BOEING KILLER? - Why Airbus Launched The A321XLR
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 фев 2024
- Why did Airbus launch the A321XLR, and when it enters service, will it be another one of the nails in Boeing's coffin in the middle of the market sector, which is now primarily dominated by the European plane maker?
BECOME A MEMBER:
/ @globetrottingatdjsavi...
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
🖥️ Visit the website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH GLOBETROTTING
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- www.flickr.com/photos/3838130...
-
-
-
-
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
![Dimension 20: Never Stop Blowing Up Trailer [Dropout Exclusive Series]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xYeXpbHnGEM/mqdefault.jpg)
Boeing Killer at this point is Boeing themselves.
4:18
Or Boeing pushed the knife in themselves, and Airbus twisted it!
😔
I tend to think A320/21 hurt Boeing badly because it pushed Boeing into making the frankenmaxes.
@mikoto7693 Agreed, and very much in the way that the C Series pushed Airbus into creating the NEO, although history suggests that they had a far better platform to update.
I think that Boeing's failure to react to the CSeries unlike Airbus did, but wait until the NEO forced them to so, demonstrates an unbelievable arrogance on Boeing's part.
Their attitude is even more unforgivable, since this is exactly what they did when the 'upstart' Airbus with just a single widebody range (A300/310) to their name had the audacity to even think that they could make something to threaten their mighty 737 Classic.
Boeing is the Boeing Killer
737max is yugo.
Seems like Boeing will wait until we're all old and in wheelchairs then to announce they will revive the 757 😅
😢😂
I don‘t really think they will revive the 757 (and don‘t hope so, even though I like the 757), they will probably develop a NMA.
@They won’t have the funds to do so at this rate.
This makes sense for holiday charters. They could offer ski packages to Chile or wine tours to Italy and not have to worry about filling a large plane.
the a321 neo in all its versions is truly a boeing killer it pushed boeing to make very big mistakes with the 737 max to arrive at the situation we are currently experiencing and boeing's big problems.
I mean, you could also say that the 747-8 was the Airbus killer, as it caused them to make a big mistake in investing in the A380.
Airbus never broke even with the A380, and without Emirates, it would have been a financial catastrophe.
@@jwil4286 the 747-8 was never the a380 killer it was the price of crude oil and the consumption of quadjets compared to the 777-300 that killed the a380 but the 747-8 was never a competitor of the A380 it is the quadjets which no longer have their places for the moment, moreover of the 747-8 less than 100 have been sold in the passenger version.
@@jwil4286 and concerning emirates yes they saved the a380 program but if emirates was not there with the delays already priced the 777-9 would already be a semi-failure or even a stillborn plane.
@@jwil4286please rethink the timeline...
The a380 was designed and actually came out before the 747-8..the a380 also outsold the total number of 747-8 ever produced (if you exclude orders by Emirates, you got a rough even split between a380 and 747-8).
The saving graces that led to a fairly decent 747-8 programme were the -8F version, and the fact many of its operators were already fairly used to the type (which smooth the introduction of the plane - as opposed to a brand new one like the a380).
As mentioned, it was the introduction of high performing dual engine wide body planes (plus the costs of running quadjets) that killed both planes...
@@jpazinho 4 planes, actually, including the MD-11's and the A340's.
I think that all those fanboys saying that it isn't a true 757 replacement are missing the point.
Quite simply, it doesn't have to be.
All it needs to be is is a better fit than the 737.
By this metric, it more than succeeds, and thanks to Boeing's past behaviour, the 737's loss of Grandfather rights makes any further variants, or, in many cases even improvements to the 737. next to impossible. Only a clean-sheet replacement now makes economic sense.
That and Airbus got a slightly smaller clean sheet design more or less for free.
Also due to Boeing being nefarious and using their influence over US politics to bankrupt the maker of that aircraft.
