https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/airb ... 40648.html

"We have a good portfolio of platforms; we believe the evolution will be on those platforms, on systems, connectivity, energy management and decarbonisation," he told the A4E Aviation Summit, asked where Airbus' main product development focus lay.

"We think those platforms have the potential to embed those changes on different systems including propulsion systems. So we are more looking at how we are going to evolve those platforms over time, as we are doing with the A321XLR and other products, with new variants," he said in a pre-recorded interview."

Analysts say that of the two planemakers, Airbus is most keen to maximise investment in the current generation of single aisle jets where it enjoys an upper hand against the Boeing 737 MAX, and to delay the start of a new industrial race until the 2030s.

No duh, when you are at the top, one should enjoy the fruits of their hard work. Time to reap in profits and share with the stakeholders.

I expect both manufactures to take a pause in new aircraft intros for while, get ready for a decade of boredom Anet.

Translation, we don't have the billions for new factories and there doesn't look to be enough competition to worry about.

This will be like after the 737NG was released, a long period of improvements, but no new models. Until someone launches an innovative new model and then the market must adapt.

Lightsaber

Nor do a lot of airlines have billons to invest in new fleets, so the decision to delay the next decade is sensible.
But Airbus should go ahead with the A220-500 and A322 versions both of which should be done without the huge outlay needed for a new model from scratch.

TC957 wrote:

Nor do a lot of airlines have billons to invest in new fleets, so the decision to delay the next decade is sensible.

If manufacturers aren't giving carriers a compelling financial argument to replace older fleets (forget the 2% PIPs), carriers will just buy for growth and as frames reach end of service life. It's a self-reinforcing cycle of doom. What's that slam, Boeing selling 50-yr old technology? What do you think an Airbus 32xneo is going to be in 2027? A 787 isn't a 767 with new engines.

TC957 wrote:

Nor do a lot of airlines have billons to invest in new fleets, so the decision to delay the next decade is sensible.
But Airbus should go ahead with the A220-500 and A322 versions both of which should be done without the huge outlay needed for a new model from scratch.

Specifically, an A322 with a minimum 4-row stretch and the new (and bigger) wing

A220-500, A320Plus, A322NEO, A350-2000, A350 Ultrafan, A350-950F, MAWS, A330NEO MRTT. So many derivative programs to spend billions..

lightsaber wrote:

Translation, we don't have the billions for new factories and there doesn't look to be enough competition to worry about.

This will be like after the 737NG was released, a long period of improvements, but no new models. Until someone launches an innovative new model and then the market must adapt.

Lightsaber

Exactly what I think ,Airbus is enjoying a growing dominance in the NB market ,thanks to the max problems
and a quasi monopoly in the upper end of it where they face no competition ,

the wise decision is to milk as much cash out of their a320 family as they can

It's a déjà vu with the 330 ,the 777 was too big and heavy ,the 767 small and old design
hence the 330 sold like a hotcake

but once Boeing came with a clean sheet latest gen aircraft ,the 330 lost its reign dramatically
we may see a repeat in the the NB segment if Airbus leans too much to it's 30+ years old design ,

one thing Boeing is doing so damn well is reading the market , although the execution is sometimes awful,

if they manage to release a new product without the hurdles seen with the 787 and the max ,
i think they will retake a big part of the lucrative NB market share

They have a leg up with A220 though since it's an all new clean-sheet design. They would definitely looking at that one with A220-500.
Secondly would be on A320neo family and the new wings + the potential A322neo.

They might also study a smaller A350 with smaller wings and less powerful engines to replace A330neo on regional market in the future. I doubt they would considered spending 20-30 billions for new widebody aircraft.

Rifitto wrote:

It's a déjà vu with the 330 ,the 777 was too big and heavy ,the 767 small and old design
hence the 330 sold like a hotcake

Huh?
Boeing sold over 2,000 777s compared to 1, 800 A330s.

lightsaber wrote:

Translation, we don't have the billions for new factories and there doesn't look to be enough competition to worry about.

This will be like after the 737NG was released, a long period of improvements, but no new models. Until someone launches an innovative new model and then the market must adapt.

