Noshow wrote:

What is "fully digital" supposed to mean?

The replies to your post mostly miss the point for me.
I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

In which case the conversations going on in the "Boeing CEO comment on NMA" thread are far more relevant.
How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

morrisond wrote:

Assuming NMA-5 is a 2-3-2 with a little bit more capacity than an A322 and more range - call it 5,000 NM at about 224 31" seats and they can reuse the cross section for NSA - what should Airbus do?

What I think they will do is

a) not wait for NMA to come along to develop the current A320 series as far as possible, including an A322, to continue to narrow the business opportunity for Boeing

b) not rush into any decision on the necessity for a new build until they see what the NMA target looks like, and how it is received in the market....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

IT sell more dreams than they deliver . When I compare the millions invested in IT and the results it's often disappointing. Even worst these costs are almost always recurring costs. On top, it makes your company more at risks of hacking. And the cost of protecting the company against hacks is just enormous.

Digitalization beyond a certain point can create more issues than it solves, in particular when it becomes a religion. Companies are only starting to realize that. I think we are not far away from digitalizing the toilet paper... on top It's not making corporations greener having computers running everywhere for everything.

It's OK when engineers are supported by IT people. I think it's not OK when IT people replace engineers. Having a lot of data and analytics available does not mean you understand what's going on. It's even polluting the brain of the best engineers, having less focus on what is relevant, and less time to think outside of what has been coded.

GrandNegusZek80 wrote:

I really like the idea of a 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 layout. My wife is disabled and requires my assistance on flights, and having a person next to us on the 3-3 layout of current aircraft can be very difficult.

For intercontinental travel I actively book away from aircraft with 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 economy seating. For flights until about two hours 3-3 will do, but I still prefer 1-2, 2-2 or 2-3.

GrandNegusZek80 wrote:

If it was just the two of us, it would make things a lot easier, and I am sure this would be the case for many people in the same situation as us.

For me 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 always wins, also when travelling alone.

DenverTed wrote:

keesje wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How much heavier is the empty weight of an A321xlr versus the A321neo? About 2t? Will the A322 be another 2t heavier?
If the xlr takes 18t out to 4700nm, then the NMA will be designed to take 22t out to 5000nm, and the Airbus response will be to build a plane that takes 24t out to 5300nm, or something like that.

A meter of A320 is around 800kg, A row of passengers ~600kg.

So if Airbus e.g. would create an A320 Plus, inbetween the A320 and A321, that would be around 5t lighter. If they would use the XLR wing and 101t MTOW, that would give it a few extra hours of range above the XLR. But I don't believe in 5500NM, 160 passenger flights, Airbus neither I believe. A320Plus would be aimed at 200 passengers as light and lean as possible, a true A320 replacement.

A shrink of the A321neo seems like a good idea. If they stretch the xlr into the A322, that sounds like it takes maximum payload down to 18t. Is that enough?

If we assume the maximum payload of a 101t MTOW XLR is 24t, around 2.5t of that would be lost by a 4m stretched A322 (structure, adjustments).

Leaving it with a 21.5t payload. If we remove a redundant ACT (400kg) that would creep back to 22t. Range would still be 3700NM the base XLR's MTOW limit.

The A322 stretch would eat ~10% off the XLR payload. Range being determined by payload-range trade-off's by the airlines. But seemingly in the useful 3000NM++ space.


https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... e-a321xlr/

Opus99 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The main question is, how much of the NMA space will be already filled by Airbus with the A321neo, when Boeing gets around to address it.

500 A321neo are delivered. 3,448 A321neo were ordered, 2,942 is the current backlog. What space will be left for a NMA from Boeing, as Airbus seems to have tied up this space for the next 20 years. Not talking about frames that Airbus could still sell the next years.

It is also significant, that the orders of the A321neo is starting to match the number of 737MAX Boeing has sold and expects to deliver. Not involving the A320neos being on order in this comparison.
Or the other way round the A320neo orders, 3.852 with 1204 delivered and 2,648 on backlog, matches about all the 737MAX orders, with the A321neo filling the space above those frames.

I ultimately thinks it depends on the price and how good the specifications are. XLR can do a lot but it’s the bottom end of MOM. I don’t think it’s MOM sweet spot quite honestly. By the time you put in proper seats for long haul travel. You’re getting to 160 seats etc. Now, it’s good in the sense that it’s very versatile so airlines can use it for MOM and place it elsewhere if they feel like Boeing’s proposal serves MOM better. Which I’m guessing it should.

But that’s just my opinion anyway. It’s a lot of things Boeing has to get right on this one. Margin for error is extremely tiny

The bigger frame has to beat the smaller frame in cost per km per seat.
As to compare the MOM proposal to the A321neo, there is no proposal, just speculations.
A 6 a row 2+2+2 will always be more expensive than a 6+6. A 6+6 you can reduce to 2+2 for more comfort.
We also have to think about that we are at the low end of long haul, otherwise the frame will again get to expensive.

Again, how much market will be left for a MOM if the currently ordered A321neo are delivered in a few years time.

Aither wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

IT sell more dreams than they deliver . When I compare the millions invested in IT and the results it's often disappointing. Even worst these costs are almost always recurring costs. On top, it makes your company more at risks of hacking. And the cost of protecting the company against hacks is just enormous.

Digitalization beyond a certain point can create more issues than it solves, in particular when it becomes a religion. Companies are only starting to realize that. I think we are not far away from digitalizing the toilet paper... on top It's not making corporations greener having computers running everywhere for everything.

It's OK when engineers are supported by IT people. I think it's not OK when IT people replace engineers. Having a lot of data and analytics available does not mean you understand what's going on. It's even polluting the brain of the best engineers, having less focus on what is relevant, and less time to think outside of what has been coded.

This........

I'm living in this "digital" world as the ME lead on a major programme, and am continually challenging the Management Committee (BOD) on value add, or otherwise (the good old 80/20 rule).
It's too easy to over-process EVERYTHING
Our US counterparts have become very good at managing this in the last few years

Rgds.

