Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TaromA380
Topic Author
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:00 am

Boeing 737, from NG to MAX:
The 737-7 was slightly lengthened
The 737-8 was already of perfect length (allowing 200Y with only 4 FA)
The 737-9 was closer in length to 737-8 than A321 to A320 thus it remained unchanged
And a longer 737-10 was added on top.

Airbus A32X, from CEO to NEO:
The A319 stayed the same, thus way too short (see the lack of A319NEO orders)
The A320 stayed the same, trying to cram 189Y/4 FA, still not as efficiently as the competitor 200Y/4 FA 737-8
The A321 stayed the same, with a huge length gap to A320.
No A322 added (yet)

For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10204
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:32 am

Eh - I'd say the 737-9 was a mistake and the -10 corrects it.

The advantage of certification for 200 passengers on the -8 isn't worth much, IMHO: most aircraft/carriers operate with fewer seats.
 
StTim
Posts: 3856
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:42 pm

I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.
 
boerje
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 12:48 pm

Perhaps not adding any to A320 was a cunning ploy by Airbus to get customers to pay premium for A321.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12711
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:00 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
Boeing 737, from NG to MAX:
The 737-7 was slightly lengthened
The 737-8 was already of perfect length (allowing 200Y with only 4 FA)
The 737-9 was closer in length to 737-8 than A321 to A320 thus it remained unchanged
And a longer 737-10 was added on top.

Airbus A32X, from CEO to NEO:
The A319 stayed the same, thus way too short (see the lack of A319NEO orders)
The A320 stayed the same, trying to cram 189Y/4 FA, still not as efficiently as the competitor 200Y/4 FA 737-8
The A321 stayed the same, with a huge length gap to A320.
No A322 added (yet)

For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5


Cost of it? With NEO, the engines are the major upgrade, not that airframe. Given that NEO outsold the MAX, the market has accepted the NEO as it is, so what is the problem?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:02 pm

The change in length of the -7 came quite late in the day, likewise replacing the -9 with the -10.

The whole neo effort was planned by Airbus to be a "minimum change" (thus, minimum cost) upgrade to the A32x family. The sales figures don't suggest Airbus made any blunders (ignoring active discussion about the value of the A319neo).

boerje wrote:
Perhaps not adding any to A320 was a cunning ploy by Airbus to get customers to pay premium for A321.


Possible - "Oh, so you need something a bit bigger than an A320? Have you met our A321?"
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 1:42 pm

I’m going to guess that cost and schedule are why. When the A320neo was launched, Airbus was eager to beat Boeing to the market. Airbus was also in the middle of the delayed A350 development program which was using up significant resources. The A350 was likely peaking in the number of structural engineers working on the program in the 2010-2012 timeframe which meant there weren’t as many people available to work on the A320neo. Additionally 2010 wasn’t a great time to be borrowing money to fund development or paying to hire more engineers.

The 737 MAX had a longer development program as a result of the gear, pylon, etc changes. The 787 and 747-8 were also most of the way through initial flight testing when the 737 MAX was launched which May have freed up more engineers to work on the stretches.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2563
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:46 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
Boeing 737, from NG to MAX:
The 737-7 was slightly lengthened
The 737-8 was already of perfect length (allowing 200Y with only 4 FA)
The 737-9 was closer in length to 737-8 than A321 to A320 thus it remained unchanged
And a longer 737-10 was added on top.

Airbus A32X, from CEO to NEO:
The A319 stayed the same, thus way too short (see the lack of A319NEO orders)
The A320 stayed the same, trying to cram 189Y/4 FA, still not as efficiently as the competitor 200Y/4 FA 737-8
The A321 stayed the same, with a huge length gap to A320.
No A322 added (yet)

For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5

The 737-8 with 200 pax is marketed as a separate model (737 MAX 200) and is a separate entry on the TCDS (737-8200).
Who ordered it by the way? Ryanair and VietJet Air; besides those? Doesn't seem to be a popular model; fit certain markets, but not sure it's the perfect model.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 2:53 pm

Why this obsession with length? Hasn't everyone seen the result with the A340-600? It's as if airlines are on a willy-waving contest and not worried about field performance and tail strikes. To my non-technical mind, any improvement of the A321XLR must be focused on carrying the A321's 'normal' pax & cargo capacity while maintaining the XLR's already impressive range :!:
 
bluecrew
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:04 pm

scbriml wrote:
The change in length of the -7 came quite late in the day, likewise replacing the -9 with the -10.

