Airbus CEO Shock Announcement That Airbus Wants An A320 Replacement BY The End Of THIS Decade!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 фев 2024
- At the February 2024 Aibus earnings meeting in France, CEO Guillaume Faury said Airbus wants to take advantage of Boeing's market trouble and get a replacement for the A32o family to market SOONER rather than later.
#Airbus #AirbusA320 #AirbusA320replacment #Boeing #Boeingmax
Help Support The Channel:
patreon.com/maximusaviation74...
Support The Channel Buy Me A Coffee
www.buymeacoffee.com/maximusa...
Maximus Merch
Hats, Mugs, Hoodies, and T-shirts
teespring.com/stores/maximus-...
Premium Polo Shirts, Mugs, Phone Cases, and more
shop.spreadshirt.com/maximus-...
For Business Inquiries Email: aviationmaximus@gmail.com
Copyright Disclaimer. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
News headlines in 2027…Airbus unveils their new single aisle airliner while Boeing are trying to find missing bolts in their 60 years old 737 🤦🏻♂️
Nah, Boeing will introduce the next generation... the 737 Boltless. To Boltlessly go where no one has gone without bolts before.
tell that to boeing. you will get a good response from boeing saying "whilst we develop a new single airliner airbus will be trying to prevent cracks in their future aircraft. Oh and keep saying it is a 60 year old frame. airbus will still be dragging their 40 year old frame with god knows what of problems it will get
@@nickolliver3021you're secretly Dave Calhoun, aren't you
@@eddy66t6I’m starting to wonder the same, lol. Either that or he’s a Boeing employee.
@@nickolliver3021Ahhh Nickolliver, you realise there’s a 20 year gap between 40 and 60 right?
Boeing's response will be very bold. They are researching the development of adding bolts to the 737.
even airbus will be oo
We'll save money no matter how much it costs!
and yes I worked there for 15 years. Fyi, factory conditions are worse today then when those 2 planes went down.
You mean they have abandoned the idea of reducing turnaround times by removing the doors?
Why add bolts ?
Remove more
Weight 📉
Efficiency 📈
😅
And rumour has it that they will actually use torque wrenches!
Quality control and inspection will be vastly improved as the big wigs will be supplied with plastic funnels in their ears.
Every time they hear the ‘click’ of a torque wrench they will put a ‘tick’ on their inspection certificate.😂
What an absolute disgrace to a once respected name in the aviation community😢
At least someone is keeping their engineers busy
Airbus engineers are busy with hydrogen and Boeing engineers are very busy with bolts.
Boeing have done a lot of research and development work in the last few weeks. They are now fitting every 737 max seat with a screwdriver and adjustable wrench so passengers can tighten any loose bolts or screws.
Bolts can not be loose if they are not fitted in the firzt place ;)
The budget airlines may have a surcharge unless you bring your own bolts 🔩 😅
The biggest Boeing problem for some time now is profitability. While Airbus is making around 8 %, Boeing is making a negative 1% margin. And with 40 billions dollars of debt, Boeing will not be able to even think about a new generation plane. Airbus has plenty of ressources to develop a new generation. It will take time and money. Everything Boeing does not have anymore....
They publicly stated no new planes until the next decade.... apparently they want to develop their metaverse first to help them design their planes.......not sure what they intend to do... replace their brains with AI?
There cause of Boeing's lack of profitability is its inability to reliably produce aircraft. The cause of this lack of ability is poor quality. The cause of this poor quality is bad management. The cause of poor management is its owners who know about money but not manufacturing.
@@georgeorwell4059 I would call that situation "a vicious circle"....
Sounds like the managers of McDonell Douglas have killed another aircraft manufacturer. These managers can be proud of how good they are at destroying companies.
again there is that 40 billion in debt they should give up if they are in that huge debt. Boeing will have a new generation because competition will not just stop existing because of what has happened. too bad airbus my experience really bad issues with hydrogen powered aircraft and it could hit them badly
4:44 Airbus, not Boeing, were the first to utilize light weight composite materials, specifically on the A300 tail section back in the 70's. And they've been using composite materials on all their aircraft families since then. The most notable was the A380, the first using extensively Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic. The Dreamliner was just Boeing's first.
Boeing is missing some bolts in upper management.
Plenty of nuts though!
Not only bolts, but also balls are missing.
Nah, the upper management seem to have a screw loose, or two...
In the branding war, Airbus takes a significant leap beyond Boeing with this announcement. The next leap, of course, is product delivery. For the safety of airline passengers worldwide, I hope they can do it.
If true, then Airbus may be learning the lesson from Boeing's incompetence, by beginning work on replacing the A320 at an appropriate time. Instead of stretching (literally) the airframe far beyond it's expiry date, while their competitors roll out newer and more advanced models. What Boeing has done is like a auto maker trying to push a 60 year old car design, and asking for safety exemptions like not requiring seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, etc.
It's kind of ridiculous knowing that the 737 was never designed to do what it does today. The people that flew the original praised the performance so much, because that was before the design got screwed with.
@@R2Bl3nd And we didn't even meet with the overly-pushed-beyond-limits 737-10 yet.
Airbus can afford it, because the have with the A220 a plane which could replace A320 if the new plane fails.
Hopefully airbus actually know what thier doing...last time a aircraft was hydrogen it caught fire and burn to a crisp
@@zyancuerdo1615 huh? You think Airbus is going to make a purely hydrogen-fueled blimp? Can you explain where you got that idea?
Meanwhile next step for Boeing to compete - works with McDonalds to develop the next next gen BIGMAX!
Might as well. They’re in a real pickle, anyway!
🤣 BRAVO!
Ba-dum-TSSS! 🥁🤣
With the contribution of Spirite 🥤
@@hakanevin8545 The newborn in the 737 family, the Fizz 🥂👀
Maybe Boeing can put even bigger engines on the 737 MAX, so big that they will almost block sidewindows in the cockpit, on a SuperMax, and stretch it to 150-200 meters. And spend 10 years on designing a gadget to make it feel like a 737 NG.
