Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 12:21 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
And the case against has been explained, substantiated & referenced a few times by several posters too, but if one's ideas are set in stone already....

The cases against seem a bit on the light side and references sparse. But maybe I missed the strong ones, or they were removed.

Revelation wrote:
To make the Powerpoints look better.

Sorry you feel that way, at least we can agree they do make the Powerpoints look better.


There is a very compelling case against

Almost three years after renaming the model to A220 and obtaining good purchase contracts, the European planemaker has not yet managed to make the plane profitable or at least capable of generating less losses.


https://www.airway1.com/airbus-struggle ... -aircraft/
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:01 am

The other point is, that if Airbus is pondering an A322, stretching the A321 and A320 is not attractive.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:11 am

seahawk wrote:
The other point is, that if Airbus is pondering an A322, stretching the A321 and A320 is not attractive.


I'm not sure if anyone is suggesting stretching the A321 UNDERNEATH a possible A322.

Why would stretching the A320 not be attractive if there were to be an A322? If they would share the same basic wing design/structure it would actually make more sense to move the capacity closer together and tighten the rather large capacity gap between the A320 and the A321.

I've wondered if perhaps a future capacity/length adjustment kept the A320 series from adopting the naming scheme of their other models when the NEO was launched.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 6:30 am

Strangely this large gap seems to have not hindered sales in so far. On the other hand if we look at Boeing it seems like the small differences in size are not really appreciated by the airlines.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:07 am

seahawk wrote:
Strangely this large gap seems to have not hindered sales in so far.


Not for the A321, more so for the A320.

On the other hand if we look at Boeing it seems like the small differences in size are not really appreciated by the airlines.


One would gave to ask oneself if that is caused by the small differences or the overall attractiveness of the series and each model in it.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 866
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:47 am

Taxi645 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Strangely this large gap seems to have not hindered sales in so far.


Not for the A321, more so for the A320.

On the other hand if we look at Boeing it seems like the small differences in size are not really appreciated by the airlines.


One would gave to ask oneself if that is caused by the small differences or the overall attractiveness of the series and each model in it.


Backlog is already full beyond control. A A322 would extract a lot more money from the backlog. A A320.5 would extract much less extra and might even cannibalize from the A321.
All in all the benefit would be minimal...
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:04 am

JonesNL wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Strangely this large gap seems to have not hindered sales in so far.


Not for the A321, more so for the A320.

On the other hand if we look at Boeing it seems like the small differences in size are not really appreciated by the airlines.


One would gave to ask oneself if that is caused by the small differences or the overall attractiveness of the series and each model in it.


Backlog is already full beyond control. A A322 would extract a lot more money from the backlog. A A320.5 would extract much less extra and might even cannibalize from the A321.
All in all the benefit would be minimal...


There seems to be two options:

~ A220-500 - A320 (selling less and less) - A321 - A322 which might in practical sense turn into: ~ A220-500 - A321 - A322

~ A220-500 - A320.5 - A321 - A322

I don't pretend to know what would be best considering profitability and market share.
 
T4thH
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:42 pm

Please note, by some here, there is a big general error in thinking.

Everyone, who starts with "what would Boing do", "what would an American company do", "What do I believe as an American, what they shall do"....You have already failed.

Airbus will never do, what you want to believe, because it is an European project (I even do not want to call it "company"). And no, they even also shall not do this, what you believe they shall do.

Airbus will do something else, and no, there is not only one way to Rome, there are many different ones. And it is only important, to end up in Rome and the Airbus way to Rome is a good way; perhaps not the best possible, but still a good one.

And Boeing has ended up in Napoli, so they have failed.
And tip, if you move out from Napoli and you have to go uphill...it is the wrong direction, this is south and the hill is called Vesuv. And if you move out from Napoli, and you have to start to swim...also this is not the way to Rome.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27686
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:00 pm

T4thH wrote:
Please note, by some here, there is a big general error in thinking.

Everyone, who starts with "what would Boing do", "what would an American company do", "What do I believe as an American, what they shall do"....You have already failed.

Airbus will never do, what you want to believe, because it is an European project (I even do not want to call it "company"). And no, they even also shall not do this, what you believe they shall do.

Airbus will do something else, and no, there is not only one way to Rome, there are many different ones. And it is only important, to end up in Rome and the Airbus way to Rome is a good way; perhaps not the best possible, but still a good one.

And Boeing has ended up in Napoli, so they have failed.
And tip, if you move out from Napoli and you have to go uphill...it is the wrong direction, this is south and the hill is called Vesuv. And if you move out from Napoli, and you have to start to swim...also this is not the way to Rome.

Seems this concept has come up before: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/commen ... rt_at_the/

I guess we will see what Airbus does next.

They certainly seem less aggressive than they were when sales for that European project were led by the American John Leahy.

The last time this forum was all hot and bothered for Airbus to do something aggressive with the A220 was the WN campaign, and we know how that ended.

I think it'll unwind pretty much how Airbus is telling us it will, with ACLP bringing production up to 14/month and becoming financially stable before we see a A220-500 program, perhaps in 2025.

As my German friends like to say, super!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:28 pm

T4thH wrote:
Please note, by some here, there is a big general error in thinking.

Everyone, who starts with "what would Boing do", "what would an American company do", "What do I believe as an American, what they shall do"....You have already failed.

Airbus will never do, what you want to believe, because it is an European project (I even do not want to call it "company"). And no, they even also shall not do this, what you believe they shall do.

Airbus will do something else, and no, there is not only one way to Rome, there are many different ones. And it is only important, to end up in Rome and the Airbus way to Rome is a good way; perhaps not the best possible, but still a good one.

And Boeing has ended up in Napoli, so they have failed.
And tip, if you move out from Napoli and you have to go uphill...it is the wrong direction, this is south and the hill is called Vesuv. And if you move out from Napoli, and you have to start to swim...also this is not the way to Rome.


Considering that, according to this debate, the A320NEO does not sell, the ability to handle containers seems unimportant and that 200 seats are the perfect size for a single aisle jet, it seems like Boeing arrived in Rome.
 
marcelh
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:08 pm

seahawk wrote:
T4thH wrote:
Please note, by some here, there is a big general error in thinking.

Everyone, who starts with "what would Boing do", "what would an American company do", "What do I believe as an American, what they shall do"....You have already failed.

Airbus will never do, what you want to believe, because it is an European project (I even do not want to call it "company"). And no, they even also shall not do this, what you believe they shall do.

Airbus will do something else, and no, there is not only one way to Rome, there are many different ones. And it is only important, to end up in Rome and the Airbus way to Rome is a good way; perhaps not the best possible, but still a good one.

