Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Taxi645
Topic Author
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:11 pm

Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Are we seeing a slow but steady evolution of Boeing’s and Airbus’s widebody passenger ranges into a single cross-section?

The following passenger widebody planes are not for sale anymore: A300/A310, the 767, the A380, 747-8. The 777 and A330 are still offered for sale, but are not selling in numbers and that will likely only worsen the coming decade. The small widebody NMA was thrown up, yet cancelled.

Personally I would not be surprised than in ten years time the only Airbus and Boeing passenger widebodies offered for sale will be variants of the A350 and 787. Why, I’ll point out a few factors:

- CFRP fuselages take a much lower weight hit when stretching to the more extreme ends. This means a CFRP cross-section can have a large spread in capacity while still being economically viable.
- The very large aircraft like the 747, the A380 and to a degree the 777x are not popular in the market, because smaller widebodies have a frequency and yield advantage and don’t score much worse on CASM.
- The shorter end of the widebody market is being compromised by more capable narrowbodies like the A321(X)LR.
- The 787 and A350 both have geometrically very efficient 9-abreast cross-section which leaves little room for more suitable smaller or larger widebody cross-sections.
- A single cross-section provides flexibility and cost of scale benefits in production.
- A single cross section will mean a single cockpit, streamlining pilot operation and training.
- In 2032 and looking at the SAF costs towards 2050, new more unconventional designs will be required to face these costs and having just a single widebody frees time, resources and focus for these new challenges.

What do you guys think, will multiple passenger widebody cross section remain with each manufacturer or will it indeed be streamlined into this single widebody cross section for each manufacturer?
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:20 pm

Looking back Airbus went single WB fuselage diameter from the A300B to the A340-600. I see the A321 as becoming too small if stretched to even higher capacity. So that 767/NMA size (with enhanced cargo space) might be the optimum around 250 seats. On the other hand the 787 feels too wide for the shorter variants.

How about defining some new cargo container size first? Stowing pairs underfloor will be one of the key factors for every new fuselage size.
With possible future H2 use we might need belly volumes unheard of because of the required storage tank sizes?
Last edited by Noshow on Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:21 pm

I disagree strongly. Going forward Airbus will have the largest gap in their line up between the A321 and the A359. We will see a new generation of engines on the A350 making it even more capable making the gap even bigger. Yes we might see a stretched A321 or a rewing or even a replacement but I am 100% sure that will be a 6AB aircraft as well.

So going forward the ominous NMA will in my opinion be an 8 abreast 200 MTOW aircraft. It well be a CFRP A300 if you would want to call it that way. Thats what I see on the Airbus side.

The Boeing side on the other hand does have a gap around the A321 payload/range, especially when the 737 is done. So for the sake of the largest 737 customers the NSA will be a single aisle aircraft ranging from 737-7 size to a 757-300. It will essentially be a modern 737/757 hybrid.

I can see Boeing moving towards a 2 family production range (good it will be a 3 family for a long time with at least the XF being sold way into 2040), while Airbus will have a 4 family production offer (due to the aquisition of the A220).
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Topic Author
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:55 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I disagree strongly. Going forward Airbus will have the largest gap in their line up between the A321 and the A359. We will see a new generation of engines on the A350 making it even more capable making the gap even bigger. Yes we might see a stretched A321 or a rewing or even a replacement but I am 100% sure that will be a 6AB aircraft as well.


Yes, unless along with those new engines they do a ~265T A350"850". Still a big gap, but perhaps an acceptable gap for Airbus given the listed advantages.

FluidFlow wrote:
So going forward the ominous NMA will in my opinion be an 8 abreast 200 MTOW aircraft. It well be a CFRP A300 if you would want to call it that way.


I always was of the same opinion, An 5.5m 8-abreast ~200T A300 successor. However it was never done and that was even without the A321(X)LR. Now we do have those and further possible 6-abreast wing, capability and range increases in the future as well. I'm not so sure any more.

FluidFlow wrote:
The Boeing side on the other hand does have a gap around the A321 payload/range, especially when the 737 is done. So for the sake of the largest 737 customers the NSA will be a single aisle aircraft ranging from 737-7 size to a 757-300. It will essentially be a modern 737/757 hybrid.

I can see Boeing moving towards a 2 family production range (good it will be a 3 family for a long time with at least the XF being sold way into 2040), while Airbus will have a 4 family production offer (due to the aquisition of the A220).


Agreed on a possible Boeing 2 family range: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1460429
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:15 pm

There's a very big problem with moving towards such simplified fleets. That being: what happens if a type gets grounded? Fleet simplification improves economics, but in a worst case scenario, it could result in the long term grounding of a substantial segment of a fleet. Diversification allows airlines to avoid serious disruptions, like the MAX grounding, or UA's 777 PW fleet grounding, or years ago when the 787 was grounded. They hampered operations at a number of carriers, but they didn't put anybody out of business. A major carrier losing a large percentage of their fleet because a type gets grounded could have some profound impacts.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:34 pm

The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:45 pm

I'm going to do this in two parts so its not an A v B thing.

Airbus

Well - I would argue that 8W is too wide and you don't need a 200T aircraft to fill the gap between A320 and A350.

Airbus already has a very good 5 W frame and a very good 9W frame.

I believe for A an A220-500 and possibly 700 are basically inevitable taking over the space Under 100T/ 200 Seats/Under 3,500 NM.

Whatever fills in the middle needs to be about A321 sized at it's smallest (but with lots of range to replace A321 XLR) ranging up to about A330-200. Basically covering 220-320 all Y(31") seats - with a range of up to 5,500nm for the smallest sizes, 4,000NM for the largest (to start - its capability would grow over time). This of course would be a tight light 7W with weights 110T up to about 150T. It will of course weigh more than A321XLR - as I'm assuming future engines are a lot heavier, probably a much larger folding wing as well - it will burn less but weigh more.

It will have to be super efficient and you have to be careful to not make it too capable(heavy) from the get go.

That means A330 dies - but then you have three nice modern cross sections you can do a lot with.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Topic Author
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:46 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
There's a very big problem with moving towards such simplified fleets. That being: what happens if a type gets grounded? Fleet simplification improves economics, but in a worst case scenario, it could result in the long term grounding of a substantial segment of a fleet. Diversification allows airlines to avoid serious disruptions, like the MAX grounding, or UA's 777 PW fleet grounding, or years ago when the 787 was grounded. They hampered operations at a number of carriers, but they didn't put anybody out of business. A major carrier losing a large percentage of their fleet because a type gets grounded could have some profound impacts.


Yes, I actually wholeheartedly agree with this argument and have pointed this out in the past in discussions like on A320 vs A220 production rates. I deviously left it out to bolster the point a bit.

MIflyer12 wrote:
The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.


