Airbus ever going to launch a real 757/ 762/ A300 Replacement? Airbus A322 ?
 

The A321 seems increasingly successful as a 757, A300/310 and 767-200 replacement.

Technically it seems to have run out of wing/ payload-range to cover the markets segments now dominated by the 757s, 767s, A300s, A310 and Tu154 ; 200-300 seat short/medium haul.

A large market IMO, including high density city pairs, leisure operations, US transcons, Intra Asia, EMEA etc. and Transatlantic flights. Easily 2000 aircraft in the next 2 decades.

The 787-8/ A330-200s cost/ weigh twice as much. A good alternative only if cost can be neglected..

Question is should Airbus bite the bullet and ask Filton to propose a set of efficient new larger wings/engines for the A320 series to boast capacity & payload-range?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...Stretch757.jpg

Single aisle?

Loved the A300/310

Well they could also equip the A330 with a new, small lighter wing/ wingbox and modern engines, kind of A310 NG.

But it would mean a much bigger project to make it light and efficient. More investment, time to market, probably a lower return on investment with the current A330 market being largely filled in by 787s and A350s..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...0-700Light.jpg

A322 concept
 

Love it.
And what is this one's risk of a tail strike?

I think its not critical for the A321. Its high landing gear takes care of good angles/ airfield performance, unlike the 737-900ER, that is hampered by it low landing gear.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5176/5...f3718b64_z.jpg

Anyway this A322 would have a new optimized wing and landing gear, to take care of the higher MTOW's. For reference I copied the Air Indians double bogey MLG.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPJb3UE_DU

Lovely rendering, as always, but...

Boeing canned the B757 because the business case was looking shaky. Shame, because it was a great bird.

Correct, at the time. The economies of the 757 started to look unacceptable compared to the 739 and A321.
It was right after 9/11 and Boeing was cutting cost everywhere. Since then global air traffic grew ~4-5% per year.

Looking at how many larger NB's and smaller WB's both Airbus and Boeing forecast, there is significant market demand.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo...chart2_lrg.gif

Geography shows it too. If you draw a 4000NM circle around JFK, you can see a Billion people, same for Frankfurt; 2 Billion. Singapore: 3 Billion people..

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps9d26113d.jpg

IMO there's no natural gab between 200 seat and 300 seat market requirements. There is just nothing for sale anymore (except, formally, 767s).

What's with the fly in the bottom RH pic?

4,000 nm range isn't enough against the winds. Effective range becomes 500-1000 nm less into the wind.

It needs 4,500 - 5,000 nm range. That would give you 4,000 nm range into the wind.

Just checked a 4,600 nm leg. 767-300 restricted to 180 passengers with a close alternate due to winter winds. Published range of 6,000 nm weight restricted on a 4,600 nm leg into the winds.

Udvar-Hazy has complained about the lack of suitable a/c for the 3,000-5,000 mile markets and that the 787-8 and A350 are too heavy for those mission profiles.

Slasher, I think it's to demonstrate scale ;)

misd-agin, you are totally right.

The 4000NM is meant as operational range, with a usefull payload, winds, diversions, reserves. The official no winds, only passengers, sealevel take-off, long runway range would be significantly more.

The brochure range for the new A321 NEO with GTF's will probably be around 3700NM, its operational, usefull range significantly lower..

btw the fly is to make sure everyone sees it's all un-official ;)

I agree with OP - I have often wondered why Airbus have not made a true rival to the 757. It would need a new wing - that's probably why. The 75 is such a useful (but thirsty) beast though, I would have thought the developement cost would be worth it.

I wouldn't call it the A322 though, save that for A321 variants. A325 sounds better to me and has echoes of the 75 it would be replacing. So; a new wing, slightly overpowered to give it more options, a few more seats, and yes, keep it single isle too - it needs to be a thin and sleek machine.

keesje & others
 

There's no point.

What extra sales would Airbus pick up by spending all that money?

757 is rightly dead, so what sales are Boeing making now that in the future could go to this new Airbus?

Not enough to cover its development cost.

toffeez, its not a 757 replacement.

It an aircraft covering medium long flights up to 250 seats.

That segment is now covered by the A300, A310, 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 and Tu154.

Looking at market forecasts from both Airbus and Boeing for big single aisles and small twin aisles, you see several thousand in demand to replace the existing fleets.

http://theblogbyjavier.files.wordpre...ecast20111.png

The investment would be several Billion, but the ROI / NPV would probably be positive very fast. Airbus is already reaping the benefits of dominating the above 200 seat segment. It would hurt the 787-8, the smallest new WB.

Nothing is as good as being the sole offering in a sizeable niche. The 737-9 Max cannot be stretched any further. Before Boeing had to go with the MAX, they were preparing the NSA, significantly larger then the 737, a 2-3-2 small twin aisle..