The whole neo effort was planned by Airbus to be a "minimum change" (thus, minimum cost) upgrade to the A32x family. The sales figures don't suggest Airbus made any blunders (ignoring active discussion about the value of the A319neo).

boerje wrote:
Perhaps not adding any to A320 was a cunning ploy by Airbus to get customers to pay premium for A321.


Possible - "Oh, so you need something a bit bigger than an A320? Have you met our A321?"

Exactly. There's literally no need to make the thing even one window frame longer. Vast majority of A32Xneo orders are A321s, the CEO already is brutally efficient, carries enough people to be profitable and worth the slot expenditure.

The gear is tall enough, the wing just about strong enough, the systems needed minor tweaks but nothing game changing, and the flight computer was tweaked a little bit, but nothing like bolting on an undocumented flight augmentation system. And implementation went just about as well as could be expected. Teething pains with the engines, occasional maintenance issues, but it went into service like a champ and is now pretty much the dominant medium haul narrowbody out there.

I know this is going to be interpreted as "oh you hate Boeing," I don't. I hope they succeed in whatever they're doing, and competition is supposedly the lifeblood of innovation, but they thoroughly botched this one. Late to market, with a product that spent two years without flying, and economics that are not compelling versus the NEO. Airbus didn't try to over-engineer their solution, whether they meant to or not, Boeing did, and it was a clumsy go-to-market strategy at best.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:04 pm

StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Well, he does have a point from the max pax for 4 FA perspective.
But then again that is a perfectly valid argument against making the A319 longer.

Best regards
Thomas
 
bluecrew
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 3:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Well, he does have a point from the max pax for 4 FA perspective.
But then again that is a perfectly valid argument against making the A319 longer.

Best regards
Thomas

There are also perfectly good arguments for discontinuing the A319 in favor of the 320 and 321. Added engine efficiencies have diluted the business case for the shrink.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:03 pm

StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Since the length of the 737-8 isn't optimised for ULCC operation, Boeing had to add the 737-8-200 variant. The space needed for the extra exit door removes the length difference vs the A320.

The 737-8 MAX is certified for a maximum capacity of 189 passengers. With its wider front and rear doors, and with dual lane slides, the A320 is certified for 195 passengers.
Last edited by reidar76 on Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20208
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:06 pm

bluecrew wrote:
Vast majority of A32Xneo orders are A321s


As a practising pedant (Grand Master level), I'd have to point out that this isn't correct. To me, vast majority would suggest something like 70% or more.

At the end of September, total neo sales were 7,563 split 73 A319 (0.96%), 3,847 A320 (50.86%) and 3,643 A321 (48.16%). While the trend is definitely increasing in favour of the A321, it's currently still over 200 sales shy of the A320. So, close to parity with the A320, but a long way short of being the 'vast majority' of the backlog.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2563
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 4:17 pm

scbriml wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
Vast majority of A32Xneo orders are A321s


As a practising pedant (Grand Master level), I'd have to point out that this isn't correct. To me, vast majority would suggest something like 70% or more.

At the end of September, total neo sales were 7,563 split 73 A319 (0.96%), 3,847 A320 (50.86%) and 3,643 A321 (48.16%). While the trend is definitely increasing in favour of the A321, it's currently still over 200 sales shy of the A320. So, close to parity with the A320, but a long way short of being the 'vast majority' of the backlog.

And the A321 is not even the majority, it's still the A320.
 
9252fly
Posts: 1222
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:19 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:02 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Why this obsession with length?


As with life, how we measure up seems to a preoccupation that's hard to shake.
 
bluecrew
Posts: 122
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:34 pm

scbriml wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
Vast majority of A32Xneo orders are A321s


As a practising pedant (Grand Master level), I'd have to point out that this isn't correct. To me, vast majority would suggest something like 70% or more.

At the end of September, total neo sales were 7,563 split 73 A319 (0.96%), 3,847 A320 (50.86%) and 3,643 A321 (48.16%). While the trend is definitely increasing in favour of the A321, it's currently still over 200 sales shy of the A320. So, close to parity with the A320, but a long way short of being the 'vast majority' of the backlog.

Lol - clearly my US bias coming out there.

The A321neo is a very common sight here and most airlines have it on order here - the A320neo is definitely not as prolific, except Frontier, Spirit, Volaris.

Regardless - the trend is towards larger and longer aircraft and has been for some time. The A321 is in the sweet spot.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:20 pm

bluecrew wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Well, he does have a point from the max pax for 4 FA perspective.
But then again that is a perfectly valid argument against making the A319 longer.

Best regards
Thomas

There are also perfectly good arguments for discontinuing the A319 in favor of the 320 and 321. Added engine efficiencies have diluted the business case for the shrink.