DL220MSP wrote:

People state here that Boeing will be launching 3 new models with revolutionary production technologies. Perhaps Airbus is doing something similar because I find it hard to believe that they do nothing.

The reason NMA is taking so long is that Boeing can't make a business case for it. If the current range overlaps too much it can't make sense unless a revolutionary technology comes along. Then that technology will just be used for new narrow body and wide body models that will overlap it again. Does the world really need an NMA?

Boeing does the right thing to carefully bring all aspects together and make them work first before launching anything. But as nothing is coming up next all this "Airbus will be alarmed" talk feels a little premature.

astuteman wrote:

Aither wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

IT sell more dreams than they deliver . When I compare the millions invested in IT and the results it's often disappointing. Even worst these costs are almost always recurring costs. On top, it makes your company more at risks of hacking. And the cost of protecting the company against hacks is just enormous.

Digitalization beyond a certain point can create more issues than it solves, in particular when it becomes a religion. Companies are only starting to realize that. I think we are not far away from digitalizing the toilet paper... on top It's not making corporations greener having computers running everywhere for everything.

It's OK when engineers are supported by IT people. I think it's not OK when IT people replace engineers. Having a lot of data and analytics available does not mean you understand what's going on. It's even polluting the brain of the best engineers, having less focus on what is relevant, and less time to think outside of what has been coded.

This........

I'm living in this "digital" world as the ME lead on a major programme, and am continually challenging the Management Committee (BOD) on value add, or otherwise (the good old 80/20 rule).
It's too easy to over-process EVERYTHING
Our US counterparts have become very good at managing this in the last few years

Rgds.

Imho digital is awesome, because you can design things much more quickly and you can pre-check them even more quickly. The danger comes when moving from the digital domain to the real world. I can do a total crazy CFRP design using ultra thin layers, it is just worthless if no machine is able to handle the material or the supplier has way too many defects in production of the material.

I don't think a 3-row simple stretch A322 is going to be anywhere near enough. Its got to have the new wing to compete with whatever NMA-5 ends up being. Something in-between A321 and B753 capacity-wise with XLR range.

morrisond wrote:

Agreed that would be a counter to NMA-5 and whatever wing they put on it - but then what do they do about the Gap from A322 rewing to A359?

No problem getting A330neo, especially if you want them in AAX's configuration ( ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aira ... SKBN28W0JK ).

Noshow wrote:

Airbus can wait and relax. Whatever Boeing does they have a family in place that can be grown, rewinged or even reengined even with higher bypass engines. Whatever it is it will be cheaper and faster than developing some new family from scratch. And it will have commonality with a widely used product family.

Right, which is why it's good to not aim right at A321 since it will require very little work from Airbus to counter. Aim for the space where you are opening a new market space and forcing the competitor to do something to compete if they want to participate.

But where?
Airbus will have the A220, the A321 and the A350. So there is room for some NMAirbus for them as well.

Looking at the A338, 788, and 778, I don't think the NMA-6 has much of a chance. I think they will build the NMA-7 at 4700 range like the xlr, and then a possible NMA-7ER later on. If the xlr takes 18t to 4700, the -7 will target 24t. 25% more seating than the xlr would put a 2-3-2 at about 52m(170') length.

I think the A220-500, Stretched A320neo and A322neo would be a cheaper solution for Airbus.
They could do simple 3,2m stretch to A220-500 and a little MTOW increase.

For Stretched A320neo, they need 2,2m stretch and range up to 4,000nmi. This would help differentiate stretched A320neo with A220-500.
For A322neo, they need 1,6m or 3,2m stretch and range up to 5,000nmi - 5,500nmi.

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Frankly, I don't see either, or any new other new development, happening in the absence of direct government assistance being approved (most likely tied to an infrastructure bill). The airline balance sheets are simply incapable of financing new projects.

For the time being, the formula is cramming more and more people onto smaller and smaller planes, trying to limit seats in order to obtain some small control of pricing.

SteelChair wrote:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Frankly, I don't see either, or any new other new development, happening in the absence of direct government assistance being approved (most likely tied to an infrastructure bill). The airline balance sheets are simply incapable of financing new projects.

For the time being, the formula is cramming more and more people onto smaller and smaller planes, trying to limit seats in order to obtain some small control of pricing.

Probably the biggest difference would be the pandemic. Many airlines around the world started to become more and more conservatives with their strategy in regards to the capacities that they're offering.
The other big factor would also be the trend that the industry is currently heading into. We see some airlines swapping their orders for smaller size aircraft or lack of interest in large widebody aircraft. They also might come to a realization that operating a cheap narrow-body aircraft that have 90%+ load factor on many of their long-haul routes are more profitable than using widebody aircraft with 60%-70% load factor during low season.

The case for A322 and NMA grow stronger than ever now. Weakened airlines need smaller widebodies and large narrowbody that could replace most of their long-haul routes for the near future.

If we look at our history in the last couple of decades. COVID19 wouldn't be the only pandemic that we would went through. There are possibility that these similar pandemic could happen before 2030.

Airbus does not necessary need to respond to NMA, if they really think that aircraft is a threat they should move first and take the Boeing business case and prove if it stands the test.

If Airbus launches the A322 in Spring 2022 based on a simple stretch of the A321XLR technology with reduced range 3000nm (just to make trans con possible) and a possible seating of 258 or 264 seats (+3 or +4 rows), they could take 750 orders out of the NMA before it is even launched.

United +100
AA +100
DL +100
LH +50
IAG +50 (+50XLR on top)
AFKLM +25
QF +25
SIA +25
JL +25
NH +25
Wizz +25
Indian Airbus carriers: +100
Asiana/Korean: +50

And this also opens up a big sales perspective for A321XLR.

I seriously doubt this. The appetite for additional capacity is limited and 258 seats is just not economic. (extra FA for 8 seats)

morrisond wrote:

Assuming NMA-5 is a 2-3-2 with a little bit more capacity than an A322 and more range - call it 5,000 NM at about 224 31" seats and they can reuse the cross section for NSA - what should Airbus do?