The 757 was, and is, just about as fuel efficient per seat mile as the NG 737 and 320. The reason it was never a huge seller was the airlines didn't like it for a different reason. When gas was cheap, labor and the cost of the airplane were much more than fuel. Getting high aircraft utilization was very important to keeps costs down. Turn around times were extremely important. In the end, Boeing sold a reasonable number of them, but over a very long time, so not a lot were built and delivered each month.

A big long tube with one isle needs more time to load and unload (cargo and bags as well). The airlines loved the 757 for what it could do, but didn't like it for the inefficiencies it caused in operation.

Fast forward 15-20 years. Now fuel is 40% of the cost structure, and turn around times less important. A few years ago Boeing couldn't give a 737-900 away, now they are selling well. 321's also never sold well in the N.A. market for some of the same reasons. They sold very well in Asia (not sure about Europe).

Besides shorter range for the 321 and 739, they are both ground loving machines. Very high V-speeds and runway requirements. In Asia most of the runways are long and at sea level. No problem. Europe and N.A. have a lot of old inner city airports with 2000' meter runways, or less. Not good when V1 and Vr are 173 knots.

keesje
 

The Airbus industrial structure is not of infinite size. They have a backlog of 4600 planes to build and deliver.

They don't want another flight test programme until the A350 is finished with.

They don't need another wing production line.

They don't need to fill all the empty spaces you might see on a product line chart.

The A300/A310/762/763 replacements already exist (A330-200/787).
The 757-200 replacement is the A321.
The 757-300 will not be replaced, for some of the reasons USMCProbe explained.

There is no new business out there now that can't be satisfied by the existing products.

P.S. there is not, and never will be, a case for a range-limited small widebody-Lite. Airbus is never going to repeat the mistake of the A310. Simply because the customers who order such a plane spend the next 10 years pleading with the manufacturer for 1000nm, 2000nm more range, which needs major and expensive engineering changes.
.

Incorrect observations IMO.

The market studies of Boeing and Airbus say otherwise as you can see.

Boeing probably would have started already if they weren't occupied with the 787, 777X and 737MAX. And they're not even shy about it.
Boeing confirms long-haul 757 replacement study

Does Airbus feel the need to offer more seat above the A321s 220? Ask them:
Airbus Studies 236-Seat A321

Despite a big backlog they invest.

If Airbus would introduce a bigger wing they would do it for a sub-series. Basically the same aircraft trading capacity for range.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...lyconcepts.jpg

Depends on your definition of 'just about'. We operate both the A321 and B757 and on the same route, both with max pax, the B757 uses 14% more fuel per pax. Which at today's fuel prices makes all the differences.

I think for thr A321 V1 is about 135 and VR about 145 kts.

Airbus / CFM and PW promise the NEO's will do even better, 12-15%. Also MRO costs are significant lower. That said the 757 is the only 4000NM 200+ seats NB available..

V speeds depend on many things. Weight, flap setting, runway length, density altitude, obstacles. A loaded 321 on a 3 hour flight has extremely high V speeds. 170 plus knots is very common. I haven't flown a 737-900 but I would guess their V speeds are high as well, but maybe not that high.

I am not sure I ever saw 145 knots for Vr on a 321. Maybe a ferry flight.

You can take any aircraft and "dumb it down" weight and range-wise. My legacy airline in the US had 8 777's and 8 767-300's configured with lots of seats for Hawaii flying (4.5-8 hours). Very low MTOW and the engines were derated. The bean-counters said it saved maintenance money. Our 757's originally had a MTOW of only 210,000 pounds for the same reason - they didn't plan on flying them very far. They did later increase the MTOW - twice, when they wanted to fly them farther.

There is no single replacement for a 757. It was a great plane. Gobs of power, big wing, low take off and landing speeds, decent range. 321's and 737-900ER's only fly about 75% as far, and you need a lot of runway, preferably at sea level. BUT. That covers probably 90% of the flights a 757 normally operates.

''I think for thr A321 V1 is about 135 and VR about 145 kts.''

Think again. Add about 25 to those figures for something more realistic and typical operating weights. The A321 is at about the limit of the type's design parameters. One of my colleagues did the design work on the 321 flaps and it was a nightmare to get more lift out of a wing that's already too small for the aircraft. Any increase in mass over the 321 will need a major redesign and a new wing - and possibly a lot of recertification.

I think both companies realized that their NB offerings can't be stretched further. And their WB offering can't be shrunk any further and be efficient in its role.

The only thing I will say is this: Single Aisle 787.

If the 787 is the replacement for the 767, and the 757 was basically a 767 with a narrower fuselage, why can't Boeing just do the same and create a 797 that is a variant of the 787, same wings, cockpit etc.

