NEW PLANES? - The Future Of Airbus

[@StephenKarl_Integral]

The future of Airbus (in short) : - new planes? A220-500 (larger) : maybe. - other planes, like ATR powered glider concept? Not yet! - A321Neo (X)LR, continue : yes. - recovering logistics efficiency since covid disruption : yeah. That's all in this video, thanks for watching.

[@Perich29]

Wrong, the Future of Boeing is going down the toilet, Airbus going to dominate the Narrow body planes, since Boeing can't fix their 737 MAX plane.

[@TrixityMcLight]

I'm definitely excited to see the XLR out there, but first things first: Happy New Year! :)

[@Sacto1654]

I think Airbus is looking forward to a lot of A350 sales. Reason: the need to replace the Boeing 777-200ER and 777-300ER model at many airlines. This is why I think the Rolls-Royce _UltraFan_ engine is a high priority for R-R, since it will result in a Trent engine replacement that will offer lower fuel burn without loss of power. I also think GE Aerospace is looking at smaller versions of the GE9X engine that could be fitted to the A350 if Airbus allows it.

[@johniii8147]

The engine is not a higher priority. I have communicated that very clearly.

[@artrandy]

Why would you expect Airbus to worry about a GE powerplant alternative for the A350, just to pick up a few US orders, because many US airlines find it politically inconvenient to purchase both airframe and engines from Europe? Airbus has full order books for the type, is selling the type worldwide at a profit, the latter of which is more than Boeing can claim on the B787, do not need the additional cost and have an exclusive deal with RR until 2030 anyway. Furthermore, Airbus will want priority for those UltraFan developments, so will not want to upset RR, who were denied an opportunity to offer an alternative for the B777X. Im sure GE would love a slice of the A350 action, but what's in it for Airbus...........?

[@Sacto1654]

@@artrandy Well, look at what happened to the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engine before 2020 and the current issues with the Pratt & Whitney PW1xxxG engines. If it weren't for the fact the 787 had the GENx engine available and the A320neo Family had the LEAP-1A available, the engine problems could have seriously hurt the 787 and A320neo operations seriously. That's why I am not a supporter of sole-source engine sourcing.

[@artrandy]

@@Sacto1654 The Trent 1000 got sorted. RR were open and honest, and unlike the MAX disasters with Boeing, there were no fatalities and no cover up. BTW, it wasn't RR that got new B787s grounded, but a/f build quality at Boeing. All those half eaten burgers disposed of and still rotting in hard to reach places in the hulls😀😀. The GEnx engine may yet have problems with the powdered metal issue. I understand that GE use the same supplier as P&W and only time will tell if their engines will last the course. Cutting edge technology will often develop problems, and jet engines are really pushing the envelope of current technology right now. RR are being criticised by Emirates for the XWB-97 performing exactly the way RR predicted it would, which is that as a 'souped up' engine, it needs more maintenance, and GE have had problems with the GE9X, which has contributed to the B777X's prolonged delays. Airlines are all too powerful. Let them order more B747s if they want guaranteed & proven tech. And legacy airlines expect too much from the life of an aircraft, 25 years at one time was the difference between the jet age and that of biplanes........

[@Sacto1654]

@@artrandy GE Aerospace so far has not seen any significant issues with their LEAP-1A and GENx engines, though they are very closely monitoring reports from engines normally from an airliner for servicing. So far, so good. (crossing fingers).

[@fartmoderne]

Take as long as you need to get certified Airbus, we have seen what happens when other companies cut corners *cough Boeing cough cough*

[@patrickpeters2903]

About the A220-500 the biggest challenge is the Pratt and Whitney engines issues. Airbus is already having headache with the A320/321 Neo PW1000G issues. So I would be very surprised if they decide to launch the biggest version in 2024..

[@Sacto1654]

This is why GE Aerospace is seriously looking at a modified LEAP-1A engine specifically designed for the A220-500, rated at around 120.64 kN (27,120 lb.) of thrust.