Lightsaber

Translation: We just up-graded or added completely new models to our line-up and there are disrupting technologies on the horizon, that could render current technology obsolete, so we do not invest into a completely new design at the moment. Which imho is wise, as long as it is not clear what the sustainable and renewable fuel for the future will be.

keesje wrote:

A220-500, A320Plus, A322NEO, A350-2000, A350 Ultrafan, A350-950F, MAWS, A330NEO MRTT. So many derivative programs to spend billions..

A350-950F, A322NEO, A220-500 looks like no brainers to me.

A350-2000, A350 Ultrafan, seems like good ideas for later if the market warrant it

A320Plus, I'm not convinced about an investment fragmenting the portfolio capabilites instead of expanding it. Cost saving against operating an A321 can't be that much.

MAWS, A330NEO MRTT, Airbus Defence&Space is rather busy with Eurodrone and SCAF in terms of development I don't see them engaging in something anything soon. I think we discussed A330 NEO MRTT elsewhere, consensus was that there was close to no chance of it happening.

Airbus might want to invest big in fabrication instead of new moonshot programs while everybody is waiting for future engine technologies.

If you know that there is no way to gain more than 5% efficiency over the next 10 years over you products, and that you can match them gains by upgrading your product, why invest in new ones.

Airbus can invest 20bn$ in one new program or, could invest 5bn$ in the A220 line to make it profitable (or try at least), 10bn$ to make sure the A321neo can be produced for less than 40m$ a piece (and sold at 50m$) and 5bn$ to make the A350 ready for a new engine. Throw another 5bn$ on top to make the A350F happen and you have invested only 2.5bn$ per year over the next 10 years but your lineup is top. Then while cashing in on this investments develop a new single aisle with eco friendly propulsion systems.

No need to blow money on a new programm now, that is old tech in 15 years (7 years after it had EIS) while neglecting the current products.

With the astronomical cost of a new design and the lack of new technology that will improve efficiency enough to make that investment worthwhile, plus the current sudden and unexpected lack of demand, this is only an acknowledgment of reality. Boeing has not said this, but it is going to be the case for them as well. They have been trying for over a decade to make a business case for the NMA and have failed. They will find it is going to be even harder in the next decade. Until a new technology emerges that will offer sufficient efficiency gains to justify the investment I just don’t see it happening for either one. Most of the gains come from engines anyway, and it is much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing frame. That will likely be the focus for some time to come.

Its just reality isn't it? Looking objectively at the Airbus lineup, they have
A220 (requires industrialisation improvements, but options to stretch into 160-180 single class sizeand/or re-engine in the future)
A32x (Gold Standard in the A320 and A321N/LR/XLR markets, options for further development and industrialisation improvements)
A330 (Continued production at 2/month for customers who do not require A350/787 capability, will slowly be phased out)
A350 (-900, 1000 and F look well placed to compete in the gap between the 787 and 777)

Looking at the lineup, the true gap is in a 'proper' transatlantic aircraft and 787 competitor for transatlantic airlines. The A33N was arguably too late to market and has failed to gain traction. I think some might find the 321XL might be a bit small and the A359 a bit too much for North Atlantic operations. Im thinking of the role the A339 has for DL and the like of EI who took the last A333s off the line.

BrianDromey wrote:

Its just reality isn't it? Looking objectively at the Airbus lineup, they have
A220 (requires industrialisation improvements, but options to stretch into 160-180 single class sizeand/or re-engine in the future)
A32x (Gold Standard in the A320 and A321N/LR/XLR markets, options for further development and industrialisation improvements)
A330 (Continued production at 2/month for customers who do not require A350/787 capability, will slowly be phased out)
A350 (-900, 1000 and F look well placed to compete in the gap between the 787 and 777)

Looking at the lineup, the true gap is in a 'proper' transatlantic aircraft and 787 competitor for transatlantic airlines. The A33N was arguably too late to market and has failed to gain traction. I think some might find the 321XL might be a bit small and the A359 a bit too much for North Atlantic operations. Im thinking of the role the A339 has for DL and the like of EI who took the last A333s off the line.

And that´s a gap that - at least from my point of view - doesn´t really need to be adressed. Too little of a market (the reason why Boeing struggles since years with a busines case for the MoM), and too much competition in-house (A321XLR, A339, A359) or over the Atlantic (787-8/9, possibly 737-10ER). All puts too much [price] pressure on a market segment which doesn´t really cry for a new design. Yes, airlines would like to have an optimized frame, but airlines neither want to spend what realistically needs to be recouped to make such an investment by one of the airframers worthwhile.

