200 Seat A320 Plus, inbetween the A320 and A321, feasible?

[keesje]

I always wondered about the relatively large capasity, weight, price jump Airbus specified for the A321.

The 737-800 and -900 both are inbetween the A320 and A321.

Ryanair, Easyjet and Jetblue seem to have asked for a 199 seat aircraft. Probably because of lean cabin crew rates too.

Thousands of first generation A320 will be replaced in the coming decade. It seems a new A320 has become a kind of smallish during the last 25 years, the A321 way bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Could an inbetween A320 Plus finally be under consideration?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA320NEOPlusConcept.jpg

[HPbleed]

I like it, it makes sense - still only 4 cabin crew and not much would need to be changed.

[PT6A]

For the A320 where do you get the 1 class 164 seats typical from?

Typical 1 class these days on the 320 is the maximum... 180

[OverRun]

Interesting thought. Limit of 50 pax/CC means 199 pax = 4 CC, as HPbleed said. But somewhere in the back of my mind are undercarriage and wing limits for the A320 which mean that the A320 Plus might be rather different.for the 200 pax.

And watching the pax load/unload process on the A321 is quite painful - the single aisle really slows things down. A 200 seater is not necessarily better than a 180 seater. The scheduled turnaround time has to be longer, which changes the economics.

[G&T ice n slice]

Long ago I came to the conclusion that the only way to satisfy airline requirements would be to desing an aircraft which can be streteched or shrunk in increment/decrements of 1 frame, with 5 different wing & empenage configurations and then to have a range of three different aircraft single-aisle narrow-boddy, double-aisle mid-size sort-of-wideboy and "multiple-aisle or multiple deck" extra widebody. And you apply the '1-frame and 5 wing/emp. config' to each set of aircraft.

Then you sell the aircraft for 1 sector per day & buy it back on arrival and sell a replacement which is EXACTLY what is needed for the subsequent sector.

So on monday morning you sell a great big "extra widebody" for LHR-JFK and buy it back in JFK & sell a "mid-widybody" for the return JFK-LHR.

And even then they'd complain that they weren't getting propper utilisation of the aircraft...

[keesje]

OverRun, of course it won´t be feasible to copy everyting from the A320 NEO. Looking at position the Plus inbetween. A more fundamental choice would be to make it an A321 minus or A320 Plus.

Using wing and OEW-MTOW of the A321 would give it high payload/range but would compromise fuel burn on far most flights. 80-90% NB flights are under 1500NM anyway so I opted for the lighter A320 Plus. Emergency exits of the A321 were retained , I couldn´t find another solution..

A321 has wing adjustments such as double slotted Fowler flaps that could be considered. JetPhotos.Net Photo » G-DHJH (CN: 1238) Thomas Cook Airlines Airbus A321-211 by Phil Woods (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6580932)

I guess passenger loading - unloading shouldn´t be slower then e.g. A321, 737-900 or 757-200/300.

[keesje]

10 yr old FlightGlobal article on A320 stretching I found

EasyJet requests stretched A320 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/easyjet-requests-stretched-a320-156557/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5133/5534644250_377b9f7891.jpg

[keesje]

On a lazy sunday afternoon, I produced a side view, also with optional HGW growth A321 / A322 NEO versions and key specs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA320NEOfamilyconcepts.jpg?t=1341177627

[Airmann]

It's not that it's not that the A320 is bad or not in the markets favour, it's just that significant players in the narrow body market, both jet blue and easy jet have called for something in between the 20 and 21, and airbus should seriously consider it.

Frankly a 40 passenger jump is huge considering that the competition have managed to successfully filled 4 sizes onto their 737 whereas airbus have only done 3. The size between the A320 and A321 is the missing member of the family.

An A320.5. how hard would it be to shrink the 321 by a few feet, if that's a viable option? There's no reason why it couldn't fly and be economically viable. In any case the 321 is pretty much on the limit of what the 320 wing can handle, and in many cases is too big for some airlines who need something bigger than the 320. Range is also another factor to consider.

[Jack1985]

Has anything been actually said from Airbus about an increase in range for the A321 NEO? There's a huge market that they could find on their hands with many B757's ageing ever closer to retirement.

[oldchina]

With planes, as with cars, it's the larger ones which give the manufacturer the highest profit margins.

As some have pointed out, the A321 is a lot heavier than the A320 and needs to be the size it is to maintain its operating cost per seat advantage. So an A321 shrink is not on the cards.

A 200-seat A320 stretch would seriously threaten the economic position of the A321, a situation I suspect Airbus will do everything to avoid.

[keesje]

With planes, as with cars, it's the larger ones which give the manufacturer the highest profit margins.

As some have pointed out, the A321 is a lot heavier than the A320 and needs to be the size it is to maintain its operating cost per seat advantage. So an A321 shrink is not on the cards.

A 200-seat A320 stretch would seriously threaten the economic position of the A321, a situation I suspect Airbus will do everything to avoid.

The A320 NEO Plus could be an A320 stretch iso an A321 shrink, lowering operating costs per seat. The range would remain the same as current A320s because of NEO efficiency improvements.

The economic position of the A321 seems less important then the economic viability of the total A320 family. An airline selecting the 737-8 and/or 737-9 MAX because they offer the 180-200 seats better then Airbus is a bigger risk if an airline finds the 174 seat A320 has become to small and the A321 to big/ expensive. Like Ryanair and Easyjet..

[keesje]

A a result of new exit options, the A321 now officially has a max seat count of 236 seats, the A320 of 180 seats.

A difference of no less then 56 seats between the A320 and A321.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/aircraft_pages_photo_galleries/a320-gallery/A320_Cabin_IFE_HG_08.jpg

edit:

Coincidently Ryanair CEO today confirms the A320 series seat gab compared to Boeings -800 and -900..

As for Ryanair's decision to place that new order from U.S.-based Boeing instead of Airbus of Europe, O'Leary said, "Look at the economics of the 737, the 800 [series] has 189 seats. The [Airbus] A320 has 180 seats. And those nine extra seats when you're flying them eight times a day, 365 days a year are a compelling competitive advantage for Boeing."

Ryanair CEO Calls Boeing 787 Problems 'Regulatory Crap' (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100568271)

And 180 seats for the A320 is truly pushing it. Few operators dare..