Exactly. And they fail to remember that airlines didn't want to have a 757 replacement anyway. Boeing discussed a 757MAX (or whatever you would call such a plane). Airlines were not enthusiastic about that proposal. Boeing discussed building a baby 787 which they called the MOM (middle of the market. Basically a twin-aisle short-to-middle range jet which would have been above the 737/320, but below or at 757ish sizewise. Twin-aisle was proposed by Boeing in order to give the plane greater cargo capabilities. Airlines didn't jump at that plane either. The legacy 757 sales dried up, so Boeing closed down that production line.
Many aviation fans have their visions tainted by their own preferences rather than realising that aviation is a harsh numbers game.
I think it also will be a good option for private / business jet, having a plane that can fly almost anywhere and not too big is a good option.
yeah mate, i am considering it for my commute to work
Cant wait for aer lingus to get theirs ! A great aircraft has put boeing back years!!
Especially now with Ryanair's eagerness to scoop up any and all dodgy Max cancellations. Hope AL can get their act together and embrace economy flying.
Does it not nose dive into the ground going 600mph? Does it not randomly shed parts? Then it beats boeing the bar isnt that high
The length is 2.8m shorter (47.3 vs 44.5) and the wing span is 2.2m shorter (38 vs 35.8). The fuselage diameter is also slightly larger(3.54vs 3.70) Yet it still manages to fly 600nm farther(4100 vs 4700nm). We have a true successor to B757.
The A321 XLR is especially exciting for Air Canada customers because this is where they will be introducing their next-generation cabin with private suites, something AC has never done before. Good times ahead....
A321XLR is a almost prefect like for like 757-200 replacment. The range is slightly longer, the interior space is about the same (due to how the lavtories are organzied, the A321XLR could fit a few more seats, but not a full row). Airbus got slightly longer range anda shorter wing (so gates slots are cheaper), the XLR is also some 10-15% more fuel efficent. That is not a huge amount, but wellcome.
The shorter wing is almost fully compesanted by the lighter load. But its worth saying that the payload of the XLR is slightly lower.
About the A322 (that don´t exist, yes i know). For the 757 series, the -200 was sold slightly lower than 1000, and the -300 was sold 55 units. Yea, that is quite a diffrance. That would of cause sugest that there is no market for a A322.... buuut. There is a issue here. When 737-300 came around both 767-200 and A310 as well as A300-600 was popular planes. All of those is about 25 seats away from 757-300. The wide bodies was simply the better choice back then.
The situation today is sort of diffrent. All the competitors are gone. There simply exist on aircraft on the market for between ~230-300 passangers
The question is: Does the XLR have the same performance as the 757? Most airlines are keeping the 757's because it can takeoff and land on short runways with it's overpowered engines while having good capacity.
Except it doesn’t have the range it’s capped at 3500NM look at the field tests and the issues with the center fuel tank
I think the days of airlines being loyal to one manufacturer are long gone. There is too much risk putting all their eggs in one basket. Boeing has probably made Airbus a better company in the long run by making them up their game.
except for low-cost carriers, they need fleet uniformity to minimize crew training expenses
OTOH there are huge advantages in maintenance and training with sticking with one brand. It really is very expensive to move from a fleet of one type to a mixed fleet - support, training and scheduling problems suddenly become much bigger. As a rule if you are a smallish low cost carrier it is not worth those extra costs, where if you are a big full cost carrier with a wide range of route types to fill then it is worth paying the costs of diversity.
The A321XLR might sell 1000 units like the 757. Or maybe more.
Probably little more...like 1200 or smth
It's a *Very* popular aircraft.
Nah. Most airlines aren't keen on the idea of having extra fuel cells taking up cargo space. I think there's also something to be said about the single main gear in regards to weight capacity. The XLR is too comprised to kill the 757.
@@gop4usa12the 757 is 30 years old… a replacement is better then none
I'm excited for the A321 XLR for those thin, direct long-haul routes.
Boeing f’d up the moment they ended 757 and started extending and extending the 737 dinosaur. Look at the a320 series they are building to what looks very much like the 757.