And both A&B can heavily discount any new design out of the market and still earn margins by keeping exiting lines running. Jus one of the hurdles a new (MoM) would need to overcome.

Overall I agree: its more evolution that revolution for the next years (and probably decade) to come. And even Boeing will need to ask themselves if this isn´t the way forward again.

BrianDromey wrote:

Its just reality isn't it? Looking objectively at the Airbus lineup, they have
A220 (requires industrialisation improvements, but options to stretch into 160-180 single class sizeand/or re-engine in the future)
A32x (Gold Standard in the A320 and A321N/LR/XLR markets, options for further development and industrialisation improvements)
A330 (Continued production at 2/month for customers who do not require A350/787 capability, will slowly be phased out)
A350 (-900, 1000 and F look well placed to compete in the gap between the 787 and 777)

Looking at the lineup, the true gap is in a 'proper' transatlantic aircraft and 787 competitor for transatlantic airlines. The A33N was arguably too late to market and has failed to gain traction. I think some might find the 321XL might be a bit small and the A359 a bit too much for North Atlantic operations. Im thinking of the role the A339 has for DL and the like of EI who took the last A333s off the line.

I think it is to early to write the A330neo off. There are many young A330ceo out there in operation and many more airlines especially smaller ones that operate A330 than airlines operating 787. There are 1.435 A330 in operation. About 900 sold while the 787 was available and delivered. The A330neo does not need a big part of the replacement market to be viable.
For a small operator, having a few A330ceo, adding one and one A330neo is no big problem.

IMO the A330neo compares better with the 787 family, than the 737MAX with the A320 family in performance.

I think the opportunity for an A220-500 lays more in a decent 149 seat, 4 CA, 2 class configuration. A huge slice of the NB market.


keesje

Even a stretched A220-500 would be less capable (payload range, cargo capability, commonality) than an A320NEO. But for mainline, conventional two class flights, up to 5-6 hours, it seems much more efficient than A320 and 737 variants. It would weigh much less anyways.


Airbus, keesje

keesje wrote:

I think the opportunity for an A220-500 lays more in a decent 149 seat, 4 CA, 2 class configuration.


keesje

And I’ll say the same thing that I always say whenever you use that graphic- airlines will never put 28 F seats (with huge closets? galleys? up front) in the A225 in typical domestic/regional configurations. That is more than they usually put in A321s/757s.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the opportunity for an A220-500 lays more in a decent 149 seat, 4 CA, 2 class configuration.


keesje

And I’ll say the same thing that I always say whenever you use that graphic- airlines will never put 28 F seats (with huge closets? galleys? up front) in the A225 in typical domestic/regional configurations. That is more than they usually put in A321s/757s.

Airlines will use moveable cabin dividers, seat pitches, different headrests, service concepts, convertible seats, blocked seats etc to create a flexible premium class. I think an A220-500 would offer airlines the flexibility to realize this with 2-3 class flexible seating better than the -300, which needs high density seating to reduce cost/passenger (4 CA's).

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the opportunity for an A220-500 lays more in a decent 149 seat, 4 CA, 2 class configuration.


keesje

And I’ll say the same thing that I always say whenever you use that graphic- airlines will never put 28 F seats (with huge closets? galleys? up front) in the A225 in typical domestic/regional configurations. That is more than they usually put in A321s/757s.

Airlines will use moveable cabin dividers, seat pitches, different headrests, service concepts, convertible seats, blocked seats etc to create a flexible premium class. I think an A220-500 would offer airlines the flexibility to realize this with 2-3 class flexible seating better than the -300, which needs high density seating to reduce cost/passenger (4 CA's).

Airlines that do that do not have different, wider F seats with 10 more inches of pitch. If you have 28 F seats in a 2-2 layout with 40” pitch on a A220 those are always going to be F seats. At no point will an airline change a headrest, move a divider, change service, change pitch, or pull a 5th set out of thin air between flights to turn them into Y seat.

keesje wrote:

A220-500, A320Plus, A322NEO, A350-2000, A350 Ultrafan, A350-950F, MAWS, A330NEO MRTT. So many derivative programs to spend billions..

