Airbus Faces Dilemma As It Looks At Next Development Options
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus Faces Dilemma As It Looks At Next Development Options
Jens Flottau
Yes, technically Airbus’ latest long-haul model, the A350-1000, has not yet entered service, though it has completed development, flight testing and certification. The first customer aircraft is parked in Toulouse enduring the by-now customary delay in being accepted by Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker. His airline should have taken delivery of the aircraft before the end of 2017, but it came as no surprise that some last-minute issues arose. Airbus knows the drill by now: The same thing happened with the first A350-900.
Eventually, the aircraft will fly in the colors of Qatar Airways and many other airlines. Delayed delivery of the largest A350 version will likely be a footnote in future aviation history books. But the event is relevant in a very different way because it marks the end of a long development cycle.
Airbus has no more major civil aircraft development programs underway. One can ignore work on the Beluga XL, an in-house logistics tool, and the A319neo, which has not sold well and will be in an even worse position as Airbus takes control of the Bombardier C Series. More important, there also is no clarity about the manufacturer’s next moves, leading to the strong possibility of a material gap between the A350-1000 and the OEM’s next major program.
An extended gap between development programs is financially attractive because R&D spending declines rapidly and profit margins go up in consequence. But it is hugely problematic as far as engineering resources are concerned. For now, Airbus has too many engineers with little work to do. If it reduces capacity too much, it risks losing valuable know-how. Ideally, companies should aim at a more or less even flow of development work, with as few peaks and valleys as possible.
Airbus risks losing that balance—and it is clear why. There are two in-service aircraft families that cover most airline requirements: the A320neo and the A350. But Airbus is struggling with the decision about where to put its money next. There are several reasons for that indecision.
Following the acquisition of the C Series, there are two areas at which Airbus could potentially look: the midmarket segment that Boeing believes has huge potential, or the long-range widebody market. Starting with the midmarket segment, Airbus faces a timing issue. Management wants to wait for Boeing to move first and launch its New Midmarket Airplane. It wants to use the second-mover advantage—forcing its competitor to define its aircraft first—then be in the position to react. There is arguably no need to rush, because the A321neo and A321LR are proving popular. Airbus also wants to sell the A330neo, which would almost certainly be cannibalized by its own midmarket offering. This leaves Airbus with a tricky choice, and one that will require time to sort out. The most likely short-to-medium-term project is the launch of an A321plus—a larger version of the aircraft with more range, possibly a new composite wing and more powerful engines.
Then there is the true long-range market. It looks entirely possible that Airbus will soon be forced to end production of the A380. The only way around it would be a quick follow-on order by Emirates, and signs indicate the airline may ultimately decide against a commitment. In that scenario, the A350-1000 would be Airbus’ largest aircraft. It would be about 30 seats smaller than Boeing’s future largest aircraft, the 777-9 (leaving out the 747-8 passenger version, which lacks customer interest). For now, Airbus argues the sweet spot of the long-haul market is 300 seats, where the A350-1000 and the 777-300ER sit in typical airline configurations. But what about five or 10 years from now? If airlines are unwilling to buy a 550-seater—which Airbus clearly launched far too early—perhaps they would consider a much more modern aircraft with 350-400 seats that incorporates all the technology developments that have become available since 2000, the year the A380 was launched.
Yes, technically Airbus’ latest long-haul model, the A350-1000, has not yet entered service, though it has completed development, flight testing and certification. The first customer aircraft is parked in Toulouse enduring the by-now customary delay in being accepted by Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker. His airline should have taken delivery of the aircraft before the end of 2017, but it came as no surprise that some last-minute issues arose. Airbus knows the drill by now: The same thing happened with the first A350-900.
Eventually, the aircraft will fly in the colors of Qatar Airways and many other airlines. Delayed delivery of the largest A350 version will likely be a footnote in future aviation history books. But the event is relevant in a very different way because it marks the end of a long development cycle.
Airbus has no more major civil aircraft development programs underway. One can ignore work on the Beluga XL, an in-house logistics tool, and the A319neo, which has not sold well and will be in an even worse position as Airbus takes control of the Bombardier C Series. More important, there also is no clarity about the manufacturer’s next moves, leading to the strong possibility of a material gap between the A350-1000 and the OEM’s next major program.
An extended gap between development programs is financially attractive because R&D spending declines rapidly and profit margins go up in consequence. But it is hugely problematic as far as engineering resources are concerned. For now, Airbus has too many engineers with little work to do. If it reduces capacity too much, it risks losing valuable know-how. Ideally, companies should aim at a more or less even flow of development work, with as few peaks and valleys as possible.
