Airbus ever going to launch a real 757/ 762/ A300 Replacement? Airbus A322 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus ever going to launch a real 757/ 762/ A300 Replacement? Airbus A322 ?
The A321 seems increasingly successful as a 757, A300/310 and 767-200 replacement.
Technically it seems to have run out of wing/ payload-range to cover the markets segments now dominated by the 757s, 767s, A300s, A310 and Tu154 ; 200-300 seat short/medium haul.
A large market IMO, including high density city pairs, leisure operations, US transcons, Intra Asia, EMEA etc. and Transatlantic flights. Easily 2000 aircraft in the next 2 decades.
The 787-8/ A330-200s cost/ weigh twice as much. A good alternative only if cost can be neglected..
Question is should Airbus bite the bullet and ask Filton to propose a set of efficient new larger wings/engines for the A320 series to boast capacity & payload-range?
Technically it seems to have run out of wing/ payload-range to cover the markets segments now dominated by the 757s, 767s, A300s, A310 and Tu154 ; 200-300 seat short/medium haul.
A large market IMO, including high density city pairs, leisure operations, US transcons, Intra Asia, EMEA etc. and Transatlantic flights. Easily 2000 aircraft in the next 2 decades.
The 787-8/ A330-200s cost/ weigh twice as much. A good alternative only if cost can be neglected..
Question is should Airbus bite the bullet and ask Filton to propose a set of efficient new larger wings/engines for the A320 series to boast capacity & payload-range?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single aisle?
Loved the A300/310
Loved the A300/310
But it would mean a much bigger project to make it light and efficient. More investment, time to market, probably a lower return on investment with the current A330 market being largely filled in by 787s and A350s..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...0-700Light.jpg
Last edited by keesje; 1st Feb 2013 at 12:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what is this one's risk of a tail strike?
Anyway this A322 would have a new optimized wing and landing gear, to take care of the higher MTOW's. For reference I copied the Air Indians double bogey MLG.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPJb3UE_DU
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely rendering, as always, but...
Boeing canned the B757 because the business case was looking shaky. Shame, because it was a great bird.
Boeing canned the B757 because the business case was looking shaky. Shame, because it was a great bird.
It was right after 9/11 and Boeing was cutting cost everywhere. Since then global air traffic grew ~4-5% per year.
Looking at how many larger NB's and smaller WB's both Airbus and Boeing forecast, there is significant market demand.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo...chart2_lrg.gif
Geography shows it too. If you draw a 4000NM circle around JFK, you can see a Billion people, same for Frankfurt; 2 Billion. Singapore: 3 Billion people..
IMO there's no natural gab between 200 seat and 300 seat market requirements. There is just nothing for sale anymore (except, formally, 767s).
Last edited by keesje; 1st Feb 2013 at 20:44.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4,000 nm range isn't enough against the winds. Effective range becomes 500-1000 nm less into the wind.
It needs 4,500 - 5,000 nm range. That would give you 4,000 nm range into the wind.
Just checked a 4,600 nm leg. 767-300 restricted to 180 passengers with a close alternate due to winter winds. Published range of 6,000 nm weight restricted on a 4,600 nm leg into the winds.
Udvar-Hazy has complained about the lack of suitable a/c for the 3,000-5,000 mile markets and that the 787-8 and A350 are too heavy for those mission profiles.
It needs 4,500 - 5,000 nm range. That would give you 4,000 nm range into the wind.
Just checked a 4,600 nm leg. 767-300 restricted to 180 passengers with a close alternate due to winter winds. Published range of 6,000 nm weight restricted on a 4,600 nm leg into the winds.
Udvar-Hazy has complained about the lack of suitable a/c for the 3,000-5,000 mile markets and that the 787-8 and A350 are too heavy for those mission profiles.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin, you are totally right.
The 4000NM is meant as operational range, with a usefull payload, winds, diversions, reserves. The official no winds, only passengers, sealevel take-off, long runway range would be significantly more.