And Boeing has ended up in Napoli, so they have failed.
And tip, if you move out from Napoli and you have to go uphill...it is the wrong direction, this is south and the hill is called Vesuv. And if you move out from Napoli, and you have to start to swim...also this is not the way to Rome.


Considering that, according to this debate, the A320NEO does not sell, the ability to handle containers seems unimportant and that 200 seats are the perfect size for a single aisle jet, it seems like Boeing arrived in Rome.

That’s why Airbus should consider the A320.5 as a direct competitor against the B737M8. It may cost some A321 sales but it would hurt Boeing more.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:09 pm

seahawk wrote:
Strangely this large gap seems to have not hindered sales in so far. On the other hand if we look at Boeing it seems like the small differences in size are not really appreciated by the airlines.

If we look at the 737 range I think only the -9 might be less interesting than it was before as there will be a -10. The -8 is doing fine and the -7 has a dedicated customer.
 
T4thH
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
T4thH wrote:
Please note, by some here, there is a big general error in thinking.

Everyone, who starts with "what would Boing do", "what would an American company do", "What do I believe as an American, what they shall do"....You have already failed.

Airbus will never do, what you want to believe, because it is an European project (I even do not want to call it "company"). And no, they even also shall not do this, what you believe they shall do.

Airbus will do something else, and no, there is not only one way to Rome, there are many different ones. And it is only important, to end up in Rome and the Airbus way to Rome is a good way; perhaps not the best possible, but still a good one.

And Boeing has ended up in Napoli, so they have failed.
And tip, if you move out from Napoli and you have to go uphill...it is the wrong direction, this is south and the hill is called Vesuv. And if you move out from Napoli, and you have to start to swim...also this is not the way to Rome.


Considering that, according to this debate, the A320NEO does not sell, the ability to handle containers seems unimportant and that 200 seats are the perfect size for a single aisle jet, it seems like Boeing arrived in Rome.

Please note, I fully understand, you are a little bit exhausted regarding the long way uphill; please note, the sharp edge in front of you, no, this is not Rome, this is the edge of the crater.
 
flyinggoat
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:38 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:05 pm

I’m a proponent of the A320.5, but not because of the A220-500, but because of the A321. I believe the capacity of narrow body aircraft has been trending upwards, and will continue to do so. I think the next iterations of the A321 and 737 (or NSA) should have baseline aircraft in the 190ish (2 class) seat range, with shrinks covering the ~160 seat range.

What this means for the A320 series, is that the A321 becomes the baseline, with wing sized accordingly. The downside to that is that the A320 become a shrink, and bit heavy for what it is. Adding a few rows to the A320 (ie A320.5) may help reduce the per seat costs. With the A321 as the new baseline, it open the possibility of a A322 that is just a single stretch, which bodes well for a future A322XLR.

I believe the A220-500 should be nothing more than a simple stretch of the A220-300, which would make it a stellar regional 150 seat (2 class) aircraft. The A220-500 would compliment the A320.5 very nicely.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:35 pm

In my opinion, their decision would come down to this. Would Airbus play a waiting game for the next technological advancement such as electric, hydrogen or radical fuselage and wing design until 2040?
If they are willing to wait till then, A220-500 would be the band-aid solution to keep their competitiveness against Boeing.

If say, Boeing developed new narrowbody, then Airbus have to abandoned A220-500 and go with all new Narrowbody that covers A320/B737-800 and A321/B757-200 segment market.
This would help Airbus to keep the clock running until 2050 for new breakthrough technology to come along.

Both scenarios are possible at this point.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27686
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Fri Oct 15, 2021 5:13 pm

ewt340 wrote:
In my opinion, their decision would come down to this. Would Airbus play a waiting game for the next technological advancement such as electric, hydrogen or radical fuselage and wing design until 2040?
If they are willing to wait till then, A220-500 would be the band-aid solution to keep their competitiveness against Boeing.

If say, Boeing developed new narrowbody, then Airbus have to abandoned A220-500 and go with all new Narrowbody that covers A320/B737-800 and A321/B757-200 segment market.
This would help Airbus to keep the clock running until 2050 for new breakthrough technology to come along.

Both scenarios are possible at this point.

Airbus's plans seem to be pretty well settled, IMO.

As for A220, I think it'll unwind pretty much how Airbus is telling us it will, with ACLP bringing production up to 14/month and becoming financially stable before we see a A220-500 program, perhaps in 2025.

As for A320 family, in the short term they have to finish the XLR and the new FAL at TLS. Then the wing of tomorrow (WoT) program will wrap up in 2023 and will present the rest of Airbus with the research it gathered on developing a composite wing manufacturing concept for a next-generation single-aisle aircraft including three full scale articles ( ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article ). The first of three articles just got assembled in Sept ( ref: https://www.compositesworld.com/news/ai ... -prototype ). The wing will at some point have the folding wing tip capability ( ref: https://www.aero-mag.com/airbus-aircraf ... elopments/ ). Personally I think this will result in a MOM-category member of the A320 family later in the decade. It'd be a good way to introduce this new technology without disrupting the very successful A320 and A321 models.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2756
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:45 am

A220-5 makes sense only if the airline uses the A220-3 and not the A32x series. The fuel you might save you are going to pay for in higher servicing costs, and higher depreciation. It also removes the ability to haul cargo if you have extra payload available, the 6Y fuselage resulting in a massive increase in underfloor volume compared to the 5Y A220.

Given that the popularity of the A320 this makes a larger A220 not so popular.

I'm seeing posters assuming the Airliner market is a commodity market where if the price is right *someone* will buy your product. Its not. There is a fixed and limited demand for product. So if you build overlap into your product line you by necessity are competing with yourself. This isn't too bad when you sell millions of things and swings in production rates don't have much affect in price of production. Airliners are the exact opposite. Build one plane a year that plane has to carry millions in overhead costs for that. Build 100 and the heavy fixed costs of production suddenly drop massively. Thus spending a couple billion to splint that theoretical 100 to 50 each of two types seems really dumb.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2934
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:43 am

Clearly there's market demand for an A320.5 sized aircraft.

The 737-8, 9 and 10 are all placed between The A320neo and A321neo in size.

I think it would be worth considering up gauging the A320neo and slotting A220-500 right under it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:01 am

Boeing would have to react to this and make a 737-7.5 MAX, as the A320 shows that there clearly is a market for a plane between the 737-7MAX and 737-8MAX.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1393
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:14 am

seahawk wrote:
Boeing would have to react to this and make a 737-7.5 MAX, as the A320 shows that there clearly is a market for a plane between the 737-7MAX and 737-8MAX.

The plane they sell is the 7.5MAX, compared to the original concept for the 7MAX.

So you are calling for a 7.75MAX.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:53 am

ADent wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Boeing would have to react to this and make a 737-7.5 MAX, as the A320 shows that there clearly is a market for a plane between the 737-7MAX and 737-8MAX.

