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.

Just to be clear I think an A220-500 (and possibly 700) force into Boeing into a 3x3 as they could take a lot of the MAX-8 market in the next decade - before Air travel grows enough that a 2-3-2 makes sense at about 200 seats in Y at 31".

Basically kill off MAX before it's time forcing Boeing into a 3x3 as a response. If they do nothing MAX should have good strong sales for another Decade before a 2-3-2 NSA could take over.

I think it would be real mistake for Airbus to not invest in A220 at this point to make it a volume product. If they are not going to do that and expand it's capability they might as well kill it.

I suspect if they had a 220-500 coming in the next few years WN's choice of MAX 7 may have been different as the extra efficiency would have been really hard to ignore.

I believe an A300/ A330-200 with 210 t MTOW and new wing and new engine is required. Where to get the engine from?

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.

I think Airbus will do the simple stretch A322 based on the XLR soon after XLR certification, irrespective of what Boeing does, assuming sufficient customer demand. Why would they not in those circumstances, it will be a cheap near-term development? Same for the A220-500 after improving production capacity and efficiency, some demand is already known (AF-KLM). Later do a 320-family replacement to cover the 320-321-XLR-322 space, 3-3 wide but a little wider than 320 to better enable business class options, maybe using A220 systems to approach an operationally seamless NB offering between A221 and A322.

Later, a 2-4-2 replacement for the A330, sized to sit below a theoretical small stretch A350-950neo, based on A350 systems. I think optimised "light-ish" for short haul up to regional applications, as there will be opportunity within an A350neo development for a smaller-than-359 long-range offering to cover demand in the A332 / A358 / B788 / B789 space.

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.

Sokes wrote:

I believe an A300/ A330-200 with 210 t MTOW and new wing and new engine is required. Where to get the engine from?

I agree a A306/A332 sized 8 abreast, with about 180-200t MTOW and an OEW of 80-88t. Range around 6000nm for smaller version and 5500nm for the longer.

Sit back, relax and enjoy how their shrewd development of the A321neo program has ensured that it's already eaten nearly all of the NMA's metaphorical lunch whilst making Airbus lots of money. Maybe in a few years they could give it a new wing, but I'm not sure that doing so brings a lot to the table compared to the product they've already got. New wing + a stretch is quite a bit more development money...

If the NMA is a twin aisle then its inherently more of a threat to the Dreamliner than it would be to an A321neo. There is no point in Boeing launching a clean-sheet NMA just for the sake of it. There might have been space to do it five or six years ago, but the world has moved on. This is no longer 2011 - airlines, banks and lessors aren't ordering large numbers of aircraft speculatively.

Boeing should save their money and focus on ensuring that the eventual 737MAX replacement is a leap forwards in terms of efficiency & production costs, giving Boeing a lasting advantage in that segment.

Invest in further improvements to the A321neo. If Boeing goes for a 2-3-2 NMA they will be shooting themselves in the foot. It is inefficient, the additional aisle adds weight but doesn't generate profit. The NMA needs to be a 3-3 narrowbody. Think something like an A321 or maybe even A322, but with the latest technology and optimizations.

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).

Airbus will do with the A32X family what Boeing has done for decades with the 737 family, they will build off and cannibalize it to the full extent. The inital design is 40+ years old and will give them another 20 years of aircraft before a clean sheet is needed.

I think what is being ignored is that Boeing is finding out with the 777x that a re-wing requires much more recertification than before, the same would likely mean a theoretical a322 would be more akin to a new plane vs derivative. I think a NMA would compete against the current Airbus portfolio, if that remaining market is big enough to support a plane remains to be seen

I guess to have any reasonable chance of answering we’d need to get a handle on the payload/range performance you are expecting as well as fuel burn. From there it would be relatively simple to estimate whether a re-engined/winged A32x @or clean sheet would be required to meet or get close to the proposed model.

Do you have a breakdown of expected weights or payload/range capability to get us started?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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. 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.

Can we correct the title of this thread to more accurately reflect this is nothing more speculation, as opposed to an official Airbus response?