I'm not ignoring it, my assessment is in ten years time Boeing will have certainly smelled the coffee, will have seen the 777x isn't going anywhere. Have made some hard decisions and put the 787 of it's leash as it should have done right away in my view.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3174
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:51 pm

I agree with that two member analysis on where Boeing is going. 737/757 and 787. 787 can have a very very long run. Continue to optimise the frame, the wing with new technologies. 3D etc and of course the power plants will continue to evolve too
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:05 pm

For Boeing I can see three cross sections as well - although as I have said many times they should never have done 777X and instead just done an upwinged 787. Boeing should have ended up with 2.

I think 77X will drag on and it will sell - just not in massive numbers - line rates of not much more than three per month seem realistic and it will stay in production until 2040 with PIP's in the early 2030's, a Freighter arriving in 4-5 years with a 365T MTOW, and eventually an 80M (or a bit longer if they can get a waiver) 365T passenger version. By the end of the program they will have sold about 800ish frames - current orders of about 300 plus another 300 9/10's and 200 or so freighters. As stated above - the costs are sunk and the program costs written off - it will generate cash for Boeing just not nearly as much as 77W/L/F.

Even though I would guess Boeing will do a new SA - I still don't believe that is the wisest course of action for them - given that Airbus is probably smart to do an 7W or 8W as they already have a 5W. I still think tight light 7W is the best option for Boeing - albeit with two different wings/wingboxes whereas Airbus can probably get away with just one as they have the A220.

Boeing won't want to give up the market below 200 seats - but I think they should. In the futures Green economy I think 200 31" Y seats will become the minimum preferred airliner size after 2030 when a new frame would most likely be available. There will be pressure to upsize and reduce frequency (hence why I think my Airbus 7W at 150T and 320 Y seats makes a lot of sense) and maximize efficiency - which means big wings/ huge fans without going too radical on fuselage.

That means the smallest Boeing 7W would be about 95-100T with a non-folding 38M wing and 200-220 Seats, ranging up to about 260 seats and 120T. Range 5,000 Nm smallest - 4,000 NM largest.

Then they do (or do it first) - big winged version - 260-340 Y seats, 6,000 - 4,500NM range, 135-165T MTOW. Something like that.

787 will continue to sell well.

If Boeing does a SA next they will still have a big hole in the line-up.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:12 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.


Seems like quite a few airlines are ignoring it as well. The 777X has had a rough start, and with competition fierce from within and without, it's going to have a tough time gaining traction as there are simply more flexible aircraft around. You know, similar reasons as to why the A380 ultimately failed.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:28 pm

I think that the standardization on size is all to do with engine efficiency. Previously larger plane types were needed for long range, with a smaller version of the biggest type for the longest ranges. This has meant a smaller plane can fly to further destinations than previously removing the need for big planes for long distance, so only high capacity now equals big plane, but you can serve this same need with multiple smaller ones. Alternatively at the lower range the increase in efficiency mean that the penalty of moving more uneeded metal is less for shorter routes. Thereby making the most useful aircraft for the majority of the longer range flying being in the 787 and A350 size area. At less than these ranges the NB takes over. This is kind of how most markets go as gains are made we get convergence on to certain optimal solutions.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 6436
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:51 pm

atcsundevil wrote:
There's a very big problem with moving towards such simplified fleets. That being: what happens if a type gets grounded? Fleet simplification improves economics, but in a worst case scenario, it could result in the long term grounding of a substantial segment of a fleet. Diversification allows airlines to avoid serious disruptions, like the MAX grounding, or UA's 777 PW fleet grounding, or years ago when the 787 was grounded. They hampered operations at a number of carriers, but they didn't put anybody out of business. A major carrier losing a large percentage of their fleet because a type gets grounded could have some profound impacts.

With the rise of LCC, significance of each individual airlines fleet grounding reduced. Of course LCCs are even more monotyped and the aviation market as a whole are also becoming much less diverse. But this is nothing any single operator can deal with and will be industry-wise difficulty
 
Aseem747
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:56 pm

morrisond wrote:
For Boeing I can see three cross sections as well - although as I have said many times they should never have done 777X and instead just done an upwinged 787. Boeing should have ended up with 2.

I think 77X will drag on and it will sell - just not in massive numbers - line rates of not much more than three per month seem realistic and it will stay in production until 2040 with PIP's in the early 2030's, a Freighter arriving in 4-5 years with a 365T MTOW, and eventually an 80M (or a bit longer if they can get a waiver) 365T passenger version. By the end of the program they will have sold about 800ish frames - current orders of about 300 plus another 300 9/10's and 200 or so freighters. As stated above - the costs are sunk and the program costs written off - it will generate cash for Boeing just not nearly as much as 77W/L/F.

Even though I would guess Boeing will do a new SA - I still don't believe that is the wisest course of action for them - given that Airbus is probably smart to do an 7W or 8W as they already have a 5W. I still think tight light 7W is the best option for Boeing - albeit with two different wings/wingboxes whereas Airbus can probably get away with just one as they have the A220.

Boeing won't want to give up the market below 200 seats - but I think they should. In the futures Green economy I think 200 31" Y seats will become the minimum preferred airliner size after 2030 when a new frame would most likely be available. There will be pressure to upsize and reduce frequency (hence why I think my Airbus 7W at 150T and 320 Y seats makes a lot of sense) and maximize efficiency - which means big wings/ huge fans without going too radical on fuselage.

That means the smallest Boeing 7W would be about 95-100T with a non-folding 38M wing and 200-220 Seats, ranging up to about 260 seats and 120T. Range 5,000 Nm smallest - 4,000 NM largest.

Then they do (or do it first) - big winged version - 260-340 Y seats, 6,000 - 4,500NM range, 135-165T MTOW. Something like that.

787 will continue to sell well.

If Boeing does a SA next they will still have a big hole in the line-up.

In regards to the 777X, do you think Boeing could've upgraded the 787 in such a way that it would be competitive with the A350-1000 and A350F with an EIS of before somewhere around 2030? Because I think if they went any longer, the 351 and 35F could hurt them quite a lot as there won't be a 777X to counter them. The major 77W customers, who will in the future and are in the present accounting for a very big number of large wide body orders might not have waited for a bigger 787 even if it came earlier either as many of them already seem to be planning 77W replacements years ago.

Maybe it's only me but I still believe the passenger large wide body market will be quite big with a minimum of 800 total orders as we're already close to 500 for the 779 + 351. Adding that with freighter market, 777X seems like an aircraft type that Boeing should definitely have.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3174
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:01 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.


Seems like quite a few airlines are ignoring it as well. The 777X has had a rough start, and with competition fierce from within and without, it's going to have a tough time gaining traction as there are simply more flexible aircraft around. You know, similar reasons as to why the A380 ultimately failed.

