Airbus All-New Narrow-Body + Re-Engined A350
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South Korea
Age: 62
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
RR's customer confidence issues are bigger than its engineering issues.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serves to show how much damage a bunch of MBAs can do.
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...
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 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 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...
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... We are thinking of the same guy? Right?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