Yes, Boeing did muck up. the 757 was already preforming like the A321LR and with a few tweaks it would have exceeded the XLR. I remember Boeing stating that the XLR was a niche airplane. Not quite with hundreds of orders that Boeing missed out on. New management required.
they also f'd up when they ended the 717 too imo.
757 is not efficient even when compared to A321CEO, that's why it struggled to compete and was discontinued in the first place.
Question is how it would’ve fared with new wings and engines. Engines are the most important factor in regards to efficiency.
Just look at the Airbus A330 Neo for reference. It’s too close for comfort to the 787 in regards to efficiency. And that plane is a really good clean sheet design.
Heck I’d say one of the 2 most advanced and modern planes in production. The other being the slightly larger A350.
@@barneyklingenberg4078 A330NEO has a surprising light airframe and efficient wings, that it can closely match 787 (the major compromises are range, payload, and cruise speed).
The problem for 757 is that it's overbuilt from day one. Hence it has to have better tech to match A321. As a sidenote, because of its weight 772 is also significantly less inefficient when compared to 333, and not that competitive in a pure trip fuel burn sense against 343.
A321XLR is the new 757-200.
The slight add to Jetstar - they currently use their A320LR’s domestically during the day and then line up to do an overnight service (there and back) ready for domestic the following day. Smart and yes a game changer in the LR …
That’s A321LR btw…
But do you need the LR for that? The night flight can't be longer than ~7 hours one way, if you want to use the plane on the day too.
I hope LH/EW will go for the A21N because of this and see this as a chance for airports like DUS.
@@Psi-Stormit partly makes sense since a flight departing from DUS/FRA for example at 6pm would arrive at around 9pm in JFK, in turn arriving at 1pm again in FRA/DUS, so basically still being able to serve routes like DUS-LHR during the day. On top of being able to be used for routes like DUS-PMI if there isn‘t enough demand for transatlantic.
I received notice that Air France will start servicing Phoenix AZ from Paris, but it will be with a 787-9 for the time being.
The XLR won't reach Phoenix from Paris
XLR biggest problem is its two main wheels a side. This means it has a very high PCN (pavement classification number) and it may be restricted from operating into certain airports due to the weight it will put down on the two small areas beneath each tyre.
The tarmac will take a high stress and airports manage the runway stress to ensure damage is minimal and runway life is optimal.
A very hot surface temp tarmac runway will easily get damaged with this high PCN.
So some smaller airports may restrict its landing or not accept it at all.
The 757 it replaces had four wheels a side. Halving its PCN
Interesting. How exactly does this differ from a normal A321? The landings will usually not be performed at MTW.
@@der.Schtefan That was a good one! You really got him there.
@@der.Schtefan it’s also to do with its taxing at takeoff weight and ramp movements. Many airport surfaces are not as strong as some others. Some A321 have a PCN of 61 while 737 might be 50 (due to tyre sizes and pressures) the 757 for example that the 321 is marketed to replace had a 31 value due to its 4 wheels a side.
some air india airbus A320 had 4 wheel main gear for this very problem, so it would not be any problem to do
Thank you for sharing.😊
I’m so excited for the plane. Especially first class.
Very cool. This makes the opportunity to do for example Dallas to London or vise versa. In a single isle airplane:✈️
Following your channel quite for some time I only hit the subscribe button now. Don’t ask me why 😂 appreciate your excellent work 👍🏽
Amazing fun dude!
Ty dj!!
Perhaps the XLR might get Air AsiaX back to long range routes from KL and Bangkok to European, Pacific and Middle Eastern destinations.
Kl to paris is more than 10 hours . Not realistic
@@chinobonito30 Possibly via Istanbul or Jeddah.
There is no such thing is Boeing killer. Boeing killed itself 😂
Good to know the range will not be reduced after all. Thanks
The range is reduced. It's simple physics. However, Airbus doesn't want to say anything because it could hurt sales.