The plane they sell is the 7.5MAX, compared to the original concept for the 7MAX.

So you are calling for a 7.75MAX.


He's being sarcastic.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:12 pm

The A320 sales figures have been declining over the last 5 years. This year the order tally is -65. And then there an endless stream of conversions to A321s. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 are all positioned inbetween the A320NEO and A321 NEO.

Image
Source: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1465935

An A220-500 would still offer a few rows less than A320NEO/737-8 but shave off 5-6t OEW in the process. That pays back every flight for 25 years.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:59 pm

I think Airbus should be very disciplined and not the let the MTOW/OEW of a possible A320plus grow too much. If they don't, customers will just upgrade to the A321 as they don't need the range of the 92t A320plus and rather take the lower CASM of the A321. I think the 86t MTOW A320plus would be the better option. It would still comfortably outrange the original A320CEO, so no problem there. Possibly not the full 4 row stretch and limit the weight even more.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:10 pm

Does Airbus not still have a notional goal to double their commercial margins by 2030 or so? Does anyone know how spending billions in guarantees to build an “A225” would help accomplish this? Theories about per seat costs etc. are good and well, but the accountants at some point have a say too. Airbus also isn’t losing a whole lot of A320NEO sales/customers to the 738Max.

This seems like a big kerfuffle over…nothing. A220-500, and an A320.5? Sure, why not, lower margins and way too much money just sitting around in Toulouse.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 6:32 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
I think Airbus should be very disciplined and not the let the MTOW/OEW of a possible A320plus grow too much. If they don't, customers will just upgrade to the A321 as they don't need the range
of the 92t A320plus and rather take the lower CASM of the A321. I think the 86t MTOW A320plus would be the better option. It would still comfortably outrange the original A320CEO, so no problem there. Possibly not the full 4 row stretch and limit the weight even more.


I think you hit the nail on the head. I first looked if a A320NEO simple stretch would work, but adding fuselage structure and passenger payload made clear you would go nowhere on range. Airbus so far always made sure new versions meet the range of existing versions at full payload. The "A320Plus Cap." is a variant using lots of A321NEO assemblies, so there is a cost advantage. If one would do a simple XLR shrink, an even more overly capable aircraft would emerge for a niche 160 seat/5500NM aircraft nobody is asking for. It would be overdone / expensive for almost all A320CEO missions.

So a "A320Plus Eff." seems a better fit, providing 198 seats capacity with reasonable comfort on all the routes the A320NEO can fly. I think in most markets Efficiency is more important then Capability, with thousands of A321s around with most bigger operators. And it wouldn't hurt A321NEO/LR/XLR sales too much, because of a significant capability difference and cost advantages. But it would cost more to develop dedicated 86 t MTOW optimized subassemblies.

Still the new XLR wing, with it's single slotted flap and enhancements, is used for an A320Plus. Airbus says it weighs the same as A321NEO/LR's wings, requires less maintenance and improves runway performance. Next to that, strenghtening the 79t optimized A320 wing for 86t MTOW, would require lots of engineering & testing too and weaken runway performance of an A320Plus.

texl1649 wrote:
Does Airbus not still have a notional goal to double their commercial margins by 2030 or so? Does anyone know how spending billions in guarantees to build an “A225” would help accomplish this? Theories about per seat costs etc. are good and well, but the accountants at some point have a say too. Airbus also isn’t losing a whole lot of A320NEO sales/customers to the 738Max.

This seems like a big kerfuffle over…nothing. A220-500, and an A320.5? Sure, why not, lower margins and way too much money just sitting around in Toulouse.


A320 sales have been declining for the last 5 years. I think for 2021 A320 orders stand at -64. That is without all conversion to A321s.. https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

If Airbus would wait until it's controllers mention free cash flow really starts to hurt, they're probably 5-7 too late. And on their their way to become the #2 aircraft manufacturer.
 
texl1649
Posts: 2275
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:43 pm

Keesje 225, nothing in this post/thread explains how an A225, 75% owned by Airbus (after several years of development), would produce more free cash flow for Airbus. Surely someone has a theory as to how Airbus makes more money, long term, selling two narrow body families in the specific A320 size class, trying to focus most sales on the A225 specifically.

Also, this wouldn’t harm their relationship with CFM/GE at all, right?
 
User avatar
mfranjic
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:54 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:53 pm

..
keesje wrote:

… While I agree with most, the program needs to reach economies of scale, Airbus must also be responsive to market requirements. The A319NEO and A220-100, from a commercial standpoint, seem to have lost out, even before they really took off. That shrinks the Airbus NB portfolio from below.

In my opinion the A320 has already become the smallest A320 family offering (that sells). The gab between the A320 and A321 (40+ seats) could be taken care of to assure dominance in the >170 seat NB segment for years to come (e.g. a A320Plus).

Image
Source: Boeing, viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405623