Keeping it in the lineup costs Airbus literally nothing, there are zero unique components and the only difference is where to cut the metal. Selling one to an Airline needing those extra few thousand KG out of a weight limited runway however is an extra sale.

Best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:28 pm

bluecrew wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bluecrew wrote:
Vast majority of A32Xneo orders are A321s


As a practising pedant (Grand Master level), I'd have to point out that this isn't correct. To me, vast majority would suggest something like 70% or more.

At the end of September, total neo sales were 7,563 split 73 A319 (0.96%), 3,847 A320 (50.86%) and 3,643 A321 (48.16%). While the trend is definitely increasing in favour of the A321, it's currently still over 200 sales shy of the A320. So, close to parity with the A320, but a long way short of being the 'vast majority' of the backlog.

Lol - clearly my US bias coming out there.

The A321neo is a very common sight here and most airlines have it on order here - the A320neo is definitely not as prolific, except Frontier, Spirit, Volaris.

Regardless - the trend is towards larger and longer aircraft and has been for some time. The A321 is in the sweet spot.


The trend is definitely towards larger single aisle aircraft. Remember that in EU-carrier configuration, for example Lufthansa, the A320neo is configured with 180 seats. There are more seats on A320neo than on A320ceo aircraft, due to cabin flex and new slim line seats. Additionally, there are many A319/737-700 in service that will be replaced by the A320neo. Both changes is part of a trend towards larger aircraft, but not necessarily replacing one aircraft with a longer variant.

Due do longer domestic haul, and the US first class product, the A321 is configured with nearly the same number of seats as an EU-carrier A320neo. The 757/767 have been a success in the US, not quite so anywhere else. Those aircraft needs replacement, and I reckon this contributes to the exceptionally high share of new A321 in the US, more so than the general trend towards larger aircraft.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23112
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 6:51 pm

bluecrew wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Well, he does have a point from the max pax for 4 FA perspective.
But then again that is a perfectly valid argument against making the A319 longer.

Best regards
Thomas

There are also perfectly good arguments for discontinuing the A319 in favor of the 320 and 321. Added engine efficiencies have diluted the business case for the shrink.

The shrink was already on the way out when PiPs pushed the CFM56 and V2500 to have greater cycle lives on the longer models (they hit 20,000 cycles early on the A319):
https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/03/bjorn ... ce-part-1/

Time On-Wing Considerations – As illustrated
in Figure 14, an engine’s time on-wing plays a
dominant factor in both shop visit cost and shop
DMC. The amount of work performed at each
shop visit varies with TOW, but generally
increases as TOW increases. With greater TOW
most modules will require higher levels of
maintenance to address part repair &
replacement


http://www.aircraftmonitor.com/uploads/ ... s___v2.pdf

PiPs helped drive down the costs by increasing overhaul intervals at high weights.

The A319CEO also had a significant range advantage over the A320CEO pre-sharklets and V2500 selectone/two engine PiPs. Recall all the transcon stops we discussed with JetBlue's A320s? That isn't an issue for the A320NEO.

I happen to agree the A321 upsell was the target. Both engines are sized for the A321 (vs A321CEO being a stretch). The new engines have 35k possible thrust, a bit too much weight and nacelle drag for an A319 that needs 22k to 24k (shortfield only). All engine PiPs favor upgauging and the NEO was one heck of a PiP.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:14 pm

One could probably argue that had the A320NEO not been production limited anyway and with competion not been severly diminished, a two row stretch of both the A319 and A320 could've been a good idea. As people have pointed out, the NEO was meant as a quick and cheap way to get a competive edge. Oviously it succeeded in that.
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:51 pm

Airbus has been considering proposing the "A320,5" for years but the success of the A320 has not yet allowed to justify the business case. This is a relatively easy program, the cost is more on the production side. The recent emphasis was on offering A321 cabin flexibility.

Covid might change the perspective - one way of the other.
 
nickya340
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:59 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:18 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
reidar76 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


The 737-8 MAX is certified for a maximum capacity of 189 passengers. With its wider front and rear doors, and with dual lane slides, the A320 is certified for 195 passengers.


195 in an A320 :shock:
I just read about it there, it’s an option for the 320neo and it allows for just 27in of pitch!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:07 pm

One might argue the 737-900/-9 lenght offers the perfect lenght towards 200 seats. Still the -8 seems the most popular version.

I think the capacity gab between A320 and A321 is remarkable, close to 8m / 8 rows. I would love to hear how that happened. I think I've been promoting an inbetween "A320Plus" even before Airbus apparently adopted that workname themselves.

Apart from sales successes of the A320 & A321, not pushing for a new variant, technical complexities might play a role.