They could simply stretch the A321XLR to A322 (plus 3 rows) - Gaining capacity but as Keesje calculates would lose about 1,200NM range - making it not nearly as capable as an NMA

They could rewing/Stretch the A321 XLR and A320 making them more capable in 322 and Keesje 320.5 versions and given there multiple production sites no reason they couldn't build both Old wing and new versions - however is the investment worth it as how many marginal orders would they get vs the simple stretch? Plus they would be somewhat limited in terms of how big they could make the 3x3 tube vs what Boeing could do with a 2-3-2.

Invest in the A220 - stretching it to A220-500 and possibly A220-700 giving Boeing fits if they commit to 2-3-2 for NSA.

Launch a 2-3-2 Competitor a little more capable than the NMA after Boeing commits to NMA-5.

One must also consider the Airbus ZeroE effort that they seem to be committed to for 2035 and what happens to the A330. I suspect the A330 probably does not have much life left in it past 2030.

In my view given the marginal sales they would get from an Rewing A320.5/322 and it doesn't address A330 replacement as it's too small/you can't stretch it enough - that seems like a waste of resources.

In the game of Airplane development chess I would suggest they would be smart to launch A220-500 (and invest heavily in the program to get costs down) before NMA is launched to keep Boeing away from the 2-3-2 tube. Then simply stretch A321/A320 with the existing wing and compete on price.

Assuming Boeing does 3x3 to counter then you launch a 2-3-2 premium product yourself later in this decade to really fill the NMA space and replace A330 as well. Which you then use to eventually replace A320 series and you have great 5W, 7W and 9W tubes. No reason when you are designing a new 2-3-2 tube you can't take ZeroE initiatives into consideration - A 2-3-2 tube could be better than 3x3 for LH2 tanks in the back as you need less length for equivalent passenger capacity.

Just my 2c.

Make a new narrow body family as Boeing continues to chase niche products.

seahawk wrote:

I seriously doubt this. The appetite for additional capacity is limited and 258 seats is just not economic. (extra FA for 8 seats)

Delta for example has right now 192 seats in an A321. So they could add premium seats at no FA cost, even though they anyway have more FA than 4 I think. So any premium airline can add seats at no real cost.

The goal is not to have maxed out 258 seats (what really makes no sense, but you add space for any airline that offers extra comfort at no real cost, as any stretch does.

astuteman wrote:

I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

In which case the conversations going on in the "Boeing CEO comment on NMA" thread are far more relevant.
How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

Layman here...

But I've just been wondering to what extent do the supposed advantages of these super digital design tools require an entirely new design ?
Can they not be applied to existing designs, either directly or via an upgrade of the production system ?

Could Boeing, and especially Airbus, not implement MBSE, digital twin etc... on their existing products ?

The feeling I get from reading here is that these digital tools are some kind of disruptive change only applicable to a new program (like NMA) and would therefore propel this new aircraft type to a new cost structure out of reach for the A320/A321. Forcing Airbus to respond with its own program.
But I'm also thinking : could Airbus not simply upgrade the production system of the A320 family with digital tools and reap 80% of the benefits, at 10% of the cost of a new program ?

Also, I think I've also read somewhere that on the T7 Redhawk program, the training simulators are directly connected to engineering data and can be updated automatically.
Could this, and other "digital" services around maintenance, spare parts etc..., be implemented by Airbus on the huge A320 fleet ? If so, with such a large fleet, I'm thinking they could generate huge revenues, while Boeing would need years or decades to reach similar sales volumes on NMA.

Sorry for all the questions. I'm just seeing lots of talk about the new "digital age" but I am a bit lost on what it all means !

astuteman wrote:

Noshow wrote:

What is "fully digital" supposed to mean?

The replies to your post mostly miss the point for me.
I think "fully digital" is way more about how the product is designed (CAD/PLM toolset, digital twin, Model based Systems Engineering - MBSE) than about how the aircraft is controlled in flight.

In which case the conversations going on in the "Boeing CEO comment on NMA" thread are far more relevant.
How do Boeing leverage MANUFACTURING cost and schedule advantages out of digital design tools I think is the question...

morrisond wrote:

Assuming NMA-5 is a 2-3-2 with a little bit more capacity than an A322 and more range - call it 5,000 NM at about 224 31" seats and they can reuse the cross section for NSA - what should Airbus do?

What I think they will do is

a) not wait for NMA to come along to develop the current A320 series as far as possible, including an A322, to continue to narrow the business opportunity for Boeing

b) not rush into any decision on the necessity for a new build until they see what the NMA target looks like, and how it is received in the market....

Rgds

Of course the A320 is fully digital in regards to the frame itself, design thereof and manufacture. All drawings are on 3D CAD. The development of cabin interiors are 3D CAD. If you want yo can do a virtual walkthrough of the cabin designed for your airline. Run carts through it and look were you hit passengers feet. of you want. That is in XFW by the way.

But if I think about digital, I think of the airplane and it's operation.

In regards to a hypothetical Boeing NMA, or a reaction to it, I think Airbus has no need to speculate much about what Boeing is doing. They have been developing their A320 platform through the years, not as a response to what Boeing is doing or offering, but always in the lead, with Boeing having to react.

I think an A322 would mainly be used as a +24 seats, 249 seat people mover.

An A321NEO can officially carry 240 seats, but that is not realistically over longer ranges (28 inch pitch, 3 lav's, hardly galley?).

You need lavatories, a bit of knee space and catering to do longer flights.

249 Seats would require 6 fa's to meet safety, evacuation standards.


source: keesje

If airlines would specify a longer range configuration reducing seatcount by 72 (7t) to e.g. 178 people in 3 classes,
range would be significant more, trading capacity for range.


source: keesje

An possible A322 was discussed by Airbus already in 1997, at that stage the A321 MTOW was 20t lower and the range reduction was seen as a too significant disadvantage.

