Why was there no engine or fuselage/wing upgrade to keep the type up-to-date? The A300/A310 could fill some of the Middle of the Market today and is small enough to be no cannibalizing competition to the A330. The B737 shows that you can upgrade even older designs successfully to compete in todays environment (except for the MCAS-debacle of course).

The 737 is not something that should be branded as a good example of updating older tech

Simply the answer to your question is, they already have

The A330 was the updated A300/A310 and that has a A330Neo option

The wing and thus takeoff weights were insufficient. The A330 has some of its roots in the A300 but with a larger, modern and more capable wing and of course all the other changes like mew engines, avionics, etc.

I'd consider the A300-600 to be the 'A300Neo'. It kept the A300/310 production line going longer than it otherwise would have.

Simply, not enough or no customers asked for it...

This has been discussed many times.

The main problem is the A300 was too close to the A330-200 in cabin size. The bigger wing and better engines made the A330-200 better across a broader range of missions.

A310 length of 46.66m
A300 length 53.61m
A300-200 length 58.82 m

I believe it was a missed opportunity by Airbus. The A310 had the superior technology and lighter wing so it should have formed the basis of the NEO design. The only problem is the A310 ended production in 1998. The freighter line kept the A300 going for until 2007.

Airbus should have launched an aircraft between 1999 and 2001 with the A310 wing and MTOW but with a fuselage length halfway between the A310 and A300. It could have used the Trent 500 engine that entered service on the A340-500/600 in 2002.

Airbus thought most flying would be between hubs which resulted in the A380. But in hindsite the 787 dominated as airlines and passenger demanded point to point flying. The A310NEO stretch would have sold well based in this demand.

Now Airbus probably wouldn't have launched the A330NEO if they had a smaller A310NEO stretch in their lineup. The A330 is too close to the A350 in cabin area but they had nothing medium sized so the A330NEO was the only choice.

The A330CEO production line probably would have been closing down right now. This A310NEO stretch would be approaching 20 years old today and I would probably be due to even newer engines. Something like Trent XWB technology or even a bigger geared turbofan. This aircraft would have a big backlog today

The A330 family was basically the result. Airbus took the fuselage mold lines of the A300/A310 (and even the same tailfin, really) and then added new wings. With that came entirely new systems with full FBW (which they had perfected with the A320) and of course new engines.

SEU wrote:

The 737 is not something that should be branded as a good example of updating older tech

Sure it is. The vast majority of 737s are not the original generation.

RJMAZ wrote:

This has been discussed many times.

The main problem is the A300 was too close to the A330-200 in cabin size. The bigger wing and better engines made the A330-200 better across a broader range of missions.

A310 length of 46.66m
A300 length 53.61m
A300-200 length 58.82 m

I believe it was a missed opportunity by Airbus. The A310 had the superior technology and lighter wing so it should have formed the basis of the NEO design. The only problem is the A310 ended production in 1998. The freighter line kept the A300 going for until 2007.

Airbus should have launched an aircraft between 1999 and 2001 with the A310 wing and MTOW but with a fuselage length halfway between the A310 and A300. It could have used the Trent 500 engine that entered service on the A340-500/600 in 2002.

Airbus thought most flying would be between hubs which resulted in the A380. But in hindsite the 787 dominated as airlines and passenger demanded point to point flying. The A310NEO stretch would have sold well based in this demand.

Now Airbus probably wouldn't have launched the A330NEO if they had a smaller A310NEO stretch in their lineup. The A330 is too close to the A350 in cabin area but they had nothing medium sized so the A330NEO was the only choice.

The A330CEO production line probably would have been closing down right now. This A310NEO stretch would be approaching 20 years old today and I would probably be due to even newer engines. Something like Trent XWB technology or even a bigger geared turbofan. This aircraft would have a big backlog today

This post is non-sensical. The 787 was launched in response to the A330.

I think Airbus misjudged the potential future market use of the A300/310 when they modified and updated the A300 wing for the A310: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1455735#p22577289

they had the 44,8m 260m2 7.7 AR of the A300 and then 10 years later in the early eighties purely for the A310 did a completely new 43,9m 219m2 8.8 AR one as well. Why not just make a make a single new wing for them both? For instance a 46,5m wingspan, 250m2 8.8 AR.

