A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA

[underfire]

The long-range variant of the A321neo has been certified to fly routes of up to 7,400km by regulators in the USA and Europe.

The single aisle A321LR (long range) can carry up to 206 passengers and has three additional fuel tanks so it can fly further than the standard A321’s range of 5,950km.

The EASA and FAA this week jointly certified the addition of three underfloor fuel tanks on the A321, including their use to carry extra fuel for Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards (ETOPS) routes. The ETOPS authorization also enables up to 180 minutes single-engine diversion time, which is sufficient for performing any transatlantic route.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/702x447/a321lr_in_flight_jpeg_8cebaafdd755da00534dd8a360acd52eac4671 84.jpg

[macdo]

What fun, I can't wait to try A321 long haul, oh! wait a minute.. yes I can!

[TURIN]

I always thought ETOPS was Extended Twin engine OPerationS.
Have I got it wrong?

[RufusXS]

Is that the max density single class config? Because if it’s two class it’s starting to look like the 752 in terms of capacity and range but with modern technology which makes me wonder if it could fill the MMA role.

[twochai]

A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAAI don't like to nit-pick, but the A321NEO has not been 'certified' to 7,400 km by EASA, FAA or any other authority. It has been granted Type Certificate approval by the authorities which refers to its airworthiness, but the range is a matter under the control of the manufacturer and the operator.

[msbbarratt]

What fun, I can't wait to try A321 long haul, oh! wait a minute.. yes I can!

It can't be worse than a 10-across 777.

I'm presuming that this is making it even harder for Boeing to launch its NMA.

[HundredPercentPlease]

What fun, I can't wait to try A321 long haul, oh! wait a minute.. yes I can!
We do that distance (7400 km) in 1 duty in a 320, albeit over 2 sectors. 1 sector, same distance, shorter day!

[underfire]

What fun, I can't wait to try A321 long haul, oh! wait a minute.. yes I can!

exactly, just because you can... for me I would not travel that far on this variant, and that goes for the 787 as well....
while they can stretch these variants that far...... well

[macdo]

We do that distance (7400 km) in 1 duty in a 320, albeit over 2 sectors. 1 sector, same distance, shorter day!
Sure you do, in 2 sectors, largely with a nice div field no more than a hundred miles away! Seriously, its going to be safe, of course, but from an operational point of view a fully gassed and loaded 321, even with magic winglets is not going to get much altitude to dodge the weather across the Atlantic. Having seen (from the outside) the Primera operation I don't think its going to be much fun for the crews and finally, to make money its going to be packed like a sardine tin on modern hard seats. I'm sorry, but frankly I'd rather not go, front or back of the aircraft. It is aviation sunk to the gutter and now exploring the drainage system. I'll take may chances with the 10 seats across a nice 330 (other airframes are available) and hope for an upgrade ;-)

[Jet Jockey A4]

At what Mach cruising speed... M0.75?

[chuboy]

What fun, I can't wait to try A321 long haul, oh! wait a minute.. yes I can!

No aircraft is ever fun in a high density configuration.

This is a game changer as a hub buster in a more reasonable 2-class layout at 31" pitch. I'd much rather 7 hours in this than two 5hr legs via a megahub.

Look at the configs used by EY and QR in their narrowbodies, the seats are the same as fitted to the widebodies, with plenty of legroom and IFE. You don't notice the difference (in economy class).

[Dan Winterland]

I always thought ETOPS was Extended Twin engine OPerationS. Have I got it wrong?

Now officially known as EDTO. Extended Diversion Time Operations.

[Tom Sawyer]

Now officially known as EDTO. Extended Diversion Time Operations.

Seems to be dependent on the Authority. I'm doing my ETOPS recurrent next week, so still in use where I am as well:

8 Further Reading (https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Extended_Range_Operations#Further_Reading)

The Regulatory ContextICAO Requirements for Extended Range Twin-engine Operations (ETOPS) have been in place since 1985, when they were introduced to apply an overall level of operational safety for twin-engined aeroplanes which was consistent with that of the modern three and four-engined aeroplanes then flying, to which no restrictions were applied. As aeroplane reliability and range improved, it became clear that all multi turbine-engined aircraft were pushing the boundaries of flight away from nearby alternates to increasingly distant ones and a review of the existing arrangements for ETOPS began.

After many years of discussion about how to broaden the facilitation of international flights for all large transport aeroplanes which necessitated tracks with no close-by diversion aerodromes (or could be more efficiently routed with the use of these tracks), led in 2012 to changes to ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 under Amendment 36. This introduced the Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO)regime in place of ETOPS. However since then, although the EDTO regime has been widely accepted, the term EDTO has not been universally adopted the continued use of ETOPS is explicitly allowed for in Annex 6 provided that EDTO concepts "are correctly embodied in the concerned regulation or documentation". Given this flexibility, the term 'ETOPS' has been retained by the FAA and others by redefining it as an abbreviation for 'ExTended range OPerationS' rather than as previously 'Extended range Twin OPerationS'. EASA currently continues to use ETOPS as originally defined and the abbreviation 'LROPS' (Long Range OPerationS) for extended range operation by three and four-engined aircraft.

[Denti]

Is that the max density single class config? Because if it’s two class it’s starting to look like the 752 in terms of capacity and range but with modern technology which makes me wonder if it could fill the MMA role.

As far as i know it is quite possible to configure the A321NEO LR with up to 240 passenger seats, but of course the maximum range will decrease and there might an issue with cargo for the bags. The 206 quoted is a generic 2 or 2,5 class layout.

[DaveReidUK]

As far as i know it is quite possible to configure the A321NEO LR with up to 240 passenger seats, but of course the maximum range will decrease and there might an issue with cargo for the bags. The 206 quoted is a generic 2 or 2,5 class layout.

That's my understanding, too (up to 244 pax, in fact, with the revised door configuration). According to Airbus, the ACTs are operator-removable, though I can't see many airlines rushing to convert their A321LRs back to regular A321s.

