Leeham podcast suggests Airbus has the A322 waiting to be announced with more powerful engines, composite wings and 12 extra seats. With a soonest offering in 2025.

https://leehamnews.com/podcast/podcast- ... t-compete/ (7:10 mark)

12 seat difference seems too low for an extra variant. Also, new engine would raise the development cost a lot, which OEM has the money to pay for this?

New wing and offering in 2025 (EIS 2027/8) seems reasonable seeing the lack in demand.

Any crew rest areas?

Timeline is quite agressive for a new engine. Possible, but agressive.

Lightsaber

new wing can decrease thrust needed for plane
any tips for folding wingtips?

lightsaber wrote:

Timeline is quite agressive for a new engine. Possible, but agressive.

Lightsaber

You think? 6-7 years for what will probably be a derivative of the current engines?

JonesNL wrote:

12 seat difference seems too low for an extra variant. Also, new engine would raise the development cost a lot, which OEM has the money to pay for this?

The two extra rows may just be ancillary to the wing box barrel and hence not be a stretch for doing a stretch. If that aircraft middle/wing combination gets ported back down to the A320 it makes for a neat 198 seat LCC, just like the A322 would offer a not all too squeezy 248 seat aircraft.

Armadillo1 wrote:

new wing can decrease thrust needed for plane
any tips for folding wingtips?

Since folding wingtips are now acceptable I'd be surprised if they leave 36m Gates behind.

Best regards
Thomas

Why bot a compromise - 18 extra seats?

Having listened to the podcast, both Rollins and Hamilton seem to regard the launch of an A322 hypothetical; there are clear ifs involved.

R. and H. seemed to direct the discussion into market outlook and product strategy. Indeed, an A322 could be a compelling proposition to Airbus operators seeking less-expensive lift, but given the financial circumstances — both airlines’ and OEMs’ — this sort of spending of capital is a no-go.

Also, ”an all-new engine” is very different from ”a more powerful engine”. Composite wings could end up being wingtip extensions à la A330neo.

Let’s hope the extra 12 seats are a result of an extra frame, not a result of cramming in more slim-line seats into the existing fuselage...

Airbus will launch if they are forced to launch.

tommy1808 wrote:

Since folding wingtips are now acceptable I'd be surprised if they leave 36m Gates behind.

Best regards
Thomas

Hang on, only 1 aircraft has made use of them so far, it is several years delayed and struggling to sell. How can you consider that "acceptable"? IMO, they will make do with a traditional wing. The risk is too great for a narrowbody. Too much complexity, cost, weight and too many daily cycles. It is easier to justify on a 442 mio USD ULH'er that will see less than 1 cycle per day, than it is for a narrowbody that will easily see 15 cycles a day in a highly competitive market.

VSMUT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Since folding wingtips are now acceptable I'd be surprised if they leave 36m Gates behind.

Best regards
Thomas

Hang on, only 1 aircraft has made use of them so far, it is several years delayed and struggling to sell. How can you consider that "acceptable"? IMO, they will make do with a traditional wing. The risk is too great for a narrowbody. Too much complexity, cost, weight and too many daily cycles. It is easier to justify on a 442 mio USD ULH'er that will see less than 1 cycle per day, than it is for a narrowbody that will easily see 15 cycles a day in a highly competitive market.

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof. What he’s eluding to is on said aircraft it works very well. If it can give you the extra efficiency whilst maintaining the same gate. Why not? The folding wingtip also didn’t cause the delays. In fact it’s been bulletproof so far

lightsaber wrote:

Timeline is quite agressive for a new engine. Possible, but agressive.

Lightsaber

I agree. Assuming there is merit to this rumor, I view this very much to line up very well with Airbus' preference for incrementalism.

I doubt it is a new engine even if the frame is expanded, it's just an up-rated existing engine enabled by PIPs (probably a few % extra thrust and 1-2% additional fuel burn efficiency). Not a new engine. The fact that they are talking about only 2 rows tells me that they aren't getting a massive thrust increase from a new engine type.

A composite wing should reduce the total weight of the plane so a few % reduction in wing weight and a few % increase in thrust with a few extra frames in length and you end up with similar performance, fuel burn, and range characteristics to existing A321.. so a "free" CASM increase.