There are areas where they can reduce weight or cut fat to compensate. Even in the A350 they just reduced the weight in the New Production Standard.
@@ivanviera4773 That's correct. They thinned the walls to make the aircraft wider and are using slimmer seats. In the case of a narrowbody aircraft like the XLR, I just don't see that. An aircraft that can fly up to 10 hours needs to be comfortable. If passengers don't feel that comfort, they may start avoiding the type on long flights.
American Airlines is configuring its XLR fleet with more premium seats, and that's probably going to be the successful formula for longhaul operations.
@@sainntThe weight gain is not that high, given Kevlar is a lightweight material, and there's still room for weight savings.
And airlines don't look at the advertised range - they would receive a detailed payload range profile based on how they config and operate the aircraft. Often it comes with performance guarantees as well. Airbus will try its best to meet the target, perhaps by seat config changes as well, or it will pay compensation accordingly.
@@steinwaldmadchen Airbus will likely pay compensation and do so quietly, which is why they're not saying anything.
You're correct about the extra weight not being that big a deal, but it does put a dent in the thing they bragged about the most, which is the range.
The extra weight will be a non issue for airlines like American and United, who plan to have more premium seats on the aircraft, but it's going to be a major issue for airlines like Wizz Air and easyJet, who plan on cramming as many seats into the aircraft as they can.
I wish the A321XLR lots of luck and success. However, I just do not see myself flying for more than 6 hours on a narrow body aircraft. I think the LR is good enough. If airlines can afford either the A330 or Boeing 787-8 or -9, why buy the 321XLR which only has one purpose that is to fly long routes in low-end markets.
Do you see yourself flying long distances in a 757? It is narrower than the A320 series
@@terrygelinas4593 Not at all (unless I have to have to). I travel to places of less than 6 hours flying time. Outside of that, it has to be on a wide body aircraft or I do not fly at all or do not visit that city.
Economy my friend, money talks!!!
@@ross9581 Very true and/or having no other choice...lol
A question arises in me from this, would airlines that buy the 321 XLR be kind enough to optimize their economy configuration so that they're comfortable for those passengers on the 7hr+ flights?
I wonder how many pilots would be required on a narrow body flying for 10 hours.
Most likely at least 3, because flights over 8 hours require relief pilots.
Same as a widebody
Three pilots.
Atleast 3, under any circumstances (for flights 8 or over 8hrs long).
It's a new iteration of the world's most successful commercial airliner.
This aircraft will be perfect for Asian routes. Whether from India or Singapore destinations such as Japan, Philippines, Australia are well within this aircrafts reach
The experience on SAS’s A321 XLR Boston to Copenhagen was very positive. Opening up thinner markets for nonstop flights is highly beneficial to the flying public.
But that's at the expense of Gothenburg to New York, which is the sort of route the A321LR is actually meant for: medium and long haul flights from small cities, not Copenhagen and Boston!
@@yoironfistbro8128 New York is a small city???
The A321XLR could literally be THE untimate narrowbody... if it could handle short runways.
Are the XLR undergoing more testing? I have not heard nothing more.
You are missing the point of Airbus investing billions into the XLR, if Airlines did not want it Airbus would not build it. Airbus asked their customers, the airlines, what they would like and if an XLR type aircraft would be of interest, the airlines asked for an aircraft capable of long thin routes and voila the XLR. If there had been zero interest in the first place Airbus would not have proceeded.
It would be interesting to calculate what range for an Airbus A318 would be like, if fuel capacity from the A3321XLR was installed (though passengers would have to say goodbye to their luggage allowance... :). ).
As some on here have already said, I won't be flying on a single aisle aircraft for International travel. I will continue flying on 777, 787, and A350 widebodies.
I can't wait to see Jetblue with it
It is able to fly 11h, but i have never seen a footprint with space for the crew beds. This will not end up well
Under a minute 😳😳
With Boeing's planes falling apart in the air, it should be easy for Airbus to dominate the market.