..
..I have noticed this The Boeing Company’s graphic presentation several times in the recent years and I believe that, even at the time it was created, while the Bombardier CSeries CS100 (BD-500-1A10) and CSeries CS300 (BD-500-1A10) aircraft have not been rebranded yet as Airbus A220-100 and Airbus A220-300 (July 2018), it was not made quite correctly… You know how they say: "Every gypsy praises his horse."
..
..The fact Boeing 737 MAX 10 was faced directly, nose to nose, with Airbus A321neo seems somehow unacceptable to me (generally observed and from the most of the aspects) in this Boeing's graph, so I’ve decided to try to be a little more detailed and precise, the same with these two aircraft as well as with the other narrow-bodies produced by these two factories and shown in my graph …
..
..Unlike some other technical data, such as the length of the aircraft, the wingspan … expressed in the fixed values, the number of the seats can really be a relative and variable value, so I decided to deal in my graph with the maximum number of the seats (cabin configurations that in a very close and quite comparable way contribute to the feeling of anxiety, despair, misery, captivity and helplessness in the passengers) for the shown aircraft. After reviewing the official factory documentation, different, I suppose relevant, websites and the certificates, I concluded that these are the same numbers that are clearly and well visible on the wikipedia :smile: … In addition, I entered in my graph below the aircraft's lengths, just as the orientation values, and it is worth noting that in the case of the Airbus A320neo family aircraft those values represent the length of their fuselages, and in the case of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft family it is the length from the nose to the tip of the horizontal stabilizers, greater than the length of the fuselage itself…
..
……Image
..
..Comparing the fuselages' lengths as the relevant values of those two aircraft: Airbus A321neo - 44,51 m / 146 ft and Boeing 737 MAX 10 - 43,43 m / 142 ft 6 in, it is expected that a difference in the fuselages' lengths will also result with the different lengths of their cabins and possible the number of the rows of the seats and eventually the maximum number of the seats.
..
..Considering that Image 737 MAX 10 aircraft; MTOW: 89.765 kg / 197.900 lb, has not been certified yet, and there is nothing available in the official technical documentation that would indicate the existence of a more powerful engine than those existing and already certified ones, I believe that the prototype aircraft, MSN 66122 / LN 7644, reg. N27751 and MSN 66123 / LN 7705, reg. N27752, are powered by two Image LEAP-1B28, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.763,0 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, each rated at 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf. The Boeing Company once expressed its unwillingness to accept the thrust bumped CFMI LEAP-1B engines for their largest 737 MAX version. Whether the mentioned engines’ thrust will be sufficient, whether The Boeing Company has changed its mind in the meantime or whether the engines' manufacturer will succeed to pull out some more thrust from this engine, we’ll see. Some sources state 737 MAX 10 will be powered by two CFMI LEAP-1B30, thrust-bumped engines, rated at 137,89 kN / 14.061 kgf / 31.000 lbf. And, whether the testing of a more powerful version of the LEAP-1B engine is carried out alongside with test flights of the two prototypes of the Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft, I wouldn't know. Meanwhile, both flying prototypes are diligently collecting test flights’ hours. Anyhow, I look forward to completing the testing and delivering the aircraft to the airlines as soon as possible, but it will take an unusually long two years or more for flight tests before the 737 MAX 10 can actually take to the skies with up to 230 passengers. Namely, Boeing needs time to develop and certify the additional safety enhancements to the MAXs, demanded in particular by the European aviation regulator, after the two fatal crashes of the smaller MAX 8 model in 2018. (Lion Air Flight JT610) and 2019. (Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET302).
..
..Airbus SE has a longer-range version of the A321neo in the service already - A321N/LR. With 210 passengers, that plane can fly some 500 nm / 920 km farther than 737 MAX 10. With that range, A321N/LR can comfortably fly TATL routes. New York (JFK) -based low-cost air carrier, JetBlue Airways (B6/JBU), conducted its first test flight on 13. July 2021. to LHR with their brand new Image A321-271NX/LR aircraft; MTOW: 97.000 kg / 213.848 lb, MSN 10303, reg. N4022J, cabin configuration: C24 Y114, powered by two Image PW1133G-JM, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, GTF engines (fan diameter: 81,0 in / 2.057,4 mm; BPR: 12,5:1; gear ratio: 3,0625:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-3LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 147,28 kN / 15.018 kgf / 33.110 lbf, before entering the transatlantic market in August 2021. Additionally, jetBlue is the first launch partner for the new Airspace cabin configuration designed by Airbus to bring the long-haul style to Airbus A321 aircraft. With the Airspace cabin configuration, Airbus A321-271NX/LR aircraft has a layout of only 138 seats: 114 in economy class and 24 in jetBlue’s Mint Suites.
..
……Image A2321neo vs. Image 737 MAX 10 - in the numbers
……Image
..
..For Boeing 737 MAX 10 TATL service seems to be too far in this moment (it is to be expected that Boeing will work on developing the longer-range version of the aircraft). Besides, by the time MAX 10 enters the service in 2023, Airbus plans to have another, even longer range, model in the service - Airbus A321N/XLR; MTOW: 101.000 kg / 223.000 lb. It will be interesting to see if will Pratt & Whitney and CFM International offer higher thrust engines for this version of A321neo, like PW1135G-JM or LEAP-1A35, rated at some 155,69 kN / 15.876 kgf / 35.000 lbf.
..
..The range deficiency is not MAX 10's only problem. Although The Boeing Company extended MAX 10's landing gear, pilots still cannot rotate the nose up too sharply on takeoff or the jet will scrape its tail on the runway. For MAX 10 to take off from the short runways of the airports, especially at high OAT (outside/ambient air temperatures) and/or HEA (high elevation airports), which reduces (already insufficient) engines’ power, an airline may have to lower the jet’s weight by blocking out some seats to carry fewer passengers …
..
..For which airlines this aircraft represents a satisfactory and perfectly acceptable choice? For those who don’t need the extra range, superb field performance and for the airlines which already fly MAX 737s. Somehow it seems MAX 10 represents what MAX 9 should have been from the very beginning. On the other side, the orders for Boeing 737 MAX 7 show that the time has overtaken those shortened, overweight and robust versions of those basic and larger narrow-bodies from which they arose, like Airbus A319neo and Boeing 737 MAX 7. The latter has significantly more orders (mostly WN) because the airlines more inclined to The Boeing Company have one choice - 737 MAX 7, while those who prefer to purchase the aircraft from Airbus SE now have a choice between A220-300 and A319neo.
..
..** Just a little comparison of Image A321neo with the aircraft which was always just as interesting and fascinating to me, and that is Image 757-200(WL) (MTOW: 255.000 lb / 115.660 kg), powered by either two Image RB211-535, 3-shaft, high-bypass turbofans or Image PW2000, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans, certified for a maximum capacity of 239 seats in a single-class cabin ([email protected] pitch, [email protected] pitch) and with the maximum range of 3.915 nm / 7.250 km (4.100 nm / 7.795 km with the winglets).
..
..The most powerful engines certified for Boeing 757 (model -300), narrow-body airliner were Image 535E4-C-37, 3-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 1.882,1 mm / 74,1 in; BPR: 4,4:1; eng. architecture: 1F–6IPC=6HPC1HPT=1IPT–3LPT), OPR: 25,0:1, rated at 192,40 kN / 19.619 kgf / 43.253 lbf and Image PW2043, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engine (fan diameter: 78,5 in / 1.993,9 mm; BPR: 6,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+4LPC–12HPC2HPT–5LPT, OPR: 29,5:1, rated at 191,27 kN / 19.504 kgf / 43.000 lbf.
..
..While the Airbus A321neo has much more fuel efficient engines compared to those of Boeing 757, there is also a big difference in a wing area between the two, in a favour of Boeing 757 with 185,25 sg m / 1.994 sq ft vs. Airbus A321neo’s 122,6 sq m / 1.320 sq ft. Although the Airbus A321neo airrcaft is wider, has a larger body, a wider cabin with better seat width and better storage, allows containerized freight, uses fly-by-wire system, more modern aerodynamics, it has a better specific fuel consumption … there won’t be another Boeing 757. There was only one such. Unique and unrepeatable …**
..
..A few databases related to the Image A220, Image A320neo, Image 737 MAX and Image E-Jet E2 families of the narrow-body aircraft.
..
.Image A220
.Image
..
.Image A320neo (please click for a larger view)
.Image
..
.Image 737 MAX
.Image
..
.Image E-Jet E2
.Image
..
..For the end, a few words about the possibility of the developing and manufacturing of the A220-500 aircraft. In this moment Airbus SE can make far more money and profit on a mature and high rate production process of A320neo than on the one of A220-500 which has yet to be established (in this moment it seems the factory loses money on each A220-300 they produce). The factory would be mostly competing with themselves given that there is no justifiable reason to think that this aircraft would be more competitive or interesting to the airlines in the comparison with 737 MAX 8 than the existing A320neo is. And I doubt if anyone would suddenly start to turn to Boeing 737 MAX if Airbus doesn’t stretch their A220.
..
..Many airlines have recently made a shift from 100-150 typical seating A318/A319s to 150-180 typical seating A320s and/or 180-220 typical seating A321s. For those who needs the aircraft in the 100-150 typical seating range, Airbus A220-100/300 aircraft are quite an acceptable and satisfactory solution. There are certainly those companies (DL) for which the A220-500 would already be an ideal aircraft at the moment, but the main question is whether it’s an ideal choice for the factory to produce it at the moment. That doesn’t seem to be the case …