I think that the US Bureau of Prisons already had the lead on the "SuperMax" brand name - and they are VERY securely-bolted down!!
@@mikehindson-evans159 good point,
Boeing 737 "Death-Defyer"
Boeing 737 "Turbulence Titan"
Boeing 737 "Doomsday Dart"
Boeing 737 "Aero-Anxiety"
Boeing 737 "Disaster-Dodger"
At 4:55, those CFM Rise engines look like they would fit perfectly on the 737, with its 737 landing gear 😀!
Write that down!
Write that down!
Or they could revive the 727 as a 717 replacement…
I mean, Airbus at least is taking notes of boeing mistakes and not getting complacent with their current success to avoid overusing the same platform for decades to no end
Wow, they're really going for the jugular and attacking while your opponent is down lol - I love it. That's how successful companies operate!
They have to replace the A320-the A220 is very strong competition, cannibalizing the A320 sales.
They can buy the time to get an all new plane by letting the A220 being the stop gap measure and possibly grow a bit.
Boing will bring the new engine option 737RB, RB stands for RubberBand...back to the roots, baby!
Simple Karma - remember Boeing trying to beat up Bombardier (who ended up marrying Airbus and delivering the A220. "Be careful what you wish for, Grasshopper!!"
This is the only reasonable strategy. Waiting for Comac growth and further CO2 reduction regulations doing nothing is not an option. I am worried about Boeing.
Boeing: 1,314 new orders and 528 aircrafts delivered in 2023.
Airbus: 2,094 orders and 735 aircrafts delivered in 2023, with more than 8,000 aircrafts in the order book.
Airbus is World leader. Boeing:😲😭
I worked on A320 fuel gauging systems in the early 80s and spent some time in Toulouse before the first revenue earning flight. We mothballed software and hardware development systems for a planned 40 years of support - so not too far out there 😀 Great to see Airbus leading the pack on this one, really sad to see what’s happened to Boeing but glad to see Airbus still being driven largely by engineering and technology……
320's move nearly everyone here in SE Asia... Its a good workhorse... How thankful I am Boeing has no foot hold here...
What about Lion Air? Malindo? Nok Air? Scoot? Garuda? Also Vietjet will be having many 737s.
@@hakanevin8545 yeah, selecting the 737 worked out well for Lion Air 😞
Airbus has been talking about a A320 family replacement for a couple of years. I wouldn't be surprise that the new A320 replacement would be based on the A220 technology. The other aircraft replacement is for the ATR42/ATR72-600 with a new design 100 seat turbo prop.
While the A220 is a excelent aircraft, its really would not scale that well to that degree. While the -500 is for sure still in the works, and the -700 is possibly also around (but probobly not), that would really more be a A320 replacment, not cut into the A321 and specially not the LR version.
It makes more sense to make a A320 replacment from the A350 series. While the A350 is consideraly larger, its also even more modern than the A220. A A320 replacement need to be signifcantly better than the A320neo, and the A220, while better, its really only slightly so.
I would argue that the Turboprop market for 70-100 people is dying. The issue is the pilot to fuel cost as well as the latest generation of small jet liners, (like the E-jet) are so efficent that the turboprops is hardly even more fuel efficent. That give the pilot to fuel cost a huge factor making it pretty much impossible to it more profitable. I guess you could on really short routes. The issue with that is routes that short only work on arcipeilgoes where there is no road conection.
The irony of it is for very short routes like sub 250km, when cars and roads are getting better, the market for those routes are getting smaler.
Embraer is also developing H solutions. Lets see how it will evolve.
Boeing would, now doubt, name it "Project Hindenberg". Sits back and waits to be flamed (sorry!!)
"Hindenbolt"
@@ABa-os6wm You mean hidden bolt?
Just like the EV car industry, after a few hype years reality will set back in and then they will go back to kerosene.
The smart companies are the ones who don't give in to this nonsense and waste no money or only as much as government gives them to research this travesty.
They just need motor.
The project is done ,but no motor
Interesting that the development of new wings might be key to its success in delivering an eco friendly plane. The wings of the A380 have always amazed me, the ability of that plane to take off in such a short length is truly fantastic. Let us hope they are successful for the sake of air travel and the planet.
This is going to put the last nail into Boeing's commercial coffin
Or is that a bolt. If they know what that is.
Unfortunately US politics will keep that dead horse alive no matter how badly the company is run, or how many they kill.
Meanwhile Boeing works on 737 Mega Max which will carry the airframe to it’s centennial 😂
Not to be confused with the GigaMax
Since the 737 is a two engine 707 which is a 1954 367-80 derivative, under the skin the 737 is a 70 year old aircraft. Boeing execs bet that they could run an engineering company like Walmart, squeeze the staff and buy in cheap stuff. Boeing is actually offering a lot more money to design engineers, like me, these days. But they have a reputation for being run by bean counters, so many good developers won't even consider talking to them. So Boeing is in a really deep hole. Even if they decided to climb out they would find it hard to buy a ladder. Is hydrogen practical? Nope. Not unless they can get over the energy cost of generating it as a fuel, and its live of escaping. The newest Airbus is the A220, they may have bought the whole thing, but it's still recent and theirs. Boeing needed the C Series, but the tried to stiff Bombardier and Airbus stepped in. Boeing tried to block it from the US market and Airbus moved production virtually overnight. Boeing just aren't as clever as they think they are.
They also alienated Embraer whose engineers could work for Boeing.
@@hakanevin8545 Basically their arrogance killed both deals. They wanted to play the big dog and thought they were bringing more value to the table. But they NEEDED to buy one of those designs, if not the entire company. It was a seller's market.
737 is a derivative of the 720 which is a lightweight redesign of the 707. 707 and 720 look alike externally but are different under the skin. Still the observation about age is totally valid.
