US and the A321NEO

 
Old Feb 18, 2012, 12:20 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
With the cost of developing a new airplane, I'm not so sure. Airbus expects the development costs of the neo to be $1.3 billion. At list prices of $6 million over the standard 320 family it will take 210+ airplanes just to break even on the current 320neo family design (assuming the development cost isn't higher), or more with a redesign.

As of the summer of 2010 there were only 759 757-200's still operating (the 787/350 will be replacements for the 757-300/400's). But then I don't know off-hand how many 757-200's are being used for routes like trans-Atlantic where the 737MAX/320neo-series may not be replacements. Those are the ones that a trans-Atlantic range 321nlr (new longer range design) would be in demand and only 3 airlines operate most of those but have 787's on order - AA, UA, & DL. UPS and FedEx are the next biggest operators, followed by US with it's 24 757-200's.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 12:41 am
  #17  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,290
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
With the cost of developing a new airplane, I'm not so sure. Airbus expects the development costs of the neo to be $1.3 billion. At list prices of $6 million over the standard 320 family it will take 210+ airplanes just to break even on the current 320neo family design (assuming the development cost isn't higher), or more with a redesign.

As of the summer of 2010 there were only 759 757-200's still operating (the 787/350 will be replacements for the 757-300/400's). But then I don't know off-hand how many 757-200's are being used for routes like trans-Atlantic where the 737MAX/320neo-series may not be replacements. Those are the ones that a trans-Atlantic range 321nlr (new longer range design) would be in demand and only 3 airlines operate most of those but have 787's on order - AA, UA, & DL. UPS and FedEx are the next biggest operators, followed by US with it's 24 757-200's.

Jim
Are they trying to creating new A321-NLR? Is that more than 5,000nm. If there is possible to get more extra range. I wasn't sure if there is on weight restrictions. I think it will have a good replacement. Can A321NLR will boost more range and enough more fuel efficient. I wasn't sure if there is something different about A322NLR to bring more 240 passengers capacity. Can Airbus will consider to create new A322NLR.
N830MH is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 4:33 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by N830MH
Are they trying to creating new A321-NLR?
No - I made up the nlr part for a hypothetical plane that would have more range than the 321neo.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 5:21 am
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
IHG Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHX & AGP
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,383
Jim, DL.AA,UA/CO.US and a host of other european airlines are using 757 on Trans-Atlantic routes, now add the how many 757 are doing trans-con flights, South America routes, one could have an argument for airbus to build a A321 to replace the 757.

Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
With the cost of developing a new airplane, I'm not so sure. Airbus expects the development costs of the neo to be over $1 billion. At list prices of $6 million over the standard 320 family, But then I don't know off-hand how many 757's are being used for routes like trans-Atlantic either.
FlightNurse is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 5:21 am
  #20  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
IHG Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHX & AGP
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,383
757-400?

Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
With the cost of developing a new airplane, I'm not so sure. Airbus expects the development costs of the neo to be $1.3 billion. At list prices of $6 million over the standard 320 family it will take 210+ airplanes just to break even on the current 320neo family design (assuming the development cost isn't higher), or more with a redesign.

As of the summer of 2010 there were only 759 757-200's still operating (the 787/350 will be replacements for the 757-300/400's). But then I don't know off-hand how many 757-200's are being used for routes like trans-Atlantic where the 737MAX/320neo-series may not be replacements. Those are the ones that a trans-Atlantic range 321nlr (new longer range design) would be in demand and only 3 airlines operate most of those but have 787's on order - AA, UA, & DL. UPS and FedEx are the next biggest operators, followed by US with it's 24 757-200's.

Jim
FlightNurse is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 6:26 am
  #21  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CAK
Programs: DL, UA
Posts: 213
Flightnurse has a point. The ETOPS A321 market is bigger than just US; although such a bird would be a dream aircraft for it's range and flexibility - not to mention passenger comfort! I'll take the 18" whY seats in the narrowbody Airbus fuselage over the 17" 737/757 everyday.

AA has orders and options for how many narrowbody Airbus frames? Not sure the exact total plus there must be some flexibility in the order to fluctuate between model sizes. I recall reading they're looking for a true ETOPS 757 replacemen as well.

UA/CO is rumored to be considering a narrowbody fleet replacement. Granted, thier ETOPS 757 fleet is rather young but they have a flotilla of older a319/320s that will need replacing as well over the next several years.

Frankly, I am thinking that ETOPS and destination flexibility (at least for North American carriers) is why the 787/A350 trumped any VLA purchases by our largest domestic carriers and, by extension, why I believe an ETOPS A321 would sell several hundred frames.

Skycubbie
skycubbie is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 8:38 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
Do the math. How many 757-200s are in regular service requiring range longer than 3500 statute miles? How does that volume compare to existing backlogs of 737MAX and 32xNEO? It's a pretty small subset of the narrow-body market.
3Cforme is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 8:44 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,762
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
Do the math. How many 757-200s are in regular service requiring range longer than 3500 statute miles? How does that volume compare to existing backlogs of 737MAX and 32xNEO? It's a pretty small subset of the narrow-body market.
Right now it may be a small subset. I think if Airbus came out with an A321nlr, it would revolutionize the market. Connecting tier 2 cities with hubs across the Atlantic is currently pretty profitable for the airlines that do it, and creating a plane optimized for that purpose would make it even more lucrative. Lucrative enough to warrant hundreds or orders I think.
PVDtoDEL is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 9:37 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by FlightNurse
Jim, DL.AA,UA/CO.US and a host of other european airlines are using 757 on Trans-Atlantic routes, now add the how many 757 are doing trans-con flights, South America routes, one could have an argument for airbus to build a A321 to replace the 757.
Except for the trans-Atlantic (and maybe Hawaii), the 321neo is a suitable substitute for the 757. So the question becomes how many of a longer range variant could Airbus sell vs how much would it cost to develop it and would it draw from A350 sales?

