Has it been as successful as the 787? No. Have airlines overall regarded it as an inferior product? Yes. But it's got large orders from Delta, Virgin (top up and options seemingly very likely from VS/DL), TAP, Garuda and of course the 100 frame order from AirAsia X. While the AirAsia X order isn't as stable as say that from DL given their tendency to renegotiate and convert commonly, they'll still take a very large number of frames that may even exceed the 100 mark. I think it's in it for the long run, and could become a bit of a quiet cash cow like it's predecessor the A330 given the very low comparative development costs when looking at it and the 787 ($2bn vs $32bn).

Let us not forget how poor of a seller the A330 originally was, with the A340 and 777 stealing the show during the 90s, and that orders for the Classic 777 and A340 dried up once more capable A330s with higher MTOWs and more range came onto the scene, as well as the fact that over 800 of 777 orders were for the 77W, a frame far larger than the A330/A340 and the 777 Classic.

Obviously circumstances are different now, the 787 and A350 are much more formidable compared to the 777 Classic and A340, but still, as more A330s are parked next decade the NEO will find it's place. It probably won't have 4 figure sales numbers but it'll be a reasonable success, certainly no A340NG that's for sure

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

For a cfrp folding wing for the A32X is that a clean sheet or a product development?

It's a bit of a philosophical question. Is the 757 a clean sheet design or a development of the 737? After all, it has the same cross section, the same configuration, but a longer fuselage, different wing and engines, different landing gear and different nose section.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

Afaik Airbus has plans for CFRP wings and center wingbox, but they are not folding.

I think the question is: can Airbus afford NOT doing this? Fitting into C gates multiplies the market by 3 (at least).

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

There is one problem for folding wingtips on a Airbus. There hasn't been a European (military) aircraft with folding wings.

Well, when they did the A300, there wasn't a European widebody. And when they did the A320, there wasn't a European (actually any) fly by wire airliner. And when they did the Concorde....

triple3driver wrote:

Obviously circumstances are different now, the 787 and A350 are much more formidable compared to the 777 Classic and A340, but still, as more A330s are parked next decade the NEO will find it's place. It probably won't have 4 figure sales numbers but it'll be a reasonable success, certainly no A340NG that's for sure

Meanwhile, Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/26/airbu ... r-a330neo/ ) says:

(An A330) production rate cut seems inevitable in the near future

And asks:

Why keep the A330neo in the product line?

I'm not sure what to make of this.

In the context of this thread, it may suggest the middle of the market is where Airbus needs to aim its next clean sheet.

workhorse wrote:

It's a bit of a philosophical question. Is the 757 a clean sheet design or a development of the 737? After all, it has the same cross section, the same configuration, but a longer fuselage, different wing and engines, different landing gear and different nose section.

I think you answered your own question. You basically described the 757 as an entirely different aircraft from the 737. (Different wings, engines, landing gear, nose)... You also missed: Different philosophy, different fuel systems, different hydraulics, different cockpit, different empennage, different avionics... I could go on.

In no appreciable way are those two products similar, outside of the same cross-section. By that logic, you could say that the 757 is a development of the 707 or 727.

Of course it's a clean sheet design.

I think that Airbus won't be releasing clean-sheet designs till Boeing shows their hand with the MOM.

For the time being Airbus will be busy modifying the A220 series. Initially redesigning to simplify production and supply-chain, longer term new versions such as stretches, shrinks, longer range, higher payload etc.

Perhaps some design elements of the A220 might be transferred over to the A320 series? I am not that familiar with the A220, but I would imagine that it has plenty of advanced tech that might be usefull on the rest of the Airbus line-up.

rjsampson wrote:

I think you answered your own question. You basically described the 757 as an entirely different aircraft from the 737. (Different wings, engines, landing gear, nose)... You also missed: Different philosophy, different fuel systems, different hydraulics, different cockpit, different empennage, different avionics... I could go on.