Hydrogen might get practical if mini nuclear plant like is being developed now produce the fuel close to airports, and even more so if white hydrogen sites in Europe are being exploited.
A Carbon Fiber A320 successor with the Ultra Fan engine technology or Rise engines? That would be interesting to see.
Thank you Maximus for being fast with this story. Announcing all new successors to the A320 is proper business planning.
i wont complain, i love the a320 but a complete overhaul is always needed, and the a320 is a relatively old design, at least airbus isnt pulling a boeing
When they pile one up...what will you say? You have brought bad karma upon AirBust.
seriously, plane travelling has not improved much for decades... no matter how much plane companies say what the new model is better than the last one
the economy seats ain't bigger or longer leg room, maybe the only game changing improvements for passengers are individual TV and USB charging....
planes use less fuel but they ain't flying faster... in the end those improvements go back to airlines profits....
@@RLTtizMEthe whole problem with MCAS started with the fact that the original 737 was design to be low to the ground. The 737 design is so old that back then, jet bridges weren't common, and everyone got on and off the plane with stairs. A lower plane meant a smaller shorter lighter stair, easier to be moved around by airport vehicles, but more importantly, passengers can get on and off faster, simply because there were fewer steps to climb.
Then we discovered that bigger engines were more fuel efficient, and the new bigger engines Airbus was using couldn't fit under the wings of the 737, because it was too low on the ground. What was originally a smart design choice that gave the 737 an advantage turned into a massive problem, because airlines wanted fuel efficient planes, because fuel costs impact profitability directly.
@@danielch6662 I can't believe you spent all of this time lecturing me on the history of the Max. It certainly has sold well given what you have asserted here. Thousands on backorder. The MCAS was fixed. Missing bolts certainly can be addressed as well as other quality issues. You are stuck and suffocating in your own bias. Go lecture someone else and take the day off...pumping out all of that bilge probably was exhausting.
@@fatdoi003 And rightfully so...in that they have obligations to their shareholders.
I do not think that Airbus are taking consideration of Boeings 'failures / mis-steps', I think that they are 'thinking forward', and assuming that they will have tough competition from many fronts, as well as consumer and regulatory pressure for increased environmental pressure. Airbus does not have to survive in the 'annual dividend' market that Boeing does, its investors tend to hold a wider timescale for increased stock value as well as considering dividends, which seems to be benefiting the company.
Boeing needs to put engineers back into upper management to replace the bean counters and start building quality aircraft again. Took my first round trip on an Aer Lingus Airbus and was quite impressed.
Good report. Airbus is clearly the aerospace leader. They have working hydrogen power for about three years.
Oh yeah well Boeing has killed 14,000 passengers air bus has only killed around 3000 passengers take that airbus !!
Having bought my first computer in 1978, I'd like to offer this observation: revolutions take much longer than you think, and never end up like you expect. As for how this may affect aviation, consider that rapid evolution of sustainable energy (most notably wind and solar, with nuclear a distant third) may very well enable development of both very cheap hydrogen (by way of seawater electrolysis) or synthetic fuels similar to fossil fuels. Hydrogen has storage issues, but -- either way -- energy is the key: with enough cheap and environmentally balanced energy, anything is possible.
Very High Temperature nuclear Reactors (VHTR) can directly generate hydrogen as a by-product.
Out of interest can you remember the specs on your first computer?
Chip speed
Ram
Hard drive size
Hydrogen's issues in very badly wanting to be gas, and extremely flammable one if there's slightest leak, at normal temperatures are huge for aviation where weight is at premium.
Batteries have similar issue in very bad energy density per weight along with having to drag weight of that dead battery volume all the way to landing instead of plane getting lighter and more fuel efficient.
For short ranges batteries and electricity can work, but for long flights it's just very bad compared to liquid fuels.
Good for airbus... live the future..
New planes are always exciting
When your opponent is out for the count due to their own failings... Really kick them while they're down, by showing that even while having a best selling product that's literally flying out the door - you will still invest in developing a new one.
Airbus wants to put so much daylight between them and Boeing that the latter will never catch up.
Boeing's decline began when they dropped 727 in favor of 737-200. 727 engine location was high enough to allow for larger engines. A pair of CFM56 and elimination of number 2 engine would have made a very capable and adaptable platform. 737 Classic was at the limit of engine size. Boeing had another chance with 757 but dropped the ball again by stopping production. 757 had the same fuselage and had taller landing gear so could have easily taken larger and more efficient engines.
I'd reckon the smaller variants of any 320 replacement will target replacing the 321 rather than the whole 320 series, while the bigger ones eat up the smaller end of the widebody market. The upcoming A220-500 (which Airbus have already said is "a matter of when, not if") will replace all the other 320 variants, plus of course kill the MAX series entirely.
Boeing is screwed - and this is a big problem not just for the US but for every country. A monopoly of commercial airliners would be an absolute disaster for the world - in fact in the long run it would be a disaster for Airbus too because of the reaction by governments to that situation.
Looking for new ideas even in the middle of success? Huh, imagine that! Boeing would do well to learn a lesson here instead of the endless tinkering and recertifying 50-year-old air frames.
Hydrogen would seem the obvious alternative to oil based fuels. Electric planes with Li-ion batteries would be way too heavy, take too long to recharge and don't forget Li-ion batteries don't perform well at low temperatures and at 40,000 ft it can easily be -50C.
I totally agree. I expect at least ten years before the testing is done and the infrastructure are in place
Regardless of whether Hydrogen is eventually chosen as an aviation fuel, preparing the electric propulsion systems is an essential step on the way.
Fuel cells are still a couple of decades behind the rest of the electrical system as are electrolyzers.
"We don't do it because it is easy, we do it because it is hard", JFK I believe.
Or ammonia (NH3).
Or just keep using fuel because the whole market push for alternate fuel or electrification of planes and cars is based on green lies
@@synupps877 Yes ammonia has toxicity and corrosivity issues but doesn't require anywhere near the pressure that H2 does and doesn't embrittle steel and leak past molecules of containment vessels like H2.