I think Boeing is busy trying to keep their dual isle 787's from turning into Roman Candles right now. I think a single isle option is a low priority. LOL

I am more a fan of Boeing, but I do have to hand it to Airbus for getting what it does out of a 321. They have really bumped the gross weight up over the years, and put in much more powerful versions of the engines. I heard the original 321's were dogs, but I never flew them. I did fly brand new 321's, 93T MTOW, IAE 2534 engines. 34k lbs of thrust. They were rockets. They also had rocket-like V speeds, but at least they accelerated to those speeds quickly.

I start ground school for 737NG in a couple of weeks. Boeing has gotten more out of them than anyone would have ever guessed as well. We also fly the 737-900ER which has surprisingly good range. But due to the ground clearance the fan size is limited, and they only have a max of 28k per engine. I have heard they are complete dogs. Ground hugging, runway eating, dogs. But brutally efficient, long range, dogs.

My favorite airliner to fly is still a 757.

Certainly a twin aisle shorter fuselage version of A330 revolving around a neo version of A310 might make more sense for customer comfort and freight capabilities as well as minimise risk hazards associated with a stretched fusealage. A360SR? or A310 Neo?

Vc10Tail
 

Airbus considered an A330 version shorter than the -200 but rejected it on economic grounds.

A 220-seat single-aisle is so much more efficient than a 220-seat widebody that there's really no contest.

As long as you don't mess with the single-aisle by adding new wings, centre wing box, main landing gear and engines etc. And more cost.

I think the 787-8 is the smallest widebody we'll see from now on.

A 737-900ER needs significantly more runway then a A321 with the same payload under the same conditions. It has to to with installed engine power/ acceleration, the more fuel the 737 needs to carry (sfc) and the restricted maximum rotation angle at lift-off for the 737-900ER. The long tail, short MLG limits this more then at the A321.

I found videos (that prove nothing) of the two types taking off from the same runway with the same destination, from the same airline under similar conditions.

737-900ER
SKY Airlines Boeing 737-900ER (!) takeoff at kjevik - YouTube

A321
Sky Airlines. A321. Takeoff. Kjevik - YouTube

Take your stopwatch, look at the required runway and rotation angles. Proves nothing but gives an impression.

Dan, all I can find is:
http://knology.net/~stirmac/POHfiles...0320%20POH.pdf
Cant find it for the 737-900ER

Yes, that's what I included in the concept. A long bigger wing/MLG for higher MTOW, more fuel and lower wing loading. IMO the A320 wingbox could be beefed up for 10% higher loads. It done before.

It is not quite that simple. Early 321's were very power limited. Over time they came up with higher thrust versions. Many airlines (mine included) only pay for what they need. I.E. if they don't need the full thrust, or the highest MTOW,

You can now purchase 321's with much more powerful engines, IF YOU WANT AND NEED it.

Most take offs with commercial aircraft also take off with a reduced thrust setting. The lowest permitted actually.

You really can't watch two aircraft take off from the same runway and infer anything. Too many variables.

Both 321's and 900er's are ground loving machines. Lousy for hot and high. 737's are currently absolutely limited by engine thrust. They use CFM only, and the highest thrust is 28k pounds of thrust on the 737 version of the CFM engine. 28.4 I believe.

900er's have better range. I know what Airbus's website claims about the 321's range. ER's go farther, with more payload.

Half truth ;)

900ER's have bigger fuel tanks then A321s. Put a 737-900ERs max payload into an A321 and it brings it 2 hours further away.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...d/f3a7d034.png

The NEO will enlarge the payload-range gab.

Another complicated answer, and one that I can't answer yet for a 900er. I have flown 321's, highest gross weight version that I know of. Taking off full of PAX, no revenue cargo, right at max gross, we flew 4:45. That was with ICAO fuel requirements. Using FAA fuel requirements, with a very close alternate, maybe 5:30. Less passengers, more fuel, obviously it will fly farther. My company now has a bunch of 900er's. They fly them full, I believe significantly farther.

Most jets have extra fuel capacity. You can light load them and fly them farther. Airbus's website is usually quite optimistic for their aircraft. Ask the operator's who bought A340-200's how they worked out for long flights.

I prefer flying a 320 series to a 737, but the NG 737's are a bit more capable.

USMCProbe, I guess the question would be is "full" for A321 the same "full" as for the 737-900ER. Are we talking about the same payload/ number of passengers. The A321 has a longer cabin and bigger cargo bay to start with.. The 737-900ER has a bigger fuel tank that carries it further when there are very low payloads (17k t).