..
..I am of the opinion the Airbus should only build a stretched A220-500 if only they can be sure this model and the A320neo will not accidentally threaten each other, as it has become the case with A319neo (no longer particularly interesting anyway) and A220-300. Maybe, one day, A220-500 could become a competitor to Boeing’s possible successor to the 737 - NSA. An uprated engine would be also required for the streched A220-500 and the question is how much more extra thrust Pratt & Whitney could pull out of its PW1500G engine. With an expected increase in MTOW of 5.000 kg / 11.020 lb, the induced drag of the Airbus A220-500 aircraft will not increase significantly during the cruise. The engine, therefore, may remain the same from a cruising thrust point of view, but the question is how will increasing the size and mass of the aircraft affect take-off and landing performance. Assuming that the balanced runway length remains close to that of the Airbus A220-300, we can only assume that the most powerful version of the Pratt & Whitney PW1500G, '2,5'-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engine - PW1525G, with the same static thrust at the sea level as PW1524G rated at 108,54 kN / 11.068 kgf / 24.400 lbf, but 5 % increased through the thrust bump to 113,96 kN / 11.621 kgf / 25.620 lbf in non-static conditions and the speeds over Mach 0,1 / 66,7 kts / 123 km/h at sea level airfields, will be sufficient for the stretched version of the aircraft. Hopefully Pratt & Whitney, if Airbus A220-500 sees the light of the day, will be ready to fulfill its task, whether it will be with a 'bumped' engine or an engine of increased core power obtained by hot (increasing the inlet temperature to HPT by changing the overall engine pressure ratio - OPR) or by cold way (increasing the mass flow of the engine’s core).
..
..On the first IAE’s models of the V2500, 2-shaft, high-bypass, turbofan engines, which were somewhat 'short' with the thrust, especially at high OAT (outside/ambient air temperatures) and/or HEA (high elevation airports), Image IAE AG devised a method to increase engines' thrust by injecting more fuel into the engine at the startup take-off procedures. The procedure was called 'Thrust Bump' and was started by pressing any of the two protected switches on the back of the engines’ power control levers.
..
..It is assumed that the A220-500 would get 6 additional sections of the fuselage (per 3 in front and behind the wing, keeping the center of the gravity in its current position) to accommodate an additional 4 rows of the seats (3+2 seats per row; 32,0 in / 81,3 cm pitch) i.e. additional 20 seats. This would increase the length of the aircraft by 3,2 m / 10,5 ft. In this way, the aircraft would come close to a length of 42,0 m / 137 ft 9,5 in and there would be a risk of the tail hitting the ground during the take-off maneuver. With Airbus A321 aircraft there is the same risk of catching the runway surface during take-off as it would possible be with the A220-500, so Airbus SE, in order to support the characteristics of A321, included in the construction of the wing double flaps and minor modifications at the exit edges of the wing (recently redesigned). The result was that maximum wing lift could be achieved at a lower angle of attack. This increased the distance from the tail to the runway during takeoff and landing. If it appears, Airbus A220-500 could possible get the same technical solution applied to its wings one day. Wider, 6-abreast Y-class cabin (cabin width: 370 cm / 12 ft 1 in) A320neo would be probably looking more proportional standing next to the possible 5-abreast Y-class cabin (cabin width: 328 cm / 10 ft 9 in) A220-500 and besides has the possibility of carrying the LD3-45 containers. I am not sure how important the mentioned facts would be for the airlines when choosing one of these two aircraft. Perhaps one day Airbus SE decides to start slowly replacing A320neo with the A220-500 as they have A319neo with A220-300, and further develop the A320neo aircraft family around the models A321neo and A322neo. Maybe their range of the narrow-body aircraft might look like below lined up (somehow I don't think A220-100 will stop being interesting to just about everyone when it comes time to replace their dilapidated aircraft of this size or to those who might realize that in the meantime their existing aircraft became just too big and unprofitable for them (OU / CTN):
..
…..A220-100
…….A220-300
……...A220-500
………..A320.5neo
………....A321neo
…………...A322neo
..
..Looking at the first attached graph, the gap between A320neo and A321neo is visible. Is there a room for some version of the aircraft in between, such as the mentioned A320.5neo? I'm not sure. You choose one of the two offered; A320neo and/or A321neo, and that is enough. The A320.5neo would only subtract potential orders from the already existing and larger A321neo, probably not becoming the first choice for those who would decide in a favour of 737 MAX 8 anyway. Yes, A320.5 might be a more direct competitor against the 737 MAX 8 and threaten Boeing more, but the market is big enough for everyone and what would be a justifiable reason of the obsession by desire to have a more competitive or better aircraft in just about every segment? For some, A320neo is and will remain a better choice, and for the others it is the 737 MAX 8. Can you imagine The Boeing Company or Airbus SE being capable of covering all the market needs, in all the segments, with their production? I can’t. Maybe a bit oversimplified, but in principle that is the essence of the whole story. Aircraft factories are run by the managers who try to get the most out of their business with the minimal investment (when they have no measure in it anymore, they become what The Boeing Company is today). Developing and establishing the production of a new model or version of an aircraft, and that we would like to see so much or think it would perfectly fit into a market segment, most often or even as a rule, is not a justified and profitable investment. I am somehow free to believe those responsible at the Airbus SE will make the right moves at the right time, taking into account many more factors and the circumstances than we do here, deciding how to compete well in the market (I have forgiven them the mistake made with the A380). The thicker and more comprehensive sales catalogs that would impress potential customers or more complete and colorful graphics that look so impressive are pretty easy things to make. In the comparison with the real aircraft …
..
..I’m not trying to be wise and smart and I really have nothing to say in my defense because my drawer, on top of which is the aircraft that became a ‘big wound in my heart’, is almost full of those 'brilliant' projects. When I first saw how the CFMI LEAP-1B, high-bypass, turbofan engines should be mounted higher and further forward on the new 737 MAX's wings, my idea of powering the fourth generation of Boeing 737 aircraft was including GTF engines; four Pratt & Whitney PW1600G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm; BPR: 9,0:1, gear ratio: 2,409:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, rated between 59,14 kN / 6.031 kgf / 13.295 lbf and 78,49 kN / 8.004 kgf / 17.645 lbf, imagined as a custom designed and specially tailored version of the small-core Pratt & Whitney PW1000G GTF engine (previously known as the PurePower Geared Turbofan™), already applied on the Mitsubishi SpaceJet (MRJ) powered by P&W PW1200G GTF engines and also predicted for the Embraer E175-E2 (ERJ190-500) - PW1700G.
..
.....Image
..
I was thinking those four engines would not bring a significant weight penalty (PW1600G: 1.724 kg / 3.800 lb; LEAP-1B: 2.780 kg / 6.128 lb) to the aircraft, and in the same time these are more propulsive efficient engines (lower SFC) in the comparison with CFMI LEAP-1B, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, rated between 119,15 kN / 12.150 kgf / 26.786 lbf and 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf. Besides, due to the noticeably smaller (23,9 %) fan diameter (PW1600G: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm; LEAP-1B: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm) those engines could be easier placed on a more appropriate place under the 737 MAX’s wings, not creating an unforeseen tendencies to move the aircraft along the longitudinal axis. The wings should probably need some modifications to deal with somewhat higher, but differently distributed weight of the smaller and lighter GTFs ...
..
..Image...Image
..
..Above: flydubai's Image 737-8 aircraft; MSN 60966 / LN 6326, reg. A6-MAX, powered by two Image LEAP-1B28, 2-shaft, high-bypass turbofans (fan diameter: 69,4 in / 1.762,8 mm; BPR: 9,0:1; eng. architecture: 1F+3LPC–10HPC〧2HPT–5LPT), OPR: 43,68:1, rated at 130,41 kN / 13.298 kgf / 29.317 lbf, 'redesigned' to the model Image Image Image Image, powered by four Image PW1615G, ‘2,5’-shaft, high-bypass, geared, turbofan engines (fan diameter: 56,0 in / 1.422,4 mm; BPR: 9,0:1, gear ratio: 2,409:1; eng. architecture: 1F-]G[-2LPC–8HPC〧2HPT–3LPT), OPR: 50,0:1, each rated at 68,81 kN / 7.017 kgf / 15.470 lbf ...
..
..Except the installation of the GTF engine on the Boeing 737 aircraft would mean, by my opinion, a large technological stride, in the same time it would represent a historical reunion of the Boeing 737 aircraft and Pratt & Whitney’s engines, since the first generation of this aircraft - Boeing 737 Original (737-100/200) was powered by Image JT8D series of 2-shaft, low-bypass, turbofan engines.
..
…..Image
…..Boeing 737’s engines through the generations
..
..It would be so special to see how it all started so it can come to the end - Boeing 737 and Pratt & Whitney. Had such an aircraft really been designed and manufactured, it would have been probably causing taunt, mockery and astonishment in the world of the aviation. Yes … but I can't help myself and erase from my memory all these images I saw after 346 people lost their lives in those two tragedies. Or thinking on those thousands forever left inconsolable, mourning their dead… And, would such an aircraft be of the interest to the airlines and bring the money to the factory? I don’t know. Does it matter? And who really cares? The Boeing 737 FOUR only exists in my head anyway ...
..
Mario
 