There seems to be an expectation that metal hydrides or Graphene will be a game changer. The mass of containment vessels is all important in aerospace.
New planes and/or new propulsion technologies by the next decade? A matter of survival for any manufacturer, considering the CO2-targets for 2040/2050. And the aviation biz is one of the hardest to accomplish this. Mentioning hydrogen is pure marketing and a good way to get attention.
The CO2 targets are a tool not a genuine concern for the planet
Hydrogen is likely a non-starter: duplicate infrastructure (new hydrogen as well as legacy kerosene); difficulties in storing and handling both on the airfield and the plane; increased risks from a "leaky" fuel (h2 molecules are tiny and worm their way past seals very easily - witness the delayed Artemis 1 launch) etc etc.
The CFM Rise is likely a non-starter because it will not meet (some airport) current or future noise regulations, limiting its value. IF the RR UltraFan is available at the appropriate thrust, then it will offer a step change in efficiency and would be the obvious choice. So who will get there first, Boeing or Airbus? Given their recent disasters I say Boeing has little chance a funding a new aircraft program - even the "computer modelled" T7 is proving a cock-up for them and an unexpected financial drain.
My future is coffee at the mango farm with Maximus
Hydrogen is not viable due to storage concerns. You would need a huge volume and a large cylindrical container to be equivalent to jet fuel, even under cryonics and immense pressure.
I'd expect aviation to start making synthetic fuels and call that carbon neutral. Thing is, synthetic versions of fossil fuels were never that cheap (otherwise they would have replaced fossils).
Volume is not the problem. Hydrogen has a far higher energy/weight ratio. Tank design will not be easy.
Perhaps a specific underbody section to accommodate additional hydrogen
Stupid comment...
@@michaeltb1358👍🏻👍🏻
Considering the problems of 737, Boeing has only one option on the table… get a clean sheet design out of the door absolutely ASAP. Whatever ASAP means in this industry. Airbus is not in a hurry, but everyone should be afraid of a wounded beast. And that is Boeing.
Not if it is several bolts short of a plug door...
Sometimes wounded beats get angry and hurt people, other times they just crawl into a corner and die.
It is a challenge to get a new design out of the door when you forgot to mount the door.
"In terms of money, we have no money." -Boeing
At 4:55, I’m trying to imagine how Boeing could fit the CFM Rise engine on a 737. It looks to me like they will have to come up with a new aircraft to replace the 737.
Don't worry my friend. This is nothing the MCAS 2.0 can not fix.
Just put the engine directly in front of the wing or even higher.
MCAS 2.0 will make this possible. And they will call it *737 SuperMax*
@@ax.f-1256 That"s why it won't work. They 'll need MCAS 3.0 (Roll,Pitch,Yaw)
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is just a name for any type of synthetic/bio Jet A-1 fuel that could also run on current tech engines. The A320 replacement will not run on hydrogen.
Ok that sounds most fitting. The 'sustainable' part can be discussed, usually alcohol gained from farming otherwise used for food.
I wonder if the first aircraft, a small one, could potetially be a replacement of the SAAB340s? One of our major regional airlines in Australia, REX, is cutting back flights, causing some problems for regional and remote communities, due to supply chain issues for their 30+ year old SAAB340s which is no longer manufacturered?
There are plenty of more modern regional airliners to choose from; REX is BSing you saying they can't replace their old SAABs. They just chose to hang onto their old planes too long to boost short term profits and are now paying the price.
Development costs - I imagine - will be similar irrespective of the size of the first aircraft; with all that new technology. So Airbus should spend that money on the plane that offers the best return ./ biggest sales.
@@kenoliver8913Replaced with what types?
@@bungee7503 ATR72s, Dash 8s, E-Jets - even at the smaller end for some routes Islanders, Do228s or CASA CN235s. Wikipedia lists 24 seperate regional airliner series that are currently in production and on sale.
I don't understand this. They have the brand new A220 (C series) that is just slightly smaller than A320. So a replacement for A320 should be just a hair bigger than A320 to reduce the overlap.
Regarding hydrogen its a PITA to handle. If jets need a new fuel type why not use methane. Space industry seem to transition to methane. If it must be carbon free its not hard to make methane from hydrogen.
You can also pipe passengers farts into the engines to increase efficiency! Win!
Hydrogen and sustainable jet fuel are weasel words to get endless development funding from tax dollars.
@@dingletab4756 Yes, that is probably it. They get tax money to play with hydrogen. I hope at least its fuel cells.
" If it must be carbon free its not hard to make methane from hydrogen."
It may seem to be an obvious question : what happens to methane when you burn it?
The A220 having been designed and developed by Bombardier doesn't share the common cockpit design of the other Airbus planes. I'm a fan of the A220, it's a nice plane to travel in but I'm sure Airbus will want a easy migration for pilots (Boeing's reasoning for the MAX was the lack of pilot recertification from previous 737 pilots, which bit them on the ass with MCAS etc.).
It could also be Airbus having some fun with Boeing who whilst trying to sort themselves out along with the 737 ,now have Airbus announcing new models ,,So do Boeing stick with what it has or do they push forward with new airframes
I was thinking the same, to poke harder Airbus can call it the A320 MAX 😁
Boeing without huge help from Uncle Sam are quite low on options.
Heavily supervised licence production of Airbus designs is probably their cheapest option to get out of the bottom tier which they inhabit along with Comac.
Was there a breakthrough in hydrogen storage that solves the density problem, allowing enough of it to be stored in the aircraft fuel tanks so that it has a good range? The way it is done in rockets is not feasible for commercial aviation.
It seems similar to electric propulsion
@@mipmipmipmipmip But at five to ten times the cost per mile.
