I believe the a322 will happen within 10 years, but with a 6 to 8 row stretch, new carbon wings with larger fuel tanks built in and powered by either uprated pw geared or rr ultrafan engines. The same wings could then be transfered to the a321. Possibly the a320 won't be in existence then if they decide to move on the a220 stretch.
That is a completely different topic. But while it is off topic right here, it is nevertheless an extremly interesting issue: Airbus had collected a nice number of orders recently for the small NB (the A220 series), but they do not seem to emphasize this product line (they currently seem to focus on WBs) and the monthly manufacturing rates of the A220 and in particular the (necessary but non-existing) growth rates are dismal. So why do they not ramp up production massively? Airbus has no doubt the industrial knowledge how to set up efficient manufacturing systems in short time. So the problem must be somewhere else. Airbus is quite mute about that. My personal guess is that there are conflcting interests of the different stakeholders and contractual ties that could not be solved yet. IMO Airbus WILL NOT launch a new model of the A220 before these issues are solved
It’s really good to see your channel(s) grow! I’m sure 50.000 is going to be reached in no time thanks to your precise and interesting news in the aviation industry!
I kind of think the A320 is at the end of the roaps. The A330 and the A350 is still fairly new aircraft, and so is the A220. The A320 is getting old. Airbus need to present a new clean sheet aircraft in the next 2-3 years. They probobly have to present it at the latest in 2026. Its for sure not a replacement of A350 or the A220,l the A330.. Skeptical, because they put much more work into the NEO version of the A330 than the A320, it was also done more recently. So either the A320 goes (and say they make something totaly new, like a A230), or Airbus will present a A360. And the A320 will be in circulation for a few more years. The A320 is getting old, they have to cut it pretty soon. To me it looks like they trying to fill up the orderbooks with A321XLR as much as possible, so they have production full to when the present a new aircraft. They are also kind of getting late in the cycle for presenting it. The new clean sheet aircraft suppose to fly by 2028
Kinda agree. A stretch to A220-500 then replace the A320, moving its capacity up a bit to not compete with the A220. The last replacement will be the A330neo much later to cover the middle of the market up to the A350. A stretched A350 is not a priority for a while, unless the market changes.
The A330-800 isn't selling well; I don't think an A322neo would cannibalize that segment of the market. The A330-900 is a great airplane, but its primary purpose is to replace existing A330ceos that are being retired over the next decade. Airlines that want a widebody from Airbus without existing A330s naturally choose the A350. I think Airbus should go for it and stretch the A321neo to capture more of the "middle of the market" currently filled by the aging 757s.
A A330-800 cost something like $240M. A theoretical A322 would cost something like $120M. It would be WAAAY cheaper to buy. A other issue with the A330-800 is that -900 is just so much better. Yes it have shorter range, but that don´t matter when the range is over 7000nm anyway. The main issue with a A322 is that the A320 platform is getting old. The A330 platform is kind of sort of getting old to, but its at least the second generation,
@@terencewong-lane4309 well.. it is a nice aircraft to fly... and to be honest.. I dont know the economics of it when it was introduced. But considering they made the A320 pretty soon after the A310 introduktion, kind of sugest that they A310 was mostly done because it was simple to make a shorter A300 A lot of people complain about narrow boddy airliner for longer flight. But the fact that they are so economical is undeniable. But I would guess a A220-500 would probobly be more economical than the A320neo, and more confortable. The benefit of a 2+3 design is that regardless how many you fly, you always sit with your on family.
I think in 10 years, Airbus will offer the following narrowbodies: A220-100/300/500 and the A320plus/A321neo/A321XLR/A322neo. A220-500 will be a stretch (which already exists in CAD at Airbus), it will obliterate the A319neo (which is barely selling) and encroach territory from the A320neo, and the A320neo will be slightly stretched 2-3 rows into an A320plus version which aligns more with the 737-8-200 MAX in capacity. The A322neo will be 4 row stretch from A321XLR, with multiple options for ACT fuel cells in the cargo hold for airlines who need extra range, as well as a new wing with folding tips to fit into current gate spaces. Have a great day!
@@jl-7992Yes the A319 can carry cargo containers, the A220 can not. However, the A319neo is barely getting any orders at all. The A320neo with the SHARP kit can do the hot & high, short strips, everything the A319 has been doing. And we know multiple airlines have been asking Airbus for an A220-500.
@@jl-7992 No, the main difference between the 220 and the 319 is that the 319 has the same type certificate as the 320 and 321. If you are qualified to fly one you are qualified for the others. A 220-500 might eat some 319 and 320 sales, but it will never destroy them so long as budget carriers want the large cost savings of a single-type fleet.
I’ve flown Airbus FBW types for about 25 years; narrow body as well as wide. If Airbus are 100% serious about driving towards ever-increasing fuel efficiency, then a new wing is long overdue for the 321. Its wing (when flaps/slats are retracted) is essentially the same as that on the 319 and 320. This means that the 321, being vastly heavier than the 320, can’t climb up to the high altitudes that the 320 can, let alone the new generation of widebody aircraft have been designed to do (courtesy of their state of the art wing designs). So the 321XLR will fly for 9 hours at an altitude 4000 to 5000 feet lower than a new wing design would permit. Airbus aircraft tend to burn about 4% more fuel when flying 4000 ft below optimum altitudes. So it’s easy to see that, without even considering the reduced thrust engines that would be suitable for a new wing, there is a substantial fuel cost inherent in keeping the current wing. Bring on a new wing Airbus!