EASA and FAA certify long-range capability for A321neo (https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/10/easa-and-faa-certify-long-range-capability-for-a321neo-.html)

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/991x558/a321lr_infographic_923acae53073e7bc6b121168bbe9b78be2077480. jpg

[bringbackthe80s]

Sure you do, in 2 sectors, largely with a nice div field no more than a hundred miles away! Seriously, its going to be safe, of course, but from an operational point of view a fully gassed and loaded 321, even with magic winglets is not going to get much altitude to dodge the weather across the Atlantic. Having seen (from the outside) the Primera operation I don't think its going to be much fun for the crews and finally, to make money its going to be packed like a sardine tin on modern hard seats. I'm sorry, but frankly I'd rather not go, front or back of the aircraft. It is aviation sunk to the gutter and now exploring the drainage system. I'll take may chances with the 10 seats across a nice 330 (other airframes are available) and hope for an upgrade ;-)

I'm just wondering, have you ever tried San Paulo in economy with BA? I promise you it is NO fun. If anything this is going to be the same or slightly better

[Kerosene Kraut]

Impressive performance improvements, BUT even onboard shorter neo sectors (nominal duration 1:30 hrs at LH as an example) you feel that the cabin comfort becomes the limiting factor. Lavs, galleys, binspace, seat pitch in the back of the cabin (resulting in some very tail heavy a/c). This is not your DC-8 anymore. Hope airline cabin configurations will better match the aircrafts's technical capabilities. BTW: Some similar remark would be valid for the MAX.

[rog747]

Is that the max density single class config? Because if it’s two class it’s starting to look like the 752 in terms of capacity and range but with modern technology which makes me wonder if it could fill the MMA role.


No, not the max pax load.
AB are quoting 206 pax as a 2 class premium W and Y cabins (like Primera Air had) which will allow that range with Aux tanks.

I agree the 752 with 189-206 pax (rather than 223-235) is similar load but a bit less range offering.

The latest A321neo can now be ordered with a variety of different door and exit configurations, including larger single pair or a double pair of over wing exits (not seen before on the 321) which can offer a max load of 240 pax for IT charters or a LCC.

As for MMA role - not sure

[Bigpants]

Yay! EasyJet Manchester to Dubai and back in a day....might need a third pilot?

[DaveReidUK]

which can offer a max load of 240 pax for IT charters or a LCC.

The Airbus infographic in my previous post suggests 244 (which is also the figure in the TC).

That assumes the 5-door configuration: (from front to rear) Type C+ (no, I don't know what they are, either), two Type III overwing, Type C, Type C+.

With the standard A321 Type C door (ahead of the wing) instead of the Type III overwing exits, the limit is 230, or 200/220 (with 4/5 cabin crew, respectively) if all 4 doors are Type C.

[DaveReidUK]

makes me wonder if it could fill the MMA role.

Steven Udvar-Hazy (who knows a thing or two about the commercial aircraft market) is quoted in last week's Flight as saying that he expects Boeing to reach a decision on the MMA by mid-2019.

[Kerosene Kraut]

This is just what Boeing has said in public since at least Farnborough.

[gurumike]

I always thought ETOPS was Extended Twin engine OPerationS.
Have I got it wrong?
Yes, Performance Standards is correct.

[gurumike]

Is that the max density single class config? Because if it’s two class it’s starting to look like the 752 in terms of capacity and range but with modern technology which makes me wonder if it could fill the MMA role.
The 321 maximum is normally 230 seats but this is reduced in part as using the fuel needed for the longer routes reaches MTOW. Logically the LR range further reduced this again so losing the seats means more cabin room for the Pax instead of seats which would have to otherwise be empty anyway. On max range flights there will no doubt need to be 10+ empty seats anyway, even in the LR configuration, as the aircraft will still be hitting its MTOW when carrying required fuel.

[Jonty]

Can you even get bags of 200 people in the hold when there’s 3 ACTs in?

[glofish]

Just what was needed on LR routes like Natrak or solitary airways to popular holiday destinations: Locos flying with minimum fuel and eco-M.75

[DaveReidUK]

Can you even get bags of 200 people in the hold when there’s 3 ACTs in?

Almost certainly not.

Clearly, no matter how you crunch the numbers, the A321LR neo isn't a slot-in replacement for the B752.

The only mystery is why anyone might think that it would be.

[rog747]

The Airbus infographic in my previous post suggests 244 (which is also the figure in the TC).

That assumes the 5-door configuration: (from front to rear) Type C+ (no, I don't know what they are, either), two Type III overwing, Type C, Type C+.

With the standard A321 Type C door (ahead of the wing) instead of the Type III overwing exits, the limit is 230, or 200/220 (with 4/5 cabin crew, respectively) if all 4 doors are Type C.


thanks Dave - I think C+ door type is a double lane slide?
This enables AB to max (sic) the A321neo load to be almost 250 as you say - with the new arrangement of exits and bigger overwing window exits too plus double slides at main doors they can manage the evacuation time limits.

Another Poster mentions Loco's now dawdling across the pond.
Flying at 0.75 on economy minimum fuel, with chaps upfront who (not their fault) are not yet that familiar with TA Ops, RT and Nav - plus at least an extra hours flight time for the pax.
Seems Primera Air found out that this type of flying gobbles up monthly crew hours, takes more hours if a tech stop is needed, leaves crew fatigued after too many quick turnround TA's a month, crew then calling in sick.
Company has then found out that no pilot hours left to roster at the end of the month - has to call in Overtime = ££££

[rog747]

Yay! EasyJet Manchester to Dubai and back in a day....might need a third pilot?

I seem to recall someone in the early 90's (Britannia or Excalibur) doing Gatwick to Banjul there and back in a day
They had a crew prep the flight and board the pax - Then the operating crew boarded and they all set off.
The ''setting up'' crew then did something short like a Palma and back.
- didn't last long

Britannia planned a winter sun series on the 757 LGW-Dakar and that was def rostered as a there and back for all the crew - it was cancelled before it started

[underfire]

ETOPS-Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

(BTW, do we now have ads even when logged in?)

[Herod]

I seem to recall someone in the early 90's (Britannia or Excalibur) doing Gatwick to Banjul there and back in a day

Astraeus did Bristol - Banjul and back as a day trip. Looking at the logbook, about 12 hours flying. 13:40 flying duty or thereabouts. The crew duty was quite a bit longer, as it involved a taxi back to Gatwick.

[SMT Member]

Can you even get bags of 200 people in the hold when there’s 3 ACTs in?

Absolutely, with room to spare, whether containerised* or bulk loaded. Worth keeping in mind, it'll be the low-cost brigade fitting 200ish seats in the things and flog them across the ocean, catering to a clientele who are used to packing light and going for short breaks. If/when the US network carriers pension off their 757s, and given they'll replace them, they'd deploy the aircraft in 170-185 seat configurations. They are liable to see more in the way of bags due their fare policy in premium classes, but that won't be an issue either.

*There are 10 positions on an A321. With 3 occupied by ACTs, the remaining 7 will need to hold approx 30 bags each for a total of 210 pax. Standard load for an AKH is around 30-35 bags. And you still got the bulk compartment for overspill, strollers, wheelchairs and the odd mailbag. Bulk load all compartments, and you've got even more room to spare.