Such a 46.5m wing would've been much more suitable for the medium range the A310 ended up being used a lot for and possibly would've given both the A300 and A310 a pathway to the future by avoiding the cost of faving to do a completely new wing for a potential NEO while still maintaining considerable capability margin to the later A330.

The A300-600 was the A300neo, updated engines, updated wings, slightly longer.
The market at that time wanted a longer ranged wide body. So the A330/340 line was developed from the A300/310. Airbus was than a smallish manufacturer, there was a limit to how many models they could build at the same time.
The A330 incorporated the lessons from the A320 in regards to the FBW system.
The A330 was the roaring success Airbus needed, the A340 less so. But in regards to the A340 one has to look at the point, that Airbus never expected big numbers. At that time 250 frames was a success., even for the A320 the aim was to pass 250 frames.

Presumably Airbus have run the numbers on an A300 with new engine/new CRFP wing and A330 systems both as an eventual A330 replacement and as a potential response to a new middle of the market design from Boeing. It would tick a few boxes: passenger friendly 2-4-2 layout; more efficient configuration with eight abreast than the seven-abreast design Boeing was working on; hold width for two-abreast LD3s; ability to reuse proven A330 systems. Could be made to work in two lengths on the same wing with one for range and another for volume on shorter/busier sectors.

Airbus should look at a slightly stretched A310neo very closely, whis could harm Boeing very much as a 767-sized MOM aircraft is the only category that still needs a replacement.
Whoever builds such an airplane, Airbus an A310neo or Boeing a 767X, will have a market of at least 700-800 aircraft IMO.

DLHAM wrote:

Airbus should look at a slightly stretched A310neo very closely, whis could harm Boeing very much as a 767-sized MOM aircraft is the only category that still needs a replacement.
Whoever builds such an airplane, Airbus an A310neo or Boeing a 767X, will have a market of at least 700-800 aircraft IMO.

As long as Boeing does not come up with there MOM, it will only eat in the market share of the very succesful A321. As Airbus is already working on a new wing for that aircraft, no widebody will ever beat the economics of that aircraft. upto 8000 km.

Wouldn't A330 be considered a lenghtened A300MAX?

DLHAM wrote:

Airbus should look at a slightly stretched A310neo very closely, whis could harm Boeing very much as a 767-sized MOM aircraft is the only category that still needs a replacement.
Whoever builds such an airplane, Airbus an A310neo or Boeing a 767X, will have a market of at least 700-800 aircraft IMO.

They had a few opportunities. The first opportunity was when the A310 production ended in 1998 and the A300 backlog was small they could have launched it then with the Trent 500.

Then in 2014 they could have launched it instead of the A330NEO. The A330CEO were getting pumped out nice and cheap taking advantage of 787 delays. The new engines of the A330NEO increased the range significantly and became too close to the A350 in my opinion. They should have just kept pumping out A330CEO nice and cheap and launched a new aircraft based on the A330 cross section. This new aircraft would have just entered service now.

They should have optimised the new A330 replacement aircraft around the shorter A330-200/800 fuselage length to create distance between the A350. The MTOW should have been much lower to improve short/medium range efficiency and again keep distance from the A350. I think it should have had a carbon wing based on the A350 but with a 50m wingspan to fit code D gates. A 100t OEW and 180t MTOW sounds about right. It would have needed a cleansheet engine design around 55,000lb of thrust. A scaled down Trent XWB would be good.

Airbus still has a future opportunity. I think the A330NEO sales will continue to decrease. Instead of reducing the price and eating into A350 sales they should launch a cleansheet MOM aircraft. A full carbon wing and fuselage. Put the A350 in the photocopier and scale it down 20%. So it also ended up being 10% smaller than the 787. It should have a tight 8AB cross section.

tvh wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

Airbus should look at a slightly stretched A310neo very closely, whis could harm Boeing very much as a 767-sized MOM aircraft is the only category that still needs a replacement.
Whoever builds such an airplane, Airbus an A310neo or Boeing a 767X, will have a market of at least 700-800 aircraft IMO.

As long as Boeing does not come up with there MOM, it will only eat in the market share of the very succesful A321. As Airbus is already working on a new wing for that aircraft, no widebody will ever beat the economics of that aircraft. upto 8000 km.

Depends on which economics you’re looking at. Per seat? Per aircraft mile? Will you only look at cash operating costs? Or include DOC.