The airlines beg to differ! The A321-XLR is the low lost a/c airlines buy as many as they can, for budget trans atlantic flight - where "budgets" are especially tight, obviously. Whether a new wing would be even better? It would costs lot of money to develop and it seems Airbus is under no pressure currently.
I think A322 has a business case for a stretch of 3-4m from the A321 XLR so as to upgrade its customers. Such a stretch will reduce range to the equivalent of A321 Neo of around 3500 NM, which is quite good and airlines will no longer hesitate between A330 neo which has a higher purchase price and operating cost, vs a321 neo which could be too small.
Airbus have built an A324, it reaches from nose to tail the same as London to PARIS, you get on in Heathrow at the front and keep walking the aisle until the rear exit and you have arrived Charles De Gaul, Paris...
I think a twin isle aircraft will be the answer Long skinny single isle aircraft aren't comfortable on long haul flights. I remember the first L1011! Perfect
But long skinny fuselages mean less air resistance - especially as a long tail means a smaller empennage. That means better fuel economy and more range. Small widebodies burn more fuel than big narrowbodies.
@@kenoliver8913 ... also many mid market routes, particularly long range overseas ones, don't generate the passenger loads for a wide body aircraft. The idea is to avoid the overcrowded expensive hubs and fly into secondary smaller gateways, in a sense returning to more of a "point to point" linear route system again.
....however the 757-300 does not have the range performance of the -200. With a far more efficient wing and greater used of composites, the A322 likely would.
The 757-300 is irrelevant here since already back in the late 1990s it was a flop, did not gain a relevant "installed base", and all four remaining 753 operators I know of (UNITED, DELTA, CONDOR, ICELANDAIR) have ordered scores of A321neos and in the DELTA and CONDOR cases also A330neos.
The problem is, you're running into the limits of the A320 wing when you talk about an A322. Sure, they could build it, but it would be compromised on payload/range as compared to the A321. The OEW would increase without a corresponding rise in MTOW, and that would mean it could not lift as much. Yet you need to lift more because you've got 4 extra rows of seats onboard. Something has to give, and that something is useful range. The A321XLR meets it's range goals with an extra tank, among other things, but that means a further OEW increase. Due to the extra structural weight of an A322, it would probably not be possible to have the same extra tank. Then there's the fact that it would not be possible to run the long range routes with an A322 that customers would want it for. It would be good for long transcons, i.e., NY-LA and northern-southern Europe. But does that relatively limited market support the investment required to create the derivative in the first place? I'm guessing the message from Airbus is no.
While a non-starter, at least for now, and for the very reasons you mentioned, the video talks about new engines and/or a new wing. I suspect that a twin bogie main undercarriage may even be required if the more powerful engines option without weight reductions elsewhere is chosen. However, this is technically easy as a variant of the A320ceo for an Indian airline was produced with that undercarriage
Good point about the wing no doubt they will need a new wing since the A321 wing has max out. For an A322 to be attractive range has to be over 4,000 NM. Will they do a Mini A350 all Carbon Fiber with a Folding wing and a version of RR Ultra engines or CFM RISE? That would be interesting.
@ivanviera4773 Unless it becomes significantly cheaper to produce a composite fuselage, I suspect that we will retain alloy fuselages for the single aisle aircraft. The potential for weight saving reduces significantly as the fuselage diameter decreases to the extent that the increased production cost makes justifying the better fuel economy much more difficult.
..where a 321 stretch does come into play in the middle market that would not generate the passenger load of a widebody. Such an aircraft would be more attractive for such routes as there has been a shift away from large hub to hub operations that are subject to slot availability, higher slot costs, and slot restrictions to smaller secondary gateways that wouldn't generate the passenger volume required to support a larger aircraft. THis is where Boeing tripped up when they decided not to move on with a 757 replacement back in 2011 and instead put most of their egges in the 737 basket which does not serve the same role as a long range narrow body like the A321XLR does.
In a high capacity layout, I would have thought that at least half a row of seating would need to be sacrificed for an additional toilet. I don't think that the reduction from the ceo to the neo with even more passengers in the cabin-flex configuration is too popular. There is, of course, the exit limit to consider. The current maximum number of seats is only one row less than for the A32. No doubt it could be addressed by opening the doors in front of the wing back up and retaining one, or possibly both of the over-wing exits. Having said all that, I think that a re-winged A321/A322 would produce something rather special. The question then would be - just how close would a re-winged A320 be to the efficiency of a stretched A220-500? As they are already quite close, could it even outperform it?
You are missing the in my opinion most important point. Why would Airbus build this plane if they are already sold out until ~2031 und are planning to supercede the neo family in 2035? It is way more likely that the next single aisle family is sized around the a321 from the start so that a smaller version equals the 320 and a singular stretch serves demand for a 322. I cant see any reason why airbus should develop a plane that they would only intend to sell for about 5 years max.