"If its Boeing, I am not going"
its a 757 200 killer and it would last longer than the 757
Congratulations to Boeing senior executives! Think of all of the passenger lives that they are saving by encouraging perspective, customers to buy airbus instead of Boeing planes! I really think that they deserve more bonuses and whatever humanitarian rewards will make them the most money!
When will DJ talk about the A380 ESA warnings, regarding fuselage gaps? I think not.
it’s really not an important story considering that no A380 is currently affected by the given warning.
@@dhlehrenlos And only a limited number of hulls are affected, some of which are already out of service.
Even more surprising Nick O hasn't made a comment yet about the issues with a small number of 380s
@@r12004rewyI’ve been wait for him too.
At this point any plane assembled with actual quality control (aka "going out with all it's required bolts on") is a "Boeing killer"
They need an A322
Not yet
I mean delivery slots for both the 320 and 321neo LR/XLR are fully booked well into the 2030's
Well, possibly, but would require more tyres.
Not sure I was excited about the 757. Being single aisle. Why would I be excited for the A321XLR for long hauls??
Because it will enable nonstop long haul flights between secondary cities.
@@yoironfistbro8128No one wants to fly long haul on a short haul designed aircraft
@@marcbrady7241 I'd happily do so as long as there's good IFE and the seat pitch is no tighter than 30-31 inches
Just did a 2, 7 hour 737max flight it was painful
BHX/MAN/DUS-BVC on X3?
San Francisco to London is about a 10-hour flight. Not sure I would like to make that journey in a single-aisle plane. Need to stretch your legs or use the lavatory while the meal cart is in transit - out of luck.
Birmingham UK to Boston or New York USA direct?
Honestly you'd think a city that big would be able to sustain an A330 or 787 on those routes.
Qantas A321XLR, a350-1000
Great airplane but we need to wait. Every thing looks great on drawings. It’s we see it certified and approved let’s not jump.
It probably won't be worse than A321LR, which is doing fairly well.
Great idea, most low cost carriers will extend their networks with this aircraft. Main target will be Africa, with long distance and less busy routes.
An astute business move to cater to the private jet, intercontinental, and regional aviation niches.
And depending upon the wishes of the customer, an additional extra tank (or two) can probably be added for private jets.
Is Air bus ur favorite
✈️
Jetblue - A321XLR - JFK to Prauge non stop. But is the demand there for a daily nonstop flight?
Does jetBlue operate a similar route with the LR?
Boeing Killer??? Boeing has been losing against Airbus for a long time😊
Yes, Airbus has been ahead of Boeing for a lot longer than people realise. They have been ahead for quite a few years in orders, deliveries, size of orderbook, and now total aircraft in service.
😂😂😂
Didn't the A319LR already go 4,800 nmi? - Hardly nobody flew it to it's max range.
Didn't Airbus themselves already warn their customers of the 200 NM reduction? Also, the estimated real world range with typical airline usage is not the advertised 4700 NM, after reduction it is more between 3800-4000 NM. However, even with that reduction, you can still get from Washington DC to as far east as Budapest. (BRU, GVA, Frankfurt or Vienna being more logical connections though), or Sydney up to Hongkong, Taipeh. It won't allow Sydney-Tokio anymore though, but I doubt you'd use a A321 on such a main route. This aircraft is rather a perfect fit for specific P2P connections, after identifying specific traveller streams and offering them shortcuts. Like DC-BRU, DC-VIE. Business centers, lobbyists, etc.
If you want to abbreviate there, frankfurt is FRA
sure airlines may find this XLR version fanastic, I as a passenger with choice, will always prefer a wide body and its comfort and freedom of movement, with a lot more toilets on a longhaul flight
May work for discount carriers but business travelers prefer widebodies for long haul.
Business travelers would also take a direct narrow body route over an transfer hub and spoke route.
Time and convenience over the small gain in comfort.
Obviously the wide bodies will remain in service between larger cities. Where the most business people need to go to.