[Pain in the R's]

Anyone like to comment on the runway requirements for a maximum hop? Would this aircraft open up possibilities for long distance travel from some of the UK's smaller runway airports?

[RufusXS]

Almost certainly not.

Clearly, no matter how you crunch the numbers, the A321LR neo isn't a slot-in replacement for the B752.

The only mystery is why anyone might think that it would be.

What are some of the qualities of a slot-in 752 replacement that are missing from the 321LR?

[Flap40]

ETOPS-Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim)

I always preferred 'Eventually There's Only a Plopping Sound"

[DaveReidUK]

What are some of the qualities of a slot-in 752 replacement that are missing from the 321LR?

Payload
Range
Space (for pax & baggage)

[Sailvi767]

Anyone like to comment on the runway requirements for a maximum hop? Would this aircraft open up possibilities for long distance travel from some of the UK's smaller runway airports?

The 757 will have much better short runway performance. The wing on the A321 is to small and the single axle trucks limit stopping performance. I have heard Airbus is looking at a bigger wing and dual axles in a future version.

[Una Due Tfc]

The 757 will have much better short runway performance. The wing on the A321 is to small and the single axle trucks limit stopping performance. I have heard Airbus is looking at a bigger wing and dual axles in a future version.

They had dual axles on the original A320, Air India are still flying them.

As for the LR, TAP and Aer Lingus are the first carriers with proper premium cabins flogging then across the Atlantic. It’ll be interesting to see what they do with them route and capacity wise.

[Denti]

The 757 will have much better short runway performance. The wing on the A321 is to small and the single axle trucks limit stopping performance. I have heard Airbus is looking at a bigger wing and dual axles in a future version.


Thing is, the 757 is basically gone, it is not produced anymore and won't be, the tools don't exist anymore. That said, the A320 family can use dual axle bogies from the very first version. Due to low demand it is not sold since a few years after, but it was designed that way, there is enough space in the wheel wells. But stopping is actually not that much of an issue, take off might be, however the NEO engines are actually not bad for that, nor are the winglets. As it stands, the wingspan is right at the limit where it can be without requiring a higher category gate position, enabling it to use all single aisle stands and taxi ways (many are limited to 36m, the 35,8m do allow that). It will be interesting to see how that turns out in the next few years. Boeings MMA might actually have a point, as it will allow faster boarding, deboarding and supposedly support single aisle cost on similar or slightly longer sector lengths than the A321NEO LR (quite a mouth full), boarding a 235 seat single aisle plane via one door will be torturous and not allow the short turn arounds LCCs need.

[krismiler]

This aircraft enables a current A320 operator spread its wings and expand its radius without the substantial commitment of introducing a new wide body type. New routes can be trialled and easily cut if they don’t perform as expected. New city pairs can be flown which would previously have required wide body range but not have provided wide body load factors.

Airlines which were previously put off longish haul by the need to acquire A330 or B787 size aircraft can easily add the A321LR into their current A320 operation as it can still do the A320 routes as well. A B787 running around half empty drains cash and needs to find a money making route quickly, which it is unlikely to do on a typical narrow body flight.

Utilisation can be maximised as short haul routes are generally daytime and leave the A320s parked at night where as the A321LR can do an overnight long haul and be back to do the milk runs next morning.

Most likely a game changer but even if it doesn’t work neither the manufacturer or operators will be out of pocket by very much because they stuck a couple of extra fuel tanks in a current type and experimented with a few new routes.

[rog747]

I always preferred 'Eventually There's Only a Plopping Sound"

Thankfully in 30 years of ETOPS across the pond that has never happened - which shows the reliability of the operations, aircraft and engines.

I think Monarch were the first UK operator to get approval in 1988 for the Orlando's (via Bangor) with the 757. (223 pax)

[glofish]

Utilisation can be maximised as short haul routes are generally daytime and leave the A320s parked at night where as the A321LR can do an overnight long haul and be back to do the milk runs next morning.

Sure, the Jack of all trades of the air. The Germans call it the "egg-laying, milk-bearing woolly pig".
Every airline manager not buying this marvel should be called an amateur, the same "Sir" Tim Clark of EK called all those who did not fall for the A380.
How long is a long haul that you can squeeze it in a night-park-cycle? Typically such parking occurs between 10pm and 6am, meaning 8 hours. Take away two to prepare out and inbound LH flight, that leaves 6 hours and two whooping 3 hour legs. Then back to the daily 6 to 8 milk run legs.

Dream on.

Such a product will have to be tailored to the desired 6 to 8 hour flights, catering and interior equipment etc. It will then not be well suited to do the 25 minutes turn-arounds of LC ops. Meaning that it must deliver on this LH segment only, which has been tried before and most failed. Even on LOCO-LH you need support for any small event and it will not be a handy 25 minutes away. Only operators that can count on a big sister (like Edelweiss with Lufthansa) will be able to guarantee this. A small strike, a unspectacular in-flight engine shut down on ETOPS, a medical diversion can quickly ruin the whole operation. Quod erat demonstrandum ad nauseam.

There is certainly a market for such an aircraft, although a small one. Didn't we hear that before somewhere?

[The Ancient Geek]

This rather neatly crimps Boeing's options for the MMA. Airbus have the market segment nicely covered between the A321LR and the A330neo and this is a small niche market so a clean sheet design from Boeing is going to be prohibitively expensive. The 737 cannot take another stretch so Boeing's only sensible option will be a re-engined 767.
In the longer term the long rumoured 737 replacement would probably have some answers.

[macdo]

Thankfully in 30 years of ETOPS across the pond that has never happened - which shows the reliability of the operations, aircraft and engines.

)
Mind you, Transat got pretty close to a 'plop'. Although not due to engine failures.

[rog747]

Mind you, Transat got pretty close to a 'plop'. Although not due to engine failures.


Yes, Forgot that,
I agree the Air Transat incident was likely the most scariest and close-call event in 30 years of Twin Engine over water Ops.

They glided for over 20 minutes from 33000'

[Dan Winterland]

Mind you, Transat got pretty close to a 'plop'. Although not due to engine failures.

Both engines did fail. They failed because there was no fuel left! The issue with the certification standard is that it looks at an engine failure as an issue with the individual engine and an isolated event. However, this incident shows that not all engine failures are in isolation. There may be a common fault. In this case, it was a system common to both engines and an associated procedure issue. It could equally be a design or an engineering problem common to both engines.

[cooperplace]

Steven Udvar-Hazy (who knows a thing or two about the commercial aircraft market) is quoted in last week's Flight as saying that he expects Boeing to reach a decision on the MMA by mid-2019.

pardon my appalling ignorance, but I naively thought the Boeing MMA was the Multimission Maritime Aircraft, the P-8; could someone please correct me?