Particularly since Airbus has this market segment pretty much sown up with Boeing's problems with certifying the 737-10 and shelving the NMA. They would only cannibalise sales from the A321.
For the MoM varient, I reckon AIRBUS should go ahead with a rational study into a possible left of field amalgamation hybrid product of BOTH the A220 & A321... Both varients already have stupendously incredible features an qualities that can be used in any new hybrid varient...😊😊😊
I would like to see a streatch veraion of the Airbus A321 as dubbed the A322... This would suited me well if it would have 5000 nmls range.. I want to operate the aircraft in a 3 class seating configuration and to carry between 4 to 6 tonnes of cargo depending on passengers demand... But also would like to see a stretch variant of the A320 to carry 204 passengers and a range of 4250 nmls range on similar market with less denser or higher seating routes... COM ON AIRBUS, PLEASE LAUNCH THE A322 WITH THE NEW WINGS AND LONGER RANGE.
Trying to compare the A-320 and the 737 is not even Apples and Oranges The starting point of all the 737 max problems was the decision that rather than going with a taller , more 757 like landing gear to stay with the original landing gear which was so low that there was just no way to fit the larger diameter turbofans which Boeing "solved" with the new wing design but the wing was inherently unstable which the "solved" with MCAS Staying with the 757 and letting the 737 go the way of the 727 and not even go for the NG would have avoided all the problems that Boeing is having now. Staying with the 717/MD-80 design would have killed off in the crib, so to speak then then Bombardier C now A-220 and the Embraer but instead Boeing opened the door for both.
@@toms1348 What you are all but saying is that Airbus staying with the A-320 is the same mistake that Boeing made with staying with the 737 beyond the NG or IMO even doing the NG in the first place. It is NOT a mistake to stay with the A-320 it was proven design with plenty of room to develop. It was for Boeing to stay with the 737 and try to use it to match up with the "NEO'd versions of the A-320 and the only way to do that was install new larger diameter more fuel efficient engines which could never fit under the original lower clearance 737 wing but would have easily fit under the 757 wing , which lead to the new inherently unstable wing which lead to the MCAS which lead to the Boeing lawn dart When Boeing merged with MD and moved the HQ to Chicago they made two decisions that were huge mistakes and now those chickens are coming home to roost. They quit making the 757 which could have EASILY been "NEO'd| and been head to head with the A-320 The quit making the 717 a cash cow that Airlines bought right up to the end. Alaska Airlines and the then Air Tran once had nothing but the Air Frame and would have kept buying them probably to this day thinking that they could just force feed 737's onto airlines, like they would never have any other choice. and for a SHORT time they didn't but when they made thart mistake the opened the door for the now A-220 . Delta is buying A-220's to replace all it's MD/B717 airframes Bottom line Boeing made mistakes at every turn but Airbus staying with the A-320 is NOT a "mistake." ,
..for one it has a higher stance so the engines could be placed lower and rearward than on the Max. The 737 airframe was designed around the narrow JT8D which allows it ot have such a "ground hugging stance that was great for small town airports without minimal servicing equipment (the -100 & -200 even had their own self contained boarding stairs). The 320 family in turn was designed around the larger cross section CFM56 (with longer undercarriage struts) which still allows reasonable for ground clearance with the larger diameter LEAP engines.
I've seen the render of the A322 it will make Boeing wish that they didn't discontinue their 757 300, because that what will it would be a Airbus version of the 757 300. Boeing might make their 737 MAX 10 fly farther by doing the Max 10 ER.
The a322 would be a plane for the middle market cause it would fit in where beoing couldn't cause the a322 would be like the 757-200 or 300 and the 767 holding 250 passenger and Airbus will really have the market then
I've always thought it crazy logic to refuse to sell a product for fear it substitutes another of your products. If a few airlines prefer to buy more 322s instead of 330s (the least profitable of Airbus' current products anyway) then why worry? A sale is a sale, and meeting the customer's needs as best you can is the only successful strategy long term for future sales. Besides, as Bill Gates once said "if you don't cannibalise your own products then someone else will" - Boeing is not so dead that you'd want to risk opening any gaps in the market for them.
Airlines would rather take the weight saving provided by replacing door 2 with a pair of overwing exits on the neo, and besides, while it has been done before, many airlines don’t like to hook up 2 jet bridges on their A321s as the clearance between a jet bridge at 2L and the left engine is apparently very small.
@@NaenaeGaming It is very small clearance, but if they moved it forward 12 to 18 inches, it would allow the jet bridge more clearance. It’s always a much easier boarding and deplaning process on a 757 when they use the aft boarding door and so much quicker. If the airlines want to save time on turns, then this, I bet, would save them tons of time over the life of the aircraft.
@@cpgoef6I don’t get it. Whether the 757 uses Door 1L or 2L, it’s still just one exit door. The only way I see to speed up deplaning is to offer more than 1 exit.