It seems the A320 has been optimized for decades around the 80t MTOW, payload-range. Stretching (86t MTOW?) might require significant wing, wingbox etc. modifications. Requiring a lot of engineering, testing and certification. And supply chain changes.

Shrinking the A321, with it's heavier structure, bigger, heavier wing would reduce efficiency. Offering impressive payload-range, nobody is asking for/ wants to pay for.

So while a A320Plus (4m stretch) might be the logical A320 replacement/ 200 seater, timing (5 yrs?) and de-standization may also have been considerations preventing a A320 Plus.

Image
keesje
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1745
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:03 pm

Designers talk about "balanced designs." Every design involves some tradeoffs, but there is an optimum length for a given wing and engine. Anything other than this optimum is less than 100% efficient and must be justified by some other factor.

For the L1011-500, 747SP, and A310-300, the reason was range. All were ultimately unsuccessful imho (didn't sell big numbers). They existed because some airlines bought into the commonality myth, but were willing to (temporarily at least) accept poor seat mile costs because they needed the range for the markets they wanted to serve. I still shake my head at PAA and DAl attempting to compete on the highly competitive North Atlantic with a 177 seat widebody. Just not enough revenue....the 763ER had 218 seats by comparison on essentially the same engine.

In the case of the A220-100, 727-100, 767-200, 777-200, and the early DC8s and 9s, the short designs were early variants to get a program kicked off. They lost favor as the later variants came out. The first, simple, stretch had much lower seat mile costs for a very small increase in total costs.

Some jets were stretched too far, and were too heavy for the wing (MD-11 anyone?). They were suboptimal on the other end of the spectrum. Too much plane for the wing. Interestingly, the MD found a great career as a freighter to the small wing.

Boeing publicized the 757 as the perfectly balanced narrowbody.....but they later did do a stretch (called the slave ship by some) that didn't sell very well.

The A319 and the 737-7 (except for a few customers) are dead imho. The 737-10 and A321NEO appear to be the optimally balanced designs for their series, though some might argue that the 737 is severely compromised.
 
LDRA
Posts: 421
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:15 pm

Interoperability to CEO. Same layout, same seating
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23112
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:49 am

SteelChair wrote:
Designers talk about "balanced designs." Every design involves some tradeoffs, but there is an optimum length for a given wing and engine. Anything other than this optimum is less than 100% efficient and must be justified by some other factor.

For the L1011-500, 747SP, and A310-300, the reason was range. All were ultimately unsuccessful imho (didn't sell big numbers). They existed because some airlines bought into the commonality myth, but were willing to (temporarily at least) accept poor seat mile costs because they needed the range for the markets they wanted to serve. I still shake my head at PAA and DAl attempting to compete on the highly competitive North Atlantic with a 177 seat widebody. Just not enough revenue....the 763ER had 218 seats by comparison on essentially the same engine.

In the case of the A220-100, 727-100, 767-200, 777-200, and the early DC8s and 9s, the short designs were early variants to get a program kicked off. They lost favor as the later variants came out. The first, simple, stretch had much lower seat mile costs for a very small increase in total costs.

Some jets were stretched too far, and were too heavy for the wing (MD-11 anyone?). They were suboptimal on the other end of the spectrum. Too much plane for the wing. Interestingly, the MD found a great career as a freighter to the small wing.

Boeing publicized the 757 as the perfectly balanced narrowbody.....but they later did do a stretch (called the slave ship by some) that didn't sell very well.

The A319 and the 737-7 (except for a few customers) are dead imho. The 737-10 and A321NEO appear to be the optimally balanced designs for their series, though some might argue that the 737 is severely compromised.

Balanced designs make sense, but PiPs increase the optimal length. Also, going beyond the optimal range still produces great economics, just not as great as a new dedicated design. Shrinks have several faults:
1. Increased weight per passenger due to not being near the optimal length, an overbuilt wing/wingbox, and possibly not the optimum cross section for the shrink. Some shrinks (A318) need a taller vertical stabilizer to meet customer cross wind requirements.
2. Oversized engines. They carry the added weight and nacelle drag for thrust they cannot use due to lower thrust needs (less weight). This makes them less competitive vs. dedicated designs.
3. Further less than optimal weight as other parts will be overbuilt. E.g., perhaps a thinner fuselage skin or wing skin could have been selected. Possibly landing gear (taller than need)

Stretches have issues to. The A346 was just too heavy (too long for the cross section), the MAX-10 needs heavier gear (nothing is free).

The optimal weight to wing area (wing loading) is a function of maximum permissible wing loading. An oversized wing optimizes well for a longer mission if the aircraft can climb higher. This is why wide-bodies have such large and heavy wings.