IMO, the 777X will do what the 380 was supposed to do. It won’t sell more than 450 passenger copies at best, maybe even just 400 but it will work very very well for those that can use it. Unlike the 380 that did not in Many cases. It will also have strong freighter option.

It’s a very good answer to the 350+ market. Question is how many need a 350+ seater? Not many
 
Aseem747
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:09 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.


Seems like quite a few airlines are ignoring it as well. The 777X has had a rough start, and with competition fierce from within and without, it's going to have a tough time gaining traction as there are simply more flexible aircraft around. You know, similar reasons as to why the A380 ultimately failed.

With the plane that 779 is replacing being so young, it's only natural for most to ignore it. The 777X already has a very healthy order book in my opinion, at least more than I would've estimated it to get by early 2020s in the past considering the age of 77W. If the EIS was anywhere close to being smooth, I wouldn't even call the start of the 777X a rough one tbh. Airlines like Korean, Turkish and many other big airlines absolutely need a large wide body in their fleet and the 777X seems to be the best choice judging by how the 351 is faring against it so it still has a great chance of having a pretty decent impact in the wide body market as those airlines are who really impact the order books of large wide bodies. 777-9 being the 3rd best selling passenger wide body variant in production behind 787-9 and A359 seems like a likely outcome to me by 2030.
779 will definitely have a tougher time than what the 77W did for the reason you mentioned tho, I really don't see a good amount medium sized airlines with 77W in their fleet to opt having a large wide body for their future needs.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:14 pm

Aseem747 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
For Boeing I can see three cross sections as well - although as I have said many times they should never have done 777X and instead just done an upwinged 787. Boeing should have ended up with 2.

I think 77X will drag on and it will sell - just not in massive numbers - line rates of not much more than three per month seem realistic and it will stay in production until 2040 with PIP's in the early 2030's, a Freighter arriving in 4-5 years with a 365T MTOW, and eventually an 80M (or a bit longer if they can get a waiver) 365T passenger version. By the end of the program they will have sold about 800ish frames - current orders of about 300 plus another 300 9/10's and 200 or so freighters. As stated above - the costs are sunk and the program costs written off - it will generate cash for Boeing just not nearly as much as 77W/L/F.

Even though I would guess Boeing will do a new SA - I still don't believe that is the wisest course of action for them - given that Airbus is probably smart to do an 7W or 8W as they already have a 5W. I still think tight light 7W is the best option for Boeing - albeit with two different wings/wingboxes whereas Airbus can probably get away with just one as they have the A220.

Boeing won't want to give up the market below 200 seats - but I think they should. In the futures Green economy I think 200 31" Y seats will become the minimum preferred airliner size after 2030 when a new frame would most likely be available. There will be pressure to upsize and reduce frequency (hence why I think my Airbus 7W at 150T and 320 Y seats makes a lot of sense) and maximize efficiency - which means big wings/ huge fans without going too radical on fuselage.

That means the smallest Boeing 7W would be about 95-100T with a non-folding 38M wing and 200-220 Seats, ranging up to about 260 seats and 120T. Range 5,000 Nm smallest - 4,000 NM largest.

Then they do (or do it first) - big winged version - 260-340 Y seats, 6,000 - 4,500NM range, 135-165T MTOW. Something like that.

787 will continue to sell well.

If Boeing does a SA next they will still have a big hole in the line-up.

In regards to the 777X, do you think Boeing could've upgraded the 787 in such a way that it would be competitive with the A350-1000 and A350F with an EIS of before somewhere around 2030? Because I think if they went any longer, the 351 and 35F could hurt them quite a lot as there won't be a 777X to counter them. The major 77W customers, who will in the future and are in the present accounting for a very big number of large wide body orders might not have waited for a bigger 787 even if it came earlier either as many of them already seem to be planning 77W replacements years ago.

Maybe it's only me but I still believe the passenger large wide body market will be quite big with a minimum of 800 total orders as we're already close to 500 for the 779 + 351. Adding that with freighter market, 777X seems like an aircraft type that Boeing should definitely have.


Boeing could easily have chosen to do a bigger wing/wingbox/engine tail version of the 787 instead of 77X. At 80M in length for a 787-12 it would have had similar passenger capacity as 779 with better Cargo capacity (by Volume at least). Density purely a function of what they designed it to lift.

It would have been easier to do than 77X as no system changes and probably would have already delivered and be more competitive (lighter) than 77X for similar capability.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3903
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
I'm going to do this in two parts so its not an A v B thing.

Airbus

Well - I would argue that 8W is too wide and you don't need a 200T aircraft to fill the gap between A320 and A350.

Airbus already has a very good 5 W frame and a very good 9W frame.

I believe for A an A220-500 and possibly 700 are basically inevitable taking over the space Under 100T/ 200 Seats/Under 3,500 NM.

Whatever fills in the middle needs to be about A321 sized at it's smallest (but with lots of range to replace A321 XLR) ranging up to about A330-200. Basically covering 220-320 all Y(31") seats - with a range of up to 5,500nm for the smallest sizes, 4,000NM for the largest (to start - its capability would grow over time). This of course would be a tight light 7W with weights 110T up to about 150T. It will of course weigh more than A321XLR - as I'm assuming future engines are a lot heavier, probably a much larger folding wing as well - it will burn less but weigh more.

It will have to be super efficient and you have to be careful to not make it too capable(heavy) from the get go.

That means A330 dies - but then you have three nice modern cross sections you can do a lot with.


There was an article not too long ago stating that Airbus has a team working on the A330 replacement. I bet Airbus is trying to find a business case for it. The A321XLR and A350-900 are very capable aircraft and though there may be a market for a new A330 replacement, how big is it? Sounds familiar, doesn't it? With the A320 family re wing and new powerplants squeezing another 20 years of sales and new engines for the A350, you have your rationalization right there for Airbus. Wait for the A330 replacement era to begin, see how many customers down size to the A321 or upsize to the A350 and sell a few more A330NEOs then pull the plug.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:30 pm

Aseem747 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
The OP is ignoring Boeing's $Billions investment in the 777X.

When the evidence doesn't fit your argument you don't get to dismiss non-conforming evidence: you need to develop a new thesis.


Seems like quite a few airlines are ignoring it as well. The 777X has had a rough start, and with competition fierce from within and without, it's going to have a tough time gaining traction as there are simply more flexible aircraft around. You know, similar reasons as to why the A380 ultimately failed.

With the plane that 779 is replacing being so young, it's only natural for most to ignore it. The 777X already has a very healthy order book in my opinion, at least more than I would've estimated it to get by early 2020s in the past considering the age of 77W. If the EIS was anywhere close to being smooth, I wouldn't even call the start of the 777X a rough one tbh. Airlines like Korean, Turkish and many other big airlines absolutely need a large wide body in their fleet and the 777X seems to be the best choice judging by how the 351 is faring against it so it still has a great chance of having a pretty decent impact in the wide body market as those airlines are who really impact the order books of large wide bodies. 777-9 being the 3rd best selling passenger wide body variant in production behind 787-9 and A359 seems like a likely outcome to me by 2030.
779 will definitely have a tougher time than what the 77W did for the reason you mentioned tho, I really don't see a good amount medium sized airlines with 77W in their fleet to opt having a large wide body for their future needs.