[@StephenKarl_Integral]

I believe Airbus should not raise the hype of an hypothetical A220-500 before the end of 2027. Embraer E2 just entered the market, the appropriate engine for A225 has still a long way to pick a boo AND, honestly, expected customers are NOT interested yet : AirBaltic? That's a micro airline. Airbus should aim for the downfall of 737NG models, along with ageing CRJ700/900/1000 for a complete updated and upgraded A220 series, a little R&D to fight Embraer, as Bombardier is unlikely to propose anything, and Boeing has only the 737Max which... is not a competitor. Talks and deals with airlines should begin in 2025 for the first delivery of the new type by 2030. Earlier than that is an extreme economical risk to take.

[@Infiltator2]

A A220-500 would have the same capacity as atleast the A319 and maybe even some A320s. You just need to have it ready for the aging A319s @@StephenKarl_Integral

[@aviatorsound914]

Airbus needs to push active side-sticks across all there fleets if they truly want the next generation.

[@nounoukasber]

i talked to the chief certification engineer working on the XLR he told me that the CFM variation will likely get certified in march or april

[@Ayden2008]

The a220-500 could actually capsized a320 sales, because if they did develop the variant, then it could be the same size and length as the a320.

[@neilpickup237]

It would need to be quite a bit longer than the A320 before it could offer the same capacity. The A320 has 6 seats per row, while the A220 has only 5. The A220-300 is already longer than the A320, so the additional length required to match the A320's capacity would probably place its length nearer to that of the A321. Having flown on both, I have noticed that the containerised hold of the a320 has usually loaded before all the passengers, while the opposite has often been true for the A220. This might matter to some airlines.

[@xaif4888]

There's definitely overlap to an extent, though it would definitely kill the A319neo, which isn't very popular anyways. What the A220-500 would do though would potentially push more customers to purchase the more profitable A321neo as production slots would open up from A320neo orders going to the A220-500. Alternatively, as the A220 and A320 families were built by completely different companies, there's not a lot of commonality between the aircraft, so a customer buying the A321neo may opt to also buy A320neos to keep that commonality across their fleet. That in itself means the A220-500 wouldn't completely nullify the A320neo.

[@neilpickup237]

@xaif4888 Both the A220 and A320 are brilliant series of aircraft. However, when it comes down to which an airline will choose, as they are so close, it may well be other factors that determine which one is chosen.

[@Perich29]

The A22 is narrow than the A319, it has economy seats 2-3 just like the MD 80 and Boeing 717.

[@Infiltator2]

I thnik it already killed the A319. These are just some leftovers now, with not really many to be delivered. But until the A321 is not producable to the amount needed, i think an A220-500 is not needed. You have a good running production line, stabilize that and then ramp up A220 and also build it in europe. There is also no other aircraft right now that can attack the A320 therefore there is also no need to do anything. Just milk the A320 to the last drop@@xaif4888

[@starbase218]

I hope Boeing can bounce back as well. As a European of course I want to see Airbus succeed, but healthy competition is a good thing. As long as it doesn't impact quality.

[@JOHNRUSSELL-v7g]

great news for Airbus, let us hope they can get even bigger ; instead of buying Boeing planes

[@pvpwithnissot6380]

Massive prediction, 300+ A350's

[@Ayden2008]

How?

[@howardsykes2754]

The A321XLR would be an approximation, for those of us old enough to remember, of flying on the Boeing 707-300 in the '60s & '70s. So there should be no big deal flying on a single aisle long range aircraft.

[@TheGecko213]

Hawaii to West coast of USA is all single aisle 321 neo

[@Perich29]

Its like the 757 which Boeing stop producing which is a big mistake for Boeing.