But also the mission. For example, I have worked projects optimized for one range and when optimized for a longer range, within the range of the the shorter range optimization, the wing area and bypass ratio always grow. This adds weight which hurts economics on shorter missions. But a shrink isn't optimized, it carries larger engines than it can take advantage of and more wing than is optimal.

Every material change alters the optimization.

Lightsaber
 
astuteman
Posts: 7462
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:41 am

TaromA380 wrote:
Boeing 737, from NG to MAX:
The 737-7 was slightly lengthened
The 737-8 was already of perfect length (allowing 200Y with only 4 FA)
The 737-9 was closer in length to 737-8 than A321 to A320 thus it remained unchanged
And a longer 737-10 was added on top.

Airbus A32X, from CEO to NEO:
The A319 stayed the same, thus way too short (see the lack of A319NEO orders)
The A320 stayed the same, trying to cram 189Y/4 FA, still not as efficiently as the competitor 200Y/4 FA 737-8
The A321 stayed the same, with a huge length gap to A320.
No A322 added (yet)

For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5


I'd suggest that the answer lies in the sales of the NEO.
The fastest selling commercial passenger jet in the history of aviation.
Which appears to be selling on huge margins, especially in A321NEO form, if recent results are anything to go by.
And for minimum effort from Airbus.
They can't make them fast enough to satisfy demand as it is.

Compare that to the efforts that Boeing have had to go to to make the MAX design work (some of which ultimately resulted in the most infamous grounding in the history of aviation).
Boeing had to stretch the 737-7 in order to secure the WN order
They also had to stretch the 737-9 as it was being absolutely killed in the marketplace.
The longer 737-7 looks a more viable frame.
And the 737-10 I personally thing has a great future ahead of it.
But 2 new lengths is a lot of extra work that Airbus didn't need to do in order to dominate the market.
To quote the most ardent of Boeing fans - the "perfect length" is the one that sells the best and makes the most money.
No?

Rgds
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:19 am

scbriml wrote:
The whole neo effort was planned by Airbus to be a "minimum change" (thus, minimum cost) upgrade to the A32x family. The sales figures don't suggest Airbus made any blunders (ignoring active discussion about the value of the A319neo).


This 'minimum change' was a real game changer, at least in the US, before the neo the A320 series range was a bit short for the longer routes. Now there really isn't a route within North America that is above the neo's range. The A321 was a bit limited before, now it is the hottest model with the added capability.

These earlier versions made some compromises on length in order to attain a specific range / payload point. Yes, with today's model there are now quirks that a clean sheet would adjust to have 150, 175, 200, 225 pax layouts, say.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7462
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:40 am

TaromA380 wrote:
For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5


Out of interest, how can you be a "neophyte" and yet be such an advocate of the MAX? :bigthumbsup:

Rgds
 
Niloko
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:43 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:59 am

Devilfish wrote:
Why this obsession with length? Hasn't everyone seen the result with the A340-600? It's as if airlines are on a willy-waving contest and not worried about field performance and tail strikes. To my non-technical mind, any improvement of the A321XLR must be focused on carrying the A321's 'normal' pax & cargo capacity while maintaining the XLR's already impressive range :!:

What's wrong with the A346? Yes it sold poorly but that was only because the 777-300ER flew 2 years after it. If you ignore the existence of 77W, the 346 was an amazing aircraft in every way.
 
SEU
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 9:53 am

TaromA380 wrote:
Boeing 737, from NG to MAX:
The 737-7 was slightly lengthened
The 737-8 was already of perfect length (allowing 200Y with only 4 FA)
The 737-9 was closer in length to 737-8 than A321 to A320 thus it remained unchanged
And a longer 737-10 was added on top.

Airbus A32X, from CEO to NEO:
The A319 stayed the same, thus way too short (see the lack of A319NEO orders)
The A320 stayed the same, trying to cram 189Y/4 FA, still not as efficiently as the competitor 200Y/4 FA 737-8
The A321 stayed the same, with a huge length gap to A320.
No A322 added (yet)

For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5


Yeah you're right, Airbus messed up big time with the NEO, that's why its barely selling and airlines dont want it! vs the MAX which has been perfect from the beginning, mainly due to its length advantage vs the NEO.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:18 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
Eh - I'd say the 737-9 was a mistake and the -10 corrects it.

The advantage of certification for 200 passengers on the -8 isn't worth much, IMHO: most aircraft/carriers operate with fewer seats.

When even Ryan Air won't use 200 passengers you know the 200 figure is aspirational, not practical. It's still a good length and it's not worth adding a metre or so to make it a real 200 seater.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 10:56 am

Kind interesting to see the disparity in enthousiasm for optimizing the length vs. optimizing wing perfornance for the NEO. Also considering cost of both adjustments.

