Airbus ever going to launch a real 757/ 762/ A300 Replacement? Airbus A322 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 4,600 nm with a full load, against the winter polar jet stream, is getting close to the operational effective range.
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 767-300ER Technical Characteristics
A real world reduction of ~25%. For a rewinged A321/A322 a "brochure" range of ~5000- 5300NM would be required to make it an effective medium range platform..
From e.g. London such an A322 could efficiently cover Europe, the US East coast, northern Africa, the Middle East and some more if you start pushing it.
4000NM & 5000NM ranges
From ATL (big 757/767 base) it would cover the US unrestricted, Hawaii, Western Europe, the Caribbean and Brazil.
4000NM & 5000NM ranges, ETOPS180
A suitable engine could be the Pratt & Whitney developed new GTF engine, able to handle up to 40,000 lbs, a 20% bump over the current max power availabe for the A321. That should be sufficient for a bigger medium range A322's MTOW.
GTF able to power twin-aisle narrowbody: Pratt & Whitney
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje - flying westbound from Europe in the winter the real world range is probably 20-25% less. Or U.S. to Asia, Asia to Europe, etc.
Other regions, with lighter winds, the real world range would be 90%+ of advertised range and could reach 100%. Slight variance in unusually high winds would result in load restrictions, or tech stops, to service the city pair.
Other regions, with lighter winds, the real world range would be 90%+ of advertised range and could reach 100%. Slight variance in unusually high winds would result in load restrictions, or tech stops, to service the city pair.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misd-agin
"That's just a 737 with an extra aisle instead of a seat. Poor economic model."
Indeed. I'm just amusing myself because the rest of the thread has become silly. I know this is Tech Log, but if Airbus ever considered an A322, it was rejected on economic not technical grounds.
Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery).
If it looks like an A321 and flies like an A321 the airlines will expect it to be priced like an A321. Ok, maybe 10% more, maximum.
Just think of the development cost and the marginal increased sales revenue for the A320 Family programme.
I'll say one thing for keesje, he's very persistent.
Indeed. I'm just amusing myself because the rest of the thread has become silly. I know this is Tech Log, but if Airbus ever considered an A322, it was rejected on economic not technical grounds.
Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery).
If it looks like an A321 and flies like an A321 the airlines will expect it to be priced like an A321. Ok, maybe 10% more, maximum.
Just think of the development cost and the marginal increased sales revenue for the A320 Family programme.
I'll say one thing for keesje, he's very persistent.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: china
Age: 61
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of Boeings' strengths is that they provide what the customer asks for. If the customers were asking for a direct 757 replacement, and were willing to pay for it, Boeing would build it.
The 757 is my favorite airliner to fly, and I believe the most capable and flexible. But airlines are not asking for another one. For most of its career, and the missions it flew, it carried around a lot of unused capability (weight and cost). Most 757 flights are far short of its' max range, and mostly off of long runways. The US market in the 80's and 90's was probably its highest, best, use. And that is what it did.
It is my favorite airliner, and I just slammed it. It is not being replaced currently, because it does not fit what the market wants.
I don't love it any less.
The 757 is my favorite airliner to fly, and I believe the most capable and flexible. But airlines are not asking for another one. For most of its career, and the missions it flew, it carried around a lot of unused capability (weight and cost). Most 757 flights are far short of its' max range, and mostly off of long runways. The US market in the 80's and 90's was probably its highest, best, use. And that is what it did.
It is my favorite airliner, and I just slammed it. It is not being replaced currently, because it does not fit what the market wants.
I don't love it any less.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probe - High thrust:weight. High altitude and short runway performance. Both mixed with intercontinental range. Good looking. What's not too like? 
A winner in pilots eyes, long in the tooth by bean counters.
A winner in pilots eyes, long in the tooth by bean counters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery).
FlightpathOBN, I never thought/ said that is a 787. First time I see an 787F cross section though. Biggest hurdle IMO would be carving a big cargo door and strenghtening the surround all composite structure. Adding structure probably isn't as easy as metals..
USMCProbe, lets not narrow this to a 757 replacement. As I showed earlier there a big replacement market, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300, A300, A310, Tu154 and demographics show billions of people live within 4000NM of each other.
photo by icarus
Still we could ask the hypothetical question; if the 757 was >10% lighter, used 25% less fuel, had 100% cockpit commonality with >7000 other aircraft in service and on order, was 3 times quieter, got a widely used containerized cargo system, wider cabin, and the earth was guaranteed covered with existing assembly lines, MRO, crew, training infrastructure for the next 25 years, would it be a feasible 757?
