View Full Version : Airbus All-New Narrow-Body + Re-Engined A350
booze
22nd Nov 2018, 00:52
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-11-21/airbus-reveals-plans-for-all-new-narrow-body-re-engined-a350
AerocatS2A
22nd Nov 2018, 02:19
New narrow body AND a re-engined A350. Not a new narrow body A350 with new engines as I first read it!
rationalfunctions
22nd Nov 2018, 03:39
Airbus' answer to the Boeing NMA (757/767 replacement)?
More pressure on the Suits From Chicago not to invest in the 797.
Anyone get the feeling that if Boeing HQ was still in Seattle the prototype would be getting built by now.
Less Hair
22nd Nov 2018, 07:50
Doesn't make much sense doesn't it? The A320neo familiy will be good to go for some time. Cheap, low risk and available at high rates now. New wing and you could stretch it forever.
The A350 is too big to be your next CFRP-767 (similar to the 787). Doing some neo out of the A350 doesn't make sense now.
Could Airbus just want to lure Boeing into giving up the MAX early with this headline? Might be considered a promising moment with all those MCAS-troubles.
atakacs
22nd Nov 2018, 07:55
To get back to the topic I think it would be wise fro AB (and any other manufacturer for that matter) to plan for that capacity in any new designs having a 10+ year time to market time horizon.
Less Hair
22nd Nov 2018, 08:02
Airbus has alwas prefered to counter something that Boeing came out with before. Like adding some tiny more inches of fuselage diameter and all those little games. This is another reason I don't see Airbus meaning this serious. They will study everything in the background an be ready but this is not the moment they publicly hire big time for new "secret" programs.
What it could indicate however is a strategic move of the wing business to Spain...
Torquelink
22nd Nov 2018, 09:10
Could Airbus just want to lure Boeing into giving up the MAX early with this headline? Might be considered a promising moment with all those MCAS-troubles. Can't see Airbus wanting Boeing to drop the MAX: overall the A320 family is superior to the MAX and is gaining market share. I'm sure they'd rather this continued than Boeing launch a new narrowbody which would redress the balance.
A350 re-engining is confirmation of current studies for installing UltraFan as a major product upgrade in mid 20s. Obvious and logical thing to be considering. Unlikely another engine manufacturer would be considered - or would consider it - given installed RR base.
Airone2977
22nd Nov 2018, 09:30
Airbus also need to give jobs to its engineers, the A350 was the last one to be certified. Countless number of jobs have been cut, especially in subsidiaries and subcontrators.
keesje
28th Nov 2018, 11:30
Personally I do not see Airbus investing in the new XWB. If it's not broken.. and they've 700 in the backlog.
Beefing up the A321XLR / A322 / Plus, what ever they'll name is, seems more likely / low risk.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x281/a322_d8014fc6b9074dcd15b8c3831e884541db011272.jpg
I see talk of an A330Neo for regional operations, probably based on the shorter A338 fuselage.
It does seem over time that both manufacturers have a desperation to offer ever-extended range over the other, at the expense of the far more substantial middle market. Even these terms are being stretched, I've seen more than one account of current widebodies having "too much range", and thus not being efficient, for routes like London to New York (3,400 nm). Wing oversized, MTOW (on which charges are based) too much, etc. The proportion of pax who are travelling more than 7,000nm must be 1% or less of the total.
underfire
28th Nov 2018, 14:31
Airbus SE (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AIR:FP) is hiring staff to help develop a proposed new narrow-body jet
Wouldnt the CS300 fit this description?
oldchina
28th Nov 2018, 15:12
WHBM
The first A330neo was recently delivered to TAP
PAXboy
28th Nov 2018, 15:40
from the Bloomberg article:
Rolls in turn is the sole supplier of engines to the existing A350, and it’s not clear whether Airbus would be prepared to extend that exclusivity to a Neo version of the long-haul jet or want to bring in a competitor. That would give airlines more choice and help guard against the production stumbles that have afflicted some recent plane models in the industry.
Uncomfortable reading for Rolls-Royce, I'd say.
Bergerie1
28th Nov 2018, 16:30
Waiter! There's a fly on my fin!
Buster15
28th Nov 2018, 18:08
from the Bloomberg article:
Uncomfortable reading for Rolls-Royce, I'd say.
Really. Why is that?
If you look at the reliability of the Trent XWB thus far you will see it is exceptional.
Pratt &Whitney has and still is having major problems with their GTF and GE decided not to offer an engine for the A350 so I don't think RR has much to worry about.
Isn't the whole idea of the A350Neo to offer it with the RR Ultrafan ?
Buster15
28th Nov 2018, 18:41
Isn't the whole idea of the A350Neo to offer it with the RR Ultrafan ?
Exactly that.
PAXboy
28th Nov 2018, 18:45
As R-R have had difficulties with theirs on the 78, it would be natural for suppliers and customers to worry that might spread.
DaveReidUK
28th Nov 2018, 19:32
Waiter! There's a fly on my fin!