Do not forget the A320nwo ( new wing option )

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think the opportunity for an A220-500 lays more in a decent 149 seat, 4 CA, 2 class configuration.


keesje

And I’ll say the same thing that I always say whenever you use that graphic- airlines will never put 28 F seats (with huge closets? galleys? up front) in the A225 in typical domestic/regional configurations. That is more than they usually put in A321s/757s.

Airlines will use moveable cabin dividers, seat pitches, different headrests, service concepts, convertible seats, blocked seats etc to create a flexible premium class. I think an A220-500 would offer airlines the flexibility to realize this with 2-3 class flexible seating better than the -300, which needs high density seating to reduce cost/passenger (4 CA's).

I agree, I think the F cabin is far too large in your example. In an all-Y layout that would be about 170 Y @ 30". So very similar in capacity to the 737-7MAX, which is 150 at WN's more generous pitch. Im not sure if this falls a little between two stools, or is exactly right? A "WN" spec A325 might give EU spec 150C/Y it might be OK.

This is not surprising, but I tend to believe the chances were never better for a "Hydrogen-Tesla" Start Up in aviation.

Airbus is leader in the narrow body segment and they just had a re-engine of the A330 and launched the A350. They have no incentive to make the first move in the narrow body segment and no reason to not continue with a re-engine of the A350 when a power plant becomes available.

TheSonntag wrote:

This is not surprising, but I tend to believe the chances were never better for a "Hydrogen-Tesla" Start Up in aviation.

Where are they going to sell this potential hydrogen propelled plane? You would need airports to invest in infrastructure, airlines willing to make that change and for the change to happen rather fast so that scale allows for lowered costs.

I do not see that happening fast enough or it being attractive enough.

Hmm, they don't have a competitive product in the "small widebody" segment. Do they really want to leave it to Boeing? Or they plan to re-wing the A330NEO, creating the A350 Mk1 again?

mjoelnir wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

Its just reality isn't it? Looking objectively at the Airbus lineup, they have
A220 (requires industrialisation improvements, but options to stretch into 160-180 single class sizeand/or re-engine in the future)
A32x (Gold Standard in the A320 and A321N/LR/XLR markets, options for further development and industrialisation improvements)
A330 (Continued production at 2/month for customers who do not require A350/787 capability, will slowly be phased out)
A350 (-900, 1000 and F look well placed to compete in the gap between the 787 and 777)

Looking at the lineup, the true gap is in a 'proper' transatlantic aircraft and 787 competitor for transatlantic airlines. The A33N was arguably too late to market and has failed to gain traction. I think some might find the 321XL might be a bit small and the A359 a bit too much for North Atlantic operations. Im thinking of the role the A339 has for DL and the like of EI who took the last A333s off the line.

I think it is to early to write the A330neo off. There are many young A330ceo out there in operation and many more airlines especially smaller ones that operate A330 than airlines operating 787. There are 1.435 A330 in operation. About 900 sold while the 787 was available and delivered. The A330neo does not need a big part of the replacement market to be viable.
For a small operator, having a few A330ceo, adding one and one A330neo is no big problem.

IMO the A330neo compares better with the 787 family, than the 737MAX with the A320 family in performance.

The 737MAX definitely is more competitive with the A320NEO than the A330NEO is with the 787. On short and medium distance flights, the MAX beats the A320NEO in efficiency, and it is cheaper to buy also. The only competitive advantage for the A330NEO is commonality with old A330's and maybe a very small price advantage. The 787 is superior to the A330NEO in literally every other possible metric other than these two.

william wrote:

No duh, when you are at the top, one should enjoy the fruits of their hard work. Time to reap in profits and share with the stakeholders.

I expect both manufactures to take a pause in new aircraft intros for while, get ready for a decade of boredom Anet.

I thought sharing profits with investors wasn't a part of their social contract, that was only for greedy Wall Street mavens.

lightsaber wrote:

Translation, we don't have the billions for new factories and there doesn't look to be enough competition to worry about.

This will be like after the 737NG was released, a long period of improvements, but no new models. Until someone launches an innovative new model and then the market must adapt.

Translation: Thanks for all the money on the green initiatives, can we appy a bit of greenwash and use it as a subsidy for Air France to buy more Airbusses?

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461659

FluidFlow wrote:

If you know that there is no way to gain more than 5% efficiency over the next 10 years over you products, and that you can match them gains by upgrading your product, why invest in new ones.