Same goes for the hypothetical Airbus new narrowbody I've described up there. Same cross section but new (folding) wing, new engines, new nose section (and thus, new cockpit), new landing gear... I guess the systems will have to be redesigned as well. But using the same cross section will provide huge advantage. Imagine, a new airplane enters service but there's already 4 FALs up and running full steam!

rjsampson wrote:

By that logic, you could say that the 757 is a development of the 707 or 727.

Well, Tupolev once managed to sell the Tu-134 as an "update" of the Tu-124. "Yes, Mr Khrushchev, of course it's the same airplane, we just moved the engines to the back for less noise!"

Although, could they just use the basic for A330 design and then replicated them with composite fuselage and newer technology instead of wasting tons of money on developing new aircraft?

So Basically it's gonna be A330 neo-nfo?

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile, Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/26/airbu ... r-a330neo/ ) says:

(An A330) production rate cut seems inevitable in the near future

And asks:

Why keep the A330neo in the product line?

I'm not sure what to make of this.

In the context of this thread, it may suggest the middle of the market is where Airbus needs to aim its next clean sheet.

100% their next cleansheet will be a MOM sitting halfway between the A321XLR and the A350-900. A tight 8ab with moderate length and 6000nm range is likely.

RJMAZ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile, Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/26/airbu ... r-a330neo/ ) says:

(An A330) production rate cut seems inevitable in the near future

And asks:

Why keep the A330neo in the product line?

I'm not sure what to make of this.

In the context of this thread, it may suggest the middle of the market is where Airbus needs to aim its next clean sheet.

100% their next cleansheet will be a MOM sitting halfway between the A321XLR and the A350-900. A tight 8ab with moderate length and 6000nm range is likely.

Sounds a lot like you're describing an A388 with reduced range... Can't see a desire for Airbus to invest there. Something 6 abreast with 1 isle or 7 abrest with 2 isles seems more likely to me (a 767 esk layout)

JamesCousins wrote:

Sounds a lot like you're describing an A388 with reduced range... Can't see a desire for Airbus to invest there. Something 6 abreast with 1 isle or 7 abrest with 2 isles seems more likely to me (a 767 esk layout)

Reducing range allows for a lower takeoff weight. That means a smaller wing, less thrust and lighter landing gear is required if you want it to remain fully optimised. Fuel burn per mile would improve as the aircraft is optimised for shorter range.

For example here is how the weights and dimensions would roughly scale if the same fuselage tube was used but everything else was optimised for a certain range.

A330-800
8150nm range = 251t MTOW, 129t OEW, 465m2 wing, 72,000lb thrust.

7000nm range = 220t MTOW, 110t OEW, 370m2 wing, 65,000lb thrust. 5% fuel burn improvement per mile.

6000nm range = 190t MTOW, 95t OEW, 310m2 wing, 60,000lb thrust. 10% fuel burn improvement per mile.

5000nm range = 160t MTOW, 80t OEW, 250m2 wing, 55,000lb thrust. 15% fuel burn improvement per mile.

Now Engine tech might take 20 years to improve fuel efficiency by 15% that same gain can be made by optimising for shorter range. You'll notice most aircraft the empty weight is roughly half of the MTOW.

The A330 cross section is probably a little too big. It gets used in 9ab by many airlines. Obviously a cleansheet with a tight 8ab would be ideal to hit the halfway point between the A321 and A350-900.

Airbus could use the A330-800 cross section and fuselage again for their MOM. Lets start with the 5000nm version listed above with the 160t MTOW and 58m fuselage length. They could do a second shorter version say 53m long with range pushing 6000nm. Basically both of these models would be 10% larger than the two 797 models with 10% greater range. A repeat of how the A330 sat above 767.

i believe a-net still more close to real word than this insane numbers.

