Can we post that this information in the Boeing CEO New Plane thread? It's exhausting with all of the Boeing apologiest defending Boeing doing nothing in the narrow body segment until new fuels/electrification is available.... So we fly the 737 until 2050? I'm glad to see Airbus be brave and take on a well established encumbant in the freighter market.... It gets old hearing everyone defend Boeing's lack of courage/action in the narrow body segment where they were until recently the well established encumbant. Sorry for the diversion... As a fan of all things aeronautical... I'm glad to see one manufacturer grow a set.... Godspeed to the A350F.
It's hard to know where to post such stuff, since it seems pretty much every idea about what may happen in the future gets squashed because it doesn't meet nebulous goals stated by politicians and corporate executives that pretty much every technologist feels won't be met.
Of course low emissions is what everyone wants. In the US we refer to this as a "motherhood and apple pie" statement, two great things no one can object to, thus no politician or executive can go wrong by lavish public support for the concepts.
Yet there's the "inconvenient truth" that we the aviation industry is based on price points based on cheap fuel, and developing alternates is going to result in more costly aircraft and more costly fuel, things the airline executives will fight to avoid.
Thus we get "triangulation" between loud public "motherhood and apple pie" statements while we see the reality of the situation being discussed quietly in private.
The aerospace manufacturers are caught in the middle, knowing they can get gobs of government funds to go down the 'clean energy' path yet knowing it will be a challenge to ever deliver something with the performance and price targets the airlines are accustomed to. They have their own triangulation to perform.
If Airbus's private statements about needing traditional gas turbines through 2050 are true, it seems the manufacturers have the unfortunate problem of having to develop solutions for both traditional and 'clean' approaches, or have to gamble that one will pan out and the other will fail.
You seem to want to focus on this, I don't see a difference in what they are saying in public or in....public to policymakers. Unless you are saying there is a zero-emission engine/fuel now available that Airbus is not pursuing? Seems like they are saying they are moving towards this goal, but do not expect this to be a quick process where all aircraft will be replaced in a few short years. Those airlines that buy what is available in 2030 will still fly the aircraft going into the 2050's, right? Makes sense to me.
To me they seem to be saying they are moving towards laudable goals in public forums such as quarterly results announcements yet in low key surroundings like meetings with EU officials they are saying to expect more of the same through 2050 except for perhaps short regional flights.
IMO those short regional flights will probably need massive subsidies to ever happen because suitable aircraft will cost massive amounts of money to develop and certify and their fuel will be far more costly than traditional fuels. However we see the governments feel compelled to fund such development efforts and corporations are always glad to accept cash from the public coffers, regardless of feasibility.
As interesting as the CFM RISE announcement was, I have to think they quietly have a more traditional engine in development as a backup plan.