Airbus has been doing R&D on a new 320 wing for a while now. I think if NMA-5 is launched Airbus should (and can) launch a 322 with the new wing and slightly uprated GTF at 37.5k. Also, enough of a stretch (at least 4 rows) to seat 260-270 in all economy. Range of 4500-5000nmi.
That's what they will need to do IMO, and it shouldn't be too difficult.

744SPX wrote:

Airbus has been doing R&D on a new 320 wing for a while now. I think if NMA-5 is launched Airbus should (and can) launch a 322 with the new wing and slightly uprated GTF at 37.5k. Also, enough of a stretch (at least 4 rows) to seat 260-270 in all economy. Range of 4500-5000nmi.
That's what they will need to do IMO, and it shouldn't be too difficult.

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? That is a very large hole if Boeing takes a hypothetical 2-3-2 - throws a 52Mish wing on it and extends it to 60+M?

You can't stretch a 3x3 to equal that capacity. Well you probably can but it won't based on A320.

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess to have any reasonable chance of answering we’d need to get a handle on the payload/range performance you are expecting as well as fuel burn. From there it would be relatively simple to estimate whether a re-engined/winged A32x @or clean sheet would be required to meet or get close to the proposed model.

Do you have a breakdown of expected weights or payload/range capability to get us started?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I doubt they would have a problem matching an 2-3-2 NMA with a new wing. It is pretty clear though that the existing wing is pretty maxed out.

It's what they do if NMA goes even bigger which will be hard to match with 3x3.

I'm trying to have more of a discussion at the 1,000' level - what Airbus Family's are the future vs getting into the nitty gritty on this Plane if its 1T more will beat that one.

How does Airbus cover the entire market that they want to be part of efficiently.

d8s wrote:

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).

Airbus will do with the A32X family what Boeing has done for decades with the 737 family, they will build off and cannibalize it to the full extent. The inital design is 40+ years old and will give them another 20 years of aircraft before a clean sheet is needed.

Although I really hope that isn't the case, let's not forget that the A320 doesn't (yet) suffer from the single main issue that has plagued the later 737 models: Sitting too low to fit the latest engines.

If Boeing builds a 3-3 752/3 with 5K range, then Airbus could build the 2-3-2 NMA in response. It would add a few seats, and be a smaller replacement for the A330 with less cargo.

DenverTed wrote:

If Boeing builds a 3-3 752/3 with 5K range, then Airbus could build the 2-3-2 NMA in response. It would add a few seats, and be a smaller replacement for the A330 with less cargo.

Exactly - that's my point. Airbus could force Boeing into the wrong decision again (go 3x3 vs 2-3-2). Just like they did when they NEO'd the A320 and Boeing was forced to respond with the MAX vs a clean sheet. We all know that was a big mistake. Boeing would be seeding the Market between 3x3 and the 3x3x3 A350/787 space.

Airbus could do the same thing with a big investment in the A220 so that it rules routes under 2,000NM and forces Boeing to protect the MAX 8 space before they are ready or before the market grows beyond that size as the volume aircraft and put it's eggs into a 3x3 vs a 2-3-2 which could be a better long term investment for Boeing as you could use it for many models.

I really can't see Boeing doing both a 3x3 and a 2-3-2. The economies of scale just wouldn't be there.

Whereas if Airbus does an 2-3-2 they could use that cross section as an eventual A320/A330 replacement as they would have A220-500/700 to cover the market below 200 seats.

seahawk wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I believe an A300/ A330-200 with 210 t MTOW and new wing and new engine is required. Where to get the engine from?

I agree a A306/A332 sized 8 abreast, with about 180-200t MTOW and an OEW of 80-88t. Range around 6000nm for smaller version and 5500nm for the longer.

Right.
If we consider the 35m wing of A321 good for something like 90t MTOW and existing A330s good for above 210t, something 130-180 t MTOW is required. So a 130t MTOW 6 abreast or 180t MTOW 8 abreast plane.

Could engine makers design an engine that fits both? Or would such an engine have too much maintenance on the heavier model?
I guess it's a bit funny to have the same engine for a narrowbody and a widebody. Still I'm curious.