[The Ancient Geek]

Middle Market Aircraft.
A proposed replacement for the 757 and 767.

[arketip]

.

Both engines did fail. They failed because there was no fuel left! The issue with the certification standard is that it looks at an engine failure as an issue with the individual engine and an isolated event. However, this incident shows that not all engine failures are in isolation. There may be a common fault. In this case, it was a system common to both engines and an associated procedure issue. It could equally be a design or an engineering problem common to both engines.

Would it be different on a 4 or a 10 engine aircraft?

[DaveReidUK]

pardon my appalling ignorance, but I naively thought the Boeing MMA was the Multimission Maritime Aircraft, the P-8; could someone please correct me?

From 2003:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/359x305/march_frontiers_cover_578b8905d69e7d8dc4180bef76372e1a442e93 89.jpg

[krismiler]

How long is a long haul that you can squeeze it in a night-park-cycle? Typically such parking occurs between 10pm and 6am, meaning 8 hours. Take away two to prepare out and inbound LH flight, that leaves 6 hours and two whooping 3 hour legs. Then back to the daily 6 to 8 milk run legs.

The timing doesn't necessarily have to fall exactly between these hours, the long haul could start earlier or arrive back later or be flown at the weekend. It gives an airline the potential for greater utilisation. Some airlines operate long haul aircraft on short haul routes to get greater use out of them instead of having them parked all day between a morning arrival and an evening departure. Others offer really low fares for flights at ungodly hours of the night when the aircraft would normally be parked, because of the unattractive timings business men and regular full fare passengers will still cough up the normal fare to leave at 8:00 am, leaving the 3:00 am flights to those who wouldn't travel unless they got a dirt cheap ticket.

In flight entertainment can easily be provided via video streaming to a passengers iPad instead of seat back units, saving on cost and weight. Lower density seating might be needed to allow for increased fuel loads so a premium cabin class could be offered to offset this.

I'm sure airline planning departments have an idea of which routes they could make it work on. Replacing an old A321 which is due for retirement with an new LR version instead of a new standard version isn't like trying to make a new fleet of A380s work.

Boeing need to come out with a single isle, 190 seat version of the B787 for short to medium haul. The B737 is essentially the same 1950s technology as the B707 but tarted up, like a granny in a mini skirt and high heals.

[SMT Member]

Payload
Range
Space (for pax & baggage)

Dave, we need to inject a few more facts it seems: You were wrong about the ability of the A321 to load all bags, and you're wrong here too.

B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm

B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM

You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.

So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.

[DaveReidUK]

There are 10 positions on an A321. With 3 occupied by ACTs, the remaining 7 will need to hold approx 30 bags each for a total of 210 pax. Standard load for an AKH is around 30-35 bags. And you still got the bulk compartment for overspill, strollers, wheelchairs and the odd mailbag. Bulk load all compartments, and you've got even more room to spare.

One source reckons that nine LD3-45s would be required for 206 (longhaul) pax worth of baggage and that the only alternative with 3 ACTs would be to dispense with AKHs entirely and bulk-load everything, which of course would be operationally impractical.

Airbus formally launches A321LR; we look behind the “LR” to see what’s there (https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbus-formally-launches-a321lr-we-look-behind-the-lr-to-see-whats-there/)

[SMT Member]

One source reckons that nine LD3-45s would be required for 206 (longhaul) pax worth of baggage and that the only alternative with 3 ACTs would be to dispense with AKHs entirely and bulk-load everything, which of course would be operationally impractical.

Airbus formally launches A321LR; we look behind the “LR” to see what’s there (https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbus-formally-launches-a321lr-we-look-behind-the-lr-to-see-whats-there/)

AKE: 4,3 cum, industry standard 45 bags. 0,095 cum for each bag.
AKH: 3,7 cum, industry standard 35 bags. 0,095 cum for each bag. 35 x 7 = 245 bags. Even at 30 bags each, you'll be covered in a 206 seat 'low cost' configuration. It's mainly academic, however, as the vast majority of operators elect to go with loose loaded compartments.

Leeham news is mainly in the business of attempting to make Boeing look good, and Airbus look bad.

[DaveReidUK]

Leeham news is mainly in the business of attempting to make Boeing look good, and Airbus look bad.

I was waiting for that. :O

[tdracer]

Would it be different on a 4 or a 10 engine aircraft?

Since it was a single engine fuel leak that caused the initial problem, the more engines, the more likely the scenario.
Something that is conveniently overlooked by the ETOPS critics.

[Sailvi767]

Dave, we need to inject a few more facts it seems: You were wrong about the ability of the A321 to load all bags, and you're wrong here too.

B757-200 cabin dimensions: 353 x 3607 (cm) = 127,32 sqm
A321 cabin dimensions: 370 x 3440 (cm) = 127,28 sqm

B757-200 range, ISA, 113T MTOW, PW engines, 200 pax: 3915NM
A321NLR range, ISA, 97T MTOW, 200 pax: 4000NM

You're right on the payload, which effectively means the A321 can't carry the 5 tons of cargo a 757 could on the same 7-hour sector. The price for that, however, as a fuel burn roughly 20% higher. In other words, you're better off financially leaving the cargo behind, as the lost revenue is more than made up for by the reduced fuel burn.

So unless you're runway limited, the A321N LR is indeed the perfect 757 replacement, including the relatively small niche that's 3000NM+ missions. Thing is, it might just be profitable launching new 3000NM+ services on the A321, where it wouldn't make sense on the 757 - purely because of the vastly reduced operational costs.

The 757 stats appear to be for aircraft without winglets. Even with the quoted 4100 mile range with winglets the 757 struggles in the winter over the pond.

[WHBM]

Utilisation can be maximised as short haul routes are generally daytime and leave the A320s parked at night where as the A321LR can do an overnight long haul and be back to do the milk runs next morning.
This is a common fallacy, but the LCCs have moved on from 0800 departures and back early evening, they now do substantial fleet departures right after 0600 (look at the Stansted departure board), with final returns close to midnight. Delays often are coming in after that time.

With the aircraft on minimal turnrounds during the day, the remaining overnight hours are taken up with daily maintenance tasks, and the contingency necessary to ensure you start the next day on time. Those who recall the delays of the 1970s-80s UK IT operators who put three summer Mediterranean rotations in with no contingency departing at 0700, 1500 and 2300 for Friday, Saturday and Sunday, ending up not infrequently 12 hours down and stories in the press, will know what not to do. There isn't even scope to slot in an extra Palma in this, let alone long haul.