The 777X's orderbook is decent, but there's uncertainty over several customers' orders and time goes on with the competition improving (more capable and PIP'd 787 and A350) it only gets harder. Airlines will order fewer Xs than 77Ws even if they do have some in their fleet. That the orderbook has many parallels with the A380 isn't a good sign.

The A35K has a smaller sibling handing a lot of the demand, Airbus can effectively pause A35K production if they are selling A359s (which they are), a luxury the 777X doesn't have.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:56 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Aseem747 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:

Seems like quite a few airlines are ignoring it as well. The 777X has had a rough start, and with competition fierce from within and without, it's going to have a tough time gaining traction as there are simply more flexible aircraft around. You know, similar reasons as to why the A380 ultimately failed.

With the plane that 779 is replacing being so young, it's only natural for most to ignore it. The 777X already has a very healthy order book in my opinion, at least more than I would've estimated it to get by early 2020s in the past considering the age of 77W. If the EIS was anywhere close to being smooth, I wouldn't even call the start of the 777X a rough one tbh. Airlines like Korean, Turkish and many other big airlines absolutely need a large wide body in their fleet and the 777X seems to be the best choice judging by how the 351 is faring against it so it still has a great chance of having a pretty decent impact in the wide body market as those airlines are who really impact the order books of large wide bodies. 777-9 being the 3rd best selling passenger wide body variant in production behind 787-9 and A359 seems like a likely outcome to me by 2030.
779 will definitely have a tougher time than what the 77W did for the reason you mentioned tho, I really don't see a good amount medium sized airlines with 77W in their fleet to opt having a large wide body for their future needs.


The 777X's orderbook is decent, but there's uncertainty over several customers' orders and time goes on with the competition improving (more capable and PIP'd 787 and A350) it only gets harder. Airlines will order fewer Xs than 77Ws even if they do have some in their fleet. That the orderbook has many parallels with the A380 isn't a good sign.

The A35K has a smaller sibling handing a lot of the demand, Airbus can effectively pause A35K production if they are selling A359s (which they are), a luxury the 777X doesn't have.


The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.


Not sure how QR's beef lessens the uncertainty, they'd order 787s and 777Xs if worst comes to worst, but leaning more towards 787s. Also doesn't help the long time between now and delivery.

Freighter definitely adds a hefty amount, but we'll have to see on that front as we still only have paper planes, though early signs are 777F and 747F customers are willing to convert. On the passenger front I think 500 or more is on the optimistic side, I simply don't see enough airlines needing that many 777Xs. Airlines like KE, AF, TK etc. I see ordering them, but the latter 2 will also augment with A350s, and KE may (not seen what will happen to OZ's A350s yet). The 77W simply did not have the competition the 777X faces now, nor the exceptional challenges of the time (covid, delays).
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:19 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.


Not sure how QR's beef lessens the uncertainty, they'd order 787s and 777Xs if worst comes to worst, but leaning more towards 787s. Also doesn't help the long time between now and delivery.

Freighter definitely adds a hefty amount, but we'll have to see on that front as we still only have paper planes, though early signs are 777F and 747F customers are willing to convert. On the passenger front I think 500 or more is on the optimistic side, I simply don't see enough airlines needing that many 777Xs. Airlines like KE, AF, TK etc. I see ordering them, but the latter 2 will also augment with A350s, and KE may (not seen what will happen to OZ's A350s yet). The 77W simply did not have the competition the 777X faces now, nor the exceptional challenges of the time (covid, delays).


I was thinking QR is more likely to take the 779's on order if they cancel their remaining 351's. I doubt they would order more than they already have.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:27 pm

morrisond wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.


Not sure how QR's beef lessens the uncertainty, they'd order 787s and 777Xs if worst comes to worst, but leaning more towards 787s. Also doesn't help the long time between now and delivery.

Freighter definitely adds a hefty amount, but we'll have to see on that front as we still only have paper planes, though early signs are 777F and 747F customers are willing to convert. On the passenger front I think 500 or more is on the optimistic side, I simply don't see enough airlines needing that many 777Xs. Airlines like KE, AF, TK etc. I see ordering them, but the latter 2 will also augment with A350s, and KE may (not seen what will happen to OZ's A350s yet). The 77W simply did not have the competition the 777X faces now, nor the exceptional challenges of the time (covid, delays).


I was thinking QR is more likely to take the 779's on order if they cancel their remaining 351's. I doubt they would order more than they already have.


To be honest I wouldn't have included them on the uncertainty list anyway, CX, Most of EY and some of EK's are the 3 that are most concerning. SQ has upped their order, LH or BA cancelling or trimming is highly unlikely, NH should take them.
 
Aseem747
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:34 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:47 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.


Not sure how QR's beef lessens the uncertainty, they'd order 787s and 777Xs if worst comes to worst, but leaning more towards 787s. Also doesn't help the long time between now and delivery.

Freighter definitely adds a hefty amount, but we'll have to see on that front as we still only have paper planes, though early signs are 777F and 747F customers are willing to convert. On the passenger front I think 500 or more is on the optimistic side, I simply don't see enough airlines needing that many 777Xs. Airlines like KE, AF, TK etc. I see ordering them, but the latter 2 will also augment with A350s, and KE may (not seen what will happen to OZ's A350s yet). The 77W simply did not have the competition the 777X faces now, nor the exceptional challenges of the time (covid, delays).

787 won't really gain much if Qatar's remaining 350 do end up cancelled I think as most if not all are A350-1000. The issues with the 787 to cover up loss of 351 is cabin being too narrow for Q Suite, 787-10 being a smaller aircraft and could struggle in quite a few of the very long flights that their 351 can operate, 787-9 having enough range but being even smaller.
The 777-8 could definitely get a boost as it can't seat as much as 777-300ER i.e pretty much A350-1000's capacity, has the widest twin jet cabin more than enough for Q Suites and also plenty of range for any route but them increasing 777-9 order book wouldn't be surprising either as it's given the role of the 77W and 388 successor in their fleet.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 7:58 pm

MoM is where both Boeing and Airbus are lacking at the moment. For Airbus I think a CFRP 8 abreast of 150 and 180 ton would fill in that gap nicely. Same for Boeing, but they might combine it into one cross section with two wings and cover both MoM and 737…
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 3038
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:03 pm

Aseem747 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The uncertainty on 777X seems to be lessening with Qatar's fight with Airbus. The 77XF Freighter will be what keeps it in production. They will have competition with A350F - however the freight market will grow - 450 777F and 748F have been sold - it's not hard to see there being another 500 big freighters sold between now and 2040. Half 350F and half 77XF (at 365T it could be a more capable).