338 wing area 370m2, not 465 as of A350

(skipped)

workhorse wrote:

My .
The next Airbus aircraft will have the fuselage cross section of the A320 in order to be assembled on the existing 32S lines.
It will have a longer fuselage than the A321 (somewhere between the 757-300 and the DC8-60).
It will have a new composite wing that will have a significantly bigger span than the 32S family but will fold at the 36m mark to fit into code C gates.

Strange, I doubt that the cross section is limited by the lines, but not wing span and length!

I think the indications are growing that it will be a A330 replacement. Probably more like an A300-600R than an A330. I mean if you look at the A300-600R and imagine engines that burn 30% less fuel, it already looks surprisingly competitive.

30% is a ambitious goal, deifference between 321neo and 757 less in total, not by engines only

RJMAZ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile, Leeham ( https://leehamnews.com/2019/08/26/airbu ... r-a330neo/ ) says:

(An A330) production rate cut seems inevitable in the near future

And asks:

Why keep the A330neo in the product line?

I'm not sure what to make of this.

In the context of this thread, it may suggest the middle of the market is where Airbus needs to aim its next clean sheet.

100% their next cleansheet will be a MOM sitting halfway between the A321XLR and the A350-900. A tight 8ab with moderate length and 6000nm range is likely.

I'm thinking such an aircraft could have a capacity of around 250-300, 6500-6000nm range. A narrowbody A321 replacement (upgrade?) can come between 200-250 seats, under 5000 nm range. Not more than 2 variants for each category. A re-engined A350 family would be positioned above these, while the bottom end will be covered by the A220 series. This would be a very comprehensive line-up going into the 2030s.

seahawk wrote:

I think the indications are growing that it will be a A330 replacement. Probably more like an A300-600R than an A330. I mean if you look at the A300-600R and imagine engines that burn 30% less fuel, it already looks surprisingly competitive.

Is it viable for Boeing to launch NMA right into that space and steal Airbus' thunder?

Tight 8AB rather than the silly 7 idea purported on here. Typical pax config range of around 5000nm.


Or is that far too close to 787?

There are 1500-1600 A330/340 out there that need to be replaced sooner or later.

Of those, most where ordered after the 787 was offered.

What percentage of those do we feel will be replaced by NEO's?

strongpoints of the 787 vs the NEO seem matched by weakpoints..

COMPACT, light, twin aisle short-medium range A300 replacement.

LH526 wrote:

COMPACT, light, twin aisle short-medium range A300 replacement.

Yeah, sounds the most logical one. B787-8 have kill A330-800neo. Airbus need to reclaim the 250 seats market that are dominated by A330-200 back in the day.

Maybe A310 and A330-200 replacement in the same family?

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

seahawk wrote:

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

Is NMA not a very similar product to A310?

ewt340 wrote:

B787-8 have kill A330-800neo. Airbus need to reclaim the 250 seats market that are dominated by A330-200 back in the day.

321XLR pushes into this territory.
And possible 322 for shorter seatcount.. just don't see the $s in the gap for Airbus.

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

There hasn't been a European (military) aircraft with folding wings. Thus this technology is very immature for Airbus.
Boeing was permited to develop folding wings by the US DOD. Cleansky only funded a small uav to test folding wings.

Not for a while, but folding wings were introduced by Shorts on Biplanes. There's the Buccaneer, Super Entendard and Gannet to name 3.

BaconButty wrote:

CFRPwingALbody wrote:

There hasn't been a European (military) aircraft with folding wings. Thus this technology is very immature for Airbus.
Boeing was permited to develop folding wings by the US DOD. Cleansky only funded a small uav to test folding wings.

Not for a while, but folding wings were introduced by Shorts on Biplanes. There's the Buccaneer, Super Entendard and Gannet to name 3.

Yes, just a few days ago

Buccaneer - first flight April 1958
Super Entendard - first flight Oct 1974
Gannet - first flight 1949

But the folding wing mechanism is not technically complicated, far simpler than the main landing gear. An actuator, a hinge, and a positive locking system. Flaps on the bigger widebodies probably have more force and are in moving tracks, far more tricky. I am sure the Boeing 777x has left a trail in public docs on the FAA/EASA certification requirements.