And, it basically gives them the incrementalism against the A320 platform for the next new engine type:

~2015: A32Xneo released (I realize it was 2016 but using nice even numbers)
~2025: A32Xneo with composite wing released
~2030-2035: A321-neo-neo released with the composite wing enabling more significant frame stretch while meeting or exceeding A321XLR range for an ER version truly "eliminating" the MoM for good

It decouples airframe modifications from engine modification which de-risks production and delivery.

A322 sounds like a good proposition. So this is a clean sheet right? Not a derivative?

IMO they should wait and launch a clean sheet when the engine tech is ready. I think lightsaber can give us more clarity on if and when the engine tech will be ready to provide significant gains. Boeing’s next narrow body will be a clean sheet, and Boeing will spend a lot of money to make that jet very good (hopefully) Airbus ought to beat that jet with the position they’re in. But not by extending the life of a current jet

Opus99 wrote:

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof.

No, but it will on a short haul aircraft. Those carriers are nickel-and-diming their aircraft orders. Expensive and heavy folding gear won't be an advantage.

Opus99 wrote:

What he’s eluding to is on said aircraft it works very well. If it can give you the extra efficiency whilst maintaining the same gate. Why not? The folding wingtip also didn’t cause the delays. In fact it’s been bulletproof so far

It's still to be seen if it works well. I could give you several reasons why it would be a bad idea, mostly involving hitting stuff with them when the crew forgets them. The pace of short haul flying is way higher than for long haul jets. There are no relief pilots, crews are more fatigued, more inexperienced pilots etc. It is going to happen way more than for the 777-9.

Opus99 wrote:

A322 sounds like a good proposition. So this is a clean sheet right? Not a derivative?

IMO they should wait and launch a clean sheet when the engine tech is ready. I think lightsaber can give us more clarity on if and when the engine tech will be ready to provide significant gains. Boeing’s next narrow body will be a clean sheet, and Boeing will spend a lot of money to make that jet very good (hopefully) Airbus ought to beat that jet with the position they’re in. But not by extending the life of a current jet

Again, this is all rumor, so everything is just speculation. If we assume that the speculation is true though...

I wouldn't call it a cleansheet. Sounds like it's a new wing. The fuselage, landing gear, engine, and avionics will probably be completely untouched other than minor modifications to adjust for the difference in wings/wingbox and MTOW and PIPs on the engine to enable slightly higher thrust and slightly lower fuel burn (nothing game changing on its own - probably 2-4% for thrust and 1-2% for fuel burn).

Airbus' strategy is clearly one of continuous improvement. It makes sense, especially on a high volume frame like the A320. Trying to do a new airframe + new engine creates huge risk for a high volume frame. It's the same reason why Boeing has been nervous about a clean-sheet narrowbody and part of the whole MoM airframe business case was about testing out new manufacturing / supply chain approaches to de-risk a clean-sheet narrowbody.

By incrementally improving the airframe (new wing, same everything else minus required adjustments) they *significantly* de-risk production. Maybe they leave a few % performance on the table, but risk is expensive in business. If I was an airline CEO, I'd want 95% surety that performance will be as expected + delivery timelines will be met in exchange for leaving 5% performance on the table but only 50% confidence that deliveries will be met. Different airlines will have different considerations/approaches, but delivery risk for such a high-volume frame is a huge consideration. To add to this, it costs Airbus less to develop if it means they don't have to significantly expand engineering teams to burst develop a new airframe. Reduces cost of capital as well since there is less built up R&D investment before recovery.

Noise wrote:

Any crew rest areas?

Why? What's leading you to think this is a 12-14 hour aircraft?

VSMUT wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof.

No, but it will on a short haul aircraft. Those carriers are nickel-and-diming their aircraft orders. Expensive and heavy folding gear won't be an advantage.

Opus99 wrote:

What he’s eluding to is on said aircraft it works very well. If it can give you the extra efficiency whilst maintaining the same gate. Why not? The folding wingtip also didn’t cause the delays. In fact it’s been bulletproof so far

It's still to be seen if it works well. I could give you several reasons why it would be a bad idea, mostly involving hitting stuff with them when the crew forgets them. The pace of short haul flying is way higher than for long haul jets. There are no relief pilots, crews are more fatigued, more inexperienced pilots etc. It is going to happen way more than for the 777-9.