A further stretch of the A321, unofficially dubbed the A322, to rival Boeing's extended 757-300 has been studied, but seems unlikely to go ahead. "I don't think there will be a stretch of the A321: it would simply trade range for payload," says Brown.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-supplement-a320-family/17862.article

All Airbus would need to do in this space is add a larger wing for range (similar to 757). Add a small stretch to the A321 for capacity at the low end then add a double stretch (front and back) with a full L2 door in the front to match the 757-300 and done. Call it a 757-200/300 light. Anything less is trading payload for range. It needs a bigger wing. With an A220-500 they could dump the A319 and maybe the A320. The 320 would theoretically remain for fleet commonality for carriers that don't want the 220.

DL717 wrote:

All Airbus would need to do in this space is add a larger wing for range (similar to 757). Add a small stretch to the A321 for capacity at the low end then add a double stretch (front and back) with a full L2 door in the front to match the 757-300 and done. Call it a 757-200/300 light. Anything less is trading payload for range. It needs a bigger wing.

Yes - the A320 does need a bigger wing - but what happens if Boeing then goes and uses the 2-3-2 to build an 52m Winged People Mover? If the market is large enough and Airbus wants to respond they can't make a 3x3 much bigger and will have just invested a ton more in the A320.

morrisond wrote:

DL717 wrote:

All Airbus would need to do in this space is add a larger wing for range (similar to 757). Add a small stretch to the A321 for capacity at the low end then add a double stretch (front and back) with a full L2 door in the front to match the 757-300 and done. Call it a 757-200/300 light. Anything less is trading payload for range. It needs a bigger wing.

Yes - the A320 does need a bigger wing - but what happens if Boeing then goes and uses the 2-3-2 to build an 52m Winged People Mover? If the market is large enough and Airbus wants to respond they can't make a 3x3 much bigger and will have just invested a ton more in the A320.

There is no way a wing costs more than a new design. The 320 frame isn't the problem. Its the wing. There will not be a twin aisle 737-800/900. It will be single aisle. Boeing will need to do two planes in this space to replace the 737 and 757 or go with a single single aisle tube to do both with two wings. Boeing isn't going to abandon the 737 market and the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. It shoudl have been gone already.

DL717 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

DL717 wrote:

All Airbus would need to do in this space is add a larger wing for range (similar to 757). Add a small stretch to the A321 for capacity at the low end then add a double stretch (front and back) with a full L2 door in the front to match the 757-300 and done. Call it a 757-200/300 light. Anything less is trading payload for range. It needs a bigger wing.

Yes - the A320 does need a bigger wing - but what happens if Boeing then goes and uses the 2-3-2 to build an 52m Winged People Mover? If the market is large enough and Airbus wants to respond they can't make a 3x3 much bigger and will have just invested a ton more in the A320.

There is no way a wing costs more than a new design. The 320 frame isn't the problem. Its the wing. There will not be a twin aisle 737-800/900. It will be single aisle. Boeing will need to do two planes in this space to replace the 737 and 757 or go with a single single aisle tube to do both with two wings. Boeing isn't going to abandon the 737 market and the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. It shoudl have been gone already.

Where did I say a new wing costs more than a new design? However - That's my point - Boeing (or Airbus) could put two (or three) different wings on a 2-3-2 and cover a lot of the market for a lot less cost than multiple designs/cross sections.

Did I miss something - did Boeing announce a Single Aisle MAX replacement?

It could be 3x3 but if NMA is 2-3-2 there is a large chance they could reuse that cross section for NSA as well as the market trends to larger single aisle's over time.

Based on patents there was a large chance that NSA back in 2010 was going to be 2-3-2 as well.

Personally I think ZeroE is the A320 replacement in Green and Kerosene versions - and if they make A220 large enough Airbus has more latitude to make the ZeroE cross section 2-3-2 and grow it as an A330 replacement as well.

Airbus didn't put a new wing on the A321NEO/LR/XLR, just modified and sold 3000. That is an indication a new wing isn't needed up to 101t. The required fuel is taken care of outside the wing. And it saves a lot of time and money. Also for an 101t A322NEO, that could have LR like range in a lower density cabin.

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 41.article

morrisond wrote:

DL717 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes - the A320 does need a bigger wing - but what happens if Boeing then goes and uses the 2-3-2 to build an 52m Winged People Mover? If the market is large enough and Airbus wants to respond they can't make a 3x3 much bigger and will have just invested a ton more in the A320.

There is no way a wing costs more than a new design. The 320 frame isn't the problem. Its the wing. There will not be a twin aisle 737-800/900. It will be single aisle. Boeing will need to do two planes in this space to replace the 737 and 757 or go with a single single aisle tube to do both with two wings. Boeing isn't going to abandon the 737 market and the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. It shoudl have been gone already.

Where did I say a new wing costs more than a new design? However - That's my point - Boeing (or Airbus) could put two (or three) different wings on a 2-3-2 and cover a lot of the market for a lot less cost than multiple designs/cross sections.

Did I miss something - did Boeing announce a Single Aisle MAX replacement?

It could be 3x3 but if NMA is 2-3-2 there is a large chance they could reuse that cross section for NSA as well as the market trends to larger single aisle's over time.

Based on patents there was a large chance that NSA back in 2010 was going to be 2-3-2 as well.

Personally I think ZeroE is the A320 replacement in Green and Kerosene versions - and if they make A220 large enough Airbus has more latitude to make the ZeroE cross section 2-3-2 and grow it as an A330 replacement as well.

2-3-2 means Boeing would need two planes to cover the 737/757 market. Its not happening. Single Aisle, 118 and 140' span for the larger variants. One tube.

If Boeing does an NMA it will have to be at least 20% more efficient than a 763 ER. And at least 5-10% more efficient than the existing A321 Neo. Otherwise, don't bother, it will not sell.

DL717 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

DL717 wrote:

There is no way a wing costs more than a new design. The 320 frame isn't the problem. Its the wing. There will not be a twin aisle 737-800/900. It will be single aisle. Boeing will need to do two planes in this space to replace the 737 and 757 or go with a single single aisle tube to do both with two wings. Boeing isn't going to abandon the 737 market and the MAX is the end of the line for the 737. It shoudl have been gone already.