If Boeing never sells another 779 - it's not hard to see them getting close to 600 just with an F. 77W was 792 plus the 300 F's - they should get to at least half that which isn't bad. Personally I think they will do an 777-10 which gives them another 200 or so.


Not sure how QR's beef lessens the uncertainty, they'd order 787s and 777Xs if worst comes to worst, but leaning more towards 787s. Also doesn't help the long time between now and delivery.

Freighter definitely adds a hefty amount, but we'll have to see on that front as we still only have paper planes, though early signs are 777F and 747F customers are willing to convert. On the passenger front I think 500 or more is on the optimistic side, I simply don't see enough airlines needing that many 777Xs. Airlines like KE, AF, TK etc. I see ordering them, but the latter 2 will also augment with A350s, and KE may (not seen what will happen to OZ's A350s yet). The 77W simply did not have the competition the 777X faces now, nor the exceptional challenges of the time (covid, delays).

787 won't really gain much if Qatar's remaining 350 do end up cancelled I think as most if not all are A350-1000. The issues with the 787 to cover up loss of 351 is cabin being too narrow for Q Suite, 787-10 being a smaller aircraft and could struggle in quite a few of the very long flights that their 351 can operate, 787-9 having enough range but being even smaller.
The 777-8 could definitely get a boost as it can't seat as much as 777-300ER i.e pretty much A350-1000's capacity, has the widest twin jet cabin more than enough for Q Suites and also plenty of range for any route but them increasing 777-9 order book wouldn't be surprising either as it's given the role of the 77W and 388 successor in their fleet.


The 778's future is a little up in the air, though QR does have it on order at least. They'd have to deal with the increased operating cost though which I imagine they'd be a bit miffed by.

I take the point that there would be annoyances to QR if they had to get rid of/couldn't use A350s, but if worst comes to worst... they'd have no choice. Though the A35K hasn't been a hot seller QR clearly saw a need for it, and there may well be a few routes that aren't busy enough for a 777X but also too small for an A350. They could of course keep 77Ws for longer as well.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:04 am

At least with the CFRP barrels that Boeing does, fabricating different diameters, double bubbles, ovals, or circles only takes different mandrels but the rest of the layup machine is the same. The autoclave is also fine as long as it fits. Probably need 4 or 5 mandrels for each section and they do wear out, say a life of 100 frames. Far easier than bending ribs in aluminum, lots of expensive tooling to shape the metal.

So it is the design and certification cost alone. Sure continuing with the same diameter is the most economical, but to get best efficiency the plane must be right on the sweet spot, allows for a range for payload stretch but a family with 3 sizes will disappear, the A350 ended up being two, the 788 is a different model.
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:41 am

Good question. Personally I expect Airbus and Boeing to keep the A300 and 777 cross-sections going as long as they can. Boeing tried to justify a narrower version for the MoM segment but couldn’t make the case. No doubt they will try again but with the success of the A321, I don’t think Airbus would be able to make a case for an all new fuselage.

Geoff
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5370
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:58 pm

Oddly, the 4 sizes of the MAX each have their cheerleader amongst the airlines. 320 family two sizes only, but the smaller adopted kid adds two, and maybe a third coming. The two aisle competitors only two each. Sunk costs and death of the two jumbos give the X a bit of a niche, size of that niche obviously up for speculation. There is something about the bones of aircraft and the economics of airlines that puts a 737/320 and 787/350 as the two foci the the aviation ellipse. Many of us are ultrafans of those MOMs, but guess a guy has to dream - even a number of airlines.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:16 pm

I doubt we will see wide body families reduced to single cross sections.

At Boeing there are three, 767, 777, 787. I could imagine the 767 cross section dropping out. But not in the near future and only if Boeing looses the next tanker war.
The 777 will stay on, not as successful as before, but limping on for a long time.

At Airbus the one cross section future depends on the A330 dropping out, will not happen the next 20 years.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I doubt we will see wide body families reduced to single cross sections.

At Boeing there are three, 767, 777, 787. I could imagine the 767 cross section dropping out. But not in the near future and only if Boeing looses the next tanker war.
The 777 will stay on, not as successful as before, but limping on for a long time.

At Airbus the one cross section future depends on the A330 dropping out, will not happen the next 20 years.


How do you get to being in production for another 20 years without it selling as a freighter in volume?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:23 pm

Not counting tankers, the 767 is done in 2027 unless they re-engine, which I'd give about a 10% chance. The A330neo, ten years, 2032?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I doubt we will see wide body families reduced to single cross sections.

At Boeing there are three, 767, 777, 787. I could imagine the 767 cross section dropping out. But not in the near future and only if Boeing looses the next tanker war.
The 777 will stay on, not as successful as before, but limping on for a long time.

At Airbus the one cross section future depends on the A330 dropping out, will not happen the next 20 years.


How do you get to being in production for another 20 years without it selling as a freighter in volume?


A330 new freighters, would be nice, but I talk about passenger frames and MRTT.

Or do you talk about the 767 and 777 dropping out? The 767 tanker frames, will, as military frames, not fall under the old engine ban.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:52 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I doubt we will see wide body families reduced to single cross sections.

At Boeing there are three, 767, 777, 787. I could imagine the 767 cross section dropping out. But not in the near future and only if Boeing looses the next tanker war.
The 777 will stay on, not as successful as before, but limping on for a long time.

At Airbus the one cross section future depends on the A330 dropping out, will not happen the next 20 years.


How do you get to being in production for another 20 years without it selling as a freighter in volume?


A330 new freighters, would be nice, but I talk about passenger frames and MRTT.

Or do you talk about the 767 and 777 dropping out? The 767 tanker frames, will, as military frames, not fall under the old engine ban.


I can see another few MRTT's - but it's hard to see many more Passenger orders - they will be lucky to get enough orders to replace the ones in the order book that are questionable and will probably never deliver.
 
TravelQ
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:59 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:52 pm

I suspect the premise to the thread is based upon current observations and not the market forecast which is based upon a twenty year period.

In offering the 777X for sale, Boeing advised the market for the aircraft would be a lot smaller than the market the 77W enjoyed (it had the market to.itself).

Randy T, Boeing's director of sales used the example of airports in Japan which were full of 747's in the the 1990's, 777's in the early 2000's and from 2010 forward 787's. He stated the heart of the widebody market was in the 787 space.

The 777X is larger than the 77W. As such, even though they are similar aircraft, the 777X fills a space fundamentally different to the 77W and the emerging 787-10HGW.

The benefit of the 777X probably revolves around routes with strong yearly traffic and low CASM. These routes are still largely filled by 777's and a lessor extent A380's.