I understand your points. But I mean if you’re hitting stuff with them then that’s more your skills than the plane. I’m not saying extremely long wings. But the issues you’ve raised are part of the reason why the wings fold back up automatically and you can’t take off with the wings folded up. You put systems in place to minimise the cost of human error. If when on the ground the wings are the same length as the current a320. There’s no reason you should be hitting it, especially if it folds back automatically. Then again if there’s no use for it then don’t put it. But if it gives you proper fuel burn advantage then use it. If not don’t

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof.

No, but it will on a short haul aircraft. Those carriers are nickel-and-diming their aircraft orders. Expensive and heavy folding gear won't be an advantage.

Opus99 wrote:

What he’s eluding to is on said aircraft it works very well. If it can give you the extra efficiency whilst maintaining the same gate. Why not? The folding wingtip also didn’t cause the delays. In fact it’s been bulletproof so far

It's still to be seen if it works well. I could give you several reasons why it would be a bad idea, mostly involving hitting stuff with them when the crew forgets them. The pace of short haul flying is way higher than for long haul jets. There are no relief pilots, crews are more fatigued, more inexperienced pilots etc. It is going to happen way more than for the 777-9.

I understand your points. But I mean if you’re hitting stuff with them then that’s more your skills than the plane. I’m not saying extremely long wings. But the issues you’ve raised are part of the reason why the wings fold back up automatically and you can’t take off with the wings folded up. You put systems in place to minimise the cost of human error. If when on the ground the wings are the same length as the current a320. There’s no reason you should be hitting it, especially if it folds back automatically. Then again if there’s no use for it then don’t put it. But if it gives you proper fuel burn advantage then use it. If not don’t

I would argue against it for a different reason. Just comes back to incrementalism. Get a composite wing first. Non-trivial weight benefits there that improve fuel burn. Engineer it to be optimal for slightly larger/heavier frames (A321-sized rather than A320-sized) and maybe ever so slightly longer stage lengths (questionable but would make sense when considering A220 taking over the smaller frame market) to enable further stretch plans. Folding wingtips could be in another iteration or release.

Folding wingtips have a bigger business case on long-haul. Most A320-family flying is still significantly under 3 hour stage lengths. Why risk it for minimal benefits?

If they're replacing the wing for the largest model, why not for the rest of the A320NEO lineup? A rewinged slightly stretched A320NEO could be a 737-8 killer.

This is going to provide allot of interesting fodder for all of us arm-chair want-to-be product portfolio planners. .
What's described is what so many of us enthusiast pondered as the Airbus volley to a any NMA/MOM threat.

Will be interesting to see if this gets confirmed by Airbus.

IMO I could see Airbus doing the initial planning work for this aircraft and keeping it up its sleeve incase Boeing actually develops something that's a true rival to the A321neoXLR. Until that happens there's little benefit in developing such an aircraft since the A321neo owns that market already.

ethernal wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

No, but it will on a short haul aircraft. Those carriers are nickel-and-diming their aircraft orders. Expensive and heavy folding gear won't be an advantage.




It's still to be seen if it works well. I could give you several reasons why it would be a bad idea, mostly involving hitting stuff with them when the crew forgets them. The pace of short haul flying is way higher than for long haul jets. There are no relief pilots, crews are more fatigued, more inexperienced pilots etc. It is going to happen way more than for the 777-9.

I understand your points. But I mean if you’re hitting stuff with them then that’s more your skills than the plane. I’m not saying extremely long wings. But the issues you’ve raised are part of the reason why the wings fold back up automatically and you can’t take off with the wings folded up. You put systems in place to minimise the cost of human error. If when on the ground the wings are the same length as the current a320. There’s no reason you should be hitting it, especially if it folds back automatically. Then again if there’s no use for it then don’t put it. But if it gives you proper fuel burn advantage then use it. If not don’t

I would argue against it for a different reason. Just comes back to incrementalism. Get a composite wing first. Non-trivial weight benefits there that improve fuel burn. Engineer it to be optimal for slightly larger/heavier frames (A321-sized rather than A320-sized) and maybe ever so slightly longer stage lengths (questionable but would make sense when considering A220 taking over the smaller frame market) to enable further stretch plans. Folding wingtips could be in another iteration or release.