Airbus risks losing that balance—and it is clear why. There are two in-service aircraft families that cover most airline requirements: the A320neo and the A350. But Airbus is struggling with the decision about where to put its money next. There are several reasons for that indecision.
Following the acquisition of the C Series, there are two areas at which Airbus could potentially look: the midmarket segment that Boeing believes has huge potential, or the long-range widebody market. Starting with the midmarket segment, Airbus faces a timing issue. Management wants to wait for Boeing to move first and launch its New Midmarket Airplane. It wants to use the second-mover advantage—forcing its competitor to define its aircraft first—then be in the position to react. There is arguably no need to rush, because the A321neo and A321LR are proving popular. Airbus also wants to sell the A330neo, which would almost certainly be cannibalized by its own midmarket offering. This leaves Airbus with a tricky choice, and one that will require time to sort out. The most likely short-to-medium-term project is the launch of an A321plus—a larger version of the aircraft with more range, possibly a new composite wing and more powerful engines.
Then there is the true long-range market. It looks entirely possible that Airbus will soon be forced to end production of the A380. The only way around it would be a quick follow-on order by Emirates, and signs indicate the airline may ultimately decide against a commitment. In that scenario, the A350-1000 would be Airbus’ largest aircraft. It would be about 30 seats smaller than Boeing’s future largest aircraft, the 777-9 (leaving out the 747-8 passenger version, which lacks customer interest). For now, Airbus argues the sweet spot of the long-haul market is 300 seats, where the A350-1000 and the 777-300ER sit in typical airline configurations. But what about five or 10 years from now? If airlines are unwilling to buy a 550-seater—which Airbus clearly launched far too early—perhaps they would consider a much more modern aircraft with 350-400 seats that incorporates all the technology developments that have become available since 2000, the year the A380 was launched.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If not this year , my bet is Paris Airshow 2019. Regardless what Boeing does.
Something radical I hope.
Depends what China does as well, after all yesterday they built a railway station in 9 hrs!
Something radical I hope.
Depends what China does as well, after all yesterday they built a railway station in 9 hrs!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a small stretch of the A380, primarily to increase freight capacity, but also to keep engineers busy in the short term.
The A320 family is probably coming to the end of its stretch life, and airlines are cramming ever more seats into the available volume. Is it time to start thinking about a completely new shorthaul offering? 200+ seats at reasonable pitch, twin aisle to make for faster boarding, seven or perhaps eight across in Economy. Would it sell?
The A320 family is probably coming to the end of its stretch life, and airlines are cramming ever more seats into the available volume. Is it time to start thinking about a completely new shorthaul offering? 200+ seats at reasonable pitch, twin aisle to make for faster boarding, seven or perhaps eight across in Economy. Would it sell?
I believe a small stretch would require significant investment. Given Airbus are struggling to recoup their investment on the current model, wouldn't that be like throwing good money after bad?
Plus, my understanding is that the A380 design isn't particularly well optimised for freight, for reasons of diameter rather than length.
But I stand to be corrected.
Plus, my understanding is that the A380 design isn't particularly well optimised for freight, for reasons of diameter rather than length.
But I stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there's a deal of uncertainty on the future direction. Will shift away from routes via Hubs to point to point services between medium sized airports extend to long haul? If so there will be a demand for lots of smallish long range a/c but with interiors more suitable for longer flights. Or will slot restrictions at major airports force the use of large a/c?
Airbus Faces Dilemma As It Looks At Next Development Options
Paxing All Over The World
Dairyground
When I see that 744s are still being loaded with F in one door and everyone else through one door - I can't see faster boarding happening soon. Most airports that have twin tunnels use them as above. Triples are also loaded one-at-a-time. Unless airportrs requip (No!) then nothing will change. We've have wide bodies for 40(?) years and still load through two doors only. At LHR T5, I see twin jet bridges everywhere for widebodies.
I certainly agree with DRUK that, overall, the position that Airbus find themselves in is how it was at the height of the Lockheed/McD/Boeing competition. Then Airbus arrived.
Since then, we have the consolidation in the USA and Europe (Fokker, Dornier etc.) with Bombardier, Embraer and the Chinese piling in. So someone is going to lose out.
twin aisle to make for faster boarding
I certainly agree with DRUK that, overall, the position that Airbus find themselves in is how it was at the height of the Lockheed/McD/Boeing competition. Then Airbus arrived.
Since then, we have the consolidation in the USA and Europe (Fokker, Dornier etc.) with Bombardier, Embraer and the Chinese piling in. So someone is going to lose out.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Behind a desk, dreaming of the sky
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the argument that both Boeing and Airbus were provisionally looking at a 'middle of the market' design. There's even a wiki page on it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_market
For Airbus they'd be looking at a shorter range version of the A338neo. Maybe that might give them something to work on. Boeing doesn't appear to be rushing in, so there's a chance Airbus would pull ahead in this area.