For the more mainstream operators, they need a more optimised cabin fit even for medium haul. Short haul has pretty much done away with mainstream galley provision nowadays, and stuck in seats there instead, and likewise the premium/economy seating balance required is different.

[rog747]

pardon my appalling ignorance, but I naively thought the Boeing MMA was the Multimission Maritime Aircraft, the P-8; could someone please correct me?

So did !

Sorry i'm out of the loop with the new spin on MMA....I Googled MMA again but came with up Conor's big scrap in Vegas...:sad:

[krismiler]

Unlike the A380 which was built for the specific purpose of moving large numbers of passengers between major hub airports, cost a fortune to develop and only works for certain airlines on certain routes, the A321LR simply expands the capabilities of an existing and well proven type whose development costs have already been recouped.

The airlines know their markets and can specify their aircraft configuration accordingly. A 7400km radius from London takes in half of India, much of central Africa and a large chunk of China. The B787 concept of bypassing hubs in favour of point to point routing has proven successful, in some ways the A321LR is a poor mans B787 offering a fair amount of the Boeing’s performance at a fraction of its price. Whilst obviously not a direct competitor it could enable a smaller airline to offer longish haul services without breaking the bank.

The B747SP was a specialised niche aircraft designed for long routes with low pax loads and wasn’t good for much else as it was too big to use in place of a B737 and too small to replace a normal Jumbo.

A mixed fleet of A320 single class and A321LR dual class could easily be operated by a small country’s national airline.

I see the A321LR as offering increased utilisation and opening new city pairs. If it is a flop then at least there isn’t that much money involved.

[DaveReidUK]

So did !

Sorry i'm out of the loop with the new spin on MMA....I Googled MMA again but came with up Conor's big scrap in Vegas...:sad:

I've also seen the Middle of Market Aircraft refererred to as MoMA, but that apparently confused some people too ...

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/592x480/moma_db6cbb618fc8cb6b5f1329c6b79f382488f4f474.jpg

[Kerosene Kraut]

Any narrow body with real world transatlantic range certainly is a game changer.
However I would not overestimate the value. It's a small plane with creature comfort and space sized for shorter routes. It will be great for low cost airlines by seat cost but it's so fashionable that high leasing rates maybe let you better upgrade to some used A330 instead. Then you get cargo volume as well and room for both seat numbers and some serious business class.
It's not like LRs would fly both short and long sectors. They are meant for long sectors.

[Lord Bracken]

Have been flying regularly across the pond in BA's A318 for the last ten years (from the second day of ops in fact) - 2-2 config, flat bed seats, 32 pax - and it's great. Maybe slightly bumpier than a Jumbo on eastbound services in the winter, but other than that it's an excellent way to fly and far preferable than being amongst 300 other pax. Why would the premium cabin of a 321 LR be any different?

[glofish]

Why would the premium cabin of a 321 LR be any different?
Maybe because no operator so far plans to offer premium seating in this aircraft. Such luxury could even be offered in a Tupolev and would be appreciated. But economic??
It's all about the cost, stupid, for both sides. Therein lies the Gordian knot.

[WHBM]

The B787 concept of bypassing hubs in favour of point to point routing has proven successful.
Not so, the vast majority are working out of hubs. In fact apart from a few (not all) of Norwegian's operations, I can't think of a single carrier not using them from its hub. Not only that, a notable number have actually downsized 777 routes. Furthermore, the 787-8, the original medium-sized one, is virtually out of production already, purchases have moved on to the significantly larger 787-9 and 787-10 models.

[rog747]

Maybe because no operator so far plans to offer premium seating in this aircraft. Such luxury could even be offered in a Tupolev and would be appreciated. But economic??
It's all about the cost, stupid, for both sides. Therein lies the Gordian knot.

Primera Air 321 had a premium cabin (decent W offering not J) - not a bad seat or product by all accounts for the fare - pax liked it
I think Aer Lingus is mooting a premium type cabin in theirs for LR TA Ops.

Air Canada has a premium Y on the 737Max to St John's from London (no champagne)

[krismiler]

Not so, the vast majority are working out of hubs.

But not between hubs, the B787 was designed to bypass congested hubs where a connection would normally be made and fly directly to the desired destination. The current B777 is getting a bit long in the tooth now and as the larger B787 variants overlap with the smaller B777 variants in terms of capacity but with lower operating costs, switching to the B787 would make sense. The smaller B787-8 may be in a niche where its too small for some airlines and too big and expensive for others, possibly it didn't hit the sweet spot but the larger versions did.

A B737 replacement is long overdue, Boeing could downsize the B787 into a family of single isle variants to compete with Airbus narrow bodies. Retain as much commonality as possible so that converting is a simple CCQ course like going from an A320 to an A330. A new narrow body range could include a 180 seat A320 competitor up to a longer range, higher capacity, middle market aircraft similar to the B757 if they get the basic fuselage design right. Modern high bypass engines weren't even thought of in the 1950s when the B707 fuselage was designed and this has limited the B737 past the -200 series as it is simply too close to the ground for big engines and extended bodies.

The B777X is effectively an A380/A350 competitor, a twin engined replacement for the B747.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Are underwing mounted engines the next configuration choice? Not sure. Tail mounted might be possible as well. So you can keep the wing simple and the gear short.

[glofish]

Primera Air 321 had a premium cabin (decent W offering not J) - not a bad seat or product by all accounts for the fare - pax liked it
I think Aer Lingus is mooting a premium type cabin in theirs for LR TA Ops. Air Canada has a premium Y on the 737Max to St John's from London (no champagne)
I referred to Lord Bracken's talking about 2-2 config with flatbeds. Your quotes are hardly planning that .....

[Lord Bracken]

I referred to Lord Bracken's talking about 2-2 config with flatbeds. Your quotes are hardly planning that .....

Both TP and EI will operate a J cabin with flat beds on their 321LR. EI will use the same seat as JetBlue use on their ‘Mint’ transcon services (that they have on their 330.)

[glofish]

I stand to be corrected

[kiwi grey]

(BTW, do we now have ads even when logged in?)

Sure looks like it
:*

[cooperplace]

Middle Market Aircraft.
A proposed replacement for the 757 and 767.

Ok, thanks. I won't hold my breath for it's release.

[krismiler]

A middle of the market aircraft could be an all new design which may be prohibitively expensive if it only sells in limited numbers, where as an A320/B737 replacement has a huge market and can justify significant investment as it’s going to sell.

The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.

A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.

The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.

For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.

[Sailvi767]

I believe Boeing is going with a clean sheet design.

[DaveReidUK]

I believe Boeing is going with a clean sheet design.