@@RobertsonDCCD using 2L allows for the zipper effect when exiting and there are always folks that hold up the line getting their stuff out of the overhead. While first class and some of premium economy is getting their stuff out and exiting, the folks behind 2L can exit as well. I’ve flown on dozens of 757’s and I always love house fast and efficiently the process moves along.
Airbus should consider a a319 xlr. This may add 2 hours or more flight time over the a321 xlr. Makes flying from small airports direct to important destinations feasible.
...British Airways used to have an all business class flight between JFK and London City Airport using a 319. On the westbound leg it had to make a technical stop in Shannon but could make the return leg nonstop. I actually considered it. Milwaukee WI is building a new international terminal where the old E concourse was This could make MKE a nice "reliever" for O'Hare for transatlantic operations using the 321 XLR (which easily could serve destinations like London Stansted and Berlin Brandenburg),
I saw a 797 announcement april fools and was so pissed off. I hate this world of no 797 (proper successor to 757), no Mitsubishi regional jet (the dismantling of the prototypes was heartbreaking), and yet Irkut and Comac with their cobbled together hodgepodge of stolen technologies get to fly.
Look at the customers' POV: It's the airlines that replace airliners, and those airlines still operating 757s (as PAX versions) have mostly ordered A321neo (incl. LR and XLR) in the last years. DELTA, UNITED, AMERICAN, ICELANDAIR, CONDOR, to name a few
Not really. When the tickets are like 40% of on the single aisle aircraft they take that anyway. I been flying to Canaries pretty much every year for the last decade an a half. That is a 6 hour flight. Aircraft is full every time. ... well.... almost every time. When its a 767-400 it was full, when it was a A321CEO it was full when it was a A320NEO it was full... When it was a Boeing 787-max 8... in 2021... there was plenty of space left.
Yes, the point is a long thin fuselage has a lot less air resistance than a short squat one. A big narrowbody will be very fuel efficient, and the market does not lie - passengers put up with discomfort when it saves them money. Not without whining about it though :-) .
Awesome Video Globe Trotting at Dj's Aviation 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Yes, but the bean counters are not morons for loving it. Passengers always SAY they are willing to pay more money for more comfort, but those bean counter's spreadsheets clearly show that is not what they DO. The market clearly shows most people refuse to pay higher fares for a more comfortable plane.
this feels like an April fools joke
My callender says second of april..
and in Australia - its the third!! :-) @@matsv201
In frrench we use April's fish...
@@matsv201But what does your calendar say?
Love Airbus!
I believe the a322 will happen within 10 years, but with a 6 to 8 row stretch, new carbon wings with larger fuel tanks built in and powered by either uprated pw geared or rr ultrafan engines. The same wings could then be transfered to the a321. Possibly the a320 won't be in existence then if they decide to move on the a220 stretch.
Airbus should build the Airbus A220-500neo now !!
That is a completely different topic.
But while it is off topic right here, it is nevertheless an extremly interesting issue: Airbus had collected a nice number of orders recently for the small NB (the A220 series), but they do not seem to emphasize this product line (they currently seem to focus on WBs) and the monthly manufacturing rates of the A220 and in particular the (necessary but non-existing) growth rates are dismal. So why do they not ramp up production massively? Airbus has no doubt the industrial knowledge how to set up efficient manufacturing systems in short time. So the problem must be somewhere else. Airbus is quite mute about that.
My personal guess is that there are conflcting interests of the different stakeholders and contractual ties that could not be solved yet.
IMO Airbus WILL NOT launch a new model of the A220 before these issues are solved
An interesting thought. We dont need an Airbus 322 yet, but a solid explanation of how the market and engineering testing process goes. Thanks.
It’s really good to see your channel(s) grow! I’m sure 50.000 is going to be reached in no time thanks to your precise and interesting news in the aviation industry!
A322 may come in the next generation A320 that Airbus has begun to work.
I kind of think the A320 is at the end of the roaps. The A330 and the A350 is still fairly new aircraft, and so is the A220. The A320 is getting old.
Airbus need to present a new clean sheet aircraft in the next 2-3 years. They probobly have to present it at the latest in 2026.
Its for sure not a replacement of A350 or the A220,l the A330.. Skeptical, because they put much more work into the NEO version of the A330 than the A320, it was also done more recently.
So either the A320 goes (and say they make something totaly new, like a A230), or Airbus will present a A360. And the A320 will be in circulation for a few more years.
The A320 is getting old, they have to cut it pretty soon. To me it looks like they trying to fill up the orderbooks with A321XLR as much as possible, so they have production full to when the present a new aircraft.
They are also kind of getting late in the cycle for presenting it. The new clean sheet aircraft suppose to fly by 2028
With the uncertainties around engines, efficiency and emissions reduction it's unlikely that Airbus will present a new design anytime soon.
Kinda agree. A stretch to A220-500 then replace the A320, moving its capacity up a bit to not compete with the A220.
The last replacement will be the A330neo much later to cover the middle of the market up to the A350. A stretched A350 is not a priority for a while, unless the market changes.
A322 I think it would be as long as the Boeing 757 300 the flying walking stick.