What if you could make a "fundamental" change in manufacturing cost with that next generation product, along with those incremental gains in efficiency?

BrianDromey wrote:

Its just reality isn't it? Looking objectively at the Airbus lineup, they have
A220 (requires industrialisation improvements, but options to stretch into 160-180 single class sizeand/or re-engine in the future)
A32x (Gold Standard in the A320 and A321N/LR/XLR markets, options for further development and industrialisation improvements)
A330 (Continued production at 2/month for customers who do not require A350/787 capability, will slowly be phased out)
A350 (-900, 1000 and F look well placed to compete in the gap between the 787 and 777)

Looking at the lineup, the true gap is in a 'proper' transatlantic aircraft and 787 competitor for transatlantic airlines. The A33N was arguably too late to market and has failed to gain traction. I think some might find the 321XL might be a bit small and the A359 a bit too much for North Atlantic operations. Im thinking of the role the A339 has for DL and the like of EI who took the last A333s off the line.

I concur, it very well be Team A that builds a NMA-like aircraft first.

TheSonntag wrote:

This is not surprising, but I tend to believe the chances were never better for a "Hydrogen-Tesla" Start Up in aviation.

I agree, it will take an entity with independent funding and no legacy products to protect to make a go of the hydrogen based airliner market, if it is even possible. It seems obvious to me that the big boys are going to take the big money and maybe build some proof of concepts but their hearts really aren't into it, it'd be too disruptive to their core businesses. They just won't be committed at a fundamental level like a startup would be.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Airbus is leader in the narrow body segment and they just had a re-engine of the A330 and launched the A350.

As endearing as A330neo is to me and others, it is withering on the vine and at some point Airbus will pull the plug on it. Its backlog consists of big orders from AAX and Iran and a bunch of leasing firms. I suspect the leasing firm orders are pretty fungible, they usually are. A330neo is at best a place holder in its market segment, IMO. They very well may decide at some point they can make good money replacing it with a NMA-like aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

A330neo is at best a place holder in its market segment, IMO. They very well may decide at some point they can make good money replacing it with a NMA-like aircraft.

Or take another look at the A350-800 design.

SEPilot wrote:

With the astronomical cost of a new design and the lack of new technology that will improve efficiency enough to make that investment worthwhile, plus the current sudden and unexpected lack of demand, this is only an acknowledgment of reality. Boeing has not said this, but it is going to be the case for them as well. They have been trying for over a decade to make a business case for the NMA and have failed. They will find it is going to be even harder in the next decade. Until a new technology emerges that will offer sufficient efficiency gains to justify the investment I just don’t see it happening for either one. Most of the gains come from engines anyway, and it is much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing frame. That will likely be the focus for some time to come.

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

9Patch wrote:

Rifitto wrote:

It's a déjà vu with the 330 ,the 777 was too big and heavy ,the 767 small and old design
hence the 330 sold like a hotcake

Huh?
Boeing sold over 2,000 777s compared to 1, 800 A330s.

My bad ,i meant the 772s that are the closest to the A330 in capacity

SteelChair wrote:

It is so unfortunate that Boeing has chosen to let Southwest dictate their 737 decisions, they should have put a 787 style cockpit in the MAX imho.

I don't think that was ever on the table. Putting 787's tech onto 737 would have been an all new airplane from a certification point of view. None of the systems are FBW capable, they all would have needed to be replaced. C-Series cause Airbus to do NEO and in turn Boeing to do MAX. They weren't ever going to take on a 787 cockpit and the systems upgrades it would require in the time frame they were working with.

On the other hand, I have read via Peter Lemme's posts to Twitter that putting the 757 cockpit into the 737 NG was on the table. It made sense from Boeing's point of view. The 757 was still in production so it would have brought economy of scale and cockpit similarity across 737-757-767. 757 was not FBW so the engineering effort was reasonable. The ex-McDD bean counters were not in charge, Boeing was still an engineering firm. Sadly, it got shot down by Southwest due to training costs. One of the great "what if" moments in airliner history, IMO.

planecane wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

With the astronomical cost of a new design and the lack of new technology that will improve efficiency enough to make that investment worthwhile, plus the current sudden and unexpected lack of demand, this is only an acknowledgment of reality. Boeing has not said this, but it is going to be the case for them as well. They have been trying for over a decade to make a business case for the NMA and have failed. They will find it is going to be even harder in the next decade. Until a new technology emerges that will offer sufficient efficiency gains to justify the investment I just don’t see it happening for either one. Most of the gains come from engines anyway, and it is much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing frame. That will likely be the focus for some time to come.