If Boeing plays their cards right, they don’t need to match the per trip cost of the 321. A wide-body can beat its per seat costs and if digital engineering will allow costs to come down considerably as Boeing says it will beat it on DOC to the point where Airbus can’t just stretch their way out of it.

Boeing knows the aircraft has to be 20% more fuel efficient than a 321NEO. It could be a single aisle but I doubt it will because a single aisle cannot really answer the 767 market gap that exists, the aircraft becomes too long. But you can use a twin aisle to answer the 321 both NEO and XLR IMO.

Opus99 wrote:

tvh wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

Airbus should look at a slightly stretched A310neo very closely, whis could harm Boeing very much as a 767-sized MOM aircraft is the only category that still needs a replacement.
Whoever builds such an airplane, Airbus an A310neo or Boeing a 767X, will have a market of at least 700-800 aircraft IMO.

....
Boeing knows the aircraft has to be 20% more fuel efficient than a 321NEO. It could be a single aisle but I doubt it will because a single aisle cannot really answer the 767 market gap that exists, the aircraft becomes too long. But you can use a twin aisle to answer the 321 both NEO and XLR IMO.

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

Edit: thinking of it, the only way I could see Boeing pulling it of is by using the updated XLR engines from LEAP and P&W to use the existing infrastructure and scale to its advantage. The only other thing they need to achieve then is a 3-5% lower OEW then the A321 with substantial more seats...

JonesNL wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

tvh wrote:

....
Boeing knows the aircraft has to be 20% more fuel efficient than a 321NEO. It could be a single aisle but I doubt it will because a single aisle cannot really answer the 767 market gap that exists, the aircraft becomes too long. But you can use a twin aisle to answer the 321 both NEO and XLR IMO.

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

I guess A could use the same tube of a330 amd just (well it's most costly part) design newer wings and waiting for a new engine... Voila you have the a300 neo. 500 nm and 250 pax in 3 class.

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

I guess A could use the same tube of a330 amd just (well it's most costly part) design newer wings and waiting for a new engine... Voila you have the a300 neo. 500 nm and 250 pax in 3 class.

If Boeing goes composite with a tight 7 abreast which will most likely be the case. What you suggest will be overweight

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

Not sure the T7-A is the horse to bet on, even Calhoun was downplaying it. Forget the exact wording, but mainly the point was it was not mature enough as development process.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

...

That's a tough nut to crack. Cost of 70m to build but customer want to pay 60m, means you need to slash costs by 20m to have a decent margin and some margin of error. Even with the most efficient development and manufacturing process I have a hard time to see how they are going to manage that, but if they pull it off it will be one for the history books...

JonesNL wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

Not sure the T7-A is the horse to bet on, even Calhoun was downplaying it. Forget the exact wording, but mainly the point was it was not mature enough as development process.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

...

That's a tough nut to crack. Cost of 70m to build but customer want to pay 60m, means you need to slash costs by 20m to have a decent margin and some margin of error. Even with the most efficient development and manufacturing process I have a hard time to see how they are going to manage that, but if they pull it off it will be one for the history books...

Well, I have no experience with digital engineering so I can’t tell you how achievable it is but Boeing seems to argue that is key to get it there, so we have to wait and see. Somewhere between 60-70 is what customers are willing to pay. I think they can get it there if they’re making the effort.

I mean, the T7A cannot compare to the scale of a commercial program but it’s the best sort of testing experience they have and I think it’s worked very well for them. Digital engineering is basically the reason Boeing won the trainer contract. It allowed to offer it at significantly lower prices than what their competitors were offering. Some say it was underpriced but traditional methods couldn’t have accommodated that pricing.

If we take what Boeing is saying. This digital engineering is the only way this aircraft makes sense and is their only way out.

Like you said. Tough nut to crack but do they really have a choice?

A long narrowbody will always beat a short widebody if you give it enough range. There is no case for the A310neo or A300neo. Just stretch the A321 to 757-300 level and give it bigger wings and engines.

If the FAA allows 7-abreast with single aisle, that would solve a lot of the MoM issues, but that is very unlikely. Also it would cause a horrible cabin experience.