Where did I say a new wing costs more than a new design? However - That's my point - Boeing (or Airbus) could put two (or three) different wings on a 2-3-2 and cover a lot of the market for a lot less cost than multiple designs/cross sections.

Did I miss something - did Boeing announce a Single Aisle MAX replacement?

It could be 3x3 but if NMA is 2-3-2 there is a large chance they could reuse that cross section for NSA as well as the market trends to larger single aisle's over time.

Based on patents there was a large chance that NSA back in 2010 was going to be 2-3-2 as well.

Personally I think ZeroE is the A320 replacement in Green and Kerosene versions - and if they make A220 large enough Airbus has more latitude to make the ZeroE cross section 2-3-2 and grow it as an A330 replacement as well.

2-3-2 means Boeing would need two planes to cover the 737/757 market. Its not happening. Single Aisle, 118 and 140' span for the larger variants. One tube.

This is the Airbus thread and hence why I started it - but if you want to debate what could replace the 737/757 go over to the discussion in the Boeing thread. No need to rehash it all here but 2-3-2 with 118' and 140' wings works as well to replace 737/757 and you could reuse that cross section to replace 767 with a different wingbox/wing too.

Could it replace a MAX 7 - probably not but an MAX 8 replacement that is a little bit bigger that seats 200 in Y at 31" - sure.

The big MAX 7 customer just committed to that frame and won't need to replace them for 25+ years - by then they could be ready for 200 Y seats as well.

I would make the same argument for Airbus - Grow the A220 to take over A320/738 space in the short run and then a 2-3-2 to replace A321 up to 339 - the ZeroE.

They can keep the 320/321NEO in production until they die a natural death at one of their plants. The base technology is getting very old and would be over 40 years old by time the next major variant would EIS. I can see them stretching it for 320.5 and 322 versions but that is about it.

Rewinging it would put them at a big disadvantage. The future cockpit that looks to be mandated by the FAA/EASA may demand things like remote ground control and be ready for single pilot operations which will require a new cockpit/control system from Airbus as well. You won't be able to adapt the existing.

Given what Boeing is going through on the 777X I would be surprised if Airbus could certify a new wing A320/321 as a variant given that it would most likely have higher MTOW/New gear/more thrust. EASA may allow it but I doubt Boeing's lobbyists would ever allow the FAA to let it through without a complete from scratch certification.

DenverTed wrote:

How much heavier is the empty weight of an A321xlr versus the A321neo? About 2t? Will the A322 be another 2t heavier?
If the xlr takes 18t out to 4700nm, then the NMA will be designed to take 22t out to 5000nm, and the Airbus response will be to build a plane that takes 24t out to 5300nm, or something like that.

And that theirin is the issue.
This continual push on weights and distance.

Which actually means you give up performance on 80-90% of actual flown missions of under 1500miles.

I'd actually argue that this is the market Boeing should focus on..
They've got the 787 which does medium to ultra long-haul well.
Give up on the narrow body long-haul market and instead focus on the most efficient shorthaul aircraft - even if it can only fly 2500mi

To some extent I think the likely coming of hydrogen fuel (as proposed by Airbus in the 2030s) will bifurcate the market like this anyway. Just look at those Airbus renders with the massive hydrogen tanks in the rear, due to its lower density (about 1/3 to 1/4 depending on compression) versus jet fuel.
At some point there will be a trade-off between tank size (and thus range) to passengers carried - and I suspect for most airlines, passengers carried will win.

seahawk wrote:

I seriously doubt this. The appetite for additional capacity is limited and 258 seats is just not economic. (extra FA for 8 seats)

Remember that would be with 28inch pitch maximum density. No airline has hit the 240 seat maximum of the A321 most seem to be around 220-230 seats.

The A322 with 3 extra rows over the A321 would be the perfect size for 240 to 250 seats all economy. No extra FA required.

ElroyJetson wrote:

If Boeing does an NMA it will have to be at least 20% more efficient than a 763 ER. And at least 5-10% more efficient than the existing A321 Neo. Otherwise, don't bother, it will not sell.

People do not care that the A321NEO is more efficient than the 787 on short haul. The 787 sells because it is bigger and more capable.

All of this discussion is proof that a long range 6ab or an inefficient 7ab from Boeing is dead in the water. The only way to satisfy this market gap is to position the aircraft on the larger end. Once the 787NEO comes out in 5-10 years the 787-10 moves into the sweet spot. The 787-8 will be effectively unsellable like the A330-800.

With the 787-8 gone the MOM gap has now grown but on the larger end. This is where a cleansheet tight 8ab medium range aircraft will dominate. It is such an obvious move. All of the NMA-6 and NMA-7 or 797 leaks pointed to this exact aircraft size. You simply don't launch a new aircraft in the greatest aviation depression in history.

DenverTed wrote:

How much heavier is the empty weight of an A321xlr versus the A321neo? About 2t? Will the A322 be another 2t heavier?
If the xlr takes 18t out to 4700nm, then the NMA will be designed to take 22t out to 5000nm, and the Airbus response will be to build a plane that takes 24t out to 5300nm, or something like that.

Didn't see this post earlier, DenverTed, so apologies for the late response.
The A321XLR carries the weight of the Rear Centre tank, which is said to be the same as an ACT, or about 550kg, plus another 150kg of additional strengthening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ly#A321XLR

So a "bare" A321XLR without an ACT (good for about 4,400Nm still air) will weigh about 700kg more than a "bare" A321NEO without an ACT (good for about 2,800Nm still air)
It will weigh about 150kg more than an A321NEO with 1 ACT (good for about 3,200Nm still air)
It will weight about 400kg LESS than an A321NEO with 2 ACT's (good for about 3,500 - 3,600Nm still air)

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Which means that it will weigh about 950kg LESS than the A321LR with 3 ACT's, (good for 4,000Nm still air)

So for anything more than around 3,200Nm still air, the XLR will carry virtually no penalty compared to an A321NEO

Of course the A321XLR also needs an ACT to hit its nominal 4,700Nm, which will add another 550kg.
I'm willing to bet that the bulk of XLR's never see an ACT....