Folding wingtips have a bigger business case on long-haul. Most A320-family flying is still significantly under 3 hour stage lengths. Why risk it for minimal benefits?

which is why i said if it doesn't give you proper fuel burn advantage don't use it

Does this means that we'll see new engine from RR, they haven't been in the narrow body for a while, can we see a leap with higher thrust? who ill build the wings?

willfinn wrote:

Having listened to the podcast, both Rollins and Hamilton seem to regard the launch of an A322 hypothetical; there are clear ifs involved.

R. and H. seemed to direct the discussion into market outlook and product strategy. Indeed, an A322 could be a compelling proposition to Airbus operators seeking less-expensive lift, but given the financial circumstances — both airlines’ and OEMs’ — this sort of spending of capital is a no-go.

Also, ”an all-new engine” is very different from ”a more powerful engine”. Composite wings could end up being wingtip extensions à la A330neo.

Let’s hope the extra 12 seats are a result of an extra frame, not a result of cramming in more slim-line seats into the existing fuselage...

Airbus will launch if they are forced to launch.

Thanks for the post summarizing the podcast.

I guess it's time to revisit this topic like we seem to do every few months even though no new information is available.

It's clear Airbus has been working on a new wing going back a few years now. We have references from Airbus saying just that in our older A322 threads.

Given a new wing, I'm not sure you'd need a more power, kind of like the 777x is a stretch with a new wing and doesn't need more power.

I agree that the core issue is that the industry as a whole is losing so much money it'll be hard to justify the project any time soon.

Airbus is having no problem shipping A321XLR as fast as they can make them based on pre-COVID orders, and under current conditions I doubt they could extract much of a premium for A322 so the business case for spending $billions on bringing A322 to market won't close any time soon.

It's a nice thing to keep working on in virtual and in prototype form though. It'll mean they will have a nice counter stroke ready if/when Team B makes a move.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If they're replacing the wing for the largest model, why not for the rest of the A320NEO lineup? A rewinged slightly stretched A320NEO could be a 737-8 killer.

Well, common sense dictates that they would start first where it enables new capability and then backport it to other frames.

Airbus delivered over 600 Airbus 320 family planes in 2019. That's over 50 a month. Nearly two a day. Airbus has no desire to disrupt that supply chain overnight. Ramping up production of 50 composite wings a month will take time. Doing it overnight would cost a boatload of money. You'd prioritize production on frames where you can exude the most economic benefit. If the wing is enabling 12-18 extra seats and fuel burn reduction relative to a legacy A320neo with a similarly PIPd frame, they can charge more for it because airlines will value that economic benefit. Once production kinks are solved and deliveries ramp up, of course it would likely be backported (assuming the wing isn't over-optimized for larger frames and/or optimized for longer stage lengths).

zkojq wrote:

IMO I could see Airbus doing the initial planning work for this aircraft and keeping it up its sleeve incase Boeing actually develops something that's a true rival to the A321neoXLR. Until that happens there's little benefit in developing such an aircraft since the A321neo owns that market already.

There is little desire for large scale capital projects in the industry right now, but that logic makes no sense. The A321neo doesn't "own the market". They compete against 737 frames in every deal. I do personally believe that the A321neo is clearly a more capable platform and provides equal or better overall CASM and passenger experience for almost every use case, but that doesn't mean that Airbus gets to set the price.

If the 737MAX has a 3% higher CapEx-excluded CASM, then that means that Airbus can "capture" that cost difference in their sale price. All other factors being equal, an airline would be neutral cost wise to a $100M 737-9MAX and a $109M A321neo assuming $300M in non-capex operating costs over a projected 15 year lifetime (I'm simplifying here - obviously the A321neo has different seating capacity than 737-9 and I'm ignoring cost of capital / fixed vs. variable costs that impact this sort of analysis).

If they can make the A321neo with 5% lower operating costs than today, that means their price premium increases. Assuming the cost to develop (including cost of capital) and build the improved airframe is less than the price premium they can charge (adjusting for target gross margins) then it makes sense to do the change. It makes no sense to "sit" on an improvement. In addition, given Airbus' incrementalism strategy, it helps prepare them for other updates further down the road.

Any company that "sits on their laurels" so to speak is a company doomed to failure. Admittedly, in the aerospace industry which is very oligopolistic, this may take a long time to happen. But no rational company will sit on improvements that make economic sense for them in a point of time and is aligned to their long term strategy.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

If they're replacing the wing for the largest model, why not for the rest of the A320NEO lineup? A rewinged slightly stretched A320NEO could be a 737-8 killer.