I'll freely admit that I don't have those answers, but given the number of 757's being used for routes the neo may not be able to do I just don't think there'd be enough demand for what would be a niche product designed for only one role to justify the cost of developing it.

Jim
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 2:19 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Posts: 3,796
They may simply want a little extra range to avoid tech stops during unfavorable headwinds. I know they've had a few times when WB A321s had to stop to refuel.
alanh is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 5:44 pm
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
IHG Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PHX & AGP
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Gold
Posts: 11,383
I was under the impression that (newer) A321 can make it transcon without a problem even with a strong headwind going WB. The older A321 had that problem.

Originally Posted by alanh
They may simply want a little extra range to avoid tech stops during unfavorable headwinds. I know they've had a few times when WB A321s had to stop to refuel.
FlightNurse is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 6:25 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
Originally Posted by BoeingBoy
It really is a catch-22. No current narrow body plane is truly designed for trans-Atlantic. On the other hand, there are trans-Atlantic markets that won't support a wide body since 767-200's with about the same capacity are or are being phased out at most airlines. US is currently something of an exception, having no real replacement for the 767's and a lot fewer wide bodies than the other legacies.

Unfortunately, I don't think the A321neo will be a replacement for the 757. Even Airbus, which hasn't put out official range numbers, is only talking about 5% less fuel burn - not enough to give it the range of the 757. The 737MAX may be, since the 737NG already has more range than the equivalent Airbus.

Jim
Wouldn't they use the A330 as a "true" wide body replacement for the 767?
Michael El is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 6:52 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
Originally Posted by Michael El
Wouldn't they use the A330 as a "true" wide body replacement for the 767?
It, or the 787/A350 will be replacements but since all have about 20% more capacity I'm not calling them "true" replacements. The 757-200 and the 767-200 each have their niche - both are about 200 seats and the 762 has the range for longer routes while the 752 is more efficient for routes that don't need the 762's range. Nothing currently on the drawing board is a "true" replacement for either unless the 321neo/737MAX can fill the role of the 757-200 - there's absolutely no way either will be a "true" replacement for the 762.

Nothing available now fills the role of the 752 - more efficient than the 762 with about the same seating capacity and enough range to do some trans-Atlantic routes. The 737NG and A320 family don't have the range although the larger versions of both have near the capacity while other wide-bodies have the range but carry more people - call it 250 seats for a round number.

Maybe Airbus/Boeing will be able to turn the biggest versions of the neo/MAX into a 757-200 replacement but both start from a position of the highest capacity versions being designed as the shortest range versions, trading range for extra capacity. So to be a 757-200 replacement, the greater capacity needs to be retained but range increased by nearly a quarter.

Jim

Last edited by BoeingBoy; Feb 18, 2012 at 7:12 pm
BoeingBoy is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 9:45 pm
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,290
Originally Posted by alanh
They may simply want a little extra range to avoid tech stops during unfavorable headwinds. I know they've had a few times when WB A321s had to stop to refuel.
No, they doesn't usually stop to get refuel the plane. I think the entire A321nlr will continued flying over TATL flight. This should be okay. It would put on the weight restrictions. Because it will very strong high headwinds gusts. I think they had to stop in Canada or Ireland. Whether if they can have enough more fuel.
N830MH is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2012, 11:54 pm
  #30  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
I have previously posted my belief that once Boeing figures out how to crank out a reliable 20-30 787s each month, it may turn its attention toward a carbon fibre-fuselage narrowbody to replace the 737.

Because new fuel efficient engines are too large to hang under the wings of the current 737, it's possible that the new carbon fibre narrowbody might resemble the 757 more than it wll the current 737. And engines will likely get larger as they get more efficient.

Give it the tall landing gear of the 757 and a slightly wider fuselage (at least match the A320) and Boeing might inadvertantly design a plane that, like the 757, could fly missions for which it really wasn't designed - TATL and Hawai'i. And, of course, thin transcons like the 757 currently flies (almost always nonstop).

When the 757 was designed, it was intended to replace 727-200s, but it turned out to have such amazing range that it essentially replaced 707s that had been retired 10 years earlier. At AA, the 727s were actually replaced in part by MD-80s and in part by 737-800s. Darned Boeing engineers - giving short-haul 737s the capability to fly transcons.

About the 787's larger size: I look at it as a true replacement for the 767s despite its larger size, heavier weight and higher passenger capacity.

In the 30 years since the design of the 767, business class seats have expanded and the industry-trend is toward 180 degree lie-flats, like the new US Envoy (and CX and new AA 77W J class seats). Same with DL's new J class seats. Direct aisle access and individual J class pods take a huge amount of real estate compared to the old 45-50 inch pitch recliners arranged 2-2-2 like typical old-style 767 biz class seating.

With US and world populations increasing substantially in those 30 years, a larger, more efficient plane shouldn't completely destroy the economics. 30 to 50 state-of-the-art lie-flat biz seats will occupy quite a bit of the extra space (compared to the square footage of the 767s), leaving some space for a few extra economy seats but not so many that the market will be flooded with extra capacity.

On top of that, extra legroom economy sections will soak up some more of the extra space. Economy seat pitch could also be increased an inch or two, making flying a little more civilized. All told, even though the 787 is quite a bit bigger than the 767, I view the 787-8 as a decent replacement for the 762 and the 787-9 as a perfect replacement for the 763. Some airlines may see them as replacements for the heavier A330s as well (Jim - recall WT's insistence that AA's 777s were far too heavy compared to DL's A330s - well, the 787s should end up lighter than the A330s).
FWAAA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.