There was a lot of talk in the media about an Airbus 350-800! But Aiebus didn't launch it because of the A330NEO!
The A330-800 isn't selling well; I don't think an A322neo would cannibalize that segment of the market. The A330-900 is a great airplane, but its primary purpose is to replace existing A330ceos that are being retired over the next decade. Airlines that want a widebody from Airbus without existing A330s naturally choose the A350. I think Airbus should go for it and stretch the A321neo to capture more of the "middle of the market" currently filled by the aging 757s.
A A330-800 cost something like $240M. A theoretical A322 would cost something like $120M. It would be WAAAY cheaper to buy.
A other issue with the A330-800 is that -900 is just so much better. Yes it have shorter range, but that don´t matter when the range is over 7000nm anyway.
The main issue with a A322 is that the A320 platform is getting old. The A330 platform is kind of sort of getting old to, but its at least the second generation,
Composite re-wing the A310 with shiny new-technology engines :)
It would be cool, but there is just no way they would be able to sell that at a competitive price.
@@matsv201 Just wishful thinking on my part; I always thought the A310 was an exceptional airframe with an exceptional wing......
@@terencewong-lane4309 well.. it is a nice aircraft to fly... and to be honest.. I dont know the economics of it when it was introduced. But considering they made the A320 pretty soon after the A310 introduktion, kind of sugest that they A310 was mostly done because it was simple to make a shorter A300
A lot of people complain about narrow boddy airliner for longer flight. But the fact that they are so economical is undeniable.
But I would guess a A220-500 would probobly be more economical than the A320neo, and more confortable.
The benefit of a 2+3 design is that regardless how many you fly, you always sit with your on family.
Oh. Luv 310. So cool with powerful takeoffs.
I think in 10 years, Airbus will offer the following narrowbodies: A220-100/300/500 and the A320plus/A321neo/A321XLR/A322neo.
A220-500 will be a stretch (which already exists in CAD at Airbus), it will obliterate the A319neo (which is barely selling) and encroach territory from the A320neo, and the A320neo will be slightly stretched 2-3 rows into an A320plus version which aligns more with the 737-8-200 MAX in capacity. The A322neo will be 4 row stretch from A321XLR, with multiple options for ACT fuel cells in the cargo hold for airlines who need extra range, as well as a new wing with folding tips to fit into current gate spaces. Have a great day!
Isn't the main difference between the A200 and A319 is the latter's ability to carry standardized cargo pallets?
@@jl-7992Yes the A319 can carry cargo containers, the A220 can not. However, the A319neo is barely getting any orders at all. The A320neo with the SHARP kit can do the hot & high, short strips, everything the A319 has been doing. And we know multiple airlines have been asking Airbus for an A220-500.
They could just call the new duo of stretched A320 family A320plus and A321plus, entirely replacing the A320neo and A321LR/XLR.
@@jl-7992 No, the main difference between the 220 and the 319 is that the 319 has the same type certificate as the 320 and 321. If you are qualified to fly one you are qualified for the others. A 220-500 might eat some 319 and 320 sales, but it will never destroy them so long as budget carriers want the large cost savings of a single-type fleet.
Stretch the 220 and you get a MD 80 with engines on the wings and 5 abreast seating
...used to love the old "Mad Dogs" because of the seating always reserves a seat on the right (2 seat) side.
I’ve flown Airbus FBW types for about 25 years; narrow body as well as wide.
If Airbus are 100% serious about driving towards ever-increasing fuel efficiency, then a new wing is long overdue for the 321.
Its wing (when flaps/slats are retracted) is essentially the same as that on the 319 and 320.
This means that the 321, being vastly heavier than the 320, can’t climb up to the high altitudes that the 320 can, let alone the new generation of widebody aircraft have been designed to do (courtesy of their state of the art wing designs).
So the 321XLR will fly for 9 hours at an altitude 4000 to 5000 feet lower than a new wing design would permit.
Airbus aircraft tend to burn about 4% more fuel when flying 4000 ft below optimum altitudes.
So it’s easy to see that, without even considering the reduced thrust engines that would be suitable for a new wing, there is a substantial fuel cost inherent in keeping the current wing.
Bring on a new wing Airbus!
The airlines beg to differ!
The A321-XLR is the low lost a/c airlines buy as many as they can, for budget trans atlantic flight - where "budgets" are especially tight, obviously.
Whether a new wing would be even better? It would costs lot of money to develop and it seems Airbus is under no pressure currently.
@@olaflieser3812I get that, but that would be a game changer. Less fuel and better ride for the pax.
I think A322 has a business case for a stretch of 3-4m from the A321 XLR so as to upgrade its customers. Such a stretch will reduce range to the equivalent of A321 Neo of around 3500 NM, which is quite good and airlines will no longer hesitate between A330 neo which has a higher purchase price and operating cost, vs a321 neo which could be too small.
A replacement for the flying pencil?
I think Airbus should build that plane at 2:54, they should consider using CFM Risa engine on that plane.
Airbus have built an A324, it reaches from nose to tail the same as London to PARIS, you get on in Heathrow at the front and keep walking the aisle until the rear exit and you have arrived Charles De Gaul, Paris...
