Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus All-New Narrow-Body + Re-Engined A350

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus All-New Narrow-Body + Re-Engined A350

Old 30th Nov 2018, 12:43
  #21 (permalink)  
 
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.
Cool Guys is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2018, 14:03
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
booze is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2018, 17:28
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where does the C300 fit in then?
underfire is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2018, 08:26
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster15
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.
nicolai is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2018, 11:55
  #25 (permalink)  
1+F
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by WHBM
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.
1+F is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2018, 12:19
  #26 (permalink)  
742
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 1+F
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.
742 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2018, 18:31
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,406
Received 180 Likes on 88 Posts
Originally Posted by 742
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...
tdracer is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 00:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
I think the repeated strikes by Boeing workers had a lot to do with outsourcing and a new assembly line in South Carolina.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 08:19
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
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 ...".
WHBM is online now  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 18:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,406
Received 180 Likes on 88 Posts
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...
tdracer is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 20:15
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the lake
Age: 82
Posts: 670
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Boeing board should have appointed Allan Mullaly as CEO. Letting him trot off to head up Ford Motors was a big mistake.
twochai is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2018, 12:10
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by booze
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.
Rengineer is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2018, 12:37
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,815
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Rengineer
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 12:22
  #34 (permalink)  
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 2,077
Received 60 Likes on 23 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.
speedrestriction is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 12:38
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by speedrestriction
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.




keesje is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 13:34
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by keesje
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.
WHBM is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 18:46
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by twochai
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?
JumpJumpJump is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 01:05
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,534
Received 49 Likes on 31 Posts
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.
krismiler is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 02:20
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster15
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.
matkat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.