Amiga500 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

Is NMA not a very similar product to A310?

No, as it would not have to make do with the fuselage of the A300. In the end the A310 is the result of airliners willing to trade capacity for range as the A300 could not deliver the desired range. On the other hand if you want to have the same capacity you might be better served with 7 abreast, but that also comes with its own disadvantage. Considering the success of the A321 and the real option for a A322 I think Airbus has no need to go that small. I think it would be more something around 52m between the original B1 and the B2 and then a stretch to about A332 length. The longer version with slightly above 5300nm range and the shorter around 6300-6500nm.

Amiga500 wrote:

Is it viable for Boeing to launch NMA right into that space and steal Airbus' thunder? Tight 8AB rather than the silly 7 idea purported on here. Typical pax config range of around 5000nm.

Doesn't that mean you lose the advantage of a hold that takes two abreast LD3s? I thought that was a biggie for Asian carriers.

moa999 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

B787-8 have kill A330-800neo. Airbus need to reclaim the 250 seats market that are dominated by A330-200 back in the day.

321XLR pushes into this territory.
And possible 322 for shorter seatcount.. just don't see the $s in the gap for Airbus.

Sorry, 250 seat count with 2 class configurations with the latest business class products. Not a single class configuration. A322 could only carry around 200-220 passengers at the same configurations.

I also mean range-wise, it would fly between 6500nmi - 7000nmi like A330-200.

While Airbus done well with A350-900 and A330-900neo. A330-800neo have been slow seller. Compared this to B787-8 order, Airbus need to work on this problem.

seahawk wrote:

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

Boeing also said nobody needs B757. Look at them now.

Besides, A310 & A330-200 would be a good combo. Both came from the same family trees. 8 Abreast configurations which allowed for LD3 container and better efficiency compared to B797's 7 abreast configurations. It's not a shrink version which mean that fuel efficiency would be good.

Airlines would abandoned B797 because the A310 and A330-200 replacement combo would be more beneficial.

ewt340 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

Boeing also said nobody needs B757. Look at them now.

Besides, A310 & A330-200 would be a good combo. Both came from the same family trees. 8 Abreast configurations which allowed for LD3 container and better efficiency compared to B797's 7 abreast configurations. It's not a shrink version which mean that fuel efficiency would be good.

Airlines would abandoned B797 because the A310 and A330-200 replacement combo would be more beneficial.

There is a 13m length difference between a A310 and a A332, if you want to make this as 2 versions of the same model, the shorter once either becomes too heavy and too long ranged or the longer one will lack range. The A310 was also a bit too chubby

seahawk wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nobody really wants an A310 replacement.

Boeing also said nobody needs B757. Look at them now.

Besides, A310 & A330-200 would be a good combo. Both came from the same family trees. 8 Abreast configurations which allowed for LD3 container and better efficiency compared to B797's 7 abreast configurations. It's not a shrink version which mean that fuel efficiency would be good.

Airlines would abandoned B797 because the A310 and A330-200 replacement combo would be more beneficial.

There is a 13m length difference between a A310 and a A332, if you want to make this as 2 versions of the same model, the shorter once either becomes too heavy and too long ranged or the longer one will lack range. The A310 was also a bit too chubby

It's actually 12.16m not 13m. But I guess it make sense, too much length differences, the most extreme one are 10.13m differences in length between B777-200 and B777-300.

One one of the reason I recommended it is because A300-600 capacity are way too similar to A330-200. Around 15-20 seats differences between the 2.

I guess a longer variants of A310 around 49-50m would works better.

