mjoelnir wrote:morrisond wrote:FluidFlow wrote:
If Boeing launches it first, Airbus has no business case, as I wrote:
So Boeing can launch it first and Airbus has to do something else, but if Boeing launches some weird 7ab, then Airbus can do the same thing to the new 797 what it did to the 767: just bring a little more capable 8ab. 20-40 more pax and 250-500nm more range, 5-20t more payload.
That is why I think Boeing needs to do an 8ab to fill the market below the 787-9. Kill off the 787-8 and just have a lean step 737-10, two 8ab versions of the 797, 787-9. Then in a next step replace the 737 with something more focuses around the size of the MAX 9 and 10. Thats a really nice line up and forces airbus to go with a sub optimal super stretched A321.
Otherwise if Boeing goes 7ab, Airbus can just go 8ab and squeeze the 7ab Boeing hard from bottom and top because it will be to close to the A321 and the new Airbus. So be quick and take the business case in your own hand, force Airbus to react. Right now Boeing is forced and a 7ab will just not force Airbus to anything in the short term, an 8ab would.
Yes some weird 7AB that would have massive economies of scale as a lot of the structure could be reused under program accounting as a combined program and amortized over 10,000 frames.
Your 8AB will in no way be 150T or 165T - you are talking about something that is most likely about 200T MTOW and OEW weight of at least 100T.
Airbus would never do a clean sheet 8AB - it would be A330 based.
They looked at that. From Wiki
"In February 2000, the 250-seat A330-100 replacement for the A300/A310 could be launched by year end for 2003 deliveries. Shortened and keeping its fly-by-wire cockpit and systems, with a cleaner A300-600 wing with sealed control surfaces and winglets and at least two new engine types among the GE CF6-80, the PW4000 and the A340-500/600's Trent 500 aimed for 5% better SFC than the A300-600. Its 44.8 m (147 ft) wing allowed a 173 t (381,000 lb) MTOW and 4,200 nmi (7,770 km) range. In May, the 210-260 seat design had evolved towards keeping the A330 60.3 m (198 ft) span wing and engines for a 195 t MTOW and 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) range. Interested customers included Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Hapag-Lloyd."
You live in a dream world.
If it was possible to build a 8 across frame with an OEW below 80 t and an MTOW of 164 t, it is possible to do it today., with better engines and longer range on the same tankage and going below the 1983 OEW.
Yes Airbus offered different A330-100/500 designs, but nobody was interested at that time, that was around 2000. If that still applies, there is no place for a MoM or NMA either.
Yes a dream world where that 1983 frame (A310) sat 243 seats in 8W - you and RJMAZ are talking about a plane that seats 30-40% more people at a lower MTOW. I suspect the passenger capacities you are looking at on the A300 are 9W.