I remember specifying the NEO, rewinged stretchedE195, MAX and Ecoliner many years ago and everyone balked. Its just logical evolutionairy upgrades.
Last edited by keesje; 8th Feb 2013 at 08:36.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said: "Airbus is NOT going to do an out-of-family standalone product with it's own production line (no possibilty for customers to switch variants before delivery)."
keesje, you know exactly what I mean: Airbus is not going to make those mistakes again. MRTT is different: the customers have deep pockets and are prepared to pay a fortune for new toys to play with, unlike the airlines.
Dream on ....
.
keesje, you know exactly what I mean: Airbus is not going to make those mistakes again. MRTT is different: the customers have deep pockets and are prepared to pay a fortune for new toys to play with, unlike the airlines.
Dream on ....
.
Last edited by toffeez; 8th Feb 2013 at 08:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toffeez, I do not understand what you mean. Airbus has 7 A320 family production lines on 3 locations, while a fourth (Mobile) is being added. 4 subtypes are build now (ecl. ACJs) and they'll swith to NEO's in a few yrs. What do you mean by stand alone product? They would probably add a second line next to an A320 line at one of the locations, like they did in 2011 in Hamburg.
E.g Mobile or Tjianjin would be a good opportunity's and I foresee a market of about 1000-2000 in the next 15 yrs and little competition. News broke this week Airbus is finally moving ahead with bigger, longer ranged Beluga's based on the A330-200.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...419-135990.jpg
E.g Mobile or Tjianjin would be a good opportunity's and I foresee a market of about 1000-2000 in the next 15 yrs and little competition. News broke this week Airbus is finally moving ahead with bigger, longer ranged Beluga's based on the A330-200.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...419-135990.jpg
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: toofaraway
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
You are very good at pretending not to understand.
What would be technically and commercially ideal today would be to assemble A319, A320 and A321 on the same line. Politics messes that up sometimes.
This is a family. A lot of contracts give the customer the right to change the 319/320/321 mix a given number of months ahead of delivery. This is relatively easy (and can be done fairly late in the leadtime) if it's just juggling slots on the line.
Now what if an A322 customer decides to take A321s instead? Where's he going to get his A321s from if that line is fully booked? Or he wants to change 10 ordered A320s to 10 A322s if that line is full? The customers would have to decide a lot earlier to make a swap.
This will be my last post here because it's getting tedious.
I promise you if you were given 20 mins to present your case to the Airbus commercial team, you'd be invited to leave after 10. Your propostions are based too much on what is possible and not enough on why it should be done. No I don't work for Airbus.
What would be technically and commercially ideal today would be to assemble A319, A320 and A321 on the same line. Politics messes that up sometimes.
This is a family. A lot of contracts give the customer the right to change the 319/320/321 mix a given number of months ahead of delivery. This is relatively easy (and can be done fairly late in the leadtime) if it's just juggling slots on the line.
Now what if an A322 customer decides to take A321s instead? Where's he going to get his A321s from if that line is fully booked? Or he wants to change 10 ordered A320s to 10 A322s if that line is full? The customers would have to decide a lot earlier to make a swap.
This will be my last post here because it's getting tedious.
I promise you if you were given 20 mins to present your case to the Airbus commercial team, you'd be invited to leave after 10. Your propostions are based too much on what is possible and not enough on why it should be done. No I don't work for Airbus.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to Airbus ( video) in the next 20 years the overall trend is larger more fuel efficient aircraft.
Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Sitting on your hands never proved the right strategy.
Contractual issues around switching types are on a totally different level.
Airbus looked at stretches for the last 15 yrs. Its a question of demand, resources, competition and overall strategy to determine the right tactics and timing.
Global Market Forecast 2012-2031 | Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer
Sitting on your hands never proved the right strategy.
Contractual issues around switching types are on a totally different level.
Airbus looked at stretches for the last 15 yrs. Its a question of demand, resources, competition and overall strategy to determine the right tactics and timing.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje, I'm not sure what your objective is. You present these ideas and when told they're daft you keep on arguing until everyone else quits. What's the point? None of your ideas have any serious engineering behind them, you just have a few pictures with flies on them.
You say yourself that this 'aircraft' covers the market of the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154. What do these aircraft have in common? All except the 757-200 were hampered by range and their success was only ensured what longer-range versions appeared. The A310 was compromised completely because of its small wing, trying to go after the non-existant market you're talking about.
Remember that Boeing went for this market with the 787-3. It was a failure. An A321NEO/A330-200 or 737-900ER/787-8 combination works just fine.