I thought the A220-500 would replace the A320
Correct, a321 could be base model. A320 would be shortened and still slightly bigger than a220-500. They could also do à stretch giving us an A322
The A220 was from bombardier's CSeries designed to compete with embrarer e2. Its not quite as the size of the 737/A320 families.
Also airbus bought the CSeries when boeing tried to kill bombardier
Hi, For us in France, it seems that we have no doubts that H2 (hydrogen) will be the next main change in Airbus family .... I'm living next to Airbus main factory and one can see the energy Airbus and the fans subcontractors deploy in R&D on that matter ... This will be a a game changer in this business market and Airbus will again run in the lead , as they did for composites and LEAP engines ...
It seems that Boeing is struggling with their new 737's X generation with 2 crashes and this fancy door opening in flight... no doubt that they will solve the issue, but it's too late, the damage is done 🇫🇷
Any unducted rotor will only succeed if the rotors are in the very back of the aircraft.
Not really.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 how so?
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 how so?
It will be interesting to see the developments from both camps
I was wondering about a hybrid plane
You make a trijet where the rear engine runs in some alternate way for take off power and initial climb then just run the two wing engines the rest of the time for economy?
Really I just like trijets 😊
Maintenance on the third engine is too expensive.
@@mipmipmipmipmip I was thinking electric. Like a hybrid. Not massive batteries obviously as it’s a plane, but a boost for takeoff that can easily be turned off after
I don't doubt that it's possible to make a hydrogen powered commercial jet, but that it will ever be competative against alternatives seems highly doubtful. A very short range (500 mile) battery electric plane seems like it'll be viable before too long with the present pace of battery energy density improvements.
Not to be Debbie Downer, but I would wonder how Airbus plans to keep people safe on their open blade engine design in case the fan blades break or become detached. Current regulations make it mandatory for engine cowlings to be resistant to ruptures.
I think chiefly by renaming it from being a old fuddy-duddy 'turbofan' to being a new, shiny 'propfan' should do the trick.
I presume (and hope) that they had a really good think about that before they spent any serious money on the project. As you imply, it's a very serious potential problem. I can't believe that they've just said 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it'.
You mean all those turboprops have been flying illegally for decades? Who knew?!
@@crinolynneendymion8755 Not quite. Believe me, I understand you're being ironic, and yes, of course turboprops are entirely legal.
But if there's a cowling, it has to be resistant to a blade going awol.
And one of the big perceived safety advantages of turbofans over turboprops/open-bladed set-ups was - and remains - having such a cowling.
You could even look up NASA's very pro-fanprop (and superb) investigations into this, ie regarding esp. all the developments of the 1980s with open-bladed engines, where they very obviously regret their being shelved due to the fuel economy gains being lessened by the declining price of oil.
Yet the question remains hanging in the air: once all those developments have been made, why not adopt anyway?
Partly passenger preference, which even NASA recognised at the end of its very favourable report.
If looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain't got a protective cover.
The A320 Neo is Airbus' crown jewel, I very much doubt they're going to kill it off any time soon.
Let me soon win in lottery so I can have my own "Bus".
It may fly on hydrogen - potentially with fewer or no pilots -- but can it make coffee by itself? (just asking)
Onboard AI: "You look dehydrated, sir. Would you like a cup of coffee?" (Which is not all that helpful against dehydration, but ok.)
I'm willing to bet rotating detonation gas turbines combined with a Geared Turbofan will be the next generation. Both P&W and RR have advanced GTF programs. RR is developing CMC materials for the hot power section as P&W probably is. They are claiming bypass ratios up to 15-18 to 1 for these designs. RR is even placing a geared section between the compressor and power turbines to keep both at more optimal rotational speeds. Russia of course has the amazing NK-93 that is simply lacking funding and prime for an ultra efficient turbine section. The NK-93 is like a CFM RISE but in a ducted configuration which obviously alleviates the inherent noise issue. It already has a bypass ratio over 16:1. Hydrogen may one day be used or electric... but these are the much more mature technologies and cost effective.
These would be developments made by jet engine manufacturers and once developed would be available to all the various airplane manufacturers. Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer could encourage new powerplant technology, though.
@@johnstuartsmith
I agree with what you said to an extent, but certain aircraft do not have the clearance under wing for these ultra high bypass designs
Rotating detonation enmgines? Apart from anything else, do you have any idea how LOUD these inherently are? Noise is proportional to exhaust velocity, and by definiton an RDE has a huge exhaust velocity (hence its efficiency). While it is a very promising approach for future military and space use, I can't see the neighbours - or the passengers for that matter - putting up with airliners running PDEs.
@@kenoliver8913
From what I’ve seen and I may be mistaken, the detonations are very small and fairly rapid. This isn’t V1 Buzzbomb style. But I guess time will tell. There was a report out about a year ago showing RDE turbo shafts beating the best diesel engines on efficiency. Even if they only get half way there it is a massive change in aviation.
I appreciate your comment and will do some more research.
Thank you gentlemen for this discussion. I am far from being an expert from jet engines and I only understand about half of it, but it’s fascinating. 👍
Personally, I don’t think Airbus are even thinking about Boeing.
I think they’re just doing what they think is right for the future of their own company and aviation.
The A320 has been a fantastic success and still is, I think it shows great credit and wisdom that they are not resting on their laurels and not assuming that it will always stay that way.
It must be nice to be in a position where you can talk to expert people in many different countries, of different cultures and who think slightly differently and can bring all different kind of things to the table for you to consider. It’s a deep and very varied pool of talented people they have access to.
Go for it Airbus, show us what you can do.
Airbus is thinking about comac. It is making sure they don't leapfrog them in the next generation or the one thereafter.
Boeing doesn´t have misery or bad luck, they chose to use criminal negligence and reap their rewards for doing so. Boeing shouldn´t even exist anymore.
Hydrogen will cost trillions in infrastructure. Existing pipelines can't be used because the molecules of hydrogen are small enough to leak right through existing pipelines. Then there is the production and storage.