RJMAZ wrote:

They should have optimised the new A330 replacement aircraft around the shorter A330-200/800 fuselage length to create distance between the A350. The MTOW should have been much lower to improve short/medium range efficiency and again keep distance from the A350. I think it should have had a carbon wing based on the A350 but with a 50m wingspan to fit code D gates. A 100t OEW and 180t MTOW sounds about right. It would have needed a cleansheet engine design around 55,000lb of thrust. A scaled down Trent XWB would be good.

How about slap a slightly updated Version of the A310 wings on the A330-800, reduced thrust on the engines and much lower MTOW. AFAIK the A310 are pretty advanced even today. Completely new CFK wings of course are even better.

Boeing should get their act together and tinker a 767X, most if not all components needed do exist, they just need to be combined.

inferno wrote:

A long narrowbody will always beat a short widebody if you give it enough range. There is no case for the A310neo or A300neo. Just stretch the A321 to 757-300 level and give it bigger wings and engines.

Dont forget about Cargo, important for many Airlines. No significant (space for) Cargo on Narrowbodies.

inferno wrote:

A long narrowbody will always beat a short widebody if you give it enough range. There is no case for the A310neo or A300neo. Just stretch the A321 to 757-300 level and give it bigger wings and engines.

If the FAA allows 7-abreast with single aisle, that would solve a lot of the MoM issues, but that is very unlikely. Also it would cause a horrible cabin experience.

757-300 was not a hit though. It was too long

Opus99 wrote:

inferno wrote:

A long narrowbody will always beat a short widebody if you give it enough range. There is no case for the A310neo or A300neo. Just stretch the A321 to 757-300 level and give it bigger wings and engines.

If the FAA allows 7-abreast with single aisle, that would solve a lot of the MoM issues, but that is very unlikely. Also it would cause a horrible cabin experience.

757-300 was not a hit though. It was too long

In those days the A321 was also not a big hit and look how it is dowing now.

tvh wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

inferno wrote:

A long narrowbody will always beat a short widebody if you give it enough range. There is no case for the A310neo or A300neo. Just stretch the A321 to 757-300 level and give it bigger wings and engines.

If the FAA allows 7-abreast with single aisle, that would solve a lot of the MoM issues, but that is very unlikely. Also it would cause a horrible cabin experience.

757-300 was not a hit though. It was too long

In those days the A321 was also not a big hit and look how it is dowing now.

Oh but of course it was still a much bigger hit than the 757-300 ever was.

757-300 comes with long turn around times. Limited cargo and in modern cases you can actually build a wide body that can weigh very similarly if not less Especially with advanced materials.

william wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I guess you mean 20% per seat. Which would be a great achievement on its own. But I wonder how much of that sticks if CAPEX and switching costs is included. Can't imagine the total CASM benefit will be anywhere near 20% with the scale advantages that the 737-X and A32X line have...

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

I have read similar, I did not understand Boeing's obsession on lower the cost of production, but now it makes sense. Boeing knows Airbus is going to rewing the A320 family and has a good idea how efficient it will be. Making an aircraft that can compete with it is the easy part, Bringing a new design to sales campaigns and winning them against a paid for A320 family is totally different.

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.png

A graphic of what Boeing hopes to be able to achieve with digital engineering. I think this is more tailored to the t7 but gives you an idea of how they want to reduce manufacturing costs

Opus99 wrote:

william wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

I have read similar, I did not understand Boeing's obsession on lower the cost of production, but now it makes sense. Boeing knows Airbus is going to rewing the A320 family and has a good idea how efficient it will be. Making an aircraft that can compete with it is the easy part, Bringing a new design to sales campaigns and winning them against a paid for A320 family is totally different.

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.png

A graphic of what Boeing hopes to be able to achieve with digital engineering. I think this is more tailored to the t7 but gives you an idea of how they want to reduce manufacturing costs

I saw the graph but now I looked a bit closer to see if it would help slash 20m of the cost.
if we assume time=costs
Then 25% less development time=25% less development cost
20B development cost would become 15B
If we assume 1000 planes to amortize. Then it would save 5m a plane.

Assembly hours is a pickle. What will be the benchmark, a 737 NB or a 787 WB? And how much does it affect total cost? From what I know in automotive it varies between 5-10%. At the higher end it would mean 7m assembly cost per plane.
Shaving of 80% would mean another 5m.