For Airbus they'd be looking at a shorter range version of the A338neo. Maybe that might give them something to work on. Boeing doesn't appear to be rushing in, so there's a chance Airbus would pull ahead in this area.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Then there is the true long-range market. It looks entirely possible that Airbus will soon be forced to end production of the A380. The only way around it would be a quick follow-on order by Emirates, and signs indicate the airline may ultimately decide against a commitmen" posted 25th January
From the news on 18th January:-
Airbus’s troubled A380 airliner has been thrown a lifeline by Gulf carrier Emirates, which has agreed to buy 36 of the double-decker jets. The company has signed a memorandum of understanding for a $16bn deal to acquire 20 of the “superjumbos” with an option for 16 more. The purchase will extend the production line for the A380
From the news on 18th January:-
Airbus’s troubled A380 airliner has been thrown a lifeline by Gulf carrier Emirates, which has agreed to buy 36 of the double-decker jets. The company has signed a memorandum of understanding for a $16bn deal to acquire 20 of the “superjumbos” with an option for 16 more. The purchase will extend the production line for the A380
This will be the money spinner for Airbus?
In YSSY this week, Airbus trying to sell the A350-1000(900ULR?) to Qantas execs.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3zxmy1rx4...xwEBrAM3a?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3zxmy1rx4...xwEBrAM3a?dl=0
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors on widebodies are generally wider so the animals can board two by two. It's also about reducing the congestion in the aisles. Ideally the boarding process would allow door 1L to board pax with seats on right-hand side and door 2L those with seats on the left rather than by row number or, with just one door and two by two boarding, those on the left with seats on the right hand side of the aircraft etc. Given the inevitable higher costs of a twin-aisle 250 seater compared to a single aisle of the same technology, there would have to be significant improvements in boarding / turnaround times and I suspect Boeing are wrestling with this. A single aisle with wider aisle-width would probably allow boarding just as quickly - MC21?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A322 and A323. A true A321 and A330 in betweener - Able to carry 250-270 passengers 5,500nm. Absolutely need bigger and better wings to carry more fuel and do something about those CAT E approaching approach speeds! Another 2 toilets and crew rest areas - however small and cramped. They should stop all work on new long haul aircraft. The A330 Neo can do it all.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Behind a desk, dreaming of the sky
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THe main question for the 'in-betweener' is if it's to be a very long single aisle, like the B753, or if they opt for a small widebody, like the B762. Pros and cons on both sides, but if they can crack that, the rest should hopefully fall into place
Personally, i'd say the A322 is the ideal way to go, from a pure cost level, but then again, a thinner A330 for pax comfort/convenience (having 2 sets of overhead bins)
Personally, i'd say the A322 is the ideal way to go, from a pure cost level, but then again, a thinner A330 for pax comfort/convenience (having 2 sets of overhead bins)
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Gateshead, UK
Age: 25
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A322 - essentially an A321LR with new wing, engine PIP's, increased MTOW, new landing gear config, 5-6000nm range, improved runway performance, interior upgrades etc. MAYBE with a 3/4 meter stretch to bring it comfortably into 757 200 territory in terms of two class configurations.
A323 - Stretch of the A322 to a 757 300 sized narrowbody, 55-ish metres, 300 capacity single class, 250 comfortably two class and with 5,000nm range
Would seem like a good way forward to me.
A323 - Stretch of the A322 to a 757 300 sized narrowbody, 55-ish metres, 300 capacity single class, 250 comfortably two class and with 5,000nm range
Would seem like a good way forward to me.
Paxing All Over The World
Torquelink
Never seen it happen myself. I agree that trying to split pax left and right a good idea but that moves the problem back into the departure gate. I can't see the carriers or airports changing their practice.
Gates are now being fitted with auto barriers and that is to reduce staffing. If the gates had been designed to channel Left/Right aisle? But it won't happen.
Doors on widebodies are generally wider so the animals can board two by two.
Gates are now being fitted with auto barriers and that is to reduce staffing. If the gates had been designed to channel Left/Right aisle? But it won't happen.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Historical aside, the A300* was originally planned with a 6.4m diameter fuselage; yes, 20cm more than the 777. That would have made an amazing basis for the later A330 / 340 but the partners became worried by a traffic downturn and scaled-down to 5.64m to hit the 'middle of the market', with the Mercure and 727 below and the trijets above.
* well it was technically still the HBN-100 then
Last edited by El Bunto; 16th Feb 2018 at 06:53.