Maximus Aircraft Company. M757, single isle airliner with range of 6k miles and half the seat mile cost of the A220.
I do hope airbus does not produce a high wing loading aircraft which looks to be the mistake of the ART when they too thought the fuselage could be stretch too. Airbus has an eye in the future for airframes which will utilise new power plant technologies. Plane makers must understand that passengers want to choose which aircraft they fly on after the spat of crashes..The EU plans to print which aircraft airlines can use at the time of purchase. In addition airbus does not seem to understand soo far the airlines feedback that passengers dont want three or four seating configurations. They want two seat configurations especially in narrow body aircraft.
Concepts are not the same as reality in use
Hydrogen could be the way to go. France discovered recently a massive reserve of natural hydrogen underground, enough to power the city of Paris for 20 years.
10 years is a very long time in aerospace these days. So lets see how Airbus get on with this idea. Certainly Rolls Royce are a long way down the sustainable fuel engine path and last year ran a Pearl 700 business aircraft engine on 100 percent hydrogen fuel as part of longer-term work to develop a hydrogen combustion engine for narrow-body airliners by the mid-2030s.
I don't know if anyone else noticed but while Airbus is resourcing all this research and engineering from within the business, Boeing has already got, and will continue to get, US taxpayer funded research courtesy of NASA.
Level playing field? Not so much but even so Airbus still manages to beat Boeing and the US Government.
It seems that airbus smells blood in the water... They know Boeing is so beholden to the stock price that the CAN'T innovate at this point, so they have the chance to completely dominate the entire industry.
Would a stretched A220 be a viable replacement? The A220 already competes against the current A319 and A320. Just get rid of them and have the A220 take that market. You would still have the A321 available for higher capacity.
There will probably be something like that. Remember, Airbus came up with the whole A320neo family long before the C Series was essentially gift wrapped to them. When it comes time to design a clean sheet A320 replacement, they can plan out its design while knowing that the A220, and likely, a future A220neo, will be in the product range as well.
I wonder if it will be a pure hydrogen aircraft or will it be ammonia based. Hydrogen is really difficult to handle.
I really don´t think Airbus is serius in making a hydrogen fueld aircraft. They got a shit ton of cash from EU to push a number of hydrogen project. The reason i think Airbus is really not intresting (other than int he money) is how they spent it. A large part of the money was spent on a new engine testplatform. It just so happen that that engine platform was designed to carry multiple diffrent engine concept, not only hydrogen once.
There is also economical problem with the hydrogen project. Its basically a propeller aircraft powered by a electric engine. A prop airplane is slower than a fan and also a open fan. This limit the top speed to about 500km/h, and also the climb speed as well as general preformance. This is a problem becasue when the plane fly slower, the passanger need more crew hours of work for the transport, hence it more expensive.
The range is also very short. This make it so its harder to make back-to-back(to-back-to-back) flights. Fueling is complicated, takes time and are costly. What short or very short routes typically do to cut down on fuel time, they make back-to-back flight. If the route is very short, they may do as much as 4 flights back-to-back. For this to be viable, the range need to be fairly large. Not only does the aircraft need reserve fuel, but it also typically would need extra lift capacity.
If we look at the market today, the ATR 72 is probobly the most sucessfull prop airplane. It have been 1800 sold with a backlog of 200 aircraft. That is actually a really large amount for a smaller manufacturer. But if you wouldn´t buy a ATR what would you buy in steed? Probobly a CRJ or a E series. CRJ have been produced 924 and E series 1671. So it looks like ATR is the more popular aircraft. Well its not. The issue is that ATR72 have been in production for 36 years, CRJ was in produciton for 20 years and the E-jet have alreddy been replaced. The E-jet (1+2) also have a backlog of over 400 aircrafts.
The range of ATR72 is 1500km that is really not that bad, and can easily do 2 back-to-back for most shorter routes. But CRJ700 have a range of 2600km, that is quite consideraly more. The E175 have a range of 4000km and the E175-E2 (and we should not even talk about the A220-100). Then there is the lift capacity. The jets can take consideraly more weight per passanger.
Of cause, the argument is that the Turboprop use less fuel and that makes up for other increase in cost. And if you compaer a ATR72 to a CRJ700, that is true. The CRJ700 have a fairly inefficent configuraiton, but compare to the E-series ATR72 is just a tiny byt more efficent, and only on short routes. And compare to a E2 series it really is not more efficent.
Its also hard to thinkt that handeling hydrogen will be any cheaper than jet fuel. And there is also really no reason to belive the fuel would be very cheap. The main reason why electric cars are even viable today is due to tax on fuel. There is little to no tax on jet fuel, and hydrogen is a less efficent process than battery. Its really very unlikely they would make that cheaper.
A lot of great points!
I used to be a big fan of Boeing - back in the late 1970's and 1980's. I loved the B727 and B747 designs. Even in the early 2000's, I still favored the B737 over the A320. But then I noticed that newer A320 family aircraft were more comfortable than the B738 / B739. I flew biz class on LH A388 and B748. Well, I still think that the A388 is the better aircraft for pax. I don't know if it is the better aircraft for airlines. But, then, I am not running an airline. I am just one of the pax.
The 787 would not have been possible if the US government didn't authorise the USAF to share composite airframe technology with Boeing's commercial division.
Ever since the merger with McDonnell Douglas Boeing has lacked the scientific and engineering resources necessary to design a completely new airframe.
Now the US gov is directly funding Boeing's R&D via NASA. Both these instances are direct government subsidies intended to keep Boeing in business, without them the company would have probably been bought out by the Chinese a long time ago, or collapsed.
Airbus on the other hand is far in the lead in every sector, manufacturing capacity, orders and R&D, not to mention reputation!
And Boeing just wants to figure out how to fasten bolts by the end of the decade.
The GE unducted fan was right around the corner……. Back in 1982…….. I’m sure it will be any day now since it’s only been in the queue for over 40 years
The open rotor fan blades are presumably fixed pitch?