One could use the same argument (why change what is already selling) for the wing, but I reckon a lot of people are eager the defend the official company line, until the official line changes....
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12424
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 11:06 am

reidar76 wrote:
StTim wrote:
I think the bias of the author was indicated by identifying the 737-800/MAX 8 as being the perfect length.


Since the length of the 737-8 isn't optimised for ULCC operation, Boeing had to add the 737-8-200 variant. The space needed for the extra exit door removes the length difference vs the A320.

The 737-8 MAX is certified for a maximum capacity of 189 passengers. With its wider front and rear doors, and with dual lane slides, the A320 is certified for 195 passengers.

The 737-8 and 737-8-200 are the exact same length. Boeing didn’t add length to add the doors, they just stuck the doors on the existing fuselage. Not sure what you mean by “The space needed for the extra exit door removes the length difference vs the A320”. The 738 is already longer than the A320, and while the A320 is certified for up to 195 seats in reality most ULCCs are stuffing 186-189 seats in it (see airlines like Wizzair, who have no issue going all the way to 239 seats out of max 240 in A321neo but has 186 in A320neo). Finding room for another row and a half on the A320 is easier said than done.

The 738/Max 8 is exit limited, not volume limited. It’s why Ryanair, for example, has traditionally had more seat pitch than other ULCCs like Wizz or Easyjet. That course is changing with the -8-200.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23112
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:44 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
Kind interesting to see the disparity in enthousiasm for optimizing the length vs. optimizing wing perfornance for the NEO. Also considering cost of both adjustments.

One could use the same argument (why change what is already selling) for the wing, but I reckon a lot of people are eager the defend the official company line, until the official line changes....

A new wing would help the A320NEO, more precisely, the A321NEO. Quite a bit. It isn't just the material (CFRP), it is the underside laminar flow technology that has improved. Now, they would need folding wingtips to stay in the same gates as aspect ratio would grow. A higher cruise altitude has a tremendous benefit at range.

Please recall in November 2014, Boeing announced they were coming out with the MAX ended discussion of the NSA, with an "all new airplane by 2030."
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-skinny-o ... 1656206527

The NEO was done, in my opinion, to pressure Boeing and preserve the existing supply chain. By keeping the same body lengths, re-designing the fuselage tubes was avoided simplifying production. Airbus has thus been able to focus more on automating production.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... mburg.html

This is a price sensitive category. The new wing will be a good thing, but it will be in reality for the A321. So a good thing Airbus bought the A220 to "plug" the bottom of the lineup.

Lightsaber
 
palA35X
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:52 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 1:28 pm

How feasible would it be for the A32X to have a A22X shaped front end ?
The logic would be that if there was a re-winged version of the A32X, it would be a good opportunity to update the front section too.
I am making an assumption that the front section of the A22X seems to look more aerodynamic/streamlined an a A32X. In reality, it may not make enough (any) difference to be worth the effort. Obviously there is a lot more to it than just sticking a new front section on !
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:04 pm

palA35X wrote:
How feasible would it be for the A32X to have a A22X shaped front end ?
The logic would be that if there was a re-winged version of the A32X, it would be a good opportunity to update the front section too.
I am making an assumption that the front section of the A22X seems to look more aerodynamic/streamlined an a A32X. In reality, it may not make enough (any) difference to be worth the effort. Obviously there is a lot more to it than just sticking a new front section on !


I think that would be nice, but a huge undertaking, probably lasting 6-7 yrs and billions. Boeing clung to their NB cockpit for 60 yrs+ for a reason, although it's still narrow& noisy), we didn't see the 757 nose back..

Contrary to Lightsaber I see the WoT as an opportunity to revitalize 150-199 seats, A320/738 territory. Ignore the A319 (77t) and start with a new optimized design for 86t / 200 seats single class - 2000NM range. Lite, quiet, cheap, 86 inch fan ready.

For airlines needing more payload-range, the A321NEO / LR/ X LR is available anyway. A vast majority of Narrowbody flights (Incl feeder & LCC) is under 1500NM. Europe, US East coast, China, better shine there! Follow the money..

Image
http://metrocosm.com/global-air-traffic-map/ (2008)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 14691
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:15 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
scbriml wrote:
The whole neo effort was planned by Airbus to be a "minimum change" (thus, minimum cost) upgrade to the A32x family. The sales figures don't suggest Airbus made any blunders (ignoring active discussion about the value of the A319neo).