The brochure range for the new A321 NEO with GTF's will probably be around 3700NM, its operational, usefull range significantly lower..
btw the fly is to make sure everyone sees it's all un-official
The 4000NM is meant as operational range, with a usefull payload, winds, diversions, reserves. The official no winds, only passengers, sealevel take-off, long runway range would be significantly more.
The brochure range for the new A321 NEO with GTF's will probably be around 3700NM, its operational, usefull range significantly lower..
btw the fly is to make sure everyone sees it's all un-official
Last edited by keesje; 1st Feb 2013 at 15:49.
I agree with OP - I have often wondered why Airbus have not made a true rival to the 757. It would need a new wing - that's probably why. The 75 is such a useful (but thirsty) beast though, I would have thought the developement cost would be worth it.
I wouldn't call it the A322 though, save that for A321 variants. A325 sounds better to me and has echoes of the 75 it would be replacing. So; a new wing, slightly overpowered to give it more options, a few more seats, and yes, keep it single isle too - it needs to be a thin and sleek machine.
I wouldn't call it the A322 though, save that for A321 variants. A325 sounds better to me and has echoes of the 75 it would be replacing. So; a new wing, slightly overpowered to give it more options, a few more seats, and yes, keep it single isle too - it needs to be a thin and sleek machine.
Last edited by Uplinker; 1st Feb 2013 at 19:03.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje & others
There's no point.
What extra sales would Airbus pick up by spending all that money?
757 is rightly dead, so what sales are Boeing making now that in the future could go to this new Airbus?
Not enough to cover its development cost.
What extra sales would Airbus pick up by spending all that money?
757 is rightly dead, so what sales are Boeing making now that in the future could go to this new Airbus?
Not enough to cover its development cost.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toffeez, its not a 757 replacement.
It an aircraft covering medium long flights up to 250 seats.
That segment is now covered by the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154.
Looking at market forecasts from both Airbus and Boeing for big single aisles and small twin aisles, you see several thousand in demand to replace the existing fleets.
http://theblogbyjavier.files.wordpre...ecast20111.png
The investment would be several Billion, but the ROI / NPV would probably be positive very fast. Airbus is already reaping the benefits of dominating the above 200 seat segment. It would hurt the 787-8, the smallest new WB.
Nothing is as good as being the sole offering in a sizeable niche. The 737-9 Max cannot be stretched any further. Before Boeing had to go with the MAX, they were preparing the NSA, significantly larger then the 737, a 2-3-2 small twin aisle..
It an aircraft covering medium long flights up to 250 seats.
That segment is now covered by the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154.
Looking at market forecasts from both Airbus and Boeing for big single aisles and small twin aisles, you see several thousand in demand to replace the existing fleets.
http://theblogbyjavier.files.wordpre...ecast20111.png
The investment would be several Billion, but the ROI / NPV would probably be positive very fast. Airbus is already reaping the benefits of dominating the above 200 seat segment. It would hurt the 787-8, the smallest new WB.
Nothing is as good as being the sole offering in a sizeable niche. The 737-9 Max cannot be stretched any further. Before Boeing had to go with the MAX, they were preparing the NSA, significantly larger then the 737, a 2-3-2 small twin aisle..
Last edited by keesje; 2nd Feb 2013 at 11:51.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 757 was, and is, just about as fuel efficient per seat mile as the NG 737 and 320. The reason it was never a huge seller was the airlines didn't like it for a different reason. When gas was cheap, labor and the cost of the airplane were much more than fuel. Getting high aircraft utilization was very important to keeps costs down. Turn around times were extremely important. In the end, Boeing sold a reasonable number of them, but over a very long time, so not a lot were built and delivered each month.
A big long tube with one isle needs more time to load and unload (cargo and bags as well). The airlines loved the 757 for what it could do, but didn't like it for the inefficiencies it caused in operation.
Fast forward 15-20 years. Now fuel is 40% of the cost structure, and turn around times less important. A few years ago Boeing couldn't give a 737-900 away, now they are selling well. 321's also never sold well in the N.A. market for some of the same reasons. They sold very well in Asia (not sure about Europe).
Besides shorter range for the 321 and 739, they are both ground loving machines. Very high V-speeds and runway requirements. In Asia most of the runways are long and at sea level. No problem. Europe and N.A. have a lot of old inner city airports with 2000' meter runways, or less. Not good when V1 and Vr are 173 knots.