VV wrote:

Instead of doing a clean sheet design, perhaps they can revive the A380neo

OEW
277 t | A380 exit limit 853 seats
134.7–145.1 t | A350-900 (737 orders) exit limit 440 seats but suggested 315 (48J+267Y)
155 t | A350-1000 (176 orders) exit limit 440 seats but suggested 369 (54J+315Y)
170? t |A350 -1100,-2000 or -8000. Probable exit limit still 440 seats (UNDEVELOPED)

At the 2017 Paris Air Show, the concept for a longer stretch was shelved for lacking market appeal.
It is thought that in 3-5 years a new generation of engine will make a revival of the A350-1100 more likely.
The A380 is such a heavier jet that it would be a huge risk to revive.

The A380 production infrastructure will be gone/reused for other purposes. I don't see any A380neo coming.
-most likely to happen (speculating): Bigger A321neo ("A322 or A323" or should it be A321-900 and -1000) with a new wing.
-possible one day: 777X style super twin, above the A350 (very powerful RR engine needed)
-A320 clean sheet replacement (only likely to happen after 737 MAX replacement using the same future new engine)
-NMA comptetitor: Smaller A350 style small widebody twin. A310/A330 replacement.

I think we should think in terms of evolution of existing plane types.

A carbon wing A320/A321 would not come as a surprise.
A220-500 looks like it will be in-line for the future, if market wants it in big enough numbers.

Many PIP's have been suggested (many of Lightsabre's PIP's are very likely for both A and B).

Boeing will probably do an clean sheet narrow body series with even more passengers than the A321 at the high end of the product, I still doubt the 797 will come to light, due to economics.

Until new engines technologies emerge it is unlikely we see anything revolutionary in fuel savings, but manufacturer will PIP existing frames,and when it is financially viable, stretch them.

PacoMartin wrote:

VV wrote:

Instead of doing a clean sheet design, perhaps they can revive the A380neo

OEW
277 t | A380 exit limit 853 seats
134.7–145.1 t | A350-900 (737 orders) exit limit 440 seats but suggested 315 (48J+267Y)
155 t | A350-1000 (176 orders) exit limit 440 seats but suggested 369 (54J+315Y)
170? t |A350 -1100,-2000 or -8000. Probable exit limit still 440 seats (UNDEVELOPED)

At the 2017 Paris Air Show, the concept for a longer stretch was shelved for lacking market appeal.
It is thought that in 3-5 years a new generation of engine will make a revival of the A350-1100 more likely.
The A380 is such a heavier jet that it would be a huge risk to revive.

My comment was a joke.

If Boeing brings the NMA, a rather big if, I would expect Airbus to do not a A310neo, but a frame inspired by the A310.

If Boeing goes for small widebody, no freight, as the USA airlines are asking for, I expect Airbus not to go head on, but do a small wide body with very good freight capabilities.

If one starts with the A310 fuselage, A330 cockpit, A310 or similar sized landing gear, a carbon fiber wing of the size of the old A310 wing, you should be able with a few other weight saving techniques to go for an OEW somewhere between 70 and 75t. As it is, there is no engine that would be optimal for that size of frame, but a Boeing NMA would need an only slightly smaller engine.

If Boeing should not come with the NMA, I expect Airbus just to keep working on the A321 expansion and that would include in time a new wing and the new carbon fiber wing box.

The A220-500 will come, but Airbus will wait for the A220 production to have ramped up to launch it. That does not preclude that Airbus is not actively working on it. Air France would not have it in it's plans without having talked to Airbus. I do not expect a big stretch, because the A220-300 is already longer than the A320, and the frame would run into trouble if it gets to long.

Airbus could bring a stretched A350, stretching the -1000, but going for capacity instead of range, a bit like the 787-10. That way Airbus could get away with using the same engines, perhaps a slightly longer wing with folding tips.

I think they should have started an a330 replacement a couple of years ago, but every indication is that the next clean sheet will be an A320 replacement c.2030. The Clean Skies program was preparing industry for that happening in 2025, but after the NEO was announced that was pushed back and Clean Skies 2 started. There's been too much in the public domain at least to suggest otherwise. There was an interview with Faury - he pushes out out to the future, but it's still the clean sheet aircraft he's talking about:

But with doubts now hanging over the future of the NMA and the prospect a new Future Small Airplane (single-aisle) may be launched first, Faury and Airbus must sit back and wait.