wjcandee
Posts: 11631
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:10 am

Curious: Why would one use max number of seats rather than figuring out how each frame would accommodate the needs of a particular large customer? Wouldn't that be a little-more useful? Maximum number of seats is limited by stuff other than just interior space.

So how would, say, Delta outfit each aircraft, and then how would they stack up?

Obviously aircraft desireability arises from more than just the number of seats or the expected CASM.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:09 am

seahawk wrote:
Boeing would have to react to this and make a 737-7.5 MAX, as the A320 shows that there clearly is a market for a plane between the 737-7MAX and 737-8MAX.


MAX7 is 1.93m longer than B737-700. It could carry 2 more rows of seat (12 seats) than B737-700. It was stretched mostly because of Southwest to be fair.

This stretch allows airlines like Southwest to increase the seating capacity from 143 seats on B737-700 to 150 seats on MAX7.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:42 am

wjcandee wrote:
Curious: Why would one use max number of seats rather than figuring out how each frame would accommodate the needs of a particular large customer? Wouldn't that be a little-more useful? Maximum number of seats is limited by stuff other than just interior space.

So how would, say, Delta outfit each aircraft, and then how would they stack up?

Obviously aircraft desireability arises from more than just the number of seats or the expected CASM.


This approach would not look so well on Power Point Slides. But I am quite happy to see keesje admitting that the 737-8MAX is dominating the A320NEO.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1568
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:52 am

seahawk wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
Curious: Why would one use max number of seats rather than figuring out how each frame would accommodate the needs of a particular large customer? Wouldn't that be a little-more useful? Maximum number of seats is limited by stuff other than just interior space.

So how would, say, Delta outfit each aircraft, and then how would they stack up?

Obviously aircraft desireability arises from more than just the number of seats or the expected CASM.


This approach would not look so well on Power Point Slides. But I am quite happy to see keesje admitting that the 737-8MAX is dominating the A320NEO.


I dont know, there are ca. 3'800 A320neo orders and ca. 2'100 737-8s. Now we also have ca. 1'500 737Max orders that are not attributed towards a family member but if they are all -8s then we are at a position of 3'800 A320neo vs 3'600 737-8s. For me this seems to be a fairly even distribution actually representing the fact that both models are very similar in capacity as well as capability.

I think while the -8 is doing really well as does the A320neo, the bigger siblings of the aforementioned aircraft are in a totally different position. While the A321neo is the big brother everyone wants, the -9 and -10 are not.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:03 am

One has to wonder if the people argueing the A320 will be fine going forward are using the same argument as the people saying the A330-800 would do fine because the 200 did so well when at the time one could see the sales shifting to the 300 for quite sometime even before the NEO efficiency/range jump. The new wing and an engine PIP could do the same to the A320.
 
TaromA380
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:21 am

ewt340 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Boeing would have to react to this and make a 737-7.5 MAX, as the A320 shows that there clearly is a market for a plane between the 737-7MAX and 737-8MAX.


MAX7 is 1.93m longer than B737-700. It could carry 2 more rows of seat (12 seats) than B737-700. It was stretched mostly because of Southwest to be fair.

This stretch allows airlines like Southwest to increase the seating capacity from 143 seats on B737-700 to 150 seats on MAX7.