But I imagine you're still going to argue and come up with another picture of a photoshopped picture stolen from the Airbus website.
You say yourself that this 'aircraft' covers the market of the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154. What do these aircraft have in common? All except the 757-200 were hampered by range and their success was only ensured what longer-range versions appeared. The A310 was compromised completely because of its small wing, trying to go after the non-existant market you're talking about.
Remember that Boeing went for this market with the 787-3. It was a failure. An A321NEO/A330-200 or 737-900ER/787-8 combination works just fine.
But I imagine you're still going to argue and come up with another picture of a photoshopped picture stolen from the Airbus website.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New engines and sharklets are logical for the a320 series as fuel is more expensive.
Many people argue that boeing is making a mistake with the MAX, as the design of the aircraft is outdated. It has been rewinged and re-engined so many times.
But they were forced to do this in order to come up with a fast solution that keeps them in competition with airbus.
The embrear ERJ was too small, not able to carry enough passengers.
What you are proposing is not realistic! There is no demand for a 757-like aircraft type at the moment. It can be very challenging to fill all those seats in todays economic environment. Airlines need high load factors.
Many people argue that boeing is making a mistake with the MAX, as the design of the aircraft is outdated. It has been rewinged and re-engined so many times.
But they were forced to do this in order to come up with a fast solution that keeps them in competition with airbus.
The embrear ERJ was too small, not able to carry enough passengers.
What you are proposing is not realistic! There is no demand for a 757-like aircraft type at the moment. It can be very challenging to fill all those seats in todays economic environment. Airlines need high load factors.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trend for Turboprops, RJ's, twin aisles, VLA's has been they get bigger, offering more capacity and lower seat mile costs. And the narrowbodies, they are just fine, nothing to see here, move on. ?!
IMO the writing is on the wall, unless you look the other way. Well, its still on the wall but ..
Boeing to consider a proper 757 replacement - Ghetto IFE
Boeing, Airbus Can't Replace the 757 - TheStreet
Icelandair’s model has withstood the test of time but 757 replacement dilemma poses a challenge | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
Airbus Studies 236-Seat A321
Sofar I found the posts arguing there will be no aircraft needed between 220 and 300 seat short medium haul unconvincing. The 757 production stopped 10 yrs ago and .. well that's basicly it.
Apparently Boeing isn't so sure and Airbus is increasing A321 capacity. Why?
IMO the writing is on the wall, unless you look the other way. Well, its still on the wall but ..
Boeing to consider a proper 757 replacement - Ghetto IFE
Boeing, Airbus Can't Replace the 757 - TheStreet
Icelandair’s model has withstood the test of time but 757 replacement dilemma poses a challenge | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
Airbus Studies 236-Seat A321
Sofar I found the posts arguing there will be no aircraft needed between 220 and 300 seat short medium haul unconvincing. The 757 production stopped 10 yrs ago and .. well that's basicly it.
Apparently Boeing isn't so sure and Airbus is increasing A321 capacity. Why?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sofar I found the posts arguing there will be no aircraft needed between 220 and 300 seat short medium haul unconvincing.
The reason the 757 has been used on long thin or dense medium haul routes in the last decade is because its either paid off, or dirt cheap to acquire.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now please cut the crap violater.
You're free to have your opinion. I've provided more then enough back-up for mine? Something you and a few others apparently don't need, apart from the old mantra the 757 went out for a reason 10 yrs ago.
I won't repeat the marketforecasts of both Airbus and Boeing and airline executives since you're obviously fixated nothing can't change.
You're free to have your opinion. I've provided more then enough back-up for mine? Something you and a few others apparently don't need, apart from the old mantra the 757 went out for a reason 10 yrs ago.
I won't repeat the marketforecasts of both Airbus and Boeing and airline executives since you're obviously fixated nothing can't change.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Udvar-Hazy carrys more weight than Keesje but even he's commented on the lack of a/c designed for the 5,000-6,000 nm markets.
A plane designed to fly 8,000 nm that's flying 3,000-6,000 nm sectors is inefficient.
The question is where is the tradeoff between the two models? The market place seems to have chosen the larger a/c.
A plane designed to fly 8,000 nm that's flying 3,000-6,000 nm sectors is inefficient.
The question is where is the tradeoff between the two models? The market place seems to have chosen the larger a/c.
Last edited by misd-agin; 9th Feb 2013 at 15:24.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread was interesting, then a bit long winded. Now I realize that the airline manufacturers make these decisions based on their prospect of what the market wants and what it will want in the future. Your idea, no matter how great you think it is, is completely useless.