I asked Juan Browne why propeller blades need to be feathered on a failed engine but there's no apparent problem with the fixed fan blades of a high bypass jet. His answer was simply "diameter".
So how much bigger can these open rotor fan blades go before not being able to feather them on a failed engine becomes a problem?
Current turbofans cannot be feathered. What's your point?
@@poruatokin that turbofans don't need to feather because despite being bigger than ever before, they are still limited by the space between the wing and the ground so have still not reached a diameter where it's a problem that the fan can't be feathered in the event of engine failure.
Presumably the idea of an open rotor is that it can be as much above the wing as below it, so allowing a much bigger diameter open rotor on a particular aircraft than the turbo fan that would fit under the wing of the same aircraft and increased efficiency that will come from that larger diameter.
However, in the case of an engine failure, there will be a limit to the diameter of an unfeathered open rotor that will be at the limit of rudder authority for the aircraft.
So how much bigger can an open rotor actually be than a turbofan, given the rudder authority limitation?
A very good question.
But then, there are also questions about other after-events of an open rotor engine failure.
At least we don't worry about all that tricky containment business any more!
@villiamo3861 yes, I had the same thought about containment. Perhaps they are not operating the blades so close to their structural limit as they do with a ducted turbo fan.
On the other hand, the efficiency is going to come from a fairly large diameter and that's going to be a significant weight for a large double fan setup so they won't want to over do the strength as that's even more weight.
The gentleman said “open rotor fans” . dcniner01
Noooo we dont want another ancient Boeing given a MAX title
Damn, should have bought some Airbus shares before your video came out 😊
I didn't know Yosemite Sam was into aircraft
Nope - Wile E Coyote is running Boeing - straght off a cliff into open air (and we all remember how THAT ended on the desert floor!) (P.S. I like your analogy! Kudos)
Boeings radical new plan to increase fuel efficiency by reducing bolts to save weight has hit teething problems.
So how will this affect the future of the A220 program? Won’t this create the risk of cannibalization, which is currently happening with A220 vs A319/20N?
Eh, I doubt it. Part of the reason for that kind of overlap is becuase when Airbus designed the A320neo, them acquiring the C-Series wasn't on anyone's plans, even Airbus'. The A220 pretty much got dropped in their lap due to circumstances most wouldn't have seen coming. More than likely, what will happen is that while they design a true A320neo successor, they'll also design an A220neo. The A220neo and the A320 successor shouldn't have as much overlap since this time around, Airbus can plan around both aircraft being in its lineup.
@@patrickwilkinson7351If the seating capacity is as low as 140, there will be overlap. They have plans to stretch the A220, and that will cannibalize the A320NEO variant and compete against the MAX8, this size of aircraft typically seats between 150-166 passengers, So there will be overlap. The only way there wouldn’t be overlap is if the smallest variant of the clean sheet has at least the capacity of the bigger MAX9, which has a capacity of 179 passengers when configured for low density. The smallest variant must have at least that capacity in order to not cannibalize the A220.
Amazing how different Airbus and Boeing are.
Airbus: mature, sophisticated, cutting-edge, refined, professional.
Boeing: delinquent teenager skateboarding drunk with a beer in its hand
airbus has delinquent teenager skateboard drinking drunk with a beer in its hand too
@@nickolliver3021 that may be true but I think everyone will agree the Boeing teenager stumbled home, passed out and shit the bed.
@@Treetopflyer777 so ypur saying they can't survive and pull themselves together? Is that what I'm getting?
@@nickolliver3021 they need to go to rehab
@@Treetopflyer777 so does airbus
Its a sucker punch to Boeing. They have no money to develop a new aircraft and the FAA have pegged production so losses will mount. By 2035, Airbus will be two generations ahead of Boeing. Who would you plan your fleet around?
If Boeing doesn’t have a 737 replacement in progress the Chinese will overtake them in this market.
Airbus A320neo family is doing great and fabulous for now they don’t need replacing it’s a fantastic eco friendly aircraft
Boeings response will be to continue to build planes that can automatically turn themselves into smoldering craters.
As for the 320 replacement , all airbus needs to do is re-wing the airframe and install no-bleed engines. Use the space for the packs for fuel or cargo.
Just when Boeing was becoming truly worried about Airbus eating their lunch, Airbus announces a hydrogen powered aircraft to decrease carbon emissions.
A few things; firstly, I have to wonder if the hydrogen powered aircraft will emerge as an ATR product in collaboration with Leonardo, or if Airbus will pursue this aircraft independently of ATR. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 737 and A320 are exactly 20 years separated in terms of technological development, the A320 having first flown in 1987 and the 737 in 1967. I would argue that the 737's growth potential was used up with the NG and that the MAX never should have been pursued to begin with, but aside from that, I'd agree that both airframes are at the end of their growth potential and need to be replaced with clean sheet designs in the near future.
Fly Airbus, if you want to see the World!
Fly Boeing, if you want to see the next one... 💀
This is not a shock announcement. The A320 is an old aircraft, and it needs replacing with a 100% new clean sheet aircraft. The NEO project was a relatively cheap stop gap measure for them that would put Boeing under enormous preasure to counter which it absolutely has. The preasure on Boeing was so great that they built a very flawed aircraft in responce that is still in trouble with it's quality.
I would not be surprised if Airbus are not already halfway their in respect to the designing of the new aircraft.
This announcement has now put Boeing in an even bigger mess as they still have not got either the Max 7 or 10 certified yet along with th777X. They now going to have face a narrow body aircraft with all the latest Tech built into it and all they can offer is a plane originally designed 60 plus years ago. The Max has all but destroyed Boeings reputation as a leader in the civil aviation industry . Well done to Airbus, they are now the true leaders in civil aviation.