Not sure what the exact effect of Software costs is. But if we are generous and we give that another 5m per plane as well, we would be on a grand total of 15m. Of course there are a lot of assumptions here.

Even 10m would be amazing! But in the marketplace where your competitor sells high margin at 60m and your cost is 55m in the most optimal scenario, I am not sure this is the winning strategy in regards of cash flow...

JonesNL wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

william wrote:

I have read similar, I did not understand Boeing's obsession on lower the cost of production, but now it makes sense. Boeing knows Airbus is going to rewing the A320 family and has a good idea how efficient it will be. Making an aircraft that can compete with it is the easy part, Bringing a new design to sales campaigns and winning them against a paid for A320 family is totally different.

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.png

A graphic of what Boeing hopes to be able to achieve with digital engineering. I think this is more tailored to the t7 but gives you an idea of how they want to reduce manufacturing costs

I saw the graph but now I looked a bit closer to see if it would help slash 20m of the cost.
if we assume time=costs
Then 25% less development time=25% less development cost
20B development cost would become 15B
If we assume 1000 planes to amortize. Then it would save 5m a plane.

Assembly hours is a pickle. What will be the benchmark, a 737 NB or a 787 WB? And how much does it affect total cost? From what I know in automotive it varies between 5-10%. At the higher end it would mean 7m assembly cost per plane.
Shaving of 80% would mean another 5m.

Not sure what the exact effect of Software costs is. But if we are generous and we give that another 5m per plane as well, we would be on a grand total of 15m. Of course there are a lot of assumptions here.

Even 10m would be amazing! But in the marketplace where your competitor sells high margin at 60m and your cost is 55m in the most optimal scenario, I am not sure this is the winning strategy in regards of cash flow...

A lot of assumptions there. Target price for the NMA is 60-70M and thats coming from Boeing. This is the only way to make NMA viable and IMO any program wants to launch in the future. So it has to work. I think they’re definitely saving more than 5-10M per plane. According to Leeham Boeing goes for a 25% markup from cost. So I think that’s about where they would want it to be. Not only development time and costs but we have to look at less parts required, less people required as well.

Also 1000 planes is not enough to close the business case for NMA. If you want to come for the 321 and then some more. 1000 planes will not do that. Especially if you factor in the 5X.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus should have launched an aircraft between 1999 and 2001 with the A310 wing and MTOW but with a fuselage length halfway between the A310 and A300. It could have used the Trent 500 engine that entered service on the A340-500/600 in 2002.

Remind us what customers were asking for anything remotely like this, particularly in the immediately-post-9/11 time frame that you're mentioning.

A short aircraft with less seat/cargo capacity than an extant A300, coupled with the ridiculously heavy engines of an A345, and debuting at a time when airline/lessors' finances were in shambles? It'd be a miracle if Airbus even sold a dozen units of such a monstrosity.

Opus99 wrote:

757-300 was not a hit though. It was too long

You seem to be implying that the latter was the reason for the former. Why?

LAX772LR wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus should have launched an aircraft between 1999 and 2001 with the A310 wing and MTOW but with a fuselage length halfway between the A310 and A300. It could have used the Trent 500 engine that entered service on the A340-500/600 in 2002.

Remind us what customers were asking for anything remotely like this, particularly in the immediately-post-9/11 time frame that you're mentioning.

A short aircraft with less seat/cargo capacity than an extant A300, coupled with the heavy engines of an A345, debuting at a time when airline/lessors' finances were in shambles? It'd be a miracle if Airbus even sold a dozen units of such a monstrosity.

Opus99 wrote:

757-300 was not a hit though. It was too long

You seem to be implying that the latter was the reason for the former. Why?

It’s not the only reason but it played a role in the disadvantages for the 757-300. Wasn’t it quite heavy?

Opus99 wrote:

it played a role in the disadvantages for the 757-300.

According to who? ....other than whiny Y passengers who couldn't tell it from a 752, 739ER, or A321-- for all of which they would, and have, expressed the same complaint.

Since people here love to declaratively express this as if it were fact, I'd ask: what evidence is there, among the carriers that stood to buy it, that disembarkation time was a deciding factor?

Opus99 wrote:

Wasn’t it quite heavy?

No, in fact, quite the opposite:

752 to 753 is an 8 tonne increase in exchange for 23% higher pax certification.