Just be grateful it's not one of his artists impressions. :O
Cool Guys
30th Nov 2018, 12:43
The next logical investment choice for Airbus is an all new narrow body. This is their cash cow which they want to keep up momentum on. While a bigger wing and range extension is possible, will this allow airbus to stay ahead in the long term? The existing model is pretty good but why follow Boeing’s example and wait until they have declining market share before they do anything about updating. A new model will allow airbus to increase their market share over the max even more, while remaining competitive over any new product from the competitor. Give it a bit more range than the present A320, this will make the transatlantic flights easier, reduce the overlap with the A220, and encroach more on the MOM/797 market space.
booze
30th Nov 2018, 14:03
It also has to be a bit faster: sitting over the North Atlantic, doing M.79 at an unfavorable FL due to heavy traffic flying above, doing M.84 is no fun.
underfire
30th Nov 2018, 17:28
Where does the C300 fit in then?
nicolai
5th Dec 2018, 08:26
Really. Why is that?
If you look at the reliability of the Trent XWB thus far you will see it is exceptional.
Pratt &Whitney has and still is having major problems with their GTF and GE decided not to offer an engine for the A350 so I don't think RR has much to worry about.
The problem customers have with RR is not that developing a new engine is difficult and imperfect engineering, but that RR's handling of the entire issue has been opaque and haphazard. They know it's hard to make new engines. They don't have confidence RR will work on it in an effective and straightforward fashion. RR can get away with a Jedi-hand-wave dismissal of trouble when the engines are delivered on time and work, but not when they don't.
RR's customer confidence issues are bigger than its engineering issues.
More pressure on the Suits From Chicago not to invest in the 797.
Anyone get the feeling that if Boeing HQ was still in Seattle the prototype would be getting built by now.
Agree with the quote above. Boeing went from a company that built quality airplanes in house and on time to a Wall Street corporate business. Just look at how the B787 project unfolded, it is the prime example.
Agree with the quote above. Boeing went from a company that built quality airplanes in house and on time to a Wall Street corporate business. Just look at how the B787 project unfolded, it is the prime example.
Especially when you compare it to the 777 development, which was on time/on budget/on spec. And the first airplane was good enough to go into commercial service.
Serves to show how much damage a bunch of MBAs can do.
tdracer
5th Dec 2018, 18:31
Especially when you compare it to the 777 development, which was on time/on budget/on spec. And the first airplane was good enough to go into commercial service.
Serves to show how much damage a bunch of MBAs can do.
It was more fundamental than that. It was the MacDac influence. Prior to the merger, Boeing top brass saw it as an engineering company first and foremost, that happened to build aircraft. After the merger with MacDac (when McDonnell bought Boeing with Boeing's money), the company was viewed as a manufacturing company. The result was nearly catastrophic - and lead directly to the 787 fiasco.
It's been slow and painful, but Boeing has moved back towards being first and foremost an engineering company over the last decade.
MCAS not withstanding...
punkalouver
6th Dec 2018, 00:20
I think the repeated strikes by Boeing workers had a lot to do with outsourcing and a new assembly line in South Carolina.
Prior to the merger, Boeing top brass saw it as an engineering company first and foremost, that happened to build aircraft. After the merger with MacDac (when McDonnell bought Boeing with Boeing's money), the company was viewed as a manufacturing company. The result was nearly catastrophic
I don't think the top management even see it as a manufacturing company, as they don't see, know, or even want to know about the products it produces. Their sole interest is in dollars on spreadsheets. They, and their Wall Street acolytes, think a successful company is one that is believed as going to deliver money to stockholders in the future. As long as the belief holds, it's fine. The company ends up as nothing more than an elegant Ponzi Scheme. I think the last head of Boeing who knew a thing about aircraft was Phil Condit, worked on a range of Boeing developments, had his own aerobatic aircraft, etc. But that was 20 years ago, Since then the board don't know one end of an aircraft (or a flawed development schedule) from the other. "Oh, no, we hire people to do things like that ...".
tdracer
6th Dec 2018, 18:43
I think the last head of Boeing who knew a thing about aircraft was Phil Condit, worked on a range of Boeing developments, had his own aerobatic aircraft, etc. But that was 20 years ago, Since then the board don't know one end of an aircraft (or a flawed development schedule) from the other. "Oh, no, we hire people to do things like that ...".
Phil Condit may have had aircraft background, but he was far and away the worst CEO Boeing ever had. His decisions - along with his hand picked successor Harry Stonecipher - lead directly to the 787 development fiasco (and several other $billion foul ups that most people have forgotten about since the 787 overshadowed them so dramatically).
Phil Condit was a shining example of the "Peter Principle" in action.
BTW, I knew Phil and his wife Geda (or should I say one of his wives - he went through several) - he came out of Propulsion...
twochai
6th Dec 2018, 20:15
The Boeing board should have appointed Allan Mullaly as CEO. Letting him trot off to head up Ford Motors was a big mistake.
Rengineer
12th Dec 2018, 12:10
It also has to be a bit faster: sitting over the North Atlantic, doing M.79 at an unfavorable FL due to heavy traffic flying above, doing M.84 is no fun.
Are you referring to the new narrowbody? 'Cause the A350 has a quoted cruise speed of M0.85.