There is a fairly large space between the A320/737 and the A330/787. The introduction of a NMA better optimised for longer routes will undermine the business case for the A321LR at the lower end of the spectrum and A330/787-8 at the higher end of the spectrum.

I suspect the business case for a NMA is stronger than the business case for a 787-8. A 767 (wide body) sized NMA could be a very interesting proposition for airlines.

In real terms common systems architecture and manufacturing processes could be of greater benefit to the OEM's than a single wide body type. The new 777X wing facility suggests Boeing are putting their eggs in agile manufacturing processes, rather than common production systems.

With the industry being at a eco-sustainability cross road at present, the OEM's future direction is largely political at present. I'd suggest the process for product development is significantly more complex than in the era of the 787 and A350.
 
tealnz
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:59 am

Key question is whether there’s a market niche between an A321/322 at the low end and a 763/A300 at the higher end. I assume there is, but Boeing haven’t persuaded themselves they should launch a 2-3-2 MOM and Airbus haven’t talked publicly about an A330 shrink the size of an A300 but with new wing.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:46 pm

Airbus keeps investing in the A330 even with a sort of flat demand compared to where it once was. This would support the idea that they have strategic plans with it - aside from keeping price pressure on the 787 from the low end. Just add some new wing and the cheap, affordable "A310neo" could be ready fast? Maybe just this option is enough to be another "Scarebus" like the "A322" to scare Boeing from launching the NMA in time?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:51 pm

Noshow wrote:
Airbus keeps investing in the A330 even with a sort of flat demand compared to where it once was. This would support the idea that they have strategic plans with it - aside from keeping price pressure on the 787 from the low end. Just add some new wing and the cheap, affordable "A310neo" could be ready fast? Maybe just this option is enough to be another "Scarebus" like the "A322" to scare Boeing from launching the NMA in time?


What would be an absolutely crazy proposition is to shrink the -800 fuselage by about 3m, and put a wingbox and wingspan of the 767 on the fuselage with MTOW of 175-200t and with an OEM of 85t. That is a 500+ sales just for a freighter model when the 767 cant be sold anymore. On top of that another 500+ pax sales. The problem is, there is no 50klb engine ready and the aircraft would need full certification as well as a new cockpit. Thats 10bn for a derivative. At least some manufacturing would already be there.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:57 pm

How about some bigger PW GTF sibling or something GE might be brewing for the NMA as a power source anyway?
 
Kikko19
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:21 pm

Yeah. Often discussed the a300 310 neo. I like the idea too. Smaller wing than a330 and smaller engines with same tube.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:49 pm

Kikko19 wrote:
Yeah. Often discussed the a300 310 neo. I like the idea too. Smaller wing than a330 and smaller engines with same tube.


It makes more sense than a new 8W tube.
 
tealnz
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:53 pm

In the context of this topic (whether manufacturers are moving to a single wide body cross section) the point is that
- the 2-4-2 tube has its own sweet spot (arguably the smallest cross section that fully captures the efficiencies of a twin aisle cross section)
- for some markets the big hold with ability to take side by side LD3s will be a big plus in terms of revenue.
And an A300 neo has the advantage of being able to use not just an in-production fuselage cross section but established systems. Sure, new CFRP wing, wing box and gear plus certification would carry a big cost, but industrial risks would be much more manageable than a new build.
No idea how this features in Airbus scenario planning. But if it’s in there it would undercut the “single cross section” theory.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3227
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:26 am

In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 12:24 pm

Noshow wrote:
In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...


I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9833
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:55 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Noshow wrote:
In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...


I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.



Either the standard Airbus cockpit is acceptable or not. The A350 cockpit differs only in detail.

In regards to the widebody cross sections, both the A300/310/330/340 and the A350 cross section will stay. The A380 dropped out.
Even if Airbus does not make a new length variant of the A330, the A330 will sell through at least the next two decades. The A330 never had big backlogs through the last 2 decades.
There are over 1,200 A330ceo passenger frames in use, some of the argetting long in the teeth, some will be replaced by the A330neo. The best solution for at least smalish operators. No new service crew, no new pilot pool.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 2:44 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Noshow wrote:
In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...


I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.


The concept above makes sense however if they have to do a a new cockpit - and I think they would or would be wise too - then you might as well do a full systems update as well - then you are basically left with the round sections of the fuselage as I would assume a new tail section would be needed along with a nose.

Essentially then start with an A350 from a systems/cockpit standpoint - and do a custom frame/wingbox/wing/tail/nose based on A350.

You could reuse the 300/310/330 cross section if you wanted to keep LD3 compatibility however you would end up with a really stubby airplane as I don't see them going to that much work without taking it to 9W default by carving out more room like Boeing has done with 777X.

If you wanted something within say 15% of A321 passenger - which is realistically about 208 Y seats at 31" pitch. An A310 is about 270 at the same density at 8W, at 9W it's more like 295. - you could be less than 43M at 245 31" Y seats. Your tailplane could be really tall - however if you take the wing out to 52M and rely on less thrust and keep the engines pretty tight to the fuselage you may be able to reduce the size.

But still 43 M is way too short.

For this middle of the market - I think they might be smarter to abandon LD3 compatibility - 7W might be the smarter play with a custom container - and keep MTOW from about 115-145T. Anything based on A300 is going to be too big and heavy to fill this gap.

A220 can grow into the space below this and eventually replace the low end of the A320/A321 market with this taking the high end.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Noshow wrote:
In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...


I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.


The concept above makes sense however if they have to do a a new cockpit - and I think they would or would be wise too - then you might as well do a full systems update as well - then you are basically left with the round sections of the fuselage as I would assume a new tail section would be needed along with a nose.

Essentially then start with an A350 from a systems/cockpit standpoint - and do a custom frame/wingbox/wing/tail/nose based on A350.

You could reuse the 300/310/330 cross section if you wanted to keep LD3 compatibility however you would end up with a really stubby airplane as I don't see them going to that much work without taking it to 9W default by carving out more room like Boeing has done with 777X.

If you wanted something within say 15% of A321 passenger - which is realistically about 208 Y seats at 31" pitch. An A310 is about 270 at the same density at 8W, at 9W it's more like 295. - you could be less than 43M at 245 31" Y seats. Your tailplane could be really tall - however if you take the wing out to 52M and rely on less thrust and keep the engines pretty tight to the fuselage you may be able to reduce the size.

But still 43 M is way too short.

For this middle of the market - I think they might be smarter to abandon LD3 compatibility - 7W might be the smarter play with a custom container - and keep MTOW from about 115-145T. Anything based on A300 is going to be too big and heavy to fill this gap.

A220 can grow into the space below this and eventually replace the low end of the A320/A321 market with this taking the high end.


The problem is that 7W does not have the floor space needed to make money consistently and the only way to make the MoM work well is to cover the full spectrum of demands the airlines have.