Sokes wrote:

Could engine makers design an engine that fits both? Or would such an engine have too much maintenance on the heavier model?
I guess it's a bit funny to have the same engine for a narrowbody and a widebody. Still I'm curious.

It is possible (see the 757 and 767) but it would result in two aircraft with unoptimized engines. The Rolls Royce RB211 was available for both the 757 and 767, but saw very few sales on the 767. Pratt & Whitney initially went down the same path with the PW2000, but eventually went for the PW4000 on the 767.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess to have any reasonable chance of answering we’d need to get a handle on the payload/range performance you are expecting as well as fuel burn. From there it would be relatively simple to estimate whether a re-engined/winged A32x @or clean sheet would be required to meet or get close to the proposed model.

Do you have a breakdown of expected weights or payload/range capability to get us started?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I doubt they would have a problem matching an 2-3-2 NMA with a new wing. It is pretty clear though that the existing wing is pretty maxed out.

It's what they do if NMA goes even bigger which will be hard to match with 3x3.

I'm trying to have more of a discussion at the 1,000' level - what Airbus Family's are the future vs getting into the nitty gritty on this Plane if its 1T more will beat that one.

How does Airbus cover the entire market that they want to be part of efficiently.

Depends, if it was 1t here or there but it isn’t. It’s 6-8t slapped on top so it is relevant.

In terms of covering the entire market what does that actually mean, if you mean covering the whole gamut of payload/range solutions covered by the aircraft or the whole market of routes covered, after all the 321xlr would do LHR-YYZ year round, and the A35K does that right now.

Is the NMA-5 that you envisage with 5knm range real world or marketing. I.e. is it 6knm+ marketing range?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

zkojq wrote:

Sit back, relax and enjoy how their shrewd development of the A321neo program has ensured that it's already eaten nearly all of the NMA's metaphorical lunch whilst making Airbus lots of money. Maybe in a few years they could give it a new wing, but I'm not sure that doing so brings a lot to the table compared to the product they've already got. New wing + a stretch is quite a bit more development money...

If the NMA is a twin aisle then its inherently more of a threat to the Dreamliner than it would be to an A321neo. There is no point in Boeing launching a clean-sheet NMA just for the sake of it. There might have been space to do it five or six years ago, but the world has moved on. This is no longer 2011 - airlines, banks and lessors aren't ordering large numbers of aircraft speculatively.

Boeing should save their money and focus on ensuring that the eventual 737MAX replacement is a leap forwards in terms of efficiency & production costs, giving Boeing a lasting advantage in that segment.

I was thinking the same thing. The XLR is basically NMA, and I could see some airlines ordering it in high density just to get 3500-4000 nmi range in max seating. Indigo Partners had already effectively done that.

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.

Having said that I think that Airbus will plan their own first moves. They are not staring at what Boeing does as can be seen with the A321XLR.

They still will need to find something in the gap between the A321 and the A350.

The big question not asked - does Airbus want to build planes in the same manner for the next 40 years as the last 40 years. Yes the A320 is fly by wire, but is it fully digital? Continue the same flight systems of the current for the next number of decades. There may be huge short term advantages to stay the same, but at the expense of the long term .

JayinKitsap wrote:

The big question not asked - does Airbus want to build planes in the same manner for the next 40 years as the last 40 years. Yes the A320 is fly by wire, but is it fully digital? Continue the same flight systems of the current for the next number of decades. There may be huge short term advantages to stay the same, but at the expense of the long term .

If the A320 is not fully digital now, it will be with the coming of the electronic rudder.

What is "fully digital" supposed to mean?

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.

I specified an A322, as a A321XLR derivative, same wing, engines, gears and MTOW. A 4 rows/ meter stretch, which reduces range with ~1000NM, so 3700NM, similar to the A321NEO. Still far further than e.g. 737-10.

In my opinion we are waiting for a Boeing response to current situation. Still sticking to 2-3-2 or NB after all.