This 'minimum change' was a real game changer, at least in the US, before the neo the A320 series range was a bit short for the longer routes. Now there really isn't a route within North America that is above the neo's range. The A321 was a bit limited before, now it is the hottest model with the added capability.


Wasn't the range "issue" already fixed with sharklets and engine PIPs in the A320 and 1x ACT on the A321?


These earlier versions made some compromises on length in order to attain a specific range / payload point.


Nah, the A320 was meant to be a 2-Class 150 seater and is right sized for that purpose. US transcon range wasn't even on the menue and the USSR was still real. So 2000nm range was all it needed. Enough to connect all points in continental Europe, go to the canary Islands from almost everywhere year round and all us flying other than transcon.

Best regards
Thomas
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:21 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Kind interesting to see the disparity in enthousiasm for optimizing the length vs. optimizing wing perfornance for the NEO. Also considering cost of both adjustments.

One could use the same argument (why change what is already selling) for the wing, but I reckon a lot of people are eager the defend the official company line, until the official line changes....

A new wing would help the A320NEO, more precisely, the A321NEO. Quite a bit. It isn't just the material (CFRP), it is the underside laminar flow technology that has improved. Now, they would need folding wingtips to stay in the same gates as aspect ratio would grow. A higher cruise altitude has a tremendous benefit at range.

Please recall in November 2014, Boeing announced they were coming out with the MAX ended discussion of the NSA, with an "all new airplane by 2030."
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-skinny-o ... 1656206527

The NEO was done, in my opinion, to pressure Boeing and preserve the existing supply chain. By keeping the same body lengths, re-designing the fuselage tubes was avoided simplifying production. Airbus has thus been able to focus more on automating production.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... mburg.html

This is a price sensitive category. The new wing will be a good thing, but it will be in reality for the A321. So a good thing Airbus bought the A220 to "plug" the bottom of the lineup.

Lightsaber


Oh, I fully acknowledge the benefits of a new wing on both an economics and a strategic level. I'm very exited to see what it will bring. I just find it interesting how selectively certain arguments are being used, seemingly based on whether or not it falls in line with the company status quo or not.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16456
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:26 pm

TaromA380 wrote:
For a neophyte like me, it looks like the Boeing 737MAX offers a better incremental length than the A32XNEO. The question is why Airbus didn’t use the opportunity of A32XNEO rework to also slightly lengthen A319 and, if A322 would be too early, at least add an A320.5


Airbus offers something like 45 different engine/airframe options on the A320 series, and within those engine options it offers many more weight variations (which changes range/payload).

A318 – 111 A318 – 112 A318 – 121 A318 – 122
A319 – 111 A319 – 112 A319 – 113 A319 – 114 A319 – 115 A319 – 131 A319 – 132 A319 – 133 A319 – 151N A319 – 153N A319 – 171N
A320 – 211 A320 – 212 A320 – 214 A320 – 215 A320 – 216 A320 – 231 A320 – 232 A320 – 233 A320 – 271N A320 – 251N A320 – 252N A320 – 272N A320 – 253N A320 – 273N
A321 – 111 A321 – 112 A321 – 131 A321 – 211 A321 – 212 A321 – 213 A321 – 231 A321 – 232 A321 – 271N A321 – 251N A321 – 253N A321 – 272N A321 – 252N A321 – 251NX A321 – 252NX A321 – 253NX A321 – 271NX A321 – 272NX

The lengths of the A320 series effectively haven’t changed since the 737-200, the A320 has remained competitive over the various 737 models put up against it..

Airbus is a business, it’s goal is to make products that the market wants and to generate an income from that. Every time Boeing has changed the wing or fuselage on the 737 has come at significant engineering and certification expense, it also means the parts Boeing has to keep on hand to support the aircraft sold expands. That cokes at an additional cost to Boeing.

By keeping the A320 largely the same, the parts required largely remain the same, Airbus is keeping its engineering and parts logistics overheads lower.

Airbus does not need to appeal to every customer in industry, it needs to appeal to the majority of the industry which I think you will agree it is doing with the strong sales it has had with the NEO.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 23112
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:39 am

Taxi645 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Kind interesting to see the disparity in enthousiasm for optimizing the length vs. optimizing wing perfornance for the NEO. Also considering cost of both adjustments.

One could use the same argument (why change what is already selling) for the wing, but I reckon a lot of people are eager the defend the official company line, until the official line changes....

A new wing would help the A320NEO, more precisely, the A321NEO. Quite a bit. It isn't just the material (CFRP), it is the underside laminar flow technology that has improved. Now, they would need folding wingtips to stay in the same gates as aspect ratio would grow. A higher cruise altitude has a tremendous benefit at range.

