MrHMSH wrote:RJMAZ wrote:TeddyTony wrote:Airbus should've done an A300NEO 5000nmi range and capable of landing on short runways. Definitely would've been profitable.
100% agree.
The A330NEO missed the market and made it too close in size and capability to the A350. Optimising for a shorter range improves efficiency on shorter routes.
Timing would have been very difficult. The A300 ended production in 2007 and the long lead term items probably stopped production in 2005.
A380 first flight 2005
A350 first flight 2013
A320NEO first flight 2014
A330NEO first flight 2017
Airbus was extremely busy with the A380 and A350 between 2000 and 2010. This is when a A300NEO would have been launched and it would have then beaten the 787 into service. It would have done well in the long run. Japan uses the 787-8 on short haul. The A300NEO with Trent 1500 engines would have been superior to the 787-8 on short haul due to its shorter range optimisation giving lower weights. It would have been like the perfect 787-3 that Japan originally ordered.
Also the A300NEO would have been great in tight 9 abreast for the Asian low cost carriers. The 787 can't do similar density. Not launching the A300NEO was the first missed opportunity.
Airbus had to launch something to compete agains the smaller 787 so we then got the A330NEO. This was the second missed opportunity Airbus should have done more with a bigger investment and more optimisation. A cleansheet wing optimised for a lower weight and around the A330-200 fuselage length. This would have created a bigger gap between the A350. The lighter and shorter range optimisation would give a fuel advantage over the 787 on medium haul routes and Airbus then has the A350 to beat the 787 in ultra long haul.
This could have really hit the market hard. Imagine a A330-200 length aircraft with a very high aspect ratio carbon wing. 52m code D wing span optimised for medium haul. Weights would be around 100t empty weight and 200t MTOW. Range around 6,000nm. Such a well positioned aircraft could easily form a 3 aircraft family. A simple shrink gives extra range to do point to point routes. A simple stretch improves efficiency to do regional work.
Will Airbus miss the third opportunity? Right now they should be using their mature A350 technology to launch a full carbon aircraft that is about 10-20% smaller and lighter than the 787.
Airbus shouldn't chase the MOM gap with a poor 7abreast cross section. Keep it 8abreast but don't go too short like the A310. If Airbus has the largest narrowbody and smaller widebody they will capture the MOM market in the middle.
An A300neo sounds good in practice, but the A300 was a very old ship even in 2000, it would have to be an A330 shrink (which would hamper weight) or else a pretty expensive rework,. There's also the question of how big that MOM market is. Though there is no longer a good, modern option (A300/767) available, Boeing has struggled to gain traction for a 797 even when times were good and the company at least seemed in a good position. Going forward it's debatable how much has changed, I see the trend as being that airlines prefer flexibility (in capability) over efficiency. Most airlines use 787s and A350s on long flights, but they will still use them on a big number of routes which would fall within MOM capabilities. Still efficient and only using 1 type. The A321XLR takes up some of the slack from below.
Though I take the point that maybe the A330neo is too close to the A350, even if some airlines do find use for both.
In hindsight, I think you can make a pretty good case that Airbus should have done the original A350, which was basically an A330 NEO and then launched a plane a little larger than the current A350 to better take on the 777.