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

You can't know that a clean sheet would not have been extremely fouled up knowing there was time pressure from the market and cost pressure from Boeing management and FAA management willing to accommodate Boeing's schedule demands and not support their own people. Calhoun seems to be much more realistic about what can be accomplished in a given amount of time and very cognizant of the current regulatory environment. IMO a clean sheet 737 replacement would never have happened under the previous regime so the point is moot.

SteelChair wrote:

The 787 and 737 cockpits are quite different from the 767, 777, and 747.

The 787 cockpit is very similar to the 777 cockpit. It may “look” a lot different but they are far more similar (how systems are dealt with, how information/switches/whatever is laid out, etc) then they initially appear. If they were quite different mixed 777/787 flying wouldn’t be allowed.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Hmm, they don't have a competitive product in the "small widebody" segment. Do they really want to leave it to Boeing?

Hows that of any real concern for them right now?

....despite AvGeeks' and publications' contention to the contrary, Boeing has not confirmed that it's planning to launch a small widebody any time remotely soon, if at all.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Or they plan to re-wing the A330NEO, creating the A350 Mk1 again?

They've already tweaked and re-twisted the A330N's wing; but considering that those aircraft are in the 764 to 772 size range, I'm not sure what relevance you see in the A338/339, in terms of addressing the "small widebody" segment.

Jetport wrote:

The 737MAX definitely is more competitive with the A320NEO than the A330NEO is with the 787. On short and medium distance flights, the MAX beats the A320NEO in efficiency, and it is cheaper to buy also. The only competitive advantage for the A330NEO is commonality with old A330's and maybe a very small price advantage. The 787 is superior to the A330NEO in literally every other possible metric other than these two.

Ya gotta love blanket uncorroborated statements with little basis in data.

SteelChair wrote:

Another advantage is commonality. The A330 cockpit is very similar to the A320 series and conversion/transition back and forth for pilots is relatively short and easy. Airbus does have a problem with the 220 and 350 with regards to cockpits though.

I was not aware that the A350 cockpit was problematic due to differences between the A320, and A330.
Please elaborate.

SteelChair wrote:

Another advantage is commonality. The A330 cockpit is very similar to the A320 series and conversion/transition back and forth for pilots is relatively short and easy. Airbus does have a problem with the 220 and 350 with regards to cockpits though.

The A320, A330 and A350 cockpits are based on the same architecture. Only the A220 is different.

SEPilot wrote:

With the astronomical cost of a new design and the lack of new technology that will improve efficiency enough to make that investment worthwhile, plus the current sudden and unexpected lack of demand, this is only an acknowledgment of reality.

Yes, Boeing invested 15X more than Airbus (B787 vs A330Neo) to achieve a 4% fuel burn advantage. It isn't a very high RoI.

Airbus virtually got its next gen A320 with the A220 - all they need to do is develop a two class 170 seater to replace the A320 (many have already named that A220-500).

Airbus then need to look at the MoM segment with the A321XLR (with a new carbon fibre wingbox and bigger wing) as the base model. A second model with about 30 more seats should complete this range and we will have a true B757 replacement.

With the demise of the A380, Airbus has sufficient production assets it can repurpose and new investment in factories will be reduced.

Wide body aircraft are more difficult as the market is still unclear. Also new technologies are needed for another step change and so far, there is only the Ultrafan that may be a game changer. We await market developments and it is wise for Airbus to be in a holding pattern.

planecane wrote:

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

When Boeing made the decision to go Max, it was already 2 years behind Airbus. Any new clean sheet design would not have made it to the market in time. However, Bombardier has shown that it is possible to do a clean sheet narrow body that is superior to the B737/A320 and Airbus will now have that aircraft to sell for the next 10 years (while it ponders on the A320 Neo replacement). As we have found out, going for speed to market did not pay off for Boeing due to the MCAS issue and it has set them back by another 2 years!