Airbus has it's own development options, that they are discussing with airlines, lessors and their supply chain. Waiting to respond on Boeing doesn't reflect the current strength en market positions of Airbus and Boeing.



Airbus will probably invest / develop products when the opportunity exists to respond to market demand, take market share or convert slots to higher value sales.
Low risk / cost options first.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess to have any reasonable chance of answering we’d need to get a handle on the payload/range performance you are expecting as well as fuel burn. From there it would be relatively simple to estimate whether a re-engined/winged A32x @or clean sheet would be required to meet or get close to the proposed model.

Do you have a breakdown of expected weights or payload/range capability to get us started?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I doubt they would have a problem matching an 2-3-2 NMA with a new wing. It is pretty clear though that the existing wing is pretty maxed out.

It's what they do if NMA goes even bigger which will be hard to match with 3x3.

I'm trying to have more of a discussion at the 1,000' level - what Airbus Family's are the future vs getting into the nitty gritty on this Plane if its 1T more will beat that one.

How does Airbus cover the entire market that they want to be part of efficiently.

Depends, if it was 1t here or there but it isn’t. It’s 6-8t slapped on top so it is relevant.

In terms of covering the entire market what does that actually mean, if you mean covering the whole gamut of payload/range solutions covered by the aircraft or the whole market of routes covered, after all the 321xlr would do LHR-YYZ year round, and the A35K does that right now.

Is the NMA-5 that you envisage with 5knm range real world or marketing. I.e. is it 6knm+ marketing range?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fred - that is in your view that it is 6-8T. It could be that much - it could be a lot less. There are tradeoffs you could make to get that number down. I'm sure if it was an Airbus concept you would find a way to make it a lot closer to 0.

Covering the entire market - meaning what families does Airbus have in production or close to EIS by 2035. What programs live and what dies. Do they need a cleansheet (Probably yes due to ZeroE initiative) - could be that be used for a kerosene version as well?

Call it real World A321XLR of about 3,600Nm plus 500-700NM with say a 200-210 31" mixed cabin vs 180ish for an A321XLR and an A322 somewhere in between.

Put down your slide ruler and play Airbus CEO - what does the optimal Airbus line-up look like.

5 Aircraft Families - A220, 320, ZeroE, 330 and 350 with 5 different cross sections seems rather excessive to cover the passenger market.

Boeing - if not forced into a 3x3 could be at 2 assuming the 777X only sells as a freighter after 2030 if the 787 is re-engined and becomes more capable. 2-3-2 for NSA, NMA-5 (NSA-ER) and NMA-L (52M wing) plus 3x3x3 for the 787.

keesje wrote:

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.

I specified an A322, as a A321XLR derivative, same wing, engines, gears and MTOW. A 4 rows/ meter stretch, which reduces range with ~1000NM, so 3700NM, similar to the A321NEO. Still far further than e.g. 737-10.

In my opinion we are waiting for a Boeing response to current situation. Still sticking to 2-3-2 or NB after all.

Airbus has it's own development options, that they are discussing with airlines, lessors and their supply chain. Waiting to respond on Boeing doesn't reflect the current strength en market positions of Airbus and Boeing.



Airbus will probably invest / develop products when the opportunity exists to respond to market demand, take market share or convert slots to higher value sales.
Low risk / cost options first.

I always like your charts.

Given the ZeroE initiative eventually I can see Airbus at 3 - A220, ZeroE (Possibly 2-3-2 and covering gap between A220-700 - A350-900) with LH2 and Kerosene/green fuel options.

But before ZeroE - develop A220 production systems and stretch it to make it a volume product and also stretch the A320/321 without the rewing and focus your clean sheet on ZeroE. A320 series can always stay in production at one of the multitude of production sites as ZeroE ramps up and replaces it.

I'm far from an Environmental Zealot - but ZeroE really has me intrigued. The clamour to lower Carbon emissions will only grow and could go parabolic in terms of regulation/public demand over the next ten years.

What would probably help A220 politically would be producing it in Europe somewhere as well. I think Canada has capacity for 10 per month, Mobile 4 - getting A220 to 20-30 per month with more variants could really put a hurt on MAX - but probably require more investment somewhere, especially if it becomes a mainstay aircraft in 500 and 700 versions.

If you do ramp up A220 would it make sense for A320 replacement (ZeroE) to be 3x3? That seems like an even easier decision for Airbus if they envision A220 as a future volume product - ZeroE should be 2-3-2 in various winged versions to fill the gap and replace 320/330.

Noshow wrote:

What is "fully digital" supposed to mean?

I think both the FAA and EASA want a more digital flight deck. I don't thing either Boeing or Airbus knows just what they want. The whole thing seems up for grabs. My view is flight deck specs defined by an international forum of regulators and all companies in the aviation business.

So this is nothing Airbus will have to react after some imagined "NMA-5" is having it. As mentioned above we have no new and different engine generation yet and this possible future cockpit standard is far from being finalized. This is why both manufacturers will have to wait for technology, standards and authorities first.
= No NMA.

Just undercut Boeing with the popular A321. Airlines now see a lot of value in wisely running a 200 seater around over frequency. So Airbus will force Boeing to do something big that they will likely choke on or get Boeing to second guess the whole thing knowing they’d choke on it. Well played.

As to the 220, that’s not an Airbus. It has nothing over the Airbus. Airbus will not favor the 220 over the technological and financial cornerstone to their entire company.

Sokes wrote:

I believe an A300/ A330-200 with 210 t MTOW and new wing and new engine is required. Where to get the engine from?

And very soon after airlines will be asking for more MTOW and range and we'd be back where the A338 is now! At the end of the day, Airbus will do nothing. They've got the segment pretty well covered with the A32N and A33N. No sense in investing more money now where it is not absolutely needed. They could keep their studies under wraps until a real formidable competitor emerges.

Noshow wrote:

What is "fully digital" supposed to mean?

You can have a analog control or a digital control. Most modern computers are digital.

If we look at the FBW on the A320 as not fully digital, than that means the rudder control being analog controlled. Something being changed in the near future.

The biggest misconception in regards to the A320 FBW system is, that it was developed 40 years ago and is still unchanged. Actually both the hardware and software has been upgraded during the years. All the current FBW used at Airbus, with the exception of the A220, are based on the original A320 design. Each new version for the newer families, A330/340, A380 and A350, has been an evolution of the original packet and the last iteration. On the other hand, many of the new developments have ported back to the A320, both for new builds as well for upgrades of older frames. So the current A320 FBW is modern in both hardware and software and it is still further developed.

The Airbus rudder is FBW as well. What you mean is some emergency standby system "mechanical mode" that operates the rudder with direct inputs in the unusual case the FBW should fail or be blocked or similar.

Noshow wrote:

The Airbus rudder is FBW as well. What you mean is some emergency standby system "mechanical mode" that operates the rudder with direct inputs in the unusual case the FBW should fail or be blocked or similar.

A FBW can be analog or digital. Analog does not mean that it is not FBW. The rudder control will go fully digital with the coming of the A321XLR.

How many passenger seats are on 500 to 3K trips, 3K to 5K, and 5K+? I think airbus will most likely wait, and come out with a direct twin aisle competitor, much as they did with the A350. Just like on shorter range, mid range may evolve to passenger aircraft with less freight, and freight on dedicated freighters. I suspect the mid-market is large enough for two manufacturers, it will just push the 787 and A350 to the longer ranges they were designed for.

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.

morrisond wrote:

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.

Or widen the 320NEO (310NEO) and place longer wings?

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.

EVERYTHING is just purely guesses and speculation until either A or B actually puts something out there in concrete for people to buy

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?

A FBW can be analog or digital. Analog does not mean that it is not FBW. The rudder control will go fully digital with the coming of the A321XLR.

Yes, well known. Concorde was FBW - analog.

It's not like "the next big thing" Boeing has and Airbus not.

GrandNegusZek80 wrote:

I really like the idea of a 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 layout.

It's already there for some decades and it's called B762/3

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.

Is it understood, that Airbus would need to respond, for keeping its market share?

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.

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