We could assume that Airbus will build the A320.5 when one or more airlines will loudly ask specifically for a bus of *that* lenght.

Time will tell.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:16 am

Because since 2002, which was about the first time the idea was floated, Airbus ignored those customers... Or in other word: Time did tell.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13799
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:23 am

Taxi645 wrote:
One has to wonder if the people argueing the A320 will be fine going forward are using the same argument as the people saying the A330-800 would do fine because the 200 did so well when at the time one could see the sales shifting to the 300 for quite sometime even before the NEO efficiency/range jump. The new wing and an engine PIP could do the same to the A320.

Isn’t that why there is all this talk of a A225? Why, long term, does there have to be a hugely successful A320 or A320.5? Why can’t the new A32X baseline shift to the A321, with a A322 stretch and a less successful (compared to past) A320 shrink for those airlines who prefer the commonality? The reality is there is no reason Airbus can’t and won’t do just that. It’s just people here who need to let go of the past and accept that in the future the A320 will probably play a smaller role in the A320 family.

I mean Boeing ended doing exactly what I described quite successfully going from the 737 Classics (-300/400/500) to the NG. With the Classics the 733 was by far the most popular and seen as the base of the family, but with the 737NG the larger -800 was more successful than the -700 (which is identical in size to -300) and now we see the Max8 as the baseline of the current 737 family (and the Max 7 is now a 737-350/750!). It follows A320 family progression perfectly Ceo/Classics->Neo/NG->Neo+/Max
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:02 pm

We can't ignore the A320 was hugely successful in its first 25 years. Meanwhile the market changed. Earlier in this topic I showed a graph with NB seat capacity development over the last 20 years (post 171) viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465375&start=150#p22992751

Boeing stretched both the already launched and sold 737-7 and 737-9 as a result. Airbus did not. The gap between A320 and A321 is a remarkable 42 seats. While the sweetspot of the market seems to move towards 200 seats single class.

Now that the A320 isn't right sized anymore, according to the airlines (they stopped ordering A320s, are converting older A320 orders), Airbus has to act to protect their market position.

Either an efficiency boost (A225) or a capability boost (A320Plus) or both seems likely soon. Not "replacing" the A320 but updating the portfolio to meet evolving marketrequirements. Knowing the A220 production volume restrictions and backlog, an A220-500 IMO can't be the only solution.

Maybe it's time again somebody writes" ok, but why should Airbus go for a A220-500 or A321 stretch ? " :bitelip: :stirthepot: :rotfl:
Last edited by keesje on Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 13799
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:19 pm

keesje wrote:
Either an efficiency boost (A225) or a capability boost (A320Plus) or both seems likely soon. Not "replacing" the A320 but updating the portfolio to meet evolving marketrequirements. Knowing the A220 production volume restrictions and backlog, an A220-500 IMO can't be the only solution.


And to that I’ll repeat the same question I had in a deleted discussion that I am not sure you saw:

A32X production is not unlimited. Airbus can only make X A32Xs a month. What is the “proper” or “correct” A321/A320 ratio that Airbus should be striving for, and why would that ratio be better than what Airbus is currently achieving?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 15043
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:29 pm

Polot wrote:
keesje wrote:
Either an efficiency boost (A225) or a capability boost (A320Plus) or both seems likely soon. Not "replacing" the A320 but updating the portfolio to meet evolving marketrequirements. Knowing the A220 production volume restrictions and backlog, an A220-500 IMO can't be the only solution.


And to that I’ll repeat the same question I had in a deleted discussion that I am not sure you saw:

A32X production is not unlimited. Airbus can only make X A32Xs a month. What is the “proper” or “correct” A321/A320 ratio that Airbus should be striving for, and why would that ratio be better than what Airbus is currently achieving?


I think Airbus is aiming at 74 A320 family frames a month in a few years. One of the older Toulouse dedicated A320 lines is closed and replaced by a new A321 focussed line (that can also do A320s). I think the ratio will be set by the market, the volume by Airbus making the right portfolio choices..
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:58 pm

keesje wrote:
We can't ignore the A320 was hugely successful in its first 25 years. Meanwhile the market changed. Earlier in this topic I showed a graph with NB seat capacity development over the last 20 years (post 171) viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1465375&start=150#p22992751

Boeing stretched both the already launched and sold 737-7 and 737-9 as a result. Airbus did not. The gap between A320 and A321 is a remarkable 42 seats. While the sweetspot of the market seems to move towards 200 seats single class.

Now that the A320 isn't right sized anymore, according to the airlines (they stopped ordering A320s, are converting older A320 orders), Airbus has to act to protect their market position.

Either an efficiency boost (A225) or a capability boost (A320Plus) or both seems likely soon. Not "replacing" the A320 but updating the portfolio to meet evolving marketrequirements. Knowing the A220 production volume restrictions and backlog, an A220-500 IMO can't be the only solution.

Maybe it's time again somebody writes" ok, but why should Airbus go for a A220-500 or A321 stretch ? " :bitelip: :stirthepot: :rotfl:


For Delta or Lufthansa the A321 is the ~200 seat solution.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:28 pm

Polot wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
One has to wonder if the people argueing the A320 will be fine going forward are using the same argument as the people saying the A330-800 would do fine because the 200 did so well when at the time one could see the sales shifting to the 300 for quite sometime even before the NEO efficiency/range jump. The new wing and an engine PIP could do the same to the A320.

Isn’t that why there is all this talk of a A225? Why, long term, does there have to be a hugely successful A320 or A320.5? Why can’t the new A32X baseline shift to the A321, with a A322 stretch and a less successful (compared to past) A320 shrink for those airlines who prefer the commonality? The reality is there is no reason Airbus can’t and won’t do just that. It’s just people here who need to let go of the past and accept that in the future the A320 will probably play a smaller role in the A320 family.

I mean Boeing ended doing exactly what I described quite successfully going from the 737 Classics (-300/400/500) to the NG. With the Classics the 733 was by far the most popular and seen as the base of the family, but with the 737NG the larger -800 was more successful than the -700 (which is identical in size to -300) and now we see the Max8 as the baseline of the current 737 family (and the Max 7 is now a 737-350/750!). It follows A320 family progression perfectly Ceo/Classics->Neo/NG->Neo+/Max


This is what I posted a bit upthread:

Taxi645 wrote:
There seems to be two options:

~ A220-500 - A320 (selling less and less) - A321 - A322 which might in practical sense turn into: ~ A220-500 - A321 - A322

~ A220-500 - A320.5 - A321 - A322

I don't pretend to know what would be best considering profitability and market share.