1. Great cargo options either below deck or as a full fletched freighter --> hence high MTOW to OEW. I suggest it needs at least the possibility to have 60t+ of cargo. To fly this load farish, you also need 50t of fuel. So you need sub 100t OEW and about 200t MTOW. This also opens up MRTT versions.
2. You need the options for volume too to have options for low density parcel freight. So going 8AB gives a bit more, this also opens up more orders
3. Any capacity below 300Y single class is too small and will go towards a narrow body in the future that is geared towards pax only and has way lower MTOW, it would be unwise to compromise here. Every airline that will only cramp in as many seats as possible will go with the lowest operating costs/aquiration cost possible. There is a reason we see 737-8200, 321neo and 339 with the ULCCs, they can cramp as much into an aircraft as possible and are unbeatable in CASM and fixed costs when not full. Trying to incorporate this segment too will be very hard to impossible. It is either cargo or pax CASM. As Airbus already has a CASM winner ready and even a clear path to an upgrade there is no need for compromise for team A, team B might go that route though.
4. Capacity should be optimised for 3 Class 200-250 lay-outs depending on seat choice. Possibility of 26-40 full flat J in 1-2-1, 28-49 W in 2-3-2 and 120-160Y in 2-4-2 is a far superior cabin usage because a 2-2-2 in W wastes a lot of space if you have a 2-3-2 in Y with a 7AB. The 8AB cross section also allows to go 2-2-1 in J. While not as premium as a 1-2-1 it optimises space. The 8AW at least gives this flexibility.

The market space between the A321 and 787-9 is very small (as the last 15 years of Boeing talk show) and I only see a potential in there if the aircraft is able to lift heavy for its size. If you need a light aircraft, 6AB will win out, it can not lift a lot but it turned out to be a money printer. I think the "pencil" aka 757-300 will come back in one form or another. IMHO it will be Boeings new aircraft that is a 737-757 hybrid 3 aircraft family with 200-250-300 seats single class at 28'' pitch, where the 8200 will be the smallest version. I can also see Airbus doing one last iteration of the A320 going down the same path with a rewinged, stretched version of the 321.

The problem for Airbus lies above that, the 350 is just very big and heavy. If Airbus wants in any way or form sell a lot of WBs in the future they need something smaller and lighter than the 787-9, but able to lift way more than a NB ever could. Payload needs to be north of 60t to make such a proposal viable and also be light enough to not eat into A350 territory
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3903
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:06 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.


The concept above makes sense however if they have to do a a new cockpit - and I think they would or would be wise too - then you might as well do a full systems update as well - then you are basically left with the round sections of the fuselage as I would assume a new tail section would be needed along with a nose.

Essentially then start with an A350 from a systems/cockpit standpoint - and do a custom frame/wingbox/wing/tail/nose based on A350.

You could reuse the 300/310/330 cross section if you wanted to keep LD3 compatibility however you would end up with a really stubby airplane as I don't see them going to that much work without taking it to 9W default by carving out more room like Boeing has done with 777X.

If you wanted something within say 15% of A321 passenger - which is realistically about 208 Y seats at 31" pitch. An A310 is about 270 at the same density at 8W, at 9W it's more like 295. - you could be less than 43M at 245 31" Y seats. Your tailplane could be really tall - however if you take the wing out to 52M and rely on less thrust and keep the engines pretty tight to the fuselage you may be able to reduce the size.

But still 43 M is way too short.

For this middle of the market - I think they might be smarter to abandon LD3 compatibility - 7W might be the smarter play with a custom container - and keep MTOW from about 115-145T. Anything based on A300 is going to be too big and heavy to fill this gap.

A220 can grow into the space below this and eventually replace the low end of the A320/A321 market with this taking the high end.


The problem is that 7W does not have the floor space needed to make money consistently and the only way to make the MoM work well is to cover the full spectrum of demands the airlines have.

1. Great cargo options either below deck or as a full fletched freighter --> hence high MTOW to OEW. I suggest it needs at least the possibility to have 60t+ of cargo. To fly this load farish, you also need 50t of fuel. So you need sub 100t OEW and about 200t MTOW. This also opens up MRTT versions.
2. You need the options for volume too to have options for low density parcel freight. So going 8AB gives a bit more, this also opens up more orders
3. Any capacity below 300Y single class is too small and will go towards a narrow body in the future that is geared towards pax only and has way lower MTOW, it would be unwise to compromise here. Every airline that will only cramp in as many seats as possible will go with the lowest operating costs/aquiration cost possible. There is a reason we see 737-8200, 321neo and 339 with the ULCCs, they can cramp as much into an aircraft as possible and are unbeatable in CASM and fixed costs when not full. Trying to incorporate this segment too will be very hard to impossible. It is either cargo or pax CASM. As Airbus already has a CASM winner ready and even a clear path to an upgrade there is no need for compromise for team A, team B might go that route though.
4. Capacity should be optimised for 3 Class 200-250 lay-outs depending on seat choice. Possibility of 26-40 full flat J in 1-2-1, 28-49 W in 2-3-2 and 120-160Y in 2-4-2 is a far superior cabin usage because a 2-2-2 in W wastes a lot of space if you have a 2-3-2 in Y with a 7AB. The 8AB cross section also allows to go 2-2-1 in J. While not as premium as a 1-2-1 it optimises space. The 8AW at least gives this flexibility.

The market space between the A321 and 787-9 is very small (as the last 15 years of Boeing talk show) and I only see a potential in there if the aircraft is able to lift heavy for its size. If you need a light aircraft, 6AB will win out, it can not lift a lot but it turned out to be a money printer. I think the "pencil" aka 757-300 will come back in one form or another. IMHO it will be Boeings new aircraft that is a 737-757 hybrid 3 aircraft family with 200-250-300 seats single class at 28'' pitch, where the 8200 will be the smallest version. I can also see Airbus doing one last iteration of the A320 going down the same path with a rewinged, stretched version of the 321.

The problem for Airbus lies above that, the 350 is just very big and heavy. If Airbus wants in any way or form sell a lot of WBs in the future they need something smaller and lighter than the 787-9, but able to lift way more than a NB ever could. Payload needs to be north of 60t to make such a proposal viable and also be light enough to not eat into A350 territory


And Airbus will run into the same problem as Boeing, where is the business case for thousands of NMAs in the world of A321XLRs to make it profitable.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:12 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.


The concept above makes sense however if they have to do a a new cockpit - and I think they would or would be wise too - then you might as well do a full systems update as well - then you are basically left with the round sections of the fuselage as I would assume a new tail section would be needed along with a nose.

Essentially then start with an A350 from a systems/cockpit standpoint - and do a custom frame/wingbox/wing/tail/nose based on A350.