A big long tube with one isle needs more time to load and unload (cargo and bags as well). The airlines loved the 757 for what it could do, but didn't like it for the inefficiencies it caused in operation.
Fast forward 15-20 years. Now fuel is 40% of the cost structure, and turn around times less important. A few years ago Boeing couldn't give a 737-900 away, now they are selling well. 321's also never sold well in the N.A. market for some of the same reasons. They sold very well in Asia (not sure about Europe).
Besides shorter range for the 321 and 739, they are both ground loving machines. Very high V-speeds and runway requirements. In Asia most of the runways are long and at sea level. No problem. Europe and N.A. have a lot of old inner city airports with 2000' meter runways, or less. Not good when V1 and Vr are 173 knots.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
The Airbus industrial structure is not of infinite size. They have a backlog of 4600 planes to build and deliver.
They don't want another flight test programme until the A350 is finished with.
They don't need another wing production line.
They don't need to fill all the empty spaces you might see on a product line chart.
The A300/A310/762/763 replacements already exist (A330-200/787).
The 757-200 replacement is the A321.
The 757-300 will not be replaced, for some of the reasons USMCProbe explained.
There is no new business out there now that can't be satisfied by the existing products.
P.S. there is not, and never will be, a case for a range-limited small widebody-Lite. Airbus is never going to repeat the mistake of the A310. Simply because the customers who order such a plane spend the next 10 years pleading with the manufacturer for 1000nm, 2000nm more range, which needs major and expensive engineering changes.
.
They don't want another flight test programme until the A350 is finished with.
They don't need another wing production line.
They don't need to fill all the empty spaces you might see on a product line chart.
The A300/A310/762/763 replacements already exist (A330-200/787).
The 757-200 replacement is the A321.
The 757-300 will not be replaced, for some of the reasons USMCProbe explained.
There is no new business out there now that can't be satisfied by the existing products.
P.S. there is not, and never will be, a case for a range-limited small widebody-Lite. Airbus is never going to repeat the mistake of the A310. Simply because the customers who order such a plane spend the next 10 years pleading with the manufacturer for 1000nm, 2000nm more range, which needs major and expensive engineering changes.
.
Last edited by toffeez; 2nd Feb 2013 at 13:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. there is not, and never will be, a case for a range-limited small widebody-Lite
There is no new business out there now that can't be satisfied by the existing products.
The market studies of Boeing and Airbus say otherwise as you can see.
Boeing probably would have started already if they weren't occupied with the 787, 777X and 737MAX. And they're not even shy about it.
Boeing confirms long-haul 757 replacement study
Does Airbus feel the need to offer more seat above the A321s 220? Ask them:
Airbus Studies 236-Seat A321
Despite a big backlog they invest.
If Airbus would introduce a bigger wing they would do it for a sub-series. Basically the same aircraft trading capacity for range.
Last edited by keesje; 2nd Feb 2013 at 16:02.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on your definition of 'just about'. We operate both the A321 and B757 and on the same route, both with max pax, the B757 uses 14% more fuel per pax. Which at today's fuel prices makes all the differences.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides shorter range for the 321 and 739, they are both ground loving machines. Very high V-speeds and runway requirements. In Asia most of the runways are long and at sea level. No problem. Europe and N.A. have a lot of old inner city airports with 2000' meter runways, or less. Not good when V1 and Vr are 173 knots.
Depends on your definition of 'just about'. We operate both the A321 and B757 and on the same route, both with max pax, the B757 uses 14% more fuel per pax. Which at today's fuel prices makes all the differences.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V speeds depend on many things. Weight, flap setting, runway length, density altitude, obstacles. A loaded 321 on a 3 hour flight has extremely high V speeds. 170 plus knots is very common. I haven't flown a 737-900 but I would guess their V speeds are high as well, but maybe not that high.
I am not sure I ever saw 145 knots for Vr on a 321. Maybe a ferry flight.
I am not sure I ever saw 145 knots for Vr on a 321. Maybe a ferry flight.