The question if the A320 will do fine and if that would be a problem for Airbus are two different questions. That said, the already quite large gap between the A321 and the A320 will only become bigger if the A220-500 completely replaces the A320. Would not seem very logical if you have two NB families so closely adjacent to one another. Would seem a bit of a waiste of opportunity, production infrastructure and market share.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27686
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:03 pm

seahawk wrote:
But I am quite happy to see keesje admitting that the 737-8MAX is dominating the A320NEO.

It seems that way, otherwise I don't see the point of a A320.5. Why spend more to introduce a new model of a product you already can't build enough of?

Polot wrote:
Isn’t that why there is all this talk of a A225? Why, long term, does there have to be a hugely successful A320 or A320.5? Why can’t the new A32X baseline shift to the A321, with a A322 stretch and a less successful (compared to past) A320 shrink for those airlines who prefer the commonality? The reality is there is no reason Airbus can’t and won’t do just that. It’s just people here who need to let go of the past and accept that in the future the A320 will probably play a smaller role in the A320 family.

I mean Boeing ended doing exactly what I described quite successfully going from the 737 Classics (-300/400/500) to the NG. With the Classics the 733 was by far the most popular and seen as the base of the family, but with the 737NG the larger -800 was more successful than the -700 (which is identical in size to -300) and now we see the Max8 as the baseline of the current 737 family (and the Max 7 is now a 737-350/750!). It follows A320 family progression perfectly Ceo/Classics->Neo/NG->Neo+/Max

I think the following describes it well:

seahawk wrote:
Because since 2002, which was about the first time the idea was floated, Airbus ignored those customers... Or in other word: Time did tell.

Airbus made the initial decision to make the A321 40+ seats larger than the A320. It kind of languished on the market while A320 sold well because the earlier engines really didn't give it the range for longer routes so it was limited to short/fat instead of long/thin routes. Airbus could have decided it could capture more market by not making the A321 40 seats bigger but it did not.

As the later "classic" engines got PIPed and now with NEO the market shifted to A321. This doesn't mean now's the time to do a A320.5, the time to do that was quite a long time ago, if there ever was such a time. The business case didn't close back then and it seems it would not close now because it doesn't seem likely Airbus could charge that much more for a A320.5 than they could for a A320 and if they do try to charge too much then the customers just go for A321. The market is biased against "one off" variants so the new model has a big hurdle to get over.

It seems at this point A320.5 will not bring in new customers to Airbus, if anything it seems it will just move some up from A320 or down from A321, so probably won't generate much new cash, yet will require new investment and will add complexity to the production lines at a time they are trying to reach record production levels.

It seems Airbus's financial priorities are to get XLR out the door, get the new TLS FAL up and running, get the A220 supply chain and production line sorted, do the A350 freighter, and then do something with the Wings of Tomorrow work, presumably a larger A320 family member. I don't see where doing an A320.5 fits into all of that. I think the WoT will be slotted to something bigger than A321 since they won't want it to have any impact on the current A320-A321 backlog.

Strange we spend so much time talking about A320.5 in a A220 thread.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 3:46 pm

You could make a point that a A322 seems like a way better idea to improve the line-up.
 
stratable
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:44 pm

Given what I've read in this thread I like the idea of a 322 and 320.5.
With a production/FAL capabilities opening up:

How modular and flexible are the A320 and A220 families?
Would it be a big deal for Airbus to certify an A320.5 and maybe upsell existing A320 customers to switch some of their orders to the 320.5 if they didn't want
an A321 initially?

I'd assume the A320 family is more flexible than the A220 given the state of the latter's supply chain and production inefficiencies.
Would it be easy for Airbus (given the scale of the A320 production) to simply swap in another hull size into the production system (i.e. platform modularity)?
 
2175301
Posts: 2307
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:35 pm

I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.

Yes, a few companies have expressed an interest in the airplane; but, I don't here any company threatening Airbus over it.

A number of companies were also interested in the Boeing NMA - which Boeing actually had under active development. But, no one has really criticized Boeing for not progressing with the project.

A question to the OP and others. Who is actually pushing Airbus to develop the A220-500 NOW?
 
flightsimer
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:01 am

2175301 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.

Yes, a few companies have expressed an interest in the airplane; but, I don't here any company threatening Airbus over it.

A number of companies were also interested in the Boeing NMA - which Boeing actually had under active development. But, no one has really criticized Boeing for not progressing with the project.

A question to the OP and others. Who is actually pushing Airbus to develop the A220-500 NOW?

Any A220 only operator. Or any A220 operator who also an early A320 operator that does not have the Neo on order.

I can say right now, Breeze would sign up for it in a heart beat if it was here. We will likely never order an A32x series aircraft.
 
2175301
Posts: 2307
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:51 am

flightsimer wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.

Yes, a few companies have expressed an interest in the airplane; but, I don't here any company threatening Airbus over it.

A number of companies were also interested in the Boeing NMA - which Boeing actually had under active development. But, no one has really criticized Boeing for not progressing with the project.

A question to the OP and others. Who is actually pushing Airbus to develop the A220-500 NOW?

Any A220 only operator. Or any A220 operator who also an early A320 operator that does not have the Neo on order.

I can say right now, Breeze would sign up for it in a heart beat if it was here. We will likely never order an A32x series aircraft.


There is a huge gulf between "it would be nice to have sooner" and "we really need you to develop this right now"

I've heard of a least 4 companies that have said "it would be nice to have sooner" and not a single one who has said "we really need you to develop this right now"

I see absolutely no push by anyone on Airbus.

It would be nice to have a $million or two if someone would give it to me. But, I'm not pushing anyone to do that (nor am I asking the people I know who actually could afford to do that).
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21479
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:56 am

2175301 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.


They're not, except by some posters in this thread who can then push their pet ideas.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:53 am

scbriml wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.


They're not, except by some posters in this thread who can then push their pet ideas.


We will know in a few years.
 
marcelh
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:13 am

scbriml wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how Airbus is being pushed to develop the A220-500 at this time.


They're not, except by some posters in this thread who can then push their pet ideas.


It’s the possibility of having a dream come true that makes life interesting…..
 
JonesNL
Posts: 866
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Airbus pushed for A220-500, replacing A320CEO / 737-800.. ?

Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:40 am

Airbus CCO Christian Schrerer: "A220-500 will come after profitability. The market is pressuring us to develop it."

Bigger excerpt:
Airbus has a healthy backlog of the A320. A 220-500 would compete with the 320. It’s been suggested to LNA that Airbus will launch the -500 when orders for the A320 largely dry up and the backlog is reduced. Scherer didn’t directly address these speculative points. But he did say the 220 program needs to achieve profitability first.

“When we see the program profitability performing as we anticipate it will, and we’re on trajectory to do that, then when we can no longer hold off market pressure because we are experiencing market pressure for the stretch of the 220, clearly,” he said.


https://leehamnews.com/2021/11/16/air-l ... ent-425041
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

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