Please recall in November 2014, Boeing announced they were coming out with the MAX ended discussion of the NSA, with an "all new airplane by 2030."
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-skinny-o ... 1656206527

The NEO was done, in my opinion, to pressure Boeing and preserve the existing supply chain. By keeping the same body lengths, re-designing the fuselage tubes was avoided simplifying production. Airbus has thus been able to focus more on automating production.
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... mburg.html

This is a price sensitive category. The new wing will be a good thing, but it will be in reality for the A321. So a good thing Airbus bought the A220 to "plug" the bottom of the lineup.

Lightsaber


Oh, I fully acknowledge the benefits of a new wing on both an economics and a strategic level. I'm very exited to see what it will bring. I just find it interesting how selectively certain arguments are being used, seemingly based on whether or not it falls in line with the company status quo or not.

Yes, there is selectivity in... when data matters.

While as an enthusiast I have my favorites, I realize this is such a brutal competition, I have no hope of predicting the outcome. What I do know is either airframer could win and if the NEO, either engine.

If I were part of this sales campaign, I'd get an ulcer. So I will just observe. The reality is the LEAP-1B is well optimized for shorter missions that are common in Europe. There is a chance. What I don't know is what IAG is weighing in their decision.

Interesting times...

Lightsaber
 
Virtual737
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 2:47 am

I typically always admire positive spin, but is this really a thread about how Boeing got the MAX so right and Airbus the NEO so wrong?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:15 am

The A320 fits 150 seats perfectly in 2 class.
The A321 fits 200 seats perfectly in 2 class.

United Airlines A320 150 seats
Air Canada A320 146 seats
Qatar A320 144 seats
Perfect for 3 flight attendants

I'm not sure why all the emphasis is on the max economy seat number and that it has to be near 150 or 200 seats. The Tiniest fraction of airlines put between 190-200 seats in the 737-800 and 737-8. It is not the perfect fuselage length to fit 200 seats.

If anything the 737-900 is more perfect length as it sits exactly 200 seats all economy with 31/32inch pitch.
 
TaromA380
Topic Author
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:11 am

RJMAZ wrote:
If anything the 737-900 is more perfect length as it sits exactly 200 seats all economy with 31/32inch pitch.

That equivalent would be A320.5
A32XNeo is selling well - Ok. But why not selling even better? Who of us is really believing that an A320.5 on offer would not gain a huge amount of orders, pressuring Boeing even more?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16456
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 11:19 am

TaromA380 wrote:
That equivalent would be A320.5
A32XNeo is selling well - Ok. But why not selling even better? Who of us is really believing that an A320.5 on offer would not gain a huge amount of orders, pressuring Boeing even more?


Margins on narrow bodies are not going to be like widebodies, it’s probably going to take 500+ sales just to recoup the development costs.

I would be fairly confident thinking that each NEO being now sold is already profitable, however MAX could not have paid off the development and grounding costs (I realise they probably have written these costs off, just the MAX I don’t think has paid it way).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27044
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:29 pm

astuteman wrote:
Boeing had to stretch the 737-7 in order to secure the WN order

The -700 was bespoke relative to the rest of the NGs, the -7 is a shrink of -8. Clearly it benefited Boeing to move to the -8 shrink instead of perpetuating the bespoke model. In turn this probably made it easier for Boeing to meet price points that WN wanted, especially with a bit of a stretch thrown in.

All the stuff I read said the change was a side effect of wanting higher production efficiency rather than WN asking for a stretch. The stretch helped offset some of the extra weight brought in by using -8 components by adding a few more seats thus improving revenue.

astuteman wrote:
But 2 new lengths is a lot of extra work that Airbus didn't need to do in order to dominate the market.

Yes, that's the bottom line. It's a bad idea to change many things at once. Once the A320neo gained traction as-is, there was no upside to doing a stretch. There still is none as A320neo keeps selling without a stretch.

It's strange to see some on a.net say Airbus should delete A319neo from its lineup after all R&D has been paid on it, as well as introduce a new A320.5neo which will really just create churn in the order book and across the many A32x FALs and add more R&D expense rather than bring in new business.
 
planecane
Posts: 1748
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:34 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Why this obsession with length?

Everybody knows that width is more important than length! :-)
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1745
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Airbus 32X NEO program: why no length adjustment?

Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:17 pm

If there is a new wing, there should be an A320.5 and an A321.5.

In keeping with my earlier comments about balanced designs, the "sweet spot" for optimization of the airframe moved up a notch with the new engine. The new wing and new fuselage lengths would reset the series....fbw makes this relatively easy. The big question is whether or not to put in a new cockpit with large format displays.

The A319 is dead

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos