User avatar
cosyr
Topic Author
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:18 pm

I was just thinking about being able to tell which version of A320 you might end up on when booking a ticket on LH, and it made me wonder why the A320NEO is not considered a new version of the A320. First there was the A320-100, then the upgraded -200, but according to the first one LH has, it is still considered a -200 with the new engines

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthansa/Airbus-A320-271N/2783774/L/

Is this not a big enough upgrade to be considered a new version of the aircraft? What were the differences between the -100 and -200 that allowed airlines to order both at the same time?
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:31 pm

Quoting Cosyr (Thread starter):
Is this not a big enough upgrade to be considered a new version of the aircraft? What were the differences between the -100 and -200 that allowed airlines to order both at the same time?

" Apart from the fences, the other major difference is increased fuel capacity on the -200. "

Differences Between A320-100 And A320-200 (by SXDFC Dec 28 2008 in Tech Ops)

So I guess the NEO is a bit further technologically than the -200 was compared to the -100.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8515
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:47 pm

The change from the ceo to neo is just that, the new engine and pylon with some wing changes to carry the new engines. All other changes are introduced on the ceo already, aerodynamic cleanup, new interior and so on.
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5258
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:17 pm

Given the current proclivities of the two major manufacturers, I'm more surprised it isn't called the A320-800neo.

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:24 pm

I would rather expect an A320-500 NEO or x00 NEO so,
an A320-200 NEO with the additional 2-3 Row seat capacity to have 190-200 Seats.

It would be a plane which would bring the Boeing 737-800 the cash cow into some trouble,

But also it would probably lower Airbus cash cow A321 where only relatively weak competitors are, as well.

This may come only if Boeing decides on a MadMAX.


Flyglobal
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 9:30 pm

It is strange.

You've new sharklets which necessitated changes to the wing root, but that didn't get a dash upgrade.
You've a new engine, which is completely incompatible with the old installs, but it isn't getting a dash upgrade.

It really should be a -300. Unless they are afraid of additional certification loopholes or putting off airlines through drawing greater distinction between the lineage.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8515
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:12 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 5):
You've new sharklets which necessitated changes to the wing root, but that didn't get a dash upgrade.
You've a new engine, which is completely incompatible with the old installs, but it isn't getting a dash upgrade.

But not at the same time.
 
SXDFC
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:07 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:25 pm

Didn't B6 want or looked into an "A320-2.5" or something of the lines of that 15 years ago?
 
papatango
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 1999 10:32 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:42 pm

There is a 320-300 'it is called a 321!
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:45 pm

Quoting papatango (Reply 8):
There is a 320-300 'it is called a 321!

That is if you consider the -100 as smaller compared to the -200. Then what are the A318 & 319? A320-50 and -75?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:33 am

Customers don't care what it's called. Best to keep it simple since it's basically just a re-engined A320-200, and the -200 designation has rarely been used much for years since the few original A320-100s were all retired, much like you seldom see references to A319-100 (which all current A319s are). You don't even see the model numbers mentioned very often in the Airbus site except in the most technical documents.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6976
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:32 am

Quoting Cosyr (Thread starter):
Why Not A320-300?

You are looking for logic in airliner naming, but you will be looking in vain.

Logical naming ended with Comet and Caravelle. Comet 1, Comet 2, etc.

One of the fairly logical, and least bizarre, namings is the Saab 340. For a long time it had the internal name "34" simply because it was considered a 34 pax plane.

Then the sales department got involved, and they protested since practically all airliners had three digit names. (With few exceptions such as One-Eleven   ).

They put a zero behind 34, and everybody was happy.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:45 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11):
One of the fairly logical, and least bizarre, namings is the Saab 340. For a long time it had the internal name "34" simply because it was considered a 34 pax plane.

Then the sales department got involved, and they protested since practically all airliners had three digit names. (With few exceptions such as One-Eleven).

They put a zero behind 34, and everybody was happy.

There were quite a few aircraft bearing the "340" identification, made by Convair, Cessna and Airbus, in addition to Saab.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6976
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:35 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
There were quite a few aircraft bearing the "340" identification, made by Convair, Cessna and Airbus, in addition to Saab.

Yes, but on 27 January 1986, when Airbus supervisory board chairman Franz Josef Strauss announced that the Airbus TA11 project would be named "340", then the Saab 340 had already flown for three years and two days.

Convair 340 had been forgotten, or converted to Convair 580. So it was actually Airbus who "stole" the 340 name from Saab.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:31 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 13):
Convair 340 had been forgotten, or converted to Convair 580.

As a sidenote, the many Convair 340s and 440s which were converted to 580s (or 640s with R-R Darts) are still officially registered as 340/440 with the FAA. The 580/640 identifications, while widely used, have no official status.
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:06 am

Did sharklets give a different version number? (The third digit after the dash - ie A320-216?). The new engines have a new second digit. (ie A320-271)
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:04 am

Quoting starrymarkb (Reply 15):
Did sharklets give a different version number? (The third digit after the dash - ie A320-216?). The new engines have a new second digit. (ie A320-271)

No, those are for a different engine varant. I think the 7 and 5 for the new engines is silly, it should just be 2 and 1 and then whatever number comes next, or 221N or something like that. Until that move, the Airbus versioning/engine thing actually made sense. When the A300/310 switched from JT9D and CF6-50 to PW4152 and CF6-80, they still used the 2 and 0 numbers....
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21553
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:15 am

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 3):

Given the current proclivities of the two major manufacturers, I'm more surprised it isn't called the A320-800neo.

Right?

Aircraft nomenclature has always been "a bit inconsistent" with both A and B.

First there was the A300 family with the shorter A310 that somehow got its own model name. The-B1, -B2, -600 (WTF?).
Then there was the A320 family where they decided to go with A318, A319, A320, A321 and then they appended the -200 only to the A320 but the other models had no such suffix, instead all getting -100 beacause they were the chronological first type.

But with the A330, the -200 and -300 did not denote chronology, but rather size. Same for the curiously appended A340 family with the -200 and -300...and then skipping the -400 to the -500 (same size as the -300) and -600 (the PencilJet).

And then LOL! Skip all the way to the A380 and append -800 because that was the craze. And then back down to the A350 and -800, which never happened so now it's -900 and -1000, and -1100?

Which is all amusing, but to really foul up a naming convention requires the people in Seattle.  
Originally the -100, -200, -300 nomenclature was chronologic. The Boeing 727-100 followed by the larger -200 (so it could have gone either way). But the 737 was pure chronology. The most curious part was for the Classics where the -300 was the mid-size, the -400 was stretched, and the -500 was a shrink. But then the NG family went back to ordering by size.

The 747 family returned to pure chronology with increased size only coincidentally coming with larger number. That said, the -100 and -200 were externally almost identical and the -300 and -400 were similarly almost identical (although the engines, winglets, and wing root fairings obviously distinguish the -400) and then the -8. Not the -800, just the -8. And -8i. Because reasons.

The 757 then started with the -200 model, followed later by a stretched -300 and then for the first time using the ER suffix, establishing a new trend for Boeing. 767 was the same. So was the 777 but then they -NG'ed the 777 and so now they started adding ER and LR, but they didn't match generations, so the 777-200LR is the same generation as the 777-300ER, while the 777-200ER is the same generation as the 777-300 and the 777-200A is forgotten.

But with the 787 they got into the same issue Airbus did, except they made the -8 (not the -800, the -8).

Confused yet? If not, you weren't paying attention.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:56 am

I had "complained" about this repeatedly in the past, because Airbus is being inconsistent with its model designation. In the A320 family, the first number in the -xxx indicates an improvement (in aero, fuel, range, ...) over the previous version - not a stretch/shrink like in other families. Thus, the A320-200 and A321-200 are improved -100's, in the ways other posters have stated. It could be argued that sharklet aircraft should have been -300's. The NEO's should have certainly gotten a higher designator, whether -300 or -400.

The other two numbers in the -xxx indicate the engine type - the first for manufacturer, the second for the engine version. These are common for all Airbus models: GE = 0, CFM = 1, 2 = PW, 3 = IAE, 4 = RR, 6 = EA (why did they skip 5?)

To be consistent with its own policy, Airbus should have named the NEO A320-31x or A320-33x, if not even -4xx. Why they chose to use new manufacturer designators for what is a new engine from the same manufacturers, is beyond me.
I wonder what way they'll go with A330NEO, but at least there they've already increased the version number.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
Customers don't care what it's called.

The why all the hype about having the lucky number 8 everywhere, resulting in those ridiculous designations we have today?
 
jeffreyklm
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:45 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:00 am

Quoting Cosyr (Thread starter):
I was just thinking about being able to tell which version of A320 you might end up on when booking a ticket on LH, and it made me wonder why the A320NEO is not considered a new version of the A320.

well.....

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 1):
" Apart from the fences, the other major difference is increased fuel capacity on the -200. "

Since many (including airline executives I'm sure) are asking this. They have the perfect marketing strategy that allows them to explain the difference between the old and new A320's. If it would've been an A320-300, no-one would pay attention because it then would not appear as a must-have aircraft because it looks so much like an old A320.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Confused yet? If not, you weren't paying attention.

Times have changed (With iPhone's being regular 5, 5s and even 5C, or 6, 6 plus, 6s and 6s plus). There apprarently is no more room in the world for phones that have names such as the Nokia 3310's. And as it appears, the same goes for aircraft.

787-800 is too long? We'll make it 787-8. A320-300 sounds just like the same old? We'll name it A320NEO.


I think the only reason for naming aircraft this way is marketing.
A mile of road or railway leads to nowhere, a mile of runway leads to everywhere.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:44 am

I thought it was more to do with identification for airport purposes.

Right now there are 5 types of PAX T7.
777-200 We call it the 772, for airport planning etc they call it the 772
777-300 We call it the 773, for airport planning etc they call it the 773
777-200ER We call it the 77E, for airport planning etc they call it the 772
777-200LR We call it the 77L, for airport planning etc they call it the 77L
777-300ER We call it the 77W, for airport planning etc they call it the 77W

Note that there are 5 types for us and 4 types for airport planning because the 772 and the 77E are near enough for this purpose (weights, sizes etc).

I guess its the same for the A32XNEO, there were loads of different engines before, what difference does a few more make.

Fred
Image
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:34 am

I agree it's not very logical or consistent, especially when the A330NEO models are the A330-800 and 900!
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:45 am

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
The why all the hype about having the lucky number 8 everywhere, resulting in those ridiculous designations we have today?

Boeing and Airbus should have surrendered to their PR "gurus" and renamed their entire model lines.

Airbus A819, A820, A821, A830, A840, A850 and A880.

Boeing 838, 848, 858, 868, 878 and luckiest of the lot, the 888.


PR clowns :rolleyes:
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:05 pm

Quoting r2rho (Reply 18):
complained" about this repeatedly in the past, because Airbus is being inconsistent with its model designation.

Did you really complain to Airbus about their naming of aircraft? Since they started the design and built the new aircraft it is their right to call it whatever they want.Do you complain to automobile manufacturers about what they call their cars?
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:14 pm

It's funny how much times have changed....remember that Donald Nyrop wanted McDonnell-Douglas to re-designate the DC-10 Series 20 as the Series 40 because of perceived advances in the design of the aircraft? The crazy thing is that they did it just to satisfy one customer and the only real change from a Series 30 is the use of Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines instead of the CF6.
My other car is an A320-200
 
User avatar
tistpaa727
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 5:23 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:53 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Confused yet? If not, you weren't paying attention.

Fantastic post - had me chuckling the entire way!
Don't sweat the little things.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:27 pm

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 11):
Quoting Cosyr (Thread starter):Why Not A320-300?
You are looking for logic in airliner naming, but you will be looking in vain.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Aircraft nomenclature has always been "a bit inconsistent" with both A and B.

Doc and prebennorholm are exactly correct. It's simply a name and a piece of marketing pure and simple; nothing more. It obviously makes no difference to the airlines buying or the manufacturers building the airplanes.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:53 am

Quoting A320FlyGuy (Reply 24):
It's funny how much times have changed....remember that Donald Nyrop wanted McDonnell-Douglas to re-designate the DC-10 Series 20 as the Series 40 because of perceived advances in the design of the aircraft? The crazy thing is that they did it just to satisfy one customer and the only real change from a Series 30 is the use of Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines instead of the CF6.

The DC-10-30 was generally more capable than NW's -40s, or NW wouldn't have disposed of the -40s and acquired many used -30s, some as much as 23 years old, which were mainly used on transatlantic routes.
 
Newark727
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:22 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):

The 757 then started with the -200 model, followed later by a stretched -300 and then for the first time using the ER suffix, establishing a new trend for Boeing. 767 was the same. So was the 777 but then they -NG'ed the 777 and so now they started adding ER and LR, but they didn't match generations, so the 777-200LR is the same generation as the 777-300ER, while the 777-200ER is the same generation as the 777-300 and the 777-200A is forgotten.

I feel like I once read about a "757-100" shrink being considered by Boeing, but never leaving the drawing board. If that's so, it would explain that gap, though of course not any of the others. They must have thought it would be nice in the brochures to have a 757-200 and 767-200 going on sale at around the same time.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:24 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
First there was the A300 family with the shorter A310 that somehow got its own model name. The-B1, -B2, -600 (WTF?).

...and then the 600 was a slight stretch over the B2/B4.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Then there was the A320 family where they decided to go with A318, A319, A320, A321 and then they appended the -200 only to the A320 but the other models had no such suffix, instead all getting -100 beacause they were the chronological first type.

Don't forget the 321-200.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
But with the A330, the -200 and -300 did not denote chronology, but rather size. Same for the curiously appended A340 family with the -200 and -300...and then skipping the -400 to the -500 (same size as the -300) and -600 (the PencilJet).

The 400 was a proposed model that got canceled, so it kinda makes sense to skip it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
And then LOL! Skip all the way to the A380 and append -800 because that was the craze. And then back down to the A350 and -800, which never happened so now it's -900 and -1000, and -1100?

Yeah, it was a bit ridiculous....

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
wing root fairings obviously distinguish the -400

Not quite, there were a few 200s and 300s, the new WBF was introduced sometime in the late 80s on l/n 703.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 28):
They must have thought it would be nice in the brochures to have a 757-200 and 767-200 going on sale at around the same time.

I read somewhere that most of the 200 versions were selling better (727, 747, 737) than the respective 100s, so they (and Airbus) started the 757/767 at 200 as well.
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:42 am

Quoting papatango (Reply 8):

There is a 320-300 'it is called a 321!

That's what I've always wondered. Why were shrinks/stretches of the A320 called the A318, A319, and A321 and not A320-300, -400, and -500?

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
That is if you consider the -100 as smaller compared to the -200. Then what are the A318 & 319? A320-50 and -75?

There's no rule that the designations have to correspond to the size of the plane. Just look at the 737-500 compared to the -300 and -400.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:08 am

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 30):
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
That is if you consider the -100 as smaller compared to the -200. Then what are the A318 & 319? A320-50 and -75?


There's no rule that the designations have to correspond to the size of the plane. Just look at the 737-500 compared to the -300 and -400.

The -500 was the last of the Classic series to be launched, atout 2 years after the -400 which came after the -300. When the -300 was launched they may not have even been planning to build the -500 but there was demand from some carriers for a more direct replacement of the -200.

I think the only 737 model that isn't in chronological order based on when it was launched is the -600 which followed the -700 and -800.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21553
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Why Not A320-300?

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:47 am

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 28):

I feel like I once read about a "757-100" shrink being considered by Boeing, but never leaving the drawing board.

Yes, that was the theory. But we all know how well shrinks do. The same was true with the 717. Although another theory I've heard was that they were concerned that "-100" sounded too primitive. As if airline purchasing departments are going to make the decision based on the name of the model.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 29):

Not quite, there were a few 200s and 300s, the new WBF was introduced sometime in the late 80s on l/n 703.

The smoothed wing root fairing was introduced at the end of the -200/-300 generation, but all -400s had the new fairing and only a very few late-build -200/-300 models had it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

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