The first leg is the worst walk. Will walk on the Eurostar next time.
I think a twin isle aircraft will be the answer
Long skinny single isle aircraft aren't comfortable on long haul flights.
I remember the first L1011!
Perfect
But long skinny fuselages mean less air resistance - especially as a long tail means a smaller empennage. That means better fuel economy and more range. Small widebodies burn more fuel than big narrowbodies.
@@kenoliver8913 ... also many mid market routes, particularly long range overseas ones, don't generate the passenger loads for a wide body aircraft. The idea is to avoid the overcrowded expensive hubs and fly into secondary smaller gateways, in a sense returning to more of a "point to point" linear route system again.
40m cabin length.....campare to 43m on 757-300
....however the 757-300 does not have the range performance of the -200. With a far more efficient wing and greater used of composites, the A322 likely would.
@@bcshelby4926 these been 20 years since the last 753 delivery
The 757-300 is irrelevant here since already back in the late 1990s it was a flop, did not gain a relevant "installed base", and all four remaining 753 operators I know of (UNITED, DELTA, CONDOR, ICELANDAIR) have ordered scores of A321neos and in the DELTA and CONDOR cases also A330neos.
The problem is, you're running into the limits of the A320 wing when you talk about an A322. Sure, they could build it, but it would be compromised on payload/range as compared to the A321. The OEW would increase without a corresponding rise in MTOW, and that would mean it could not lift as much. Yet you need to lift more because you've got 4 extra rows of seats onboard. Something has to give, and that something is useful range.
The A321XLR meets it's range goals with an extra tank, among other things, but that means a further OEW increase. Due to the extra structural weight of an A322, it would probably not be possible to have the same extra tank.
Then there's the fact that it would not be possible to run the long range routes with an A322 that customers would want it for. It would be good for long transcons, i.e., NY-LA and northern-southern Europe. But does that relatively limited market support the investment required to create the derivative in the first place? I'm guessing the message from Airbus is no.
While a non-starter, at least for now, and for the very reasons you mentioned, the video talks about new engines and/or a new wing.
I suspect that a twin bogie main undercarriage may even be required if the more powerful engines option without weight reductions elsewhere is chosen.
However, this is technically easy as a variant of the A320ceo for an Indian airline was produced with that undercarriage
Good point about the wing no doubt they will need a new wing since the A321 wing has max out. For an A322 to be attractive range has to be over 4,000 NM. Will they do a Mini A350 all Carbon Fiber with a Folding wing and a version of RR Ultra engines or CFM RISE? That would be interesting.
@ivanviera4773 Unless it becomes significantly cheaper to produce a composite fuselage, I suspect that we will retain alloy fuselages for the single aisle aircraft.
The potential for weight saving reduces significantly as the fuselage diameter decreases to the extent that the increased production cost makes justifying the better fuel economy much more difficult.
..where a 321 stretch does come into play in the middle market that would not generate the passenger load of a widebody. Such an aircraft would be more attractive for such routes as there has been a shift away from large hub to hub operations that are subject to slot availability, higher slot costs, and slot restrictions to smaller secondary gateways that wouldn't generate the passenger volume required to support a larger aircraft.
THis is where Boeing tripped up when they decided not to move on with a 757 replacement back in 2011 and instead put most of their egges in the 737 basket which does not serve the same role as a long range narrow body like the A321XLR does.
In a high capacity layout, I would have thought that at least half a row of seating would need to be sacrificed for an additional toilet.
I don't think that the reduction from the ceo to the neo with even more passengers in the cabin-flex configuration is too popular.
There is, of course, the exit limit to consider. The current maximum number of seats is only one row less than for the A32. No doubt it could be addressed by opening the doors in front of the wing back up and retaining one, or possibly both of the over-wing exits.
Having said all that, I think that a re-winged A321/A322 would produce something rather special.
The question then would be - just how close would a re-winged A320 be to the efficiency of a stretched A220-500? As they are already quite close, could it even outperform it?
An A322 is only possible with a slight stretch and no higher MTOW, as long as it receives the current wing.
You are missing the in my opinion most important point. Why would Airbus build this plane if they are already sold out until ~2031 und are planning to supercede the neo family in 2035? It is way more likely that the next single aisle family is sized around the a321 from the start so that a smaller version equals the 320 and a singular stretch serves demand for a 322. I cant see any reason why airbus should develop a plane that they would only intend to sell for about 5 years max.
Particularly since Airbus has this market segment pretty much sown up with Boeing's problems with certifying the 737-10 and shelving the NMA. They would only cannibalise sales from the A321.
to upgrade its customers to A322 from A321
For the MoM varient, I reckon AIRBUS should go ahead with a rational study into a possible left of field amalgamation hybrid product of BOTH the A220 & A321... Both varients already have stupendously incredible features an qualities that can be used in any new hybrid varient...😊😊😊
I would like to see a streatch veraion of the Airbus A321 as dubbed the A322...
This would suited me well if it would have 5000 nmls range..
I want to operate the aircraft in a 3 class seating configuration and to carry between 4 to 6 tonnes of cargo depending on passengers demand...