Whereas the B737 was rewinged when the NG was launched, Airbus has stuck with the original wing with the A320. So they still have some way to go before they max out the A320's development. Their CEO is correct to adopt a kaizen approach.

flee wrote:

planecane wrote:

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

When Boeing made the decision to go Max, it was already 2 years behind Airbus. Any new clean sheet design would not have made it to the market in time. However, Bombardier has shown that it is possible to do a clean sheet narrow body that is superior to the B737/A320 and Airbus will now have that aircraft to sell for the next 10 years (while it ponders on the A320 Neo replacement). As we have found out, going for speed to market did not pay off for Boeing due to the MCAS issue and it has set them back by another 2 years!

Whereas the B737 was rewinged when the NG was launched, Airbus has stuck with the original wing with the A320. So they still have some way to go before they max out the A320's development. Their CEO is correct to adopt a kaizen approach.

Speed for market was right IMO. Execution was not. Because they could’ve done it right the first time and got it out reasonably fast.

flee wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Airbus then need to look at the MoM segment with the A321XLR (with a new carbon fibre wingbox and bigger wing) as the base model. A second model with about 30 more seats should complete this range and we will have a true B757 replacement.

This makes no sense to me - there is no competing aircraft and Airbus owns this market segment already. They would not sell any additional aircraft if they invest in this segment.

JoergAtADN wrote:

flee wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

Airbus then need to look at the MoM segment with the A321XLR (with a new carbon fibre wingbox and bigger wing) as the base model. A second model with about 30 more seats should complete this range and we will have a true B757 replacement.

This makes no sense to me - there is no competing aircraft and Airbus owns this market segment already. They would not sell any additional aircraft if they invest in this segment.

Boeing will have something when the B737 replacement is announced. By offering this first, Airbus can address airlines that want a B757 replacement now and buying an optimised solution instead of a stop gap. It is cheaper for Airbus to bring a derivative of an existing model than to do a clean sheet design.

Revelation wrote:

Translation: Thanks for all the money on the green initiatives, can we appy a bit of greenwash and use it as a subsidy for Air France to buy more Airbusses?

There I have to disagree. Airbus did put decent work into the concept, but at the moment governments can not guarantee the availability of CO2 neutral hydrogen by 2035. In addition surveys of the infrastructure and the costs of adjusting it, show that the idea of converting that hydrogen into fuel might be more viable. A lot has happened in the last 20 months in that regard.

flee wrote:

planecane wrote:

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

When Boeing made the decision to go Max, it was already 2 years behind Airbus. Any new clean sheet design would not have made it to the market in time. However, Bombardier has shown that it is possible to do a clean sheet narrow body that is superior to the B737/A320 and Airbus will now have that aircraft to sell for the next 10 years (while it ponders on the A320 Neo replacement). As we have found out, going for speed to market did not pay off for Boeing due to the MCAS issue and it has set them back by another 2 years!

Whereas the B737 was rewinged when the NG was launched, Airbus has stuck with the original wing with the A320. So they still have some way to go before they max out the A320's development. Their CEO is correct to adopt a kaizen approach.

I think it is a serious misconception, that the 737MAX or the 737NG has a more modern or better more effective wing than the A320, because of the time frame. The A320 wing is very modern, about the state of the art in regards to a wing made from aluminium.
It has a supercritical profile that gives more lift at less drag and allows a higher speed at a similar wing sweep. The disadvantage of a supercritical wing, a more difficult stall characteristic, is easily controllable by an fully computerized programmable FBW .

Another aspect: Airbus needs to keep an eye on its own finances. It's not like they could attack in a row. They might hope to get some future research funding from the electrical and hydrogen political hype budgets and use it for programs. But other than that they need to invest in their factories first and digest the A380 termination. They will have to keep some budget to react to any NSA whenever it is coming.

mjoelnir wrote:

flee wrote:

When Boeing made the decision to go Max, it was already 2 years behind Airbus. Any new clean sheet design would not have made it to the market in time. However, Bombardier has shown that it is possible to do a clean sheet narrow body that is superior to the B737/A320 and Airbus will now have that aircraft to sell for the next 10 years (while it ponders on the A320 Neo replacement). As we have found out, going for speed to market did not pay off for Boeing due to the MCAS issue and it has set them back by another 2 years!

Whereas the B737 was rewinged when the NG was launched, Airbus has stuck with the original wing with the A320. So they still have some way to go before they max out the A320's development. Their CEO is correct to adopt a kaizen approach.

