Medium capacity fleet options

[justinbrett]

Sorry mis communication should have written South East Asia instead of SEA.

That makes much more sense!

 

[eastwest101]

Needs to be an aircraft actually available on market to be considered, people saying that R&D would sink any twin aisle aircraft must be living in a world where everyone drives around in a Model T Ford. Aircraft design and R&D is a manufacturers problem to spread that out over as many aircraft produced as possible, make something compelling/good/succesful and the R&D costs pay themselves.

The rules of economics play an important part here, prodducing something with a low upfront capital cost and superior operating economics is the most likely route to success.

Manufacturers need to sit down with airlines and either fiddle with an existing design to make it better/cheaper/lighter and superior economics i.e. a A330neo or re-engined B767, or do a clean sheet that will end up being something twin engine metal tube with a range better than a A320neo or B737-Max8, so would have to be something better than a B73Max8 or A320Neo but not so big, expensive and capable and so long legged as to bump into the capabilities of the existing B788 and A350/A330Neo.

At the moment - all about what the airline accountants prioritize, but I'm guessing would be:

1. Operating costs per $ASkm the same/lower than current single aisle A320/B737 family
2. Upfront capital cost between a new A320/B73Max and the cheapest A330Neo or B788
3. Range somewhere in the region of current B738Max or A320XLR or option to sacrifice belly space for more range
4. Pax numbers somewhere in the 190-260 ball park (depending on configuration) either 2-4-2 or 2-3-2 abreast
5. Ground footprint at gate able to fit within a B737/A320 size gate/apron (airport constraints)
6. Fast efficient containerized luggage handling and freight (preferably compatible with existing containerized equipment)
7. All the usual aluminum and composite carbon fibre components to reduce weight to improve economics
8. Turnaround time competitive (refueling and pax embarkation statistics)
9. Probably 2 models, a shorter range but higher capacity model and a longer range lower capacity model with same type rating and probably shared rating with either the Airbus or Boeing family depending on manufacturer.
10. Either CFM Leap/derated GE GEnx or Rolls Royce Trent 1000 or P&W1000G powerplant
11. Two crew flying and allowance for crew rest areas or substituted for extra cabin space

I can't understand why the A330neo isn't selling like hotcakes because the sheer number of narrow-bodies in use and on-order is exceeding the capacity of airports and will run into slot & gate constraints, the other thing pushing this would be that the cheap endless supply of pilots will be coming to an end, and the crew costs will drive airlines back to larger aircraft because when you can't get pilots anymore - you may as well use the ones you do have flying as many seats as possible.

All decisions made by airline accountants - when all the airports of the world get gridlocked with hundreds more narrow-bodies cluttering up the gates, and maybe the skies (if they can find any pilots) the accountants will have to return to the idea of the "economy of scale" and possibly the A330neo and maybe even the B787-3 or even a 797 might become attractive to airlines. Manufacturers can only design stuff that they think airlines will buy.

 

[Mwenenzi]

Why did Boeing stop production of the 757?

Because airlines stopped ordering them.
Just as airlines stopped ordering B747's

Understand that, but it does bring up a good point. Most passengers prefer a twin aisle but the current crop seem a bit on the large side for a thin route.

Most passengers only prefer only 3 things

1. low air fares
2. low air fares
3. low air fares

Nor when booking what the aircraft type is. (99% have no interest).
On AFF we are in the 1% who are interested in such information.

 

[Quickstatus]

1%

Maybe 0.01% or less

 

[Saab34]

I can't understand why the A330neo isn't selling like hotcakes because the sheer number of narrow-bodies in use and on-order is exceeding the capacity of airports and will run into slot & gate constraints, the other thing pushing this would be that the cheap endless supply of pilots will be coming to an end, and the crew costs will drive airlines back to larger aircraft because when you can't get pilots anymore - you may as well use the ones you do have flying as many seats as possible.

I was also wondering this. The ideal players that would suit a A330neo, seem to going with the 787 in many cases, or A350 (which is significantly more expensive vs A330).

I assume it is headline price etc, higher fuel burