Lots of strong commentary in the recent posts, sorry I can't respond to them all.
RJMAZ wrote:Every argument used in favour of the A321XLR against the 797 I could use the same arguments for the 797 versus the larger widebodies.
1) The A321XLR is lighter per seat and burns less fuel per seat compared to the 797..
2) The A321XLR can cover most flights operated by the 797.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller A321XLR can give increased frequency over the 797.
1) The 797 is lighter per seat and burns less than per seat compared to the A330/A350/797/777.
2) The 797 can cover most flights operated by the A330/A350/797/777.
3) Passengers prefer frequency so the smaller 797 can give increased frequency over the A330/A350/797/777.
I think this kind of market differentiation is why Boeing will aim for the "small widebody" rather than "big narrowbody" market segment.
astuteman wrote:NMA has one single real challenge IMO, and that is that it is up against 2 aircraft that have been “commoditised” (to use Revelation's expression), in a way that no other aircraft in history have. So the issue for NMA is not how good they are, or how old they are, but how universal they are, both in terms of huge production rates, and also 5 figure large fleets in service with all that means in terms of support infrastructure – servicing, spares, qualified operators, qualified maintainers – the whole worldwide experience base.
The reason the A321 IS such a miracle is not because it is so good, but because it is just another A321. A fundamentally important dynamic in the NMA conundrum.
So yes, it is the single biggest problem NMA has – how to beat not just a 30 year old design, but also a 60 year old one that can still attract comments like the one above, and also the one below, from known NMA advocates, who I’m not sure really understood how what they say impacts the case for NMA
Again, shows why NMA aims not just above MAX10 but also above A321XLR: market differentiation.
They really have no choice but let MAX10 run its course, and we know at best it has transcon range.
They really have no ability to take A321XLR head on, it has already won the large narrow body segment.
Only real market segment available is small wide body with true trans-pac/trans-atl range.
This "protects" MAX10 and lets it run its course while squeezing A321XLR from above and proving out tech needed for eventual MAX replacement.
Yes, it's a hard business case to make and maybe it'll never be made, but IMO that's where they are aiming.
Kikko19 wrote:I guess the a321 just need to be rewinged and all these problems are solved.
Just?
Seems 'just' adding a center fuel tank is taking four years, a lot of money and some churn to the production environment to achieve.
Doing A322 seems straight forward, but building out a new high volume wing production line will take years, cost $billions and involve a lot of financial and technical risk.
Right now they're selling every A321 they can make and their biggest challenge is to optimize the current platforms.
Thus we see a new A321 plant in TLS along with optimizations such as RCT and the electronic rudder.
There will be a time for A322 but in the short term it seems that it would act to blunt A321neo and A330neo sales so it won't happen too soon, IMO.
These are "rich man's problems" compared to the challenges facing Team B, but they still need to be taken into consideration.
par13del wrote:What is not prominent in this speed debate is ATC, a/c speed are limited by rules, regulations and traffic considerations and usually those flying short haul are much more constrained, long haul once they attain certain altitudes have less restrictions.
Unfortunately, neither Boeing nor Airbus control this aspect of flight, so the one up man ship does not exist.
Right, all the airplane manufacturers can do is build a plane that can climb to higher altitudes relatively soon so they can take advantage of the more efficient and more permissive environment that high altitude provides.
As above, this is not one of the A321's strong points.