As a frequent Business traveler myself, I find that for short flights (up to 3-4 hours what you say is true but for medium and longhaul, there is a strong preference for wide bodies and aircraft that allow space and facilities to work and also to get some sleep before arrival. For short flights the narrow bodies will serve their purpose well. Unlike Regional Jets and their prop cousins which have a dubious safety record and are normally avoided unless impossible. Obviously my comments are based on Business travelers (like myself) who travel in premium classes. If they are booked in coach then it could well be that flying direct wins out.@@barneyklingenberg4078
Lots of business travelers fly on 757s
With Boeing thinking they are saving weight and manufacturing costs by using less bolts in their aircraft, the field is open to Airbus.
One 😊😊😊😊
It's too small, Airbus should have re-winged it to make an A322 and A323 which will fill the gap to the A330.
gee, It's almost as if having a businessman in charge, instead of an engineer, makes the business of plane-making fail.
edit: eat it, Boeing
A321xl delays according to the FAA: We have safety concerns because of the additional fuel tanks
What i think they thought: This plane will sink Boeing more, we have to deter new customers by retarding certification
I don’t care about those single-aisle jetliner anyway.
No intention to fly with them unless i need to.
I generally like the A320 family. And I think from a technical perspective, the 321 XLR is an interesting aircraft.
But, as someone who flies between Europe and the US more or less regularly, I totally dread the idea of being stuck in the narrow single-aisle tube for more than let's say 4-5 hours maximum. Leaving the technical awe aside that the really big ones come with, as a passenger, I prefer the more medium-sized widebodies, like A330 or 767. They are big enough to not feel trapped, but at the same time small enough that boarding goes smoothly and you don't end up in way too large of a crowd. No surprise that the A330 is my most flown aircraft by miles flown, which probably makes it very obvious who usually takes me across the Atlantic....
Honestly, I rather fly a route with an additional stop somewhere than feeling claustrophobic all the way to my destination on an XLR.
Boeing seems hell bent on suiciding, so I don't think it needs any help from Airbus.
Dunno this, but Boeing is killing itself, no need others to help.
Interesting that You showed a 757-300 , even a 767 ( which is old and not a narrow body ) would not be a match to the XLR , with all the sh!t Boeing is going through at the mo even the Max 8 or 9. Great times for Airbus.
10hours in a narrow body should be illegal
Doubt any carrier will be using them on 10 hr flights. This will be 6-8 hr airplane in reality
Everyone knows it’s stop gap product. Obviously vey good and only plane right now. Once airbus or Boeing lunch next plane with new engines, LR AND XLR may become like 330 neo.
XLR INCONFORTABLE…
I think Airbus might *NOT* get the A321XLR certified. Reason: the fuel tank design for the center fuel tank may be unsafe in case of a wheels up emergency landing.
This can be mitigated by insulation, a solution adopted to A340-600 before. But that gains weight.
@@steinwaldmadchen There is talk that Airbus is contemplating developing a completely new wing box that integrates the fuel tank better but without the potential fire danger of the current A321XLR design. But that would delay the introduction of the A321XLR by a year or more.
The XLR will prove to be very niche. I have zero desire to fly long haul on a narrow body.
No, Boeing….is the Boeing killer.
And who made Boeing destroy itself? airbus, because to not having competition in a desperate attempt by boeing to fight led it to have the errors it has today.
Let’s say an airline could offer you a lie-flat seat on an A321XLR for around the cost of an economy seat on a wide body. Would that change your mind?
@@RobertsonDCCD that’s not the way it works mate
@@luisflores7893 uh, I’m way too sober to attempt to comprehend that
The A321 LXR isn't all it's cracked up to be. Air carriers count on cargo space to fly all their passengers luggage and so they can haul freight as well. The only thing that gives the XLR it's extra range is a giant gas can in the cargo bay. Air carriers can not afford to give up the cargo space on most of their international routes. Personally, as a passenger, I will not book a long haul flight on a single aisle aircraft. I believe that the two most perfect seating configurations come from the B767 and A330. Half or more of the seats are on the aisle and you only have to get up for one person to use the lav. I also prefer wide bodies because the lavatories are in the center of the planes rather than on the sides, making them more spacious. Long haul flights on single aisle planes have got to be the most miserable travel experience there is. Save the twin aisles!