Given that the 737 can't possibly be stretched any further, even if it had the legs, and shrinking the 787 makes no sense at all, a clean sheet is the only option they have left.

Or doing nothing, of course ...

[The Ancient Geek]

They will probably build a re-engined 767 as a gap filler, a clean sheet 737 replacement would take around 8 years to enter service if (big if) all goes well.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.

[tdracer]

They will probably build a re-engined 767 as a gap filler, a clean sheet 737 replacement would take around 8 years to enter service if (big if) all goes well.
A limiting factor is the width of a standard narrow body stand at most airports, the A321 wing is already close to the limit of what will fit on a stand.

I've been advocating a '767X' for some time - existing 767 fuselage with a new composite wing and of course new engines. But the scuttlebutt I'm hearing is that, while it'll have 7 across seating similar to the 767, it's going to be all new, most likely all composite. And the fuselage cross section will most likely not be circular.
While it's tough to beat single aisle for fuel burn due to the lower fuselage drag, loading/unloading a single aisle with much more than 200 seats is nightmare. That's one reason why the 757-300 was such a flop (I've been in a 757-300 near the rear - 10 minutes after they started unloading we still couldn't even see any movement ahead).

[JPJP]

A middle of the market aircraft could be an all new design which may be prohibitively expensive if it only sells in limited numbers, where as an A320/B737 replacement has a huge market and can justify significant investment as it’s going to sell.

The B727 sold in large numbers because at the time it filled a specific role which was to open up shorter runways, which had previously been built with propeller aircraft in mind, to jet services. These days most places which can justify an airline service have a runway of sufficient length to accommodate a jet so the B727s STOL performance isn’t needed.

A m.o.m aircraft could also be either be a bigger version of a small aircraft, or a smaller version of a big aircraft. Given that around 78% of the world airline fleet is narrow body, baseing a m.o.m around these makes sense. A downsized B787 still retains the higher operating costs of its larger siblings but carries fewer passengers. An A321LR could replace an A330 during a routes low season, and replace an A320 during a routes high season, enabling them to be used on optimum routes instead.

The B737 has reached the end of the road in terms of its development, where as the A320 series still has some upgrade potential. Boeing need to either take the risk of developing a specific m.o.m aircraft, or introduce an entire B737 replacement family which incorporates different sizes and roles similar to the A318-A321 series and covers the market in this manner.

For the moment, Airbus have this niche to themselves, which could prove highly profitable as their entry costs are very low.

The festering disaster that Boeing created out of the Bombardier C Series still makes me smile - They could have secured a tailor made 737 replacement for pennies on the dollar. Instead, their competitor has it. Boeing now has a decade of development, and billions of dollars ahead of them to replace the 73.

Hubris is expensive.

[tdracer]

The festering disaster that Boeing created out of the Bombardier C Series still makes me smile - They could have secured a tailor made 737 replacement for pennies on the dollar. Instead, their competitor has it. Boeing now has a decade of development, and billions of dollars ahead of them to replace the 73.

Hubris is expensive.

The C Series in it's largest feasible iteration (~150 seats) barely meets the low end of the 737 range (~150 - 220 seats). Sure, it could be made into a 737 replacement, all it would take is a new fuselage, new wing, and new engines...:ugh:

[krismiler]

Boeing studies may conclude that at the moment an ideal m.o.m aircraft is something with say, 20 more seats and 200 nm greater range than the A321LR. However developing this aircraft would cost $X billion dollars and would have to sell for $Y million, airlines are unlikely to want to pay a huge premium for a small increase in capability.

A massive investment can only be justified if the aircraft sells in sufficient numbers, so it would only make sense if Boeing’s new m.o.m aircraft was common to a B737 replacement family where the development costs could be spread out over the entire range. A single isle 180-190 seater from Airbus or Boeing is going to sell in huge numbers so substantial investment is justified and having a small improvement in fuel burn or an extra 200nm range could be the determining factor in a 200 aircraft order.

The B737 MAX is a stop gap until a clean sheet replacement can be developed. Pumped up, blinged out and sold cheap, to hold the line against Airbus while new designs take shape.

A similar approach could be taken with the B757 airframe. Winglets, 787 flight deck and current generation smaller engines would give an aircraft that would cost very little to develop as it uses currently available technology and could easily be made slightly more capable than the A321LR giving Boeing the lead.

The B757 was overpowered and not all operators needed or used its full capabilities. Smaller modern engines could power a new version, which whilst not giving it the payload/range of the old one, could still do the job and offer a greatly reduced fuel burn. The opportunity is there to tailor the aircraft to specific requirements in terms of take off weight, payload/range and fit appropriate, currently available engines.

This becomes Boeing’s m.o.m aircraft until the new range of narrow bodies becomes available in 10 years time. It slots neatly into the gap between the B737 MAX and the B787-8, costs little to develop and can therefore be sold cheap. As it uses a 1980s rather than a 1950s airframe it can incorporate modern technology. I find it unusual that Boeing have already retired the relatively modern B757 fuselage but continue with the antique B737 version to this day.

It would plug a big hole in Boeing’s range and could retain customers who were considering moving to Airbus.

[WHBM]

The funny thing is that Boeing designed and sold an all-new MOM aircraft nearly 20 years ago. That was the 787, the original 787-8, which was touted to replace the 757 and 767, both of whose production was running down. There was the 777 and 747 above it, and the 737 below it. In the event the 787-8 quite soon became a mediochre seller, as soon as it (finally) entered service there were few additional orders, and production switched to the enlarged 787-9 and even larger 787-10, the latter certainly impinging on the 777 market.

Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.

[tdracer]

The funny thing is that Boeing designed and sold an all-new MOM aircraft nearly 20 years ago. That was the 787, the original 787-8, which was touted to replace the 757 and 767, both of whose production was running down. There was the 777 and 747 above it, and the 737 below it. In the event the 787-8 quite soon became a mediochre seller, as soon as it (finally) entered service there were few additional orders, and production switched to the enlarged 787-9 and even larger 787-10, the latter certainly impinging on the 777 market.

Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.
443 total current orders/deliveries for the 787-8 (with over 350 delivered) hardly qualifies as a flop, there are quite a few commercial aircraft models that never delivered 350 aircraft. Granted, the 787-9 is outselling the -8 roughly 2 to 1, but that hardly makes the -8 a failure.
Boeing did offer a shorter range 787-3 - basically a lighter, shorter range version of the -8. It sold like week old hotcakes and was quietly cancelled due to lack of interest.