You could reuse the 300/310/330 cross section if you wanted to keep LD3 compatibility however you would end up with a really stubby airplane as I don't see them going to that much work without taking it to 9W default by carving out more room like Boeing has done with 777X.

If you wanted something within say 15% of A321 passenger - which is realistically about 208 Y seats at 31" pitch. An A310 is about 270 at the same density at 8W, at 9W it's more like 295. - you could be less than 43M at 245 31" Y seats. Your tailplane could be really tall - however if you take the wing out to 52M and rely on less thrust and keep the engines pretty tight to the fuselage you may be able to reduce the size.

But still 43 M is way too short.

For this middle of the market - I think they might be smarter to abandon LD3 compatibility - 7W might be the smarter play with a custom container - and keep MTOW from about 115-145T. Anything based on A300 is going to be too big and heavy to fill this gap.

A220 can grow into the space below this and eventually replace the low end of the A320/A321 market with this taking the high end.


The problem is that 7W does not have the floor space needed to make money consistently and the only way to make the MoM work well is to cover the full spectrum of demands the airlines have.

1. Great cargo options either below deck or as a full fletched freighter --> hence high MTOW to OEW. I suggest it needs at least the possibility to have 60t+ of cargo. To fly this load farish, you also need 50t of fuel. So you need sub 100t OEW and about 200t MTOW. This also opens up MRTT versions.
2. You need the options for volume too to have options for low density parcel freight. So going 8AB gives a bit more, this also opens up more orders
3. Any capacity below 300Y single class is too small and will go towards a narrow body in the future that is geared towards pax only and has way lower MTOW, it would be unwise to compromise here. Every airline that will only cramp in as many seats as possible will go with the lowest operating costs/aquiration cost possible. There is a reason we see 737-8200, 321neo and 339 with the ULCCs, they can cramp as much into an aircraft as possible and are unbeatable in CASM and fixed costs when not full. Trying to incorporate this segment too will be very hard to impossible. It is either cargo or pax CASM. As Airbus already has a CASM winner ready and even a clear path to an upgrade there is no need for compromise for team A, team B might go that route though.
4. Capacity should be optimised for 3 Class 200-250 lay-outs depending on seat choice. Possibility of 26-40 full flat J in 1-2-1, 28-49 W in 2-3-2 and 120-160Y in 2-4-2 is a far superior cabin usage because a 2-2-2 in W wastes a lot of space if you have a 2-3-2 in Y with a 7AB. The 8AB cross section also allows to go 2-2-1 in J. While not as premium as a 1-2-1 it optimises space. The 8AW at least gives this flexibility.

The market space between the A321 and 787-9 is very small (as the last 15 years of Boeing talk show) and I only see a potential in there if the aircraft is able to lift heavy for its size. If you need a light aircraft, 6AB will win out, it can not lift a lot but it turned out to be a money printer. I think the "pencil" aka 757-300 will come back in one form or another. IMHO it will be Boeings new aircraft that is a 737-757 hybrid 3 aircraft family with 200-250-300 seats single class at 28'' pitch, where the 8200 will be the smallest version. I can also see Airbus doing one last iteration of the A320 going down the same path with a rewinged, stretched version of the 321.

The problem for Airbus lies above that, the 350 is just very big and heavy. If Airbus wants in any way or form sell a lot of WBs in the future they need something smaller and lighter than the 787-9, but able to lift way more than a NB ever could. Payload needs to be north of 60t to make such a proposal viable and also be light enough to not eat into A350 territory


The funny thing is that if you assume that a Single Aisle over A321 needs a slightly wider aisle for cabin flow vs two narrower aisles the difference in loss of floor space is marginal. I won't go into the math - I've done that way too many times. Plus then you pick up some in the ends for servicing - or you can make those shorter. Basically a stubby pencil is more space efficient than a longer one.

If Airbus wants to stick with LD3's I think it would be a lot smarter to stick with the A350 as then you have to do way less systems work to modernize it. Systems work seem to be the Achilles heel of cost and certification.

Of course it would need a smaller wingbox/wing/gear/tail/Engines, but you reuse the complete nose and systems architecture of the A350. Put a 52M wing (that might fold down to that width) on it.

The cross section of the A350 is only 15% more than A330 (44,484 sq" vs 38,707sq") - if Airbus did their work right - which I assume they have - A350 Barrel sections should not be significantly different in weight than A330 and the A350 Nose section should be more aerodynamically efficient to offset that extra drag.

Plus then you could go to 10Y which could be more acceptable on shorter range missions.

You might be able to get away with 50K engines with a 56-58M folding wing.

It would mean quite short versions - maybe 48M and 55M, but the capital cost and production efficiencies (as a lot shared with A350) should be a lot better than cutting down the A330.

OEW weight 85-90T - 180- 200T MTOW - 5,500NM range - seating 300-350 Y seats.

That then gives you the room to expand the A320 into A320.5 (200 Y Seats) and A322 (230 Seats at 31" pitch) with a new wing which is almost inevitable.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing and Airbus slowly gravitating towards single cross-section WB product ranges?

Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:32 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Noshow wrote:
In an ideal world, so without considering existing infrastructure and programs, I'd say Airbus would want to go: A321neo, something new like a 767 in CFRP (smaller than A300 and not circular), and A350.
I see both, Airbus and Boeing, preparing something new, 767 sized in CFRP, for medium distance. NMA or whatever you call it. We should monitor engine manufacturers...


I mean we know that RR wanted Ultrafan be available in different thrust classes. While the upper end (the demonstrator size) is in an awkward position with the current WB market, a 50klbf Ultrafan on a "A300" neo would be a massive deal. There are some carriers that would jump on such a proposal.

What would be needed? An engine and realistically RR might be the closest. Followed by P&W with a massive upscaled GTF. GE (CFM), i dont know how easy it will be to either shrink the GEnx or fuse the advances of that engine with the CFM power plant for an intermediate thrust one.

A new wing and wing box. Not the biggest deal, there is enough expertise here at Airbus.
Tube would be ready, needs tweaking but its there.

Cockpit: Biggest problem, are the current ones ready for the next gen? FAA says no... is an improved A350 cockpit good enough?

All in all I see costs of around 10bn for a big derivative (definetely separate certification) A360. Maybe 15bn$. But it would give Airbus a worthy A330 replacement that will sell like hot cakes because it would be a freighter to replace the 767, it would be a great MRTT, it would be a great TATL aircraft, great for high demand short haul routes and able to do TPAC with light loads. All it needs is 5500nm range at full payload. Not more. a stretch then would just reduce that to 5000nm. It would be exatly what you need on top of the A321 capability. The next step, and it would be far enough below the A350 to not impact its saleability.


If you are doing so much work you might as well do the barrel as well.

I think it is wiser to launch a A322 and shrink the A350 a bit with a slightly smaller wing, engine and MTOW of 220. Something like the 787-3. Not sure if it would work...

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