“We have our views on product strategy,” he said. “We don’t like to strategize too much publicly.”

Once the MAX is back in service, Faury says Boeing “will have a choice to make.” With a backlog of nearly 5,000 737s, this is where Faury sees the demand.

“I don’t see the market as expecting a new plane,” Faury said. “They expect the right level of production, short term, of the right plane at the right time and with the right quality.

“What I am suggesting here is from my perspective, the 737 and the A320 families are in the market for quite a long time.”

Faury predicts the next generation of single aisle “will be a very different plane.”

“Are the technologies ready for this new wave, this new generation, of single-aisle planes?” Faury asks rhetorically. “I think they are not. It’s not just about digital and production systems. It’s about environment and de-carbonization.”

Faury said the competition will be “very interesting. It will be tough” preparing for the future of the next single aisle. “I would not be comfortable having to decide now to launch an FSA.”

So Boeing will have to be first movers. A putative 2030 EIS (not being exact with the year, obviously. Could be 2033) would still be consistent with his statements. It would have to be launched at least 4 years from now, allowing some time for TR levels for the candidate tech to rise. A320's (and 737's) would still have to be delivered in numbers until well into the 2030's - perhaps 2040. My guess is Airbus will spend the intervening time working on the A220 and A321, so they can go into the difficult transition period with a Hi-Lo offering of A225 and A321 (rewinged? that's still ongoing R&D I believe, or was a year ago). I'm interested to see how Boeing responds on that front. Will the Max be adequate to maintain cashflow through the rollout and rampup of their replacement single aisle? Will they accelerate things?

BaconButty wrote:

I think they should have started an a330 replacement a couple of years ago,

Why? It would appear that the cheap 2 Billion USD A330neo can hold its own vs the 10+ Billion A350 and 20+ Billion 787 clean sheet designs just fine, so it would seem to me that making something significantly better was impossible a few years ago, and likely still is.

best regards
Thomas

BaconButty wrote:

I think they should have started an a330 replacement a couple of years ago, but every indication is that the next clean sheet will be an A320 replacement c.2030. The Clean Skies program was preparing industry for that happening in 2025, but after the NEO was announced that was pushed back and Clean Skies 2 started. There's been too much in the public domain at least to suggest otherwise. There was an interview with Faury - he pushes out out to the future, but it's still the clean sheet aircraft he's talking about:

But with doubts now hanging over the future of the NMA and the prospect a new Future Small Airplane (single-aisle) may be launched first, Faury and Airbus must sit back and wait.

“We have our views on product strategy,” he said. “We don’t like to strategize too much publicly.”

Once the MAX is back in service, Faury says Boeing “will have a choice to make.” With a backlog of nearly 5,000 737s, this is where Faury sees the demand.

“I don’t see the market as expecting a new plane,” Faury said. “They expect the right level of production, short term, of the right plane at the right time and with the right quality.

“What I am suggesting here is from my perspective, the 737 and the A320 families are in the market for quite a long time.”

Faury predicts the next generation of single aisle “will be a very different plane.”

“Are the technologies ready for this new wave, this new generation, of single-aisle planes?” Faury asks rhetorically. “I think they are not. It’s not just about digital and production systems. It’s about environment and de-carbonization.”

Faury said the competition will be “very interesting. It will be tough” preparing for the future of the next single aisle. “I would not be comfortable having to decide now to launch an FSA.”