But also would like to see a stretch variant of the A320 to carry 204 passengers and a range of 4250 nmls range on similar market with less denser or higher seating routes...
COM ON AIRBUS, PLEASE LAUNCH THE A322 WITH THE NEW WINGS AND LONGER RANGE.
Deplaning time: infinity.
I can still see thing happening at some point just like the A220-500...
Perhaps Airbus should learn from Boeing's misfortunes that continuing to develop an airframe long in the tooth is not a good idea. Just a thought....
C-Series Aka Airbus 220 is a brand new design made by Bombardier. You know.. the one the americans tried to stop from entering service
Trying to compare the A-320 and the 737 is not even Apples and Oranges
The starting point of all the 737 max problems was the decision that rather than going with a taller , more 757 like landing gear to stay with the original landing gear which was so low that there was just no way to fit the larger diameter turbofans which Boeing "solved" with the new wing design but the wing was inherently unstable which the "solved" with MCAS
Staying with the 757 and letting the 737 go the way of the 727 and not even go for the NG would have avoided all the problems that Boeing is having now.
Staying with the 717/MD-80 design would have killed off in the crib, so to speak then then Bombardier C now A-220 and the Embraer but instead Boeing opened the door for both.
@HellStr82 , I'm speaking about the A320 series, not the 220 series, which is a completely different aircraft with a different design profile.
@@toms1348 What you are all but saying is that Airbus staying with the A-320 is the same mistake that Boeing made with staying with the 737 beyond the NG or IMO even doing the NG in the first place.
It is NOT a mistake to stay with the A-320 it was proven design with plenty of room to develop.
It was for Boeing to stay with the 737 and try to use it to match up with the "NEO'd versions of the A-320 and the only way to do that was install new larger diameter more fuel efficient engines which could never fit under the original lower clearance 737 wing but would have easily fit under the 757 wing , which lead to the new inherently unstable wing which lead to the MCAS which lead to the Boeing lawn dart
When Boeing merged with MD and moved the HQ to Chicago they made two decisions that were huge mistakes and now those chickens are coming home to roost.
They quit making the 757 which could have EASILY been "NEO'd| and been head to head with the A-320
The quit making the 717 a cash cow that Airlines bought right up to the end. Alaska Airlines and the then Air Tran once had nothing but the Air Frame and would have kept buying them probably to this day thinking that they could just force feed 737's onto airlines, like they would never have any other choice. and for a SHORT time they didn't but when they made thart mistake the opened the door for the now A-220 .
Delta is buying A-220's to replace all it's MD/B717 airframes
Bottom line
Boeing made mistakes at every turn but Airbus staying with the A-320 is NOT a "mistake." ,
But the 757 was to heavy, this is the main reason Boeing stopped the 757 powerhouse.
The new 250-seat narrow bodied jetliner concept, the Russian MC-21-400/410, will pave the way for the A322 concept's real life emergence..
This aircraft seem to possess potentials to stretch etc than 737. Probably cos it’s tall? I dunno just thinking out loud
..for one it has a higher stance so the engines could be placed lower and rearward than on the Max. The 737 airframe was designed around the narrow JT8D which allows it ot have such a "ground hugging stance that was great for small town airports without minimal servicing equipment (the -100 & -200 even had their own self contained boarding stairs).
The 320 family in turn was designed around the larger cross section CFM56 (with longer undercarriage struts) which still allows reasonable for ground clearance with the larger diameter LEAP engines.
✈️
I've seen the render of the A322 it will make Boeing wish that they didn't discontinue their 757 300, because that what will it would be a Airbus version of the 757 300. Boeing might make their 737 MAX 10 fly farther by doing the Max 10 ER.
The a322 would be a plane for the middle market cause it would fit in where beoing couldn't cause the a322 would be like the 757-200 or 300 and the 767 holding 250 passenger and Airbus will really have the market then
I've always thought it crazy logic to refuse to sell a product for fear it substitutes another of your products. If a few airlines prefer to buy more 322s instead of 330s (the least profitable of Airbus' current products anyway) then why worry? A sale is a sale, and meeting the customer's needs as best you can is the only successful strategy long term for future sales. Besides, as Bill Gates once said "if you don't cannibalise your own products then someone else will" - Boeing is not so dead that you'd want to risk opening any gaps in the market for them.
Boeing 797 will replace the Boeing 737 family dj aviation
Even though Boeing has said it has no plans to develop a new aircraft?
Boeing is going to be gone for good only Airbus, Embraer, and Comac will dominate the sky.
@@michaeldunham3385 "Crowd-funding" is followed by "crowd design" ...
@@KlausErmecke what does that have to do with Boeing?
wow.. higher tailstrike risk
For heaven’s sake, please put a mid-entry boarding door like the 757 has. Boarding and deplaning a 321 is a nightmare
Airlines would rather take the weight saving provided by replacing door 2 with a pair of overwing exits on the neo, and besides, while it has been done before, many airlines don’t like to hook up 2 jet bridges on their A321s as the clearance between a jet bridge at 2L and the left engine is apparently very small.