Compare that to the A320CEO to A321CEO: 15 tonne increase in exchange for 21% higher pax certification.

LAX772LR wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

it played a role in the disadvantages for the 757-300.

According to who? ....other than whiny Y passengers who couldn't tell it from a 752, 739ER, or A321-- for all of which they would, and have, expressed the same complaint.

Since people here love to declaratively express this as if it were fact, I'd ask: what evidence is there, among the carriers that stood to buy it, that disembarkation time was a deciding factor?

Opus99 wrote:

Wasn’t it quite heavy?

No, in fact, quite the opposite:

752 to 753 is an 8 tonne increase in exchange for 23% higher pax certification.

Compare that to the A320CEO to A321CEO: 15 tonne increase in exchange for 21% higher pax certification.

According to Boeing. It’s length apparently caused longer turn around times. This was a couple of years ago now where Boeings prod development had a conversation with Jon Ostrower and their words were along the lines of “they won’t want to force something like the 757-300 on the world today”.

Hmm thanks for that insight. Todays aviation writings make it seem as though it was due to its lengths that It suffered.

What would have been the engine? The A306 and A310 were already spec'd to the CF6-80 and PW4000, which were of comparable performance to the Trent 700 developed for the A330.

The Boeing 767-300ER had overtaken the A310-300 in two important metrics that were important to airlines back in the 1990's - The 763ER offered 13% greater range and could carry 15% more payload than the A310-300. As a result, sales of the A310 had dropped to just a trickle in the mid-1990's. Only a total of 255 A310s were built (all variants), while 834 B763ERs and B763Fs have been built and the order book is still growing.

Airbus came up with the A330, which eventually passed the B763ER in terms of greater range and payload, plus it offered FBW flight controls and a more advanced avionics suite for the flight deck. And as we all know now, sales of the A330CEO have been more robust than the B767 over the last 20 years.

The original A330-300 was intended to be a successor to the A300. It was a medium range airplane, because Airbus intended the A340 to be the long-range airplane. It was only when sales of the A340-200 and A340-300 struggled that Airbus developed higher gross weight A330-300s with the center fuel tank.

The A330-200 was intended for long-range. It had a higher gross weight than the A330-300 and the center fuel tank. But the A3430-200 came out about five years after the A330-300 and A340 were introduced, in part to provide a two-engine long range option.

I believe Airbus thought the market for the A300 would be better served with the larger A330-300. The A310 was not a significant success, so I believe Airbus did not see a strong market for a smaller wide-body aircraft.

FLALEFTY wrote:

The Boeing 767-300ER had overtaken the A310-300 in two important metrics that were important to airlines back in the 1990's - The 763ER offered 13% greater range and could carry 15% more payload than the A310-300. As a result, sales of the A310 had dropped to just a trickle in the mid-1990's. Only a total of 255 A310s were built (all variants), while 834 B763ERs and B763Fs have been built and the order book is still growing.

Airbus came up with the A330, which eventually passed the B763ER in terms of greater range and payload, plus it offered FBW flight controls and a more advanced avionics suite for the flight deck. And as we all know now, sales of the A330CEO have been more robust than the B767 over the last 20 years.

If we start with the numbers games.

The A310 all versions 255 delivered, competed with the 767-200 all versions 249 delivered.

The 767-300, 893 frames delivered, competed with the A300 561 delivered.

The A300 predates the 767 and is replaced by the A330. Deliveries all 767 1,236 all A330 1,525.

Boeing brings than the 787 to compete with the A330. 787 with 1,006 deliveries up to now.

If we look at the fuselage of the A300, that has been shrunk to the A310 and expanded to the A330, we look at 255 + 561 + 1525 = 2,341 frames excluding 375 A340.
Boeing 1,236 767 + 1006 787 = 2,242 midsized wide body frames.

Boeing is of course king of the big wide body frames. 777 and 747 beat out the A340 and A380 by a wide margin.

To LAX772LR: A321 is not 15 ton heavier than A320, weight difference is between 6-7 tons.