[@zyancuerdo1615]

Exactly some people complaining about traveling long distance on a narrow body is a bit overblown since that was the norm for a fairly long time

[@MrGreatWesternRailwayProductio]

PAL Ordered A350-1000

[@philbarker7477]

A322. A 3k stretched 321 neo xlr for trans continental 250 seater. Trading fuel for extra pax

[@rapide561]

Could/would Airbus ever produce an NMA? A smaller, twin aisle aircraft? I have crossed the Atlantic on a 757 and didn’t enjoy the experience on a single aisle aircraft. My personal preference, I do think that if Airbus could produce it, it would be massively successful.

[@abarratt8869]

The A321XLR is, kind of, their NMA. Airbus seems to be boxing in the concept from below with the A321XLR, and the cheap 'n' cheerful (and, actually, very good) A330neo from above. The A321XLR seems to reach a seat capacity of 206 seats in 2 classes, and the A330neo starts off at 220 seats in 3 classes. The XLR's range is just about long enough to count too. The gap into which an NMA can be slotted and achieve worthwhile operational cost savings is therefore quite narrow. This is probably why Boeing hasn't launched one. If an airline wants a midsized aircraft with range, the A330neo-800 does very nicely. If the range need be only trans-Atlantic, ish, the XLR is a good shout too. If the airline wants its pilots to be able to freely switch between the two types, Airbus has that covered too. The only slot Airbus aren't covering is something that carries 213 seats 6,500 miles (and no further).

[@kaloes02]

Bring Back the A380 with new engines !

[@ricky1231]

Only if someone can put two large 160 KN engines on it

[@r12004rewy]

Unfortunately the 380 programme is dead and buried, but plenty will be flying for many years to come.

[@johniii8147]

Lol move on

[@TheGecko213]

@@ricky1231 Also put two huge GEN9X engine on 747 and you have a Airbus killer 😂

[@Perich29]

we have to build new terminals for the A380 which is not worth it, The Boeing 777 and the Airbus A350 are big enough for Jumbo planes today.

[@Alexander_Dunn]

is there a “standard” a321neo?

[@HP_Lordi]

Yes there is a normal A321 neo

[@scottmccambley764]

The main stumbling block to producing a A220-500 variant is the threat of lost french union jobs where the A320 is produced. A A220-500 would hollow out A320 production just like Bombardier intended it to do when they designed and built it originally. Production is not going to move to France, when the supply chains are totally geared for NA production and assembly

[@p4olo537]

A320 is also built in Germany, USA and China.

[@jpazinho]

Not so sure it will...it will obviously "steal" some a320 clients..but the a320 offers a great compromise in cost of flight vs. Capacity (great for short haul hub to hub flights and between major population centres/holiday destinations...the a220 is a plane for the traveller willing to pay an additional fee (e.g. extra 20, 30 usd) to fly point to point...its strenght resides on the fact opening new routes and managing better capacity in under utilised routes (e.g. beach destinations during rainy season / low season)

[@Infiltator2]

An A220-500 would have the same capacity as an A320. Thats also why there are nearly no new A319 orders because it logically the right move to just go with the A220-300@@jpazinho

[@Infiltator2]

Yes but no A220 is built in europe. So they won't give all that work away. They will probably be in talks with the supply chain to get it organised for europe tho@@p4olo537

[@jpazinho]

@@Infiltator2 not quite the clear cut...there are particularly 2 aspects that pose a big threat to a stretched a220.. 1- Despite commonalities, several airlines dependency on the a320 (e.g. easyjet) will lead to prohibitive costs of swapping to a stretched a220 (particularly maintenance related)...Particularly if airbus keeps releasing a320 upgrades. 2- the a220 by default is a smaller frame...with the ability to meet 80% capacity of an a320...Airbus may be able to stretch it...but it is unlikely it will get to a perfect size match...this is important in itself for 2 reasons: a) economics of short haul routes are brutal (if an a320 can do it...even it can carry only 1% more passangers than an a220, then the a320 will be the plane of choice) b) Boeing's 737 max fiascos challenges industry notions like stretching designa to an extreme (and the consequences for safety that arise)

[@bjornsteinke769]

An A225 will be the best solution to prevent customers buying B737 only because the production line of the A320 is full until 2030.

