A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA

[Denti]

Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown

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]

Originally Posted by glofish

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]

Do A320 LCC really use container-loading though?

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]

Originally Posted by krismiler

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]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by WHBM

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.