Opus99 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

yeah per seat of course. those are good points but that will be a case by case basis. For some the 737X and a32X will not really have a dog in the fight irrespective of what the operator currently operates that is if its a 767 replacement. for example Delta or United. But this is where the benefits of digitial engineering are supposed to come. the DOC takes into consideration the CAPEX, and i think digital engineering will allow you to have even better DOC if it does what boeing says it will do. Customers want to pay 60M for a 797 that seats 30 more passengers than the 321NEO for example. If Boeing is able to offer that aircraft at 60-65M I think that makes it only more attractive (apparently airbus is charging 60M for an XLR) If i'm able to get 30 more passengers for the same 60M that will be massive value for money. and I think we can see what digital engineering has been able to do cost wise on the T7-A project.

ALC Chief did an interview a few weeks back and it highlighted to me the importance of the acquision cost. For Boeing that is the main sticking point in this whole NMA dilemma.
Steve basically said, the 350-1000s major problem is its acquisition cost. Cash operating cost you're looking at 20-25% reduction in fuel burn per seat compared to a 300ER by the time you add the acquisition cost of that frame you're in negative cost per seat.

I believe this is why calhoun keeps talking about the frame. Getting the aircraft down to 20% per seat over the 321NEO is the easy part. But using traditional engineering it would've cost boeing about 70M to build it. Customers want to pay between 60-70M. only way to do that is DOC.

Switching operators? well that has to be Boeing's bill to pay

I guess A could use the same tube of a330 amd just (well it's most costly part) design newer wings and waiting for a new engine... Voila you have the a300 neo. 500 nm and 250 pax in 3 class.

If Boeing goes composite with a tight 7 abreast which will most likely be the case. What you suggest will be overweight

You mean B will have one more aisle to get only one more seat? That would be overweight for sure.

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

I guess A could use the same tube of a330 amd just (well it's most costly part) design newer wings and waiting for a new engine... Voila you have the a300 neo. 500 nm and 250 pax in 3 class.

If Boeing goes composite with a tight 7 abreast which will most likely be the case. What you suggest will be overweight

You mean B will have one more aisle to get only one more seat? That would be overweight for sure.

Depends how much the extra aisle weighs compared to the extra long length required. It’s not so straightforward and how much weight you can save from advanced materials compared to Aluminum

I think that A310 is too close in passenger capacity with A321 with all tricks like ACF, slim seats and so on. Fuel consumption of an 321NEO is around 2600-2800kg/h, A310 had 4650 kg/h if new engines will reduce consumption by 20%, it will be still around 3700 kg/h....

milhaus wrote:

I think that A310 is too close in passenger capacity with A321 with all tricks like ACF, slim seats and so on. Fuel consumption of an 321NEO is around 2600-2800kg/h, A310 had 4650 kg/h if new engines will reduce consumption by 20%, it will be still around 3700 kg/h....

The A310's advantage was basically range, although the A321XLR will likely equal what the A310-300(ET)'s range was. As for the A300neo, I would say it was the A330-200/300, which has then given rise to the Airbus A330-800/900(neo). The A300-600R shares a similar tube with the A330/A340.

Modern versions of the A310/A300 with all the “tricks” would offer much higher pax capacity than the A321. There would be a weight penalty for the aluminium tube and the circular profile, and for new-generation engines with bigger fans. As against that there would be weight savings for CRFP wing and wingbox optimised for MOM range, optimised gear, maybe revised empennage, plus the revenue advantages of a hold taking side by side LD3s. Question is whether the bottom line after development cost, production cost, sale price and prospective volume, would make it bankable. Answer so far seems to be no.

milhaus wrote:

To LAX772LR: A321 is not 15 ton heavier than A320, weight difference is between 6-7 tons.

I'm not talking about OEW, since the question at hand is cost and performance delta vs. seats.

MTOW difference is 78t vs 93.

tealnz wrote:

Modern versions of the A310/A300 with all the “tricks” would offer much higher pax capacity than the A321. There would be a weight penalty for the aluminium tube and the circular profile, and for new-generation engines with bigger fans. As against that there would be weight savings for CRFP wing and wingbox optimised for MOM range, optimised gear, maybe revised empennage, plus the revenue advantages of a hold taking side by side LD3s. Question is whether the bottom line after development cost, production cost, sale price and prospective volume, would make it bankable. Answer so far seems to be no.

Considering the difference between a339 with 789 I don't see so much weight/ consumption penalty between the 2. Of course the a321 is smaller and pushed to the limit, but an a300neo (rewinged and re-engined) would eat into the 783 / mom upper segment of B goes with 7/8 abreast.