I do have a question though for all the airlines have been waiting delay after delay for the Max 10 and 7 . Do you cancel your orders and go to Airbus so you can stay competitive with the other airlines that will order the new plane or do you hold on and soldier on with the Max and fall behind with aircraft that will cost more to operate than the new Airbus. This is what airlines face with the introduction of the NEO and that design is here again while they are still waiting for their Max aircraft to be certified and and actually built.
I know what I would do.
I think it's good Airbus is doing research. It may or not pan out, but better than our frankenmax with missing bolts
What is needed is for Embraer to invest itself in the wide body market as well as the narrow body market. That way we can have a viable 3-way competition in the free world as far as aircraft manufacturers are concerned. That being said it appears Airbus is recognizing the fact that the 21st century requires a 21st design. Aircraft manufacturers and airlines alike cannot be in love with a particular aircraft for long. Eventually, airframe will be stretched beyond for what it was designed. What Boeing needs is to do a total reset and commit itself to clean sheet designs across the board. But it means nothing if Boeing does not commit to excellence in its product lines.
And you need the money and engineering capacity to do it. Boing loses experienced engineers to retirement at an alarming rate-that is why they wanted Embraer-to get the engineers.
They have a real ugly mindset as well.
This will not work out.
Without the lucrative (hidden subsidies) contracts with the US military and NASA they will go broke real soon.
Don't worry Chinese are coming
Yes. COMAC
I used to think Boeing is a high quality trustworthy product, but after Max track record my motto these days is: If it's Boeing, I'm not going.
Airbus: We are already planing on the A320neo replacement!
Boeing: Behold our newest idea:
*the 737 SuperMax*
Oh Airbus, please make the 100 seater battery electric. The technology will be good enough in 5 years, maybe even 2 years... And the cost per mile of electricity compared to hydrogen is just so much less. So airlines will actually want to buy them.
Ironic Boeing used to be on the cutting edge of New planes, oh well.
They have a huge backlog on the A320 NEO. They'd be better off for the time being building another final assembly line and cranking production as high as they can to displace orders from Boeing. That would be a better ROI for shareholders than doing tons of research on their A320 replacement. They already have the blueprint from the A350, assuming that (as they say) it's going to be a more or less conventional design. The next step change in efficiency and emissions will be at the engine level and the next gen engines are not ready yet, nor will they be anytime soon.
But Airbus has said it will START development in 2028, which means their 320 replacement will not be in service until at least 2033. They are just looking ahead, so this announcement is really a bit of a beat-up.
Return on Investment "ROI"
Was always and will always be only number 3 priority at Airbus.
Airbus' main Priority always was and always will be: Producing the best airplanes they possibly can.
Because in the long run this will always give you a better long term return on Investment.
Short sighted increasing the revenue as fast as possible maneuvers (like what Boeing's bean counters constantly do)
Is something Airbus has never done and will never do.
And (maybe) building another final assembly line is something Airbus has already planed. They have even plans to build up to 2 new final assembly lines. But they won't do it because they just can't.
Just Building a new final assembly line is something Airbus could do pretty fast.
They could also increase the output of the existing final assembly lines.
Because the problem is not the final assembly lines itself.
It's the lack of parts for the planes and skilled aviation professionals which is keeping the output rate at the level it is.
The suppliers for the parts and for the engines just can absolutely not keep up with the output of airplanes from Airbus. Airbus wanted several times to increase the output rate. But they have just not enough parts and not enough employees to do it.
Finding skilled and highly professional aviation workers is something Airbus takes very seriously. And I'm serious. Getting hired by Airbus is super difficult. The do very rigorous testing before you are allowed to work there.
If Airbus is not 100% certain that you meet their professional standards 24/7 they will just not hire you or fire you right away.
Same with quality inspectors. If they overlook to many mistakes and the airlines complain that airplanes from an Airbus final assembly line has to many defects they will right away punish the quality inspector for not doing his job.
Airbus concept basically is:
Build our airplanes they way it's supposed to be done correctly and report any problems or you are gone.
Airbus would rather prefer to keep the output number lower then having unqualified people working for then, which might cause an airplane to crash.
Airbus philosophy is:
Build the airplane in a way, that you would feel 100% confident having your family fly on that particular airplane or just go work somewhere else !
It's the same with the suppliers for the parts.
If the don't meet Airbus quality criteria Airbus will right away refuse them and send them back to the manufacturer.
So the manufacturer of that part also has to have extremely high quality control for Airbus parts.
Which means, they also need extremely skilled and extremely motivated professionals working for them.
And this lack of parts as well as skilled workers is the reason why Airbus has not built another final assembly line so far and why they can onmy increase the number of airplanes so much.
Better a very good airplane a bit later, then a mediocre airplane today is the motto of Airbus.
Airbus doesn't care what their shareholders think 80% of the time.
Because Airbus' decisions on how to build airplanes have always been the best for the company. So the shareholders trust Airbus to do what is correct, since Airbus are the ones that are building the airplanes, not the shareholders. And the shareholders know that it's like this. Because it was always like this.
Which is why they don't complain. That is just the way Airbus works.
And it always works out, both for Airbus and for the shareholders.
Good post - very interesting.@@ax.f-1256
Hindenburg jokes fly, too.
I’m a bit skeptical of H2 powered aircraft since it’s not as simple as just the aircraft itself. There has to be the infrastructure supplying H2 to airfields across Europe and North America. Then there is production of green H2 to consider. The molecular size of H2 will make aircraft leakage problematic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for it but would like to seem the details.
Important note: when Airbus talks about official launch in 28, it’s about launching the development, not entry into service. So, no, the target is not end of this decade but still the next one.
The A320 will be replaced by a stretched A220.
There's a new generation of engines on the cusp of being developed with geared turbofans being a very interesting idea.
Oh to be a airline executive who are trying to position their fleet after COVID. The Promises and counter promises, two manufacturers both who can't deliver anything like the 3000 aircraft that warrant replacement. in anything time in the next decade. Engine manufactures with similar issues.
I wonder if Boeing could re engine the 767 what difference that would make to meeting a more eco airline.