[WHBM]

443 total current orders/deliveries for the 787-8 (with over 350 delivered) hardly qualifies as a flop,
The production of the 787-8 has actually fallen right away, I wonder how many of those 100 still on order will get built as such. Of approx the last 12 months' production (Oct 17-Oct 18), from line number 600 up to around 760 where they are up to now, just 11 of those were 787-8, the other 150 are the larger models. I don't recall the taking of any new orders for the original variant in that time.

Yes, they produced a good number in its first few years, but market attention has moved on.

And why was the 787-3 such a flop. Wasn't that even closed to the MOM market position in concept ?

[krismiler]

The B787-8 is a small version of a big aircraft so it retains all the costs and disadvantages of wide bodies but has fewer seats.

The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.

The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.

Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.

In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.

Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.

[SMT Member]

The B787-8 is a small version of a big aircraft so it retains all the costs and disadvantages of wide bodies but has fewer seats.

The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.

The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.

Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.

In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.

Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.


The tooling to produce the 757 is gone, destroyed, chopped up, sold off. It's also, per today's standards, a very inefficient construction; much too heavy and complicated for what it does. To resurrect it, you'd need new wings, new engines, new MLG, new cockpit and a tcomplete revision of hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems. Which basically makes it a new aircraft.

Saying that Boeing is fortunate to have the 757 available is patently wrong; the market rejected the model in the early 2000s, Boeing took the logical consequences and killed it off.

[krismiler]

I stand corrected re B757 availability as an interim measure, it looks like Airbus have this niche to themselves for the foreseeable future then as I can't see Boeing making a considerable investment in a direct competitor to the A321LR, given the limited numbers likely to be sold vs development costs and the necessity to concentrate resources on a B737 replacement.

It will be interesting to see how this area of the market is addressed by both manufacturers when they replace the current A320/B737 offerings with brand new designs.

I predict that with both companies starting at the same time and going for the same areas, it will be difficult to tell their aircraft apart, similar to how cars competing in the same segment all look the same.

[tdracer]

AvWeek says that Boeing is likely to launch the new mid-market aircraft next year:

Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeings-new-midsize-airplane-will-happen-say-analysts?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20181018_AW-05_911&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002544393&utm_campaign=17011&utm_medium=email&elq2=c6cea65ec8934692b44f89646e87ddcb)

“Boeing has not yet gained confidence that the business case will close [regarding price, unit cost, investment]. Airbus (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=33990) continues to say an NMA market can be satisfied by its existing products,” Harned observed. “But airlines appear to now be more interested in the NMA relative to current Airbus or Boeing products. We believe this could lead to a more aggressive response by Airbus.”

[DaveReidUK]

AvWeek says that Boeing is likely to launch the new mid-market aircraft next year:

Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeings-new-midsize-airplane-will-happen-say-analysts?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20181018_AW-05_911&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002544393&utm_campaign=17011&utm_medium=email&elq2=c6cea65ec8934692b44f89646e87ddcb)

Awaiting the same response that I got when I said much the same thing a couple of weeks ago:

This is just what Boeing has said in public since at least Farnborough.

:O

[JPJP]

The C Series in it's largest feasible iteration (~150 seats) barely meets the low end of the 737 range (~150 - 220 seats). Sure, it could be made into a 737 replacement, all it would take is a new fuselage, new wing, and new engines...:ugh:

I don’t believe that for a second. Given Boeing’s history on the matter, lack of credibly, and their inability to innovate, I’m calling BS. They called off negotiations with Bombardier days before the result, thinking that they’d prevail and the C Series would crater. The argument is completely at odds with Boeing’s own stance in front of a judge. It’s called sour grapes.

Do you honestly believe that the aircraft couldn’t be scaled to at least the 800, whilst only incurring a fraction of the time/cost of Boeing doing a clean sheet replacement of the Max. Airbus has ~ 20% of the work ahead of it to match what Boeing comes up with.

[tdracer]

Do you honestly believe that the aircraft couldn’t be scaled to at least the 800, whilst only incurring a fraction of the time/cost of Boeing doing a clean sheet replacement of the Max. Airbus has ~ 20% of the work ahead of it to match what Boeing comes up with.

5 abreast seating, relatively low thrust engine, and a small wing optimized for short range and 100-130 passengers. You really think you can make a 200 passenger mid-range aircraft out of that?
A big reason why the 'dumping' complaint got thrown out was that the C series and the 737 don't compete against each other.

[JPJP]

5 abreast seating, relatively low thrust engine, and a small wing optimized for short range and 100-130 passengers. You really think you can make a 200 passenger mid-range aircraft out of that?
A big reason why the 'dumping' complaint got thrown out was that the C series and the 737 don't compete against each other.

I think we’re talking past each other a little.

“Short range” ? The CS300 has the same range as the MAX1000. Which is a 200 seat aircraft in two classes. The current wing is only 2 feet shorter than the Max.

Yes, I think the C Series (Axxx) will need development. Given your background, you know that the majority of the heavy lifting in airfoil design, avionics, systems and materials has already been done. An uprated engine, a plug and a redesigned wing will cost a fraction of a clean sheet design. That will get them to at least the size of a MAX800.

In the end, I think Airbus will use the C Series, along with their own design as the basis for a new aircraft.

[DaveReidUK]

Do you honestly believe that the aircraft couldn’t be scaled to at least the 800, whilst only incurring a fraction of the time/cost of Boeing doing a clean sheet replacement of the Max. Airbus has ~ 20% of the work ahead of it to match what Boeing comes up with.

You don't "scale" an aircraft by photocopying the drawings at +x%. :ugh:

You stretch, shrink, re-engine, design a new wing, etc, but you're still stuck with the same basic parameters, most importantly the cross-section and therefore the maximum limit on potential growth.

[procede]

You don't "scale" an aircraft by photocopying the drawings at +x%. :ugh:

You stretch, shrink, re-engine, design a new wing, etc, but you're still stuck with the same basic parameters, most importantly the cross-section and therefore the maximum limit on potential growth.

The wing you do not want to change either, except for winglets and changing the flap configuration, as anything structural requires a full re-certification, including static and dynamic load tests.

[krismiler]

AvWeek says that Boeing is likely to launch the new mid-market aircraft next year:


Is it going to have one aisle or two ?

[Capn Bloggs]

Two Three Two, so two! (I did all that to create a post of 10 character or more...).

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/plane-passengers-will-love-797-getting-much-closer/

[krismiler]

So seven across which means the airlines will want to squeeze another column of seats in and spoil the design. B787 went from eight to nine across and the B777 went from nine to ten across.

[DaveReidUK]

So seven across which means the airlines will want to squeeze another column of seats in and spoil the design. B787 went from eight to nine across and the B777 went from nine to ten across.