DaveReidUK
12th Dec 2018, 12:37
Are you referring to the new narrowbody? 'Cause the A350 has a quoted cruise speed of M0.85.
Presumably a reference to the OP's current type.
speedrestriction
13th Dec 2018, 12:22
The m.79 reference is to, I suspect, long range versions of the A320 series aircraft. The latest generation of engines on the LR variant brings east coast USA within range of many European cities but unfortunately a heavy aircraft is not going to be able to do much more than FL320 or FL330 by the time they reach the oceanic boundary. Additionally with the slower cruise speeds ie high 70s vs proper long haul types which cruise in the mid 80s, they will be relegated to lower levels by ATC to stop them from clogging up the NAT system thus increasing CASK.
Aircraft design is largely about compromise. I suspect any new narrowbody type from Airbus will involve looking at how the biggest operators of their current generation of narrowbody are using the aircraft, their trend in usage and how that fits into the wider context of global trends and then striking a balance between identified objectives. At the moment I would say that would lead them to focus on density rather than all out speed and range.
keesje
1st Feb 2019, 12:38
The m.79 reference is to, I suspect, long range versions of the A320 series aircraft. The latest generation of engines on the LR variant brings east coast USA within range of many European cities but unfortunately a heavy aircraft is not going to be able to do much more than FL320 or FL330 by the time they reach the oceanic boundary. Additionally with the slower cruise speeds ie high 70s vs proper long haul types which cruise in the mid 80s, they will be relegated to lower levels by ATC to stop them from clogging up the NAT system thus increasing CASK.
Aircraft design is largely about compromise. I suspect any new narrowbody type from Airbus will involve looking at how the biggest operators of their current generation of narrowbody are using the aircraft, their trend in usage and how that fits into the wider context of global trends and then striking a balance between identified objectives. At the moment I would say that would lead them to focus on density rather than all out speed and range.
Lots of capacity made the 757 & 767 popular among leisure operators in Europe and US too.
If 4000NM/TATL is not required, capacity at low cost is. The recent announced 101MTOW could be used to boost capacity by a few rows rather than extending range.
It might be a much bigger market segment than >4000NM with less than 200 seats or cargo flights.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1079x685/airbus_20a322_20neo_20fake_20keesje_20nma_2530763b5277270961 025483bf844fa9be15d393.jpg
Lots of capacity made the 757 & 767 popular among leisure operators in Europe and US too.
If 4000NM/TATL is not required, capacity at low cost is. The recent announced 101MTOW could be used to boost capacity by a few rows rather than extending range.
It might be a much bigger market segment than >4000NM with less than 200 seats or cargo flights.
I believe it is. There are so many markets such as Australian trunk routes, major European runs, up and down the Far East cities, and not to mention USA domestics, where the available aircraft increasingly either have far too much range (widebodies) or do not offer sufficient capacity, leading to excessive frequency and clogging of airways and airports, with aircraft smaller than used 40 years ago. I get all the stuff about frequency, but not where you have flights from a carrier 10 minutes apart. In any event, fare policy increasingly makes any flexibility between frequent departures unduly expensive.
JumpJumpJump
1st Feb 2019, 18:46
The Boeing board should have appointed Allan Mullaly as CEO. Letting him trot off to head up Ford Motors was a big mistake.
His left arm fast medium was quite spicy for the time. His downfall in the modern games is just that he couldn't bat on the international stage.
.... We are thinking of the same guy? Right?
krismiler
2nd Feb 2019, 01:05
The current A320 airframe would be able to accept a major upgrade of the aircraft into a new generation version with an A350 style flight deck and more modern fly by wire system architecture at a much lower cost than a clean sheet of paper new design. The basics are sound, the undercarriage is tall enough for modern engines and a long fuselage. The passenger cabin is comfortable with adequate overhead locker space. A few tweaks here and there, and Airbus would have a very competitive product against an all new Boeing design.
The B737 airframe is basically a chopped down B707 of 1950s vintage which competes on price alone against the more modern A320 series. It’s reached the limit of its development and any further improvements would require a new design. The cabin is cramped, the overhead lockers small and the flight deck is a mishmash as equipment which didn’t exist in the 1950s has had to be incorporated over the last few decades.. Cargo and baggage even needs to be hand loaded where as the A320 can use containers. It’s a run out model, heavily discounted to keep sales up until a new version arrives.
If Boeing came out with a brand new type it would overtake the A320 and the positions would be reversed, with Airbus competing on price against a more modern and efficient but costlier alternative. The question is how much better a new B737 replacement would be when compared to an unrated A320. Boeing would need to spend billions on a complete new design and this would need to be recovered. The improvements over the Airbus would need to be substantial to justify the required asking price of a brand new type. It would be less a question of which aircraft is better and more a question of which one would be more profitable.
It’s all a question of money.
matkat
2nd Feb 2019, 02:20
Really. Why is that?
If you look at the reliability of the Trent XWB thus far you will see it is exceptional.
Pratt &Whitney has and still is having major problems with their GTF and GE decided not to offer an engine for the A350 so I don't think RR has much to worry about.
Totally agree.