@@NaenaeGaming It is very small clearance, but if they moved it forward 12 to 18 inches, it would allow the jet bridge more clearance. It’s always a much easier boarding and deplaning process on a 757 when they use the aft boarding door and so much quicker. If the airlines want to save time on turns, then this, I bet, would save them tons of time over the life of the aircraft.
@@cpgoef6I don’t get it. Whether the 757 uses Door 1L or 2L, it’s still just one exit door. The only way I see to speed up deplaning is to offer more than 1 exit.
@@RobertsonDCCD using 2L allows for the zipper effect when exiting and there are always folks that hold up the line getting their stuff out of the overhead. While first class and some of premium economy is getting their stuff out and exiting, the folks behind 2L can exit as well. I’ve flown on dozens of 757’s and I always love house fast and efficiently the process moves along.
Ty dj!!
I never subscribe to channels that beg at the outset.
An industry that demands consistent innovation? What on earth is consistent innovation? What is inconsistent innovation?
Constant
@@michaeldunham3385 Well, yes, obviously 😄. It’s just that the term “consistent innovation” sounds very weird to my ears 😂.
They don't need to release it because Boeing has no answer for the A321Neo let alone an A322. They're keeping it in their back pocket believe that.
Let’s hope it doesn’t end up like the uncertifiable max 10 😅
Airbus needs to come up with a B757 replacement QUICK
...indeed Boeing could have but was more interested in milking a nearly 50 year old design well beyond it's original concept and mission.
Right!
They are waiting for the certification of the replacement.
The A321XLR.
I don’t trust anyone after what happened yesterday! 😂 I got humbled with April fools
And who wants to fly for 9 hrs. in a single aisle airplane? Not me, for sure.
Ain’t no way that airbus said lovehansa….
Did your editor forget to cut out that VO part at 1:18 lol ?
I heard that the A322 is not going to have engines.
So A322 Glider
@@herceg6772 Well ... on monkey class you'll have to step into the pedals yourself, but else, yes. :-))
probably a CFM Risa Engine, instead of jet turbo fan.
WHAT DID YOU SAY?
Don’t make the same mistake as the max
Airbus is an engineering company. Everything is calculated to the nearest nanometer, not nearest foot
Airbus should consider a a319 xlr. This may add 2 hours or more flight time over the a321 xlr. Makes flying from small airports direct to important destinations feasible.
...British Airways used to have an all business class flight between JFK and London City Airport using a 319. On the westbound leg it had to make a technical stop in Shannon but could make the return leg nonstop. I actually considered it.
Milwaukee WI is building a new international terminal where the old E concourse was This could make MKE a nice "reliever" for O'Hare for transatlantic operations using the 321 XLR (which easily could serve destinations like London Stansted and Berlin Brandenburg),
blink twice if you’re being held hostage by boeing
brodie made an 8 minute video from an april fools joke 🤣
I saw a 797 announcement april fools and was so pissed off. I hate this world of no 797 (proper successor to 757), no Mitsubishi regional jet (the dismantling of the prototypes was heartbreaking), and yet Irkut and Comac with their cobbled together hodgepodge of stolen technologies get to fly.
Lol funny, not going to happen in near term 4 sure.
Not another stretch!
Didn't Boeing try to stretch the 737 and look at where we are
So airbus had the ability to literally replace the 757 and yet they didnt. Interesting.
Look at the customers' POV:
It's the airlines that replace airliners, and those airlines still operating 757s (as PAX versions) have mostly ordered A321neo (incl. LR and XLR) in the last years. DELTA, UNITED, AMERICAN, ICELANDAIR, CONDOR, to name a few
Flexible wing fly smooth like the 787 series of Boeing
Quite speculative bs with no real value content, just lots of q's and empty words
I’m not going to subscribe.
Is it just me ... or is anyone else wanting to take a trip on a Lovehansa plane :)))
Get a room.
Problems with tailstrike and ripping the toilets out of the back.
Single aisle is a stupid idea on a large or international aircraft. Once passengers realise they’ll book elsewhere
Not really. When the tickets are like 40% of on the single aisle aircraft they take that anyway.
I been flying to Canaries pretty much every year for the last decade an a half. That is a 6 hour flight. Aircraft is full every time. ... well.... almost every time. When its a 767-400 it was full, when it was a A321CEO it was full when it was a A320NEO it was full...
When it was a Boeing 787-max 8... in 2021... there was plenty of space left.
Yes, the point is a long thin fuselage has a lot less air resistance than a short squat one. A big narrowbody will be very fuel efficient, and the market does not lie - passengers put up with discomfort when it saves them money. Not without whining about it though :-) .
Awesome Video Globe Trotting at Dj's Aviation 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Bean counters love single aisle. Unfortunately passengers hate it. That unfortunately doesn’t show on a morons spreadsheet
Passengers love the single aisle ticket prices nevertheless.
Yes, but the bean counters are not morons for loving it. Passengers always SAY they are willing to pay more money for more comfort, but those bean counter's spreadsheets clearly show that is not what they DO. The market clearly shows most people refuse to pay higher fares for a more comfortable plane.