I'm not so sure - as you go down in size, the arithmetic gets less favourable. Eight to nine seats is roughly 11% less width per pax, nine to ten is -10%, but 7 to 8 would be 12.5 percent less, which is beginning to get a bit tight.

OK, I know BAe went from the originally-envisaged 5-across to 6-across in the 146/RJ, to make the numbers better, but passengers nowadays aren't willing to suffer that amount of discomfort any more. Or maybe they are ... ?

[tdracer]

So seven across which means the airlines will want to squeeze another column of seats in and spoil the design. B787 went from eight to nine across and the B777 went from nine to ten across.

What I'm hearing is it's basically going to be a plastic 767-200. While 8 abreast was possible on the 767, thankfully only a few aircraft were so configured. I went on a flight test on one ages ago, destined for an African carrier - the 8 abreast seats were in a word horrid - they made a 737 coach seat seam luxurious - I was rather svelte at the time, an easy 60 lbs. lighter than today - and I couldn't fit in one...
So assuming a similar cross section to the 767, little worry that you'd see widespread 8 across seating.
Then again, an 8 abreast 767 still be far more comfortable than the 200 seat C-series that JPJP is advocating...

[DaveReidUK]

Could Boeing plan another "twin" concept again like with 757 and 767 back then? One narrowbody plus another technical close smaller widebody?

I don't think the middle-of-market space is big enough to hold two different-sized aircraft. It's not like the early '80s when the biggest 737 was the -200. If Boeing ever build a new narrow-body, it will be a 737 replacement IMHO.

I just hope the belly will be made wide enough for pairs of standard cargo containers this time on the widebody

To take full-sized LD3s in the belly, you're talking about a 787-sized aircraft. I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Denti]

You can fit an LD-3 into a 767 it just has to go in the wrong way, you can fit pallets in as well if you like. Never understood why LCCs didn't demand a conversion of the 737 to be containerised with unique containers, a little like the A32x use of AKHs. Would up loading and unloading.

Do A320 LCC really use container-loading though? The one i have experienced so far use bulk loading instead, it allows easier standard-loading and handbag removal and loading in the same hold. Although i knew one that used containers, but only on A321s, not on A319s or A320s. But that has gone for a while now. But then, no idea of the situation outside of europe to be honest. Quite honestly, most LCC passengers are quite adapt by now to take minimal checked in bags as they do cost extra. So bags are not much of a loading issue anyway, and cargo is not on the menu as it would add unnecessary complexity.

[nicolai]

Maybe because no operator so far plans to offer premium seating in this aircraft. Such luxury could even be offered in a Tupolev and would be appreciated. But economic??
It's all about the cost, stupid, for both sides. Therein lies the Gordian knot.

American Airlines operates the non-LR A321 with three classes of seating, let alone one class of premium seating. Granted they are doing it on a lucrative route (LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK) but they are still doing it and making money. Their first class is 1+1 and is basically just paying for space and solitude. However their business class is a 2+2 flat seat, it's comfortable, and AA manage to get enough passengers to buy it. That's a 5h20m flight but similar seats are no problem for an overnight 7-8 hour flight. So I can easily imagine an operator using the A321LR on transatlantic flights with a high density economy cabin and such a premium cabin and they might even make money on it.

Baggage is also less of an issue with premium cabins, due to the lower passenger density.

BA is only using the A318 because they want to fly from LCY. From Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, Amsterdam, etc, any type can be used.

[Weapons Grade]

I believe the answer is yes - Jetstar (JQ), based in Melbourne, Aust (and its franchised iterations), use AKH containers on all their A320 (7 plus bulk) and A321 (10 plus bulk) aircraft. I understand this will continued with their A320/A321 NEOs on order.

[krismiler]

The problem with a new plastic B767 is what does it replace ? The original B767 found a ready market in airlines needing to replace ageing B707/DC8 and trijets. It used less fuel, met the new noise regulations, had fewer engines and did away with the flight engineer. It offered a significant improvement to operators who were already actively looking for something they needed to buy.

It could find a niche if Boeing sell it cheap enough and restrict its performance so that it isn’t pulling buyers away from the smaller B787s, but offers a noticeable improvement over the A321LR and B737 Max. I wonder if Airbus have destroyed all the tooling for the A310.

[DaveReidUK]

The problem with a new plastic B767 is what does it replace ?

I think you've just answered your own question - there are nearly 800 767s still active, most of them -300s. All of those are going to need to be replaced eventually.

[WHBM]

there are nearly 800 767s still active, most of them -300s. All of those are going to need to be replaced eventually.
Unfortunately, by the time any new aircraft is authorised, designed, produced and delivered most of those will be gone, certainly from the first line operators who would be likely to order new aircraft. Meanwhile the fleets are already reducing by the month, and many have replacements already in hand. Of the just four current operators who have more than 50 in their fleet, two are cargo carriers, not an immediate target.

The B787-8 was announced in the late 1990s, as Boeing found sales of the 767 had peaked. Wall Street has already invested in that replacement of the 767 15-20 years ago. They will surely ask why cough up for a second such target market, and will it really still be there ?

[DaveReidUK]

Unfortunately, by the time any new aircraft is authorised, designed, produced and delivered most of those will be gone, certainly from the first line operators who would be likely to order new aircraft. Meanwhile the fleets are already reducing by the month, and many have replacements already in hand. Of the just four current operators who have more than 50 in their fleet, two are cargo carriers, not an immediate target.

The B787-8 was announced in the late 1990s, as Boeing found sales of the 767 had peaked. Wall Street has already invested in that replacement of the 767 15-20 years ago. They will surely ask why cough up for a second such target market, and will it really still be there ?

Airlines have not "replaced" 767s with 787s - the two types are some way apart in both size and range.

Yes, it's true that by the time the MMA comes into service, most of the current 767 pax fleet will have moved on, but that only means that airlines will then have a 767-sized gap in their fleets which they are working around with either larger or smaller aircraft, neither of which are ideally suited to the MMA's mission.

I stand by my comment that the MMA will fly many routes and schedules that are today operated by the B763. So in that sense, it will indeed be a replacement for it.

[The Ancient Geek]

Unfortunately, by the time any new aircraft is authorised, designed, produced and delivered most of those will be gone, certainly from the first line operators who would be likely to order new aircraft. Meanwhile the fleets are already reducing by the month, and many have replacements already in hand. Of the just four current operators who have more than 50 in their fleet, two are cargo carriers, not an immediate target.


Which is why Boeing should consider a rapid engine upgrade with other minor improvements rather than a clean sheet design. Time is of the essense. A 767-400 would make a lot of sense.