So Boeing will have to be first movers. A putative 2030 EIS (not being exact with the year, obviously. Could be 2033) would still be consistent with his statements. It would have to be launched at least 4 years from now, allowing some time for TR levels for the candidate tech to rise. A320's (and 737's) would still have to be delivered in numbers until well into the 2030's - perhaps 2040. My guess is Airbus will spend the intervening time working on the A220 and A321, so they can go into the difficult transition period with a Hi-Lo offering of A225 and A321 (rewinged? that's still ongoing R&D I believe, or was a year ago). I'm interested to see how Boeing responds on that front. Will the Max be adequate to maintain cashflow through the rollout and rampup of their replacement single aisle? Will they accelerate things?

The A320neo family move has upset nothing but Boeing's plans. There is not even a remote reason for Airbus to move, but a lot of reasons to wait for a move by Boeing, to than decide, if, when und in what direction to move. With the A320neo family and the A220 program, Airbus is the King of the hill and Boeing is scrambling with an outdated offering. The Embraer move brings in a 4 across single aisle family that is below the center of the narrow body fight.
Even when Boeing gets the MAX into gear again, they just play second fiddle in the biggest part of the commercial airliner business.

On the other hand Airbus needs to finally earn more money with their aircraft. I can imagine that they don't want to spend too much on developing new fancy planes before they need to.
Looking at the A320 family they prefer to invest some controlled budget every year to keep it current instead of the big move for billions.
Airbus will need to do a lot of unsexy housekeeping in the background before they move to big new programs like optimizing their production system and staffing, getting schedules right, digesting Brexit and such.

Folding wings on airliners is not a new idea.
You can watch the youtube video of G-EASN
https://youtu.be/m3wEto5znhI
flying regular flight from London to Paris. Video shows the AME operating the wing lock mechanism. This is where Boeing got the design from. Aircraft an Handley Page 0/11 delivery date 1920-04-15.

tommy1808 wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

I think they should have started an a330 replacement a couple of years ago,

Why? It would appear that the cheap 2 Billion USD A330neo can hold its own vs the 10+ Billion A350 and 20+ Billion 787 clean sheet designs just fine, so it would seem to me that making something significantly better was impossible a few years ago, and likely still is.

best regards
Thomas

Well, A330 replacement might have been the wrong expression. Like other people have said, something in the A306/A332 area. Probably the same reasons:
1. It's a gap in their line up (assuming the A338 doesn't get buoyed by a replacement wave and become a hot seller.
2. The A339 competes with the A350
3. I think the A330 (and 777x) lines are potentially vulnerable in a downturn
4. Institutional memory. If the single aisle replacement enters service in 2032, say, that's a gap of 18 years after the A359. The one program you really don't want to screw up.

Its time's has probably passed anyway.

Noshow wrote:

On the other hand Airbus needs to finally earn more money with their aircraft. I can imagine that they don't want to spend too much on developing new fancy planes before they need to.

That depends also on what your accounting system allows you to declare as profits. Accounting to IFRS you have to make the profit you declare.

mjoelnir wrote:

If Boeing brings the NMA, a rather big if, I would expect Airbus to do not a A310neo, but a frame inspired by the A310.

If Boeing goes for small widebody, no freight, as the USA airlines are asking for, I expect Airbus not to go head on, but do a small wide body with very good freight capabilities.

If one starts with the A310 fuselage, A330 cockpit, A310 or similar sized landing gear, a carbon fiber wing of the size of the old A310 wing, you should be able with a few other weight saving techniques to go for an OEW somewhere between 70 and 75t. As it is, there is no engine that would be optimal for that size of frame, but a Boeing NMA would need an only slightly smaller engine.

If Boeing should not come with the NMA, I expect Airbus just to keep working on the A321 expansion and that would include in time a new wing and the new carbon fiber wing box.

The A220-500 will come, but Airbus will wait for the A220 production to have ramped up to launch it. That does not preclude that Airbus is not actively working on it. Air France would not have it in it's plans without having talked to Airbus. I do not expect a big stretch, because the A220-300 is already longer than the A320, and the frame would run into trouble if it gets to long.