With over 500 already ordered, there's no doubt that the XLR is already a success, however, by the time most of the units are delivered, the aircraft runs the risk of suffering the same fate as the A380, meaning it may arrive a bit too late to the market.
The A320 airframe is aging just like the 737, and by the 2030s, there will be new narrowbody aircraft in the market that will have the range and not the limitations of having to carry so much additional fuel.
Boeing's new narrowbody will be announced before Airbus delivers half of the XLR it has on order, and focus will shift very quickly.
Airbus continues to focus a lot of its plane making acumen on range, and with the exception of just a small handful of airlines, range is not the predominant factor in their decision making.
I predict that the next Boeing narrowbody will hurt Airbus. They have such a heavy backlog that many airlines will be enjoying new, more modern aircraft from Boeing while Airbus continues to deliver 'old' A320s. In the 2030s, Boeing may have the last laugh in the narrowbody sector, because the next aircraft will most certainly change the game.
Ok, please enlighten me: what new narrow body is expected in 2030? Who is developing it? What are the specifications?
je pense que le remplaçant du 320 existe déjà dans les cartons d Airbus . ce sera la 220 neo . attendez vous a de grosses surprise de la part d airbus dans moins de 10 ans pour un tout nouvel avion . le cfm rise va révolutionner l aviation comme on la connait aujourd hui
Btw, how is the work at Boeing?
@@neodym5809 Use your Google, my friend. Search for truss wing aircraft from NASA/Boeing. Reading is fundamental.
@@marclaurent6207 Il est possible qu'Airbus développe un A220neo en étirant le fuselage, mais une capacité 2-3, bien que adéquate pour les opérations régionales, ne satisferait pas le principal marché des fuselages étroits. De plus, un A220neo suivra la tradition d'Airbus consistant à rafraîchir les vieux avions pour rivaliser avec un tout nouveau produit. Dans ce secteur très compétitif, je ne pense pas que cela fonctionnerait. Si Boeing développe un tout nouvel avion à fuselage étroit, Airbus doit également le faire.
I would hate flying this plane. 😮💨
You do know that this plane doesn’t get the range Airbus says it does - it’s the same as the max 10 - please check your facts before posting videos
Unlistenable !!!
Only if airbus fix the pw problems….otherwise its the same crap
Don't you have an engine choice? Should have CFM LEAP or PW as choices.
You talk too much
Seriously over analyzed, doesnt cost anything to reengineer the 321 to bigger tanks. Thats all it is, nothing industry changing. If it were my decision i would choose a 787--8 over the airbus prodcut every day
But you can't do the same on 737MAX because its field performance prevented it from becoming possible.
Too long for bullshit content
Single aisle long haul. 🤮 YUCK
Boeing is done with Airbus is better because European quality standards are upheld in comparison to American laziness
😂😂😂
💖 'promosm'
Seems like Boeing will wait until we're all old and in wheelchairs then to announce they will revive the 757 😅
And call it the 757MAX
The 757 was discontinued for a reason. Its not coming back
@@marcbrady7241 That's not a valid reason for it to not return. It has excellent range, payload, power and passenger capacity that can outclass any 737 and A321 operating today with very few exceptions.
The 757 was discontinued because of low demand back then but now, it would easily put the 737 program out of business.
It was simply an aircraft made ahead of its time. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, why else would delta and United hold onto it for so long, it's a workhorse
@@Gspec5 No one wanted the 757. It wasn’t economical, and many airlines preferred the 737 especially in the LCC market. Bringing back the 757 would not be financially viable. If Boeing bring out this new aircraft, the Boeing NMA, that could compete well with the 321 but don’t see the 757 ever making a comeback.