Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Airbus has announced the development of a narrow body A350, although no specifications. We can guess that it will probably have a range of 5400 nm (half circumference of earth) in order to compete with the B797.
How about length? Only one single aisle jet was longer than 50 meters, the B753, nicknamed "the pencil", and it sold 55 jets in over 4 years before it was discontinued. The longest single aisle jet on the market today is under 45 meters.
Dual aisle jets as with length 56-77 meters are currently being marketed
Airbus has announced the development of a narrow body A350, although no specifications. We can guess that it will probably have a range of 5400 nm (half circumference of earth) in order to compete with the B797.
How about length? Only one single aisle jet was longer than 50 meters, the B753, nicknamed "the pencil", and it sold 55 jets in over 4 years before it was discontinued. The longest single aisle jet on the market today is under 45 meters.
Dual aisle jets as with length 56-77 meters are currently being marketed
The comma in the article headline is important (I forgot it in my title). They are discussing two different jets.
The All-New Narrow-Body is informally called the A322 in speculative articles. The A322 is thought of as Airbus's hypothetical response to Boeing's NMA (a..k.a the B797).
The idea of a 50+ meter narrow body would mean that Airbus is trying to match the carrying capacity of the NMA. My personal opinion is that airlines would be more interested in an aircraft of roughly the current size that can fly over 5000 nautical miles.
But many potential passengers would be horrified at either option (1) waiting to disembark from row #65 or (2) flying in a narrow body aircraft for more than half a day. So I am open to other opinions.
Thanks, that was an enjoyable article... given that Airbus is already going to upgrade the A321LR to nibble away sales from the 797,
perhaps the all-new narrow-body could actually be an A320 successor.
Thanks, that was an enjoyable article... given that Airbus is already going to upgrade the A321LR to nibble away sales from the 797,
perhaps the all-new narrow-body could actually be an A320 successor.
I suppose anything is possible, but with almost 4000 A320neos ordered (not counting A319neos or A321neos) they have several years of production, and will probably receive more orders. It seems like they are about a decade early to be competing with themselves.
The A320 was launched in March 1984, first flew on 22 February 1987, and was first delivered in March 1988.
The A320neo was launched in December 2010, first flew on 25 September 2014 and it was delivered on 25 January 2016.
There were only 9 orders place for the B753 which was 54.4 meters in length, and could be configured for 295 seats (although no airline opted for the larger doors, so they were limited to 275 seats). No orders were placed in South America, Africa or Asia (not counting Israel). The jet was very fuel efficient, but it seems to have been seriously disliked. Many people point out that airlines like to minimize time to embark and disembark, but the range of this jet meant that you would probably only fly it a few times per day.
9. Dec. 1996 12
16. Jun. 1997 1
31. May. 1998 1
31. Jul. 1998 2
3. May. 2000 2
30. Jun. 2000 10
2. Jan. 2001 9
16. Jan. 2001 16
31. Dec. 2001 2
It seems logical to me that airlines care more about range than carrying capacity for a single aisle jet. A single aisle jet with a 5000 nm range would cover nearly every TransAtlantic route.
How does that even work exactly? Would the wide and narrow body configurations of the A350 be similar to the 757 and 767? It seems like it would be expensive to develop a plane that way.
Would the wide and narrow body configurations of the A350 be similar to the 757 and 767? It seems like it would be expensive to develop a plane that way.
I think you are correct.
The B757/767 was built in the day when most planes were sold in North America and Europe. It was considered a cost benefit to train the pilots for both jets at the same time.
Partly because there are so many more jets flying today, I don't think airlines are concerned about having two classes of pilots. One class only flies single aisle jets, and the other class flies dual aisle jets.
The newer foreign low cost carriers are starting to mix single and dual aisle jets. Wow Air in Iceland has 17 single aisle jets and 3 dual aisle jets. It may be difficult for them to keep two stables of pilots. If they get raided by another airline who steals 3 or 4 of their pilots trained to fly the dual aisle A330, they could have a problem. On the other hand if they keep a large group of such pilots, they may not be able to give them all the hours they want.
So far in the USA low cost airlines are sticking with only single aisle jets. Hawaiian Air is the only airline outside of the Big 3 that flies dual aisle jets.
757-200
North America 618
Europe 198
Africa 6
Central America and Mexico 1
Central Asia 8
East Asia 59
Middle East 8
South Asia 1
Southeast Asia 14
757-200M
South Asia 1
757-200PF
North America 75
Europe 4
Africa 1
757-300
North America 37
Europe 16
Middle East 2
Total 1049
767-200
North America 70
East Asia 28
Europe 13
Central America and Mexico 1
Middle East 2
Oceania 5
South America 3
Southeast Asia 6
767-200ER
North America 53
Europe 17
Africa 11
Central Asia 1
East Asia 14
Middle East 6
Oceania 10
South America 8
Unidentified 1
767-2C
North America 38
767-300
North America 28
East Asia 73
Africa 3
767-300ER
North America 249
Europe 137
Africa 5
Central America and Mexico 2
Central Asia 17
East Asia 75
Middle East 21
Oceania 27
South America 38
Southeast Asia 9
Unidentified 3
767-400ER
North America 38
767-300F
North America 172
East Asia 8
South America 8
Europe 6
Central Asia 2
Unidentified 3
Total 1211
Thanks, that was an enjoyable article... given that Airbus is already going to upgrade the A321LR to nibble away sales from the 797, perhaps the all-new narrow-body could actually be an A320 successor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
I suppose anything is possible, but with almost 4000 A320neos ordered (not counting A319neos or A321neos) they have several years of production, and will probably receive more orders. It seems like they are about a decade early to be competing with themselves.
It seems logical to me that airlines care more about range than carrying capacity for a single aisle jet. A single aisle jet with a 5000 nm range would cover nearly every TransAtlantic route.
But remember, it might take six years to bring this new aircraft to market.
And consider this: if the 797 is going to be the new 767, will the next Airbus be... the new 757-300??
As you pointed out, not many of those were sold. The prospective market doesn't seem big enough
to go to the expense of an all-new design, especially when Airbus will already be offering that enhanced 321LR/322.
And for all we know, customers may have started clamoring for a carbon-fiber jet in the 150 - 180 pax size.
And how, exactly, won't it be a simple 787 baseline minus a few frames anyway? And they still can't bring it to market? What gives?
There is a simple way to tell it won't be a simple 787 baseline minus a few frames. Look at the OEW of the current design
Boeing 787-8/9/10 Operating Empty Weight: 264,500 lb / 284,000 lb / 298,700 lb
A321neo Operating Empty Weight: 110,500 lb
Boeing 752-300 Operating Empty Weight: 141,860 lb
Shaving 20,000 lb off the OEW of the B787-8 will still leave it more than twice the OEW of the A321neo. The NMA has to be somewhat competitive with the A321neo in fuel economy or Boeing will never sell 4000 jets. A plane that weighs twice as much is never going to be competitive.
The B797 has to, at the very least, return to the weight of the B767
B767-200ER/300ER Operating Empty Weight: 181,610 lb / 198,440 lb
They are never going to accomplish that kind of goal by removing a few frames off the B787.
There are detractors of this strategy, by the way. They feel that Boeing is making a fundamental mistake, on the level of Airbus's refusal to deviate from their 4 engine strategy in the early 1990s. Boeing itself nearly 20 years ago felt that a replacement to the B737 was critical to the manufacturer's future.
Last edited by PacoMartin; 11-26-2018 at 09:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The comma in the article headline is important