[@Luftkrieger55]

Airbus vs Boeing: TEAM AIRBUS 👇

[@neilburns8869]

Excuse me, but ia this the same guy who ran/run the DJ's Aviation? Just that it sounds an awful lot like it.

[@sanchezking6188]

The 321 XLR will be a huge hit for airlines, but do you, the passenger, really wanna do 4700 nautical miles on a narrowbody?

[@zyancuerdo1615]

@sanchezking6188 depends on how comfortable the airline makes it but... Weren't people traveling on narrow body long distance planes for decades before the 747?like the constellation,dc 4 to 7,707,727 to the south Americans or to Los Angeles seem like something like an a321xlr inst any diffrent to how plane travel use to be in the turbo prop and early jet ages though correct me if this is wrong

[@sanchezking6188]

@@zyancuerdo1615 Absolutely, but it wasn’t too comfortable either

[@smoketinytom]

Yes. Because then I can make it directly to the destination instead of going to a hub and connecting from there.

[@nurnberg1561]

It looks like 1960s airplanes, the front part looks like a fat Dolphin with boxy fishing boat windows

[@AlfCalson]

✈️

[@tornadoxt]

If GE really wants to facilitate an engine for the stretch 500,then air Baltic ond others will buy into this type This is a composite aircraft ,,,the a320 is old

[@RK-ve4xp]

Boeing is screwed.

[@ihmpall]

I don’t fly Europoor planes. It’s all technology we gifted to Europe anyway

[@HellStr82]

Well at least we know that those Europeans would not push a plane that is not safe into service. unlike ...you know who

[@stevenholt1867]

What about Boeing?

[@HellStr82]

4 months old plane got fraked up. You want to fly your family in a Boeing? Well it`s your life mate. Good luck!

[@mrkovash1]

Best news I can see is “airbus has been sold to Boeing”

[@Firedogies]

Airbus cares about safety tho

[@r12004rewy]

Well said

[@r12004rewy]

@mrkovash1....You know that's not going to happen lol

[@mrkovash1]

@@r12004rewy anything to get rid of airbus.

[@whitneyfan7107]

More chance that the opposite happens

[@DonChalantly]

Airbus is the worst modern technology company ever, ruining travel worldwide for passengers. Zero comfort and long-hauls with small planes and engines.

[@bonkerbanker]

Ok

[@GermanGuy007]

It’s exactly the other way around! ;)

[@tiloluedecke1793]

Then explain to me why are they outselling Boeing if their planes are so trash?

[@zyancuerdo1615]

Mate that whole comfort thing is down to airlines choice not the plane manufacture... Also... Narrow body long distance planes have been a norm decades ago it's basically a circle back if you will

[@guillaumedupont7565]

Boeing still had a very slight lead over the large aircraft but its domination will soon end because Airbus is better equipped to face the future financially and technologically it is the only one to have a large and very large carbon aircraft for passengers and cargo. The 1000 which will attack the aluminum 777X which is more expensive and consumes much more AND will replace the 777 200 and 300 The 330 900 NEO will eventually catch up with the 787...On the single aisle Boeing is crushed and only has 35% of the market...

[@Angel33Demon666]

The A350-900 serves a different market segment to the 787. The 787 are more designed for long and thin routes, with only the largest 787-10 variant having approximately the same capacity as the A350-900.

[@guillaumedupont7565]

@@Angel33Demon666 Yes, sorry, I wanted to talk about the 330 (900) NEO which has the same fuel consumption as the 787, lands at the same airports with smaller runways and is sold inexpensively by Airbus, the program having been amortized for a long time... This plane completes the range of 350 900 and 1000