Killer? The 320NEO is already heavier and more expensive than the 737-8. Making it bigger won't fix either of those.

Revelation wrote:

It's clear Airbus has been working on a new wing going back a few years now. We have references from Airbus saying just that in our older A322 threads.

Given a new wing, I'm not sure you'd need a more power, kind of like the 777x is a stretch with a new wing and doesn't need more power.

I agree that the core issue is that the industry as a whole is losing so much money it'll be hard to justify the project any time soon.

Airbus is having no problem shipping A321XLR as fast as they can make them based on pre-COVID orders, and under current conditions I doubt they could extract much of a premium for A322 so the business case for spending $billions on bringing A322 to market won't close any time soon.

In the industry, either keep the R&D teams active or they will either retire or move on.

I'm having trouble seeing a business case for a new engine. Up-thrusted, sure. CFM will put in CMC turbine inlet vanes and probably a new low spool (think original GE-90 to GE-90-115).

Pratt might do a 3.5:1 gearbox with the old high spool.


Neither is ready to setup an entirely new supply chain.

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

But when? Even just a new wing requires a billion euros just for the factory plus R&D effort. It is easy to spend other people's money... tougher when there must be a business case.

Lightsaber

Opus99 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Since folding wingtips are now acceptable I'd be surprised if they leave 36m Gates behind.

Best regards
Thomas

Hang on, only 1 aircraft has made use of them so far, it is several years delayed and struggling to sell. How can you consider that "acceptable"? IMO, they will make do with a traditional wing. The risk is too great for a narrowbody. Too much complexity, cost, weight and too many daily cycles. It is easier to justify on a 442 mio USD ULH'er that will see less than 1 cycle per day, than it is for a narrowbody that will easily see 15 cycles a day in a highly competitive market.

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof. What he’s eluding to is on said aircraft it works very well. If it can give you the extra efficiency whilst maintaining the same gate. Why not? The folding wingtip also didn’t cause the delays. In fact it’s been bulletproof so far

Folding wingtips are not hard, they have been around for a long time. Building them in a way that saves fuel on top of gate space AND airlines buying it, that is new. Otherwise the 777 MK1 would have kicked the trend of. As long as there are no control surfaces outside the fold complexity is on the level of a door, and the A320 obviously doesn't need control surfaces outside the current wing.

Best regards
Thomas

MIflyer12 wrote:

Noise wrote:

Any crew rest areas?

Why? What's leading you to think this is a 12-14 hour aircraft?

Im pretty sure than an A321XLR with a new wing (and then maybe also some newer version of engines) could easily fly 12 hours, even with those two extra rows. This aircraft could fly a distance that is promised with the XLR (on paper).

lightsaber wrote:

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

Lightsaber

I am out of my element here (I am no aerospace engineer and don't fully understand the tradeoffs between wing length vs. wing surface area vs. various flight profiles/stage lengths) but is there any reason why they cannot reduce wing loading with a larger (stubbier) wing?

For example, the 787-8 and 767-400 are roughly the same sized aircraft.. but the 787-8 has more than 20% larger wing surface area. Obviously a different design baseline (762 to 764 vs. 788 to 78X), but a lot was enabled by a composite wing.. bigger wing area at about the same weight.

I understand that a longer wing is typically better but is that worth the risk of adding yet-another-failure-point and design item? Especially since I understand that longer wings are typically better for long stage lengths?

I'm totally out of my league here so genuine question on the relative tradeoffs.

VSMUT wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The folding wingtip has nothing to do with the aircrafts sales or lack thereof.

No, but it will on a short haul aircraft. Those carriers are nickel-and-diming their aircraft orders. Expensive and heavy folding gear won't be an advantage.

What makes you think it is expensive and heavy? Having gear doors cover the main gears wheels didn't kill the A320 family vs. the 737 either.

Best regards
Thomas

lightsaber wrote:

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

But when? Even just a new wing requires a billion euros just for the factory plus R&D effort. It is easy to spend other people's money... tougher when there must be a business case.

When indeed is the big question.

The spending on it has started back in 2015: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... uture.html

And it's not a small spend:

“The Wing of Tomorrow Programme started life a number of years ago and is the biggest research and technology programme taking place in the whole of Airbus globally,” stated Airbus’ Head of the Wing of Tomorrow programme, Sue Partridge.

Ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/

The real question is: when will they decide to reap the harvest of all that spending?

Unfortunately COVID has made that decision a lot harder than it would have been without COVID.

I thought that the A330-800/900 is the direct replacement for the A330ceo. Why would Airbus invest, especially during these hard times, in a modified A330-200 and running seperate production lines, when the A330neo is already certified?

tommy1808 wrote:

Folding wingtips are not hard, they have been around for a long time. Building them in a way that saves fuel on top of gate space AND airlines buying it, that is new. Otherwise the 777 MK1 would have kicked the trend of. As long as there are no control surfaces outside the fold complexity is on the level of a door, and the A320 obviously doesn't need control surfaces outside the current wing.

I hope it does not come across as snarky to point out that technology has not stayed the same since the 90s. The benefits of longer and thinner wings are clearer now. 777 was aluminum, new wings will be fiber. The 777X provides a precedent and there presumably is a comfort level that regulators and operators will have by the time a new A322 wing is deployed.

debonair wrote:

I thought that the A330-800/900 is the direct replacement for the A330ceo. Why would Airbus invest, especially during these hard times, in a modified A330-200 and running seperate production lines, when the A330neo is already certified?

A322 != A332...

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

But when? Even just a new wing requires a billion euros just for the factory plus R&D effort. It is easy to spend other people's money... tougher when there must be a business case.

When indeed is the big question.

The spending on it has started back in 2015: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... uture.html

And it's not a small spend:

“The Wing of Tomorrow Programme started life a number of years ago and is the biggest research and technology programme taking place in the whole of Airbus globally,” stated Airbus’ Head of the Wing of Tomorrow programme, Sue Partridge.

Ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/

The real question is: when will they decide to reap the harvest of all that spending?

Unfortunately COVID has made that decision a lot harder than it would have been without COVID.

Airbus knows what to do. I put in factory cost + R&D as I don't know how far along they are (it could be a year from start of manufacturing or as much as 3 years).

As you note, a tough decision.

IMHO, no announcement until more A321xLRs sell. We don't want to pull a Sinclair (announce the next great thing too early and have the market wait, not buying the current product because the next is so much better). I would even build the factory first.

Lightsaber

If Airbus launch this. Then this forcing Boeing’s hand part 2. Can they not just be proactive

Revelation wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Folding wingtips are not hard, they have been around for a long time. Building them in a way that saves fuel on top of gate space AND airlines buying it, that is new. Otherwise the 777 MK1 would have kicked the trend of. As long as there are no control surfaces outside the fold complexity is on the level of a door, and the A320 obviously doesn't need control surfaces outside the current wing.

I hope it does not come across as snarky to point out that technology has not stayed the same since the 90s. The benefits of longer and thinner wings are clearer now. 777 was aluminum, new wings will be fiber.

And the benefit was fitting in DC10/Tristar 52m Gates, not a longer wing to save fuel.

Best regards
Thomas

debonair wrote:

I thought that the A330-800/900 is the direct replacement for the A330ceo. Why would Airbus invest, especially during these hard times, in a modified A330-200 and running seperate production lines, when the A330neo is already certified?

This is an A322, a next variant in the a320 family.

VSMUT wrote:

It's still to be seen if it works well. I could give you several reasons why it would be a bad idea, mostly involving hitting stuff with them when the crew forgets them. The pace of short haul flying is way higher than for long haul jets. There are no relief pilots, crews are more fatigued, more inexperienced pilots etc. It is going to happen way more than for the 777-9.

I think you're reading waaay to much into this or trying to make something out of nothing. Somehow thousands of aircraft manage to push back safely, not start their engines when people are in front, re cater and refuel the aircraft, dock jetways without incident. Human error could just as easily cause issues with any of the above too.

Additionally, IIRC, the wingtips fold automatically below a certain speed. So yet another way to avoid "when the crew forgets them".

lightsaber wrote:

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

But when? Even just a new wing requires a billion euros just for the factory plus R&D effort. It is easy to spend other people's money... tougher when there must be a business case.

When indeed is the big question.

The spending on it has started back in 2015: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... uture.html

And it's not a small spend:

“The Wing of Tomorrow Programme started life a number of years ago and is the biggest research and technology programme taking place in the whole of Airbus globally,” stated Airbus’ Head of the Wing of Tomorrow programme, Sue Partridge.

Ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/

The real question is: when will they decide to reap the harvest of all that spending?

Unfortunately COVID has made that decision a lot harder than it would have been without COVID.

Airbus knows what to do. I put in factory cost + R&D as I don't know how far along they are (it could be a year from start of manufacturing or as much as 3 years).

As you note, a tough decision.

Then again, it almost definitely will have the numbers to spread the R&D and tooling costs across.

Best regards
Thomas

The 777x wing will be ten years from launch until EIS. I think the earliest we will see an Airbus clean sheet carbon wing will be 2030. Plus they have to answer a lot of questions, like what is the design MTOW, will it have two axle gear, will it fold, should they put it on the A320 fuselage or go clean sheet fuselage? I don't think any of this is a given, lots of pros and cons on these decisions.

Now as far as improvements to the existing wing and engines and a 2m stretch to the A321, I think Airbus would be foolish not to do that. It's low hanging money.

What exactly is an A322?

To Varsity1: A32ONEO is lighter than 737-8, OEW is 44,3T and MAX was 45,07T. It is maybe little bit less without MAX name now.

Haven't listened to the podcast so I don't know if they discussed this, but I wonder if a new wing would mean slightly more sweep to allow for a slightly faster cruise Mach number (currently the A320 family cruises at M 0.78 with a maximum Mach number of 0.82). The faster cruise would really come in handy on the longer missions, and benefit the A321XLR as well, assuming the changes get ported back.

Basically, I'm more excited about what the proposed changes mean for the entire A320neo family as opposed to just the A322 stretch. The changes make the family more versatile for sure, but at what cost to Airbus and the operators?

VV wrote:

What exactly is an A322?

Took me a while as well... a hypothetical aircraft, next in the Airbus lineup. A318, A319, A320, A321 and the speculation is around the A322.

milhaus wrote:

To Varsity1: A32ONEO is lighter than 737-8, OEW is 44,3T and MAX was 45,07T. It is maybe little bit less without MAX name now.

If you're looking at the airport planning guide Boeing puts out, that includes crew, liquids (oil, hydraulic and unusable fuel) and standard 2 class furnishings. Airbus factory OEW does not.

An empty 737 max 8 is 96,000lbs, about that of an A320CEO.

VV wrote:

What exactly is an A322?

Following the convention of A318, A319, A320, A321, I assume A322 means a longer fuselage if nothing else.

What's an extra two rows of seats worth in revenue? Perhaps another 1.5 million a year. What premium can Airbus get for an A322 with two rows more, over an A321? 4 million? Same as the MAX 10, if it's an economic benefit to the airlines and the manufacturer, the logic is there to go ahead.

DenverTed wrote:

VV wrote:

What exactly is an A322?

Following the convention of A318, A319, A320, A321, I assume A322 means a longer fuselage if nothing else.

A new wing and engine is a must on the A322, or it will be underpowered to the extent it'll need 11,000-foot runways and initial cruise altitudes of FL240. Just take a look at the A321.

lightsaber wrote:

Revelation wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

What is needed is far less wing loading for an A321 and A322 (stretch). Due to real estate limits at major airports, I think all new wings will get folding wingtips.

But when? Even just a new wing requires a billion euros just for the factory plus R&D effort. It is easy to spend other people's money... tougher when there must be a business case.

When indeed is the big question.

The spending on it has started back in 2015: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en ... uture.html

And it's not a small spend:

“The Wing of Tomorrow Programme started life a number of years ago and is the biggest research and technology programme taking place in the whole of Airbus globally,” stated Airbus’ Head of the Wing of Tomorrow programme, Sue Partridge.

Ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/

The real question is: when will they decide to reap the harvest of all that spending?

Unfortunately COVID has made that decision a lot harder than it would have been without COVID.

Airbus knows what to do. I put in factory cost + R&D as I don't know how far along they are (it could be a year from start of manufacturing or as much as 3 years).

As you note, a tough decision.

IMHO, no announcement until more A321xLRs sell. We don't want to pull a Sinclair (announce the next great thing too early and have the market wait, not buying the current product because the next is so much better). I would even build the factory first.

Lightsaber

Pre COVID the XLR would probably sell 1000 units by the end of 2021. So, 2022 would have been a good time to announce. Now, who knows. The game is reset and nobody has the money to play around...