Rgds

RJMAZ wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

If Boeing does an NMA it will have to be at least 20% more efficient than a 763 ER. And at least 5-10% more efficient than the existing A321 Neo. Otherwise, don't bother, it will not sell.

People do not care that the A321NEO is more efficient than the 787 on short haul. The 787 sells because it is bigger and more capable..

Indeed. They care that it is way cheaper, and WAY more flexible .....

Rgds

ElroyJetson wrote:

If Boeing does an NMA it will have to be at least 20% more efficient than a 763 ER. And at least 5-10% more efficient than the existing A321 Neo. Otherwise, don't bother, it will not sell.

Hence my assertion that the -5 must have an optimised wing.

Otherwise don't bother.



cheers

Back to the OP topic, how will Airbus response to Boeing projects? I think the initiative is at Airbus, because I feel they can "force" Boeing into a new NB after all. Airbus has refrained from launching an aircraft carriers have been asking fo for a long timer: an evolutionary growth version of the A320.

The A321 is way (7m) bigger (40-50 seats), heavier and costlier than a A320. Thousands of A320 need to be replaced coming years, as well as thousands of 737-800's. They are the bulk of the active global fleets. The 737-800/-8 have the advantage over the A320 of being longer, about 2 rows. For airlines flying 5 FA cabins, those are "free"" extra seats.

If Airbus would launch:
a dedicated single class 31 inch pitch 200 seater,
slightly higher seat count than the 737-8 (without 28" pitch/ lavatories)
offer NEO's CFM and Pratt high BPR, quieter engine choice,
the XLR modifications
serious container cargo capability options,
build locally, in Europe, USA and China
easily capable to cross the Atlantic, fly to Hawai or India if required
offering long term flexibility and rest value (e.g. for cargo conversions)
at aggressive A320NEO + pricing

airlines would increasingly miss MAX unique selling points. And pressure Boeing to at least match the capabilities. .


source: keesje

That would likely "force" Boeing into an all new (superior) narrow body design.

Meanwhile it would give Airbus the option to focus on a design in between an A322 and A350-900. Replacing the A300, A310, A330CEO, A330NEO and other WB's operating medium flights in various roles. EIS to be in the next decade.

PS. I've been promoting a stretched A320 Enhanced Performance (EP) for a long time Henry made this one for me, long before the NEO was launched. (high BPR, carbon bladed CFM56-9's ) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-Oqf_vOmanM/S ... A320EP.jpg, viewtopic.php?t=392177

Interestingly, later I found out that the A320 is a pretty much optimized, slimmed down aircraft. So an "easy" stretch / MTOW bump doesn't seem possible;
- A "simple" A320 stretch/payload for range version would really bite into range, to the extend that airlines won't like it. Same for runway performance.
- A "simple" A321 shrink would compromise efficiency too, because the heavier wing, gears etc. would be inherited while not being required.

By now, 2021, we have simplified, lighter flaps, an ACT replacing bigger fuel tank and various NEO, LR and XLR modifications. Probably Airbus could use some of those to create a "lean"and efficient A320Plus, rather than an overly capable, heavy SUV kind of A320.

My assumption is an "A320Plus" wouldn't be a "simple" stretch or shrink. But the market / A320 conversion potential would justify a more significant modification anyway. Even if only a third of the current A320 backlog gets converted to an A320Plus, that would probably justify the investment. Basically boosting value of the existing backlog... and freeing up space for A220 growth.

RJMAZ wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

If Boeing does an NMA it will have to be at least 20% more efficient than a 763 ER. And at least 5-10% more efficient than the existing A321 Neo. Otherwise, don't bother, it will not sell.

People do not care that the A321NEO is more efficient than the 787 on short haul. The 787 sells because it is bigger and more capable.

All of this discussion is proof that a long range 6ab or an inefficient 7ab from Boeing is dead in the water. The only way to satisfy this market gap is to position the aircraft on the larger end. Once the 787NEO comes out in 5-10 years the 787-10 moves into the sweet spot. The 787-8 will be effectively unsellable like the A330-800.

With the 787-8 gone the MOM gap has now grown but on the larger end. This is where a cleansheet tight 8ab medium range aircraft will dominate. It is such an obvious move. All of the NMA-6 and NMA-7 or 797 leaks pointed to this exact aircraft size. You simply don't launch a new aircraft in the greatest aviation depression in history.

Yes all those leaks calling it a 7ab. 8ab only exists here on Anet.

keesje wrote:

Back to the OP topic, how will Airbus response to Boeing projects? I think the initiative is at Airbus, because I feel they can "force" Boeing into a new NB after all. Airbus has refrained from launching an aircraft carriers have been asking fo for a long timer: an evolutionary growth version of the A320.

The A321 is way (7m) bigger (40-50 seats), heavier and costlier than a A320. Thousands of A320 need to be replaced coming years, as well as thousands of 737-800's. They are the bulk of the active global fleets. The 737-800/-8 have the advantage over the A320 of being longer, about 2 rows. For airlines flying 5 FA cabins, those are "free"" extra seats.

If Airbus would launch:
a dedicated single class 31 inch pitch 200 seater,
slightly higher seat count than the 737-8 (without 28" pitch/ lavatories)
offer NEO's CFM and Pratt high BPR, quieter engine choice,
the XLR modifications
serious container cargo capability options,
build locally, in Europe, USA and China
easily capable to cross the Atlantic, fly to Hawai or India if required
offering long term flexibility and rest value (e.g. for cargo conversions)
at aggressive A320NEO + pricing

airlines would increasingly miss MAX unique selling points. And pressure Boeing to at least match the capabilities. .


source: keesje

That would likely "force" Boeing into an all new (superior) narrow body design.