Airbus could bring a stretched A350, stretching the -1000, but going for capacity instead of range, a bit like the 787-10. That way Airbus could get away with using the same engines, perhaps a slightly longer wing with folding tips.

I actually agree with you on this. It is the most economical course of action for Airbus.

The more radical and expensive solution would be to go ahead with A225 and make a tight light low cargo 7W to replace A320 and A330.

They then have fantastic 5W, 7W and 9W cross sections.

BaconButty wrote:

Well, A330 replacement might have been the wrong expression. Like other people have said, something in the A306/A332 area.

boy would i love a modernized A306/310.....

2. The A339 competes with the A350

this peeves me. Why do people always say that? The A359 does not just have quite a bit more payload and range, it is also 10% bigger than the 339. That is the same separation that we have between the A332 and A333 (and from there to the A359 sized A345 and from there to A346), or between the A300-600 and A332. And further apart than 787-10 and 777-8. The same separation McD put between the DC10 and MD11 ... that seems to be about the separation OEMs assume addresses a different market capacity wise.

I am pretty sure Airbus had already decided that the A350 will have a smaller sister, either an A330neo, or if that can´t cut it the next clean sheet. They spaced them just as far apart seem to think they should be spaced apart.

best regards
Thomas

As Boeing is a bit busy at the moment, maybe Airbus could do the NMA ?

Sokes wrote:

As Boeing is a bit busy at the moment, maybe Airbus could do the NMA ?

Business logic would suggest not. Existing backlogs are well filled.

Doesn't mean there is not a significant gap between A321XLR and A330-900 (assuming A330-800 is niche very long haul, not medium).

Reducing the NMA gap from below might seem easier than from above.. introducing a real 250 seater (single class, 30-31 inch pitch)

tommy1808 wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Well, A330 replacement might have been the wrong expression. Like other people have said, something in the A306/A332 area.

boy would i love a modernized A306/310.....

2. The A339 competes with the A350

this peeves me. Why do people always say that? The A359 does not just have quite a bit more payload and range, it is also 10% bigger than the 339. That is the same separation that we have between the A332 and A333 (and from there to the A359 sized A345 and from there to A346), or between the A300-600 and A332. And further apart than 787-10 and 777-8. The same separation McD put between the DC10 and MD11 ... that seems to be about the separation OEMs assume addresses a different market capacity wise.

I am pretty sure Airbus had already decided that the A350 will have a smaller sister, either an A330neo, or if that can´t cut it the next clean sheet. They spaced them just as far apart seem to think they should be spaced apart.

best regards
Thomas

Airbus did plan the smaller A350, but it got replaced by the A330neo.

If I would be at Airbus I would develop a new Wing (47m Span) and winbox for a 52m long A330-500neo. Might need a new Tail. Get a new engine with lower thrust (55'000-60'000). Make sure it can be build on the same line as the current A330neo.

Might cost $5B to develop but it would help bring costs for the A330 line down, as there would be certain commonality and an increase to 10 per month would be possible. Selling 1000 of the -500neo would result in 5m R&D cost per frame. That is at the moment no problem for Airbus. This way the gaps are filled from small NB A220-100 to big WB A350-1000. There are long range NB aircraft in the line up as well as medium range WBs. A great line up.

FluidFlow wrote:

If I would be at Airbus I would develop a new Wing (47m Span) and winbox for a 52m long A330-500neo. Might need a new Tail. Get a new engine with lower thrust (55'000-60'000). Make sure it can be build on the same line as the current A330neo.

Might cost $5B to develop but it would help bring costs for the A330 line down, as there would be certain commonality and an increase to 10 per month would be possible. Selling 1000 of the -500neo would result in 5m R&D cost per frame. That is at the moment no problem for Airbus.

Technically possible but I've never seen any innitiative from Airbus in that direction.
Leahy used to refer to A310 sales (255) as example of how small the market segment would be..
Of course it was 35 yrs ago.. It could maybe shave 20-30t of the empty weight.