I think a weakness in the A320 series is the big diffrence between the A320 and A321. It seems they skipped a sub type. Both the 737-800 and 737-900 fall inbetween the A320 and A321 capacity wise. Big Airbus customers Ryanair, Easyjet and JetBlue asked for a 200 seater. To no effect so far.. Maybe if the Embraers NG/ CSeries burry the A318/A319 they'll move ;)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...lusConcept.jpg

Big Airbus customers Ryanair ...
 

Really keesje? Your spotters goggles are letting you down.

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...g/00013729.jpg
;)

Ryanair of course isn't an Airbus customer but they asked Airbus (Boeing, Comac) for a 200 seater.

Ryanair: 199-seat aircraft would hit capacity 'sweet spot'

Maybe O'Leary isn't entirely loyal to Boeing..
Ryanair offers scathing verdict on 737 Max

Then again he waits until Boeing needs him to lower prices..
Ryanair closing in on major Boeing order: sources - Yahoo! News

Getting back to what will replace the 757. When the neo's and Max's come out, both aircraft will have better range than now. The 757 will have been almost completely replaced.

Air Asia received an airbus with sharklets installed in December, so I stand corrected on them being available.

Can sharklets be retrofitted to older aircraft? Are the wings strong enough for the extra span?

Airbus close to launching A320 sharklet retrofit

"Airbus expects to be able to launch a retrofit programme for sharklet wing-tips on the A320 by around March-April, having determined the technical requirements for the modification."

"The airframer has transferred to a new wing standard for the A320, which includes reinforcement to accommodate optional sharklets. But Airbus has been evaluating demand for a possible sharklet retrofit for the previous wing standard, although this would require more extensive reworking of the type's wing-tip."

"The change would take around three weeks and customers would probably schedule the retrofit to coincide with a C-check to minimise downtime."
.

I think the A330 and 767 fuselages could provide a bases for a shorter range aircraft.
Both were even born like that (767-200, A300). For the A330 to become efficient, Airbus would have to get rid of the massive A330/A340 center wing box to create an efficient platform.
A much lighter/ composite and similar optimized wing could make a difference.
The rest of the aircraft could remain A330. But it would be ICAO gate cat D capable like the 737, 767 and A300/A310, and unlike A330 and 787.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...0-700Light.jpg

The OEW / installed power / payload-range / fuel consumption would all be down significantly.
It would however be a major investment compared to rewinging the A320 series. But if you don't you end up with a 787-3; Short ranged, but still as heavy and expensive as a long haul 787-8.

Toffeez Re: 787-8 remaining the smallest widebody we'll see from now on, I think Boeing was studying a NSA design until the MAX, and probably still, that could be considered a WB, a 2-3-2.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...atent_1000.jpg

Shorter boarding times etc were mentioned. How much those minutes really bring in cash wise, remains a question for me..
For the A320 series Airbus advertises the option to go for 17 inch narrow seats like the 737 to make the aisle wider/faster.

No, the 757 ceased to be produced because the commercial/marketing departments of major airlines, SIA for one, back in about 1985, didn't like single aisle and the baggage loading system of the B757. Twin aisle considered essential for a good cabin service on short sectors with a full load, containerised baggage required for quick transit pax transfer, with bags and also for a quick turn round.

Regarding the range of the B767-300ER, have frequently flown Manila-Bahrain with a full load, into a constant headwind, plenty of fuel to spare.

In Europe most A320 operators use containerized baggage. This would be an enhancement for a A322 over the 757.
I think in the US most airlines don't use them because the 737 and 757 don't have them either, and it saves weight..

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../6/0267676.jpg

Also the cabin would be wider and significantly more quiet then a 757.
Not unimportant for flight up to 8 hours.

US carriers all "throw em in". Actually throw the bags on a conveyor, and somebody in the baggage compartment throws em in. I haven't seen anybody do it different in the US.

Airbus seats are wider than most Boeings. I think the 777 they are the same as Airbus. The problem is the Airbus operators have never been able to monetize that extra seat width. Very few coach passengers take time to look what type of aircraft it is. They click on the lowest price. In effect, they have been giving away extra seat width, at the expense of - extra expense. Extra weight, extra drag. Coach passengers also don't pay extra for a quieter cabin. I personally like big seats and a quiet cabin, but if the passengers are paying for it?

I am one of the few that will pay extra. I will pay extra to fly on Jetblue. AB seats, an extra inch of seat pitch, and Live TV. I would pay extra.

Example I used was an example of an actual flight, Europe to U.S., against the polar jet stream. Looked at yesterday's data and it would have been able to take a full load, at max gross takeoff weight, and complete the flight. One flight was restricted by approx. 40 passengers while another flight was able to complete the segment at MTOW w/full load.

So 4,600 nm with a full load, against the winter polar jet stream, is getting close to the operational effective range.

Manila - Bahrain, with the sub-tropical jet, on average has lower headwinds.