Meanwhile it would give Airbus the option to focus on a design in between an A322 and A350-900. Replacing the A300, A310, A330CEO, A330NEO and other WB's operating medium flights in various roles. EIS to be in the next decade.

PS. I've been promoting a stretched A320 Enhanced Performance (EP) for a long time Henry made this one for me, long before the NEO was launched. (high BPR, carbon bladed CFM56-9's ) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-Oqf_vOmanM/S ... A320EP.jpg, viewtopic.php?t=392177

Interestingly, later I found out that the A320 is a pretty much optimized, slimmed down aircraft. So an "easy" stretch / MTOW bump doesn't seem possible;
- A "simple" A320 stretch/payload for range version would really bite into range, to the extend that airlines won't like it. Same for runway performance.
- A "simple" A321 shrink would compromise efficiency too, because the heavier wing, gears etc. would be inherited while not being required.

By now, 2021, we have simplified, lighter flaps, an ACT replacing bigger fuel tank and various NEO, LR and XLR modifications. Probably Airbus could use some of those to create a "lean"and efficient A320Plus, rather than an overly capable, heavy SUV kind of A320.

My assumption is an "A320Plus" wouldn't be a "simple" stretch or shrink. But the market / A320 conversion potential would justify a more significant modification anyway. Even if only a third of the current A320 backlog gets converted to an A320Plus, that would probably justify the investment. Basically boosting value of the existing backlog... and freeing up space for A220 growth.

I agree with you that this is the right strategy for Airbus - focus on derivatives (not new wings) for A320 and A220.

What kind of MTOW would you be looking at for the A320Plus? How much would the OEW weight increase over the regular 320?

Do this plus extend the A220 to take over the shorter sector's and invest in the program and basically force Boeing to respond with a 3x3 if Airbus launches both (A220 and A320 extensions) sooner rather than later as the MAX 8 would probably garner a lot less sales going forward than projected.

Boeing won't be able to do two clean sheets anytime soon - they need to pick one cross section which if it's 3x3 can't be extended into the real MOM market.

That leaves Airbus to fill that MOM market with whatever cross section they use for ZeroE.

Airbus should be able to stretch both A220 and A320 for say $5Billion? What else are its engineers going to do for the next few years until they are ready to start serious work on ZeroE around 2025/26?

With NMA not happening soon if ever it is such a strange discussion to debate how Airbus would have to "react". I'm sure they are kept awake all night now in Toulouse and Hamburg.

Noshow wrote:

With NMA not happening soon if ever it is such a strange discussion to debate how Airbus would have to "react". I'm sure they are kept awake all night now in Toulouse and Hamburg.

It's Covid - what else do we have to discuss? I live in Ontario, Canada and we are currently in full lockdown. Our ICU's are so full I'm not even out bike riding in case I get hit and take up resources in the hospital which could lead to the death of a Covid sufferror.

Boeing is going to do something (or they will fade into irrelevance) and with today's announcement that Calhoun is sticking around and Greg Smith the financial engineer of Boeing's last 10 years is retiring I think there is new hope that Boeing will go forward with a new program - it might just be a year or two until its publicly announced after they get past 777X and MAX10 or they have a clear EIS date insight.

I'm sure in Toulouse they are working on what to do next. After the XLR what else is Airbus working on except for future long lead planning for ZeroE?

They won't want to have their engineers sitting around twiddling their thumbs for very long. I suspect they they keep a lot more of them on permanent staff than Boeing does. Stretching the A220 and 320 is good work that won't consume a lot of cash and and will give them lots to do.

morrisond wrote:

Yes all those leaks calling it a 7ab. 8ab only exists here on Anet.

Here we go again. None of the leaks said 7AB.

All official sources said twin aisle with 225 seats and 269 seats in two class layout.

The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180628124 ... rrent.com/

7AB has always been a guess by the author writing the piece. You can tell here that they are guessing it will be 7ab. This was probably the first person to even mention 7ab. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... gy-roadmap

Anyone who says 7AB is calculating the numbers wrong. They are seeing 240 seats on a 6AB A321 and then assuming a 269 seat twin aisle NMA must be 7AB. But they completely forget the A321 seat number is single class 28inch pitch and the NMA number clearly states two class from official sources. 269 seats in two class is more seats than the 767-300ER has in two class. That is well over 300 seats in single class.

It makes no sense to have the launch model that long and skinny if it was 7AB. Any manufacturer would plan for the future. Many aircraft get a stretch with new engines and a further stretch NMA-8 at 7AB would be inefficient.

The seating values of 225 and 269 line up perfect with 8AB. A row longer than the A310 and a row shorter than the A300 respectively. We are talking about length here. Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes all those leaks calling it a 7ab. 8ab only exists here on Anet.

Here we go again. None of the leaks said 7AB.

All official sources said twin aisle with 225 seats and 269 seats in two class layout.

The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180628124 ... rrent.com/

7AB has always been a guess by the author writing the piece. You can tell here that they are guessing it will be 7ab. This was probably the first person to even mention 7ab. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... gy-roadmap

Anyone who says 7AB is calculating the numbers wrong. They are seeing 240 seats on a 6AB A321 and then assuming a 269 seat twin aisle NMA must be 7AB. But they completely forget the A321 seat number is single class 28inch pitch and the NMA number clearly states two class from official sources. 269 seats in two class is more seats than the 767-300ER has in two class. That is well over 300 seats in single class.

It makes no sense to have the launch model that long and skinny if it was 7AB. Any manufacturer would plan for the future. Many aircraft get a stretch with new engines and a further stretch NMA-8 at 7AB would be inefficient.

The seating values of 225 and 269 line up perfect with 8AB. A row longer than the A310 and a row shorter than the A300 respectively. We are talking about length here. Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

Except for the more current articles saying the NMA-5 will be sized to replace 757. Sure they are going to after that market with an 8W.

RJMAZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes all those leaks calling it a 7ab. 8ab only exists here on Anet.

Here we go again. None of the leaks said 7AB.

All official sources said twin aisle with 225 seats and 269 seats in two class layout.