I think it is a serious misconception, that the 737MAX or the 737NG has a more modern or better more effective wing than the A320, because of the time frame. The A320 wing is very modern, about the state of the art in regards to a wing made from aluminium.
It has a supercritical profile that gives more lift at less drag and allows a higher speed at a similar wing sweep. The disadvantage of a supercritical wing, a more difficult stall characteristic, is easily controllable by an fully computerized programmable FBW .

Yes, one must remember that the A320 was designed some decades after the B737 and had the latest technologies that the B737 did not have - that was one of the reasons why Boeing needed to develop the NG to compete.

What I had meant to convey is that the A320, being the more modern design, still has not received the latest possible developments because they need to wait for a substantial benefit to be derived from the cost of development. It looks like now is the time to look into it because the A320s role is changing and carbon composite technologies have advanced to a state that a new wing can provide some substantial advancements as well as a weight reduction. The A320 can still receive further worthwhile updates before moving on to a clean sheet design that may incorporate the latest thinking on how air transport should evolve.

Revelation wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

It is so unfortunate that Boeing has chosen to let Southwest dictate their 737 decisions, they should have put a 787 style cockpit in the MAX imho.

I don't think that was ever on the table. Putting 787's tech onto 737 would have been an all new airplane from a certification point of view. None of the systems are FBW capable, they all would have needed to be replaced. C-Series cause Airbus to do NEO and in turn Boeing to do MAX. They weren't ever going to take on a 787 cockpit and the systems upgrades it would require in the time frame they were working with.

On the other hand, I have read via Peter Lemme's posts to Twitter that putting the 757 cockpit into the 737 NG was on the table. It made sense from Boeing's point of view. The 757 was still in production so it would have brought economy of scale and cockpit similarity across 737-757-767. 757 was not FBW so the engineering effort was reasonable. The ex-McDD bean counters were not in charge, Boeing was still an engineering firm. Sadly, it got shot down by Southwest due to training costs. One of the great "what if" moments in airliner history, IMO.

planecane wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

With the astronomical cost of a new design and the lack of new technology that will improve efficiency enough to make that investment worthwhile, plus the current sudden and unexpected lack of demand, this is only an acknowledgment of reality. Boeing has not said this, but it is going to be the case for them as well. They have been trying for over a decade to make a business case for the NMA and have failed. They will find it is going to be even harder in the next decade. Until a new technology emerges that will offer sufficient efficiency gains to justify the investment I just don’t see it happening for either one. Most of the gains come from engines anyway, and it is much cheaper to hang new engines on an existing frame. That will likely be the focus for some time to come.

Which is essentially the reason that Boeing went with the MAX instead of a clean sheet. The technology didn't exist to make the small improvement over the MAX/NEO worth the enormous investment. In hindsight, it would have been worth it to avoid the MCAS fiasco .

You can't know that a clean sheet would not have been extremely fouled up knowing there was time pressure from the market and cost pressure from Boeing management and FAA management willing to accommodate Boeing's schedule demands and not support their own people. Calhoun seems to be much more realistic about what can be accomplished in a given amount of time and very cognizant of the current regulatory environment. IMO a clean sheet 737 replacement would never have happened under the previous regime so the point is moot.

I do not understand the shouting for clean sheet everything. It is totally unrealistic. Financial suicide, see recent case in point Bombardier.

What this industry need is an radical revolution in development costs a la SpaceX and not more me too clean sheets.It is just to costly to do new designs so we rarely see new designs. A and B should try to scoop as many engineers from SpaceX just to learn about how they can improve the development cycle. If that happens the rate of innovation would be grow exponentially…

Noshow wrote:

Another aspect: Airbus needs to keep an eye on its own finances. It's not like they could attack in a row. They might hope to get some future research funding from the electrical and hydrogen political hype budgets and use it for programs. But other than that they need to invest in their factories first and digest the A380 termination. They will have to keep some budget to react to any NSA whenever it is coming.

Airbus has digested the A380 termination, all written off. What factories does Airbus need to invest in? As it is they do not need more capacity.
Compared to Boeing Airbus is healthy. A small loss for 2020, 35 million EUR, a decent equity, 6.45 billion EUR, and no deferred cost that still need to be booked to cost and booked out of inventories. Add to that 14.5 billion EUR cash and Airbus could run a new development without blinking an eye.