The engine RFP stated 45,000lb to 50,000lb engines.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180628124 ... rrent.com/

7AB has always been a guess by the author writing the piece. You can tell here that they are guessing it will be 7ab. This was probably the first person to even mention 7ab. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... gy-roadmap

Anyone who says 7AB is calculating the numbers wrong. They are seeing 240 seats on a 6AB A321 and then assuming a 269 seat twin aisle NMA must be 7AB. But they completely forget the A321 seat number is single class 28inch pitch and the NMA number clearly states two class from official sources. 269 seats in two class is more seats than the 767-300ER has in two class. That is well over 300 seats in single class.

It makes no sense to have the launch model that long and skinny if it was 7AB. Any manufacturer would plan for the future. Many aircraft get a stretch with new engines and a further stretch NMA-8 at 7AB would be inefficient.

The seating values of 225 and 269 line up perfect with 8AB. A row longer than the A310 and a row shorter than the A300 respectively. We are talking about length here. Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

210" width versus 222" of the A300? Ovoid? A320 container or new container?

Francoflier wrote:

All Airbus really has to do is to re-wing the A32X to shift the overall weight of the family up, accommodate larger variants and increase efficiency. They'd need an A320.5/321/322 trio, with a wing that comfortably fits them and leave anything below that to the A220 (with a -500).

Still quite a few billions worth of development, but much less than a clean sheet.

I don't even think they need a 321 sized aircraft in this family. They need something bigger than a Max 8 and smaller than a 321. That's the 200 seat LCC bird. And they need an aircraft larger than a 321 for both the short-haul heavy lifter and to have a 180+ 2-class TATL aircraft.

DenverTed wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Obviously it would be a tight 8AB with no room for 9AB like the Airbus models.

210" width versus 222" of the A300? Ovoid? A320 container or new container?

I'm not a fan of ovoid. You save a bit of drag but the fuselage gains weight compared to a circular fuselage. The extra weight then brings the drag back to normal for no overall gain.

Yes a 209 inch external diameter with LD2 containers. See attached photo



https://ibb.co/jWrnBxt

Really looking forward to the launch of A320plus, A322 and the stretched A225. Maybe they will launch at 2023 when the XLR starts delivery? Or 2022?

astuteman wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How much heavier is the empty weight of an A321xlr versus the A321neo? About 2t? Will the A322 be another 2t heavier?
If the xlr takes 18t out to 4700nm, then the NMA will be designed to take 22t out to 5000nm, and the Airbus response will be to build a plane that takes 24t out to 5300nm, or something like that.

Didn't see this post earlier, DenverTed, so apologies for the late response.
The A321XLR carries the weight of the Rear Centre tank, which is said to be the same as an ACT, or about 550kg, plus another 150kg of additional strengthening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ly#A321XLR

So a "bare" A321XLR without an ACT (good for about 4,400Nm still air) will weigh about 700kg more than a "bare" A321NEO without an ACT (good for about 2,800Nm still air)
It will weigh about 150kg more than an A321NEO with 1 ACT (good for about 3,200Nm still air)
It will weight about 400kg LESS than an A321NEO with 2 ACT's (good for about 3,500 - 3,600Nm still air)

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Which means that it will weigh about 950kg LESS than the A321LR with 3 ACT's, (good for 4,000Nm still air)

So for anything more than around 3,200Nm still air, the XLR will carry virtually no penalty compared to an A321NEO

Of course the A321XLR also needs an ACT to hit its nominal 4,700Nm, which will add another 550kg.
I'm willing to bet that the bulk of XLR's never see an ACT....

Rgds

I agree that the payload-range of the XLR without the ACT, and the A322 are going to be very popular. I believe this is why Boeing shifted gears from the -6/7x (50K engine) to a lighter -5x possibility.

DenverTed wrote:

astuteman wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How much heavier is the empty weight of an A321xlr versus the A321neo? About 2t? Will the A322 be another 2t heavier?
If the xlr takes 18t out to 4700nm, then the NMA will be designed to take 22t out to 5000nm, and the Airbus response will be to build a plane that takes 24t out to 5300nm, or something like that.

Didn't see this post earlier, DenverTed, so apologies for the late response.
The A321XLR carries the weight of the Rear Centre tank, which is said to be the same as an ACT, or about 550kg, plus another 150kg of additional strengthening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ly#A321XLR

So a "bare" A321XLR without an ACT (good for about 4,400Nm still air) will weigh about 700kg more than a "bare" A321NEO without an ACT (good for about 2,800Nm still air)
It will weigh about 150kg more than an A321NEO with 1 ACT (good for about 3,200Nm still air)
It will weight about 400kg LESS than an A321NEO with 2 ACT's (good for about 3,500 - 3,600Nm still air)

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Which means that it will weigh about 950kg LESS than the A321LR with 3 ACT's, (good for 4,000Nm still air)

So for anything more than around 3,200Nm still air, the XLR will carry virtually no penalty compared to an A321NEO

Of course the A321XLR also needs an ACT to hit its nominal 4,700Nm, which will add another 550kg.
I'm willing to bet that the bulk of XLR's never see an ACT....

Rgds

I agree that the payload-range of the XLR without the ACT, and the A322 are going to be very popular. I believe this is why Boeing shifted gears from the -6/7x (50K engine) to a lighter -5x possibility.

I know posters sometimes get frustrated with the "drug-like rush" of the XLR, but I think it is a pretty cool piece of lateral thinking by Airbus (assuming the certification goes without a hitch).
That it is nearly 1/2 a tonne lighter than a NEO with 2 x ACT's, but has nearly 800Nm more still-air range, and is nearly 1 tonne lighter than the A321LR with about 400Nm more still-air range (no ACT on the XLR) is pretty cool.

Nice, simple, neat, low-cost in the grand scheme of aircraft development programmes - just the sort of "low hanging fruit" that I like.

Surely has to spell the end for the LR (whose only benefit I can see is that you can actually take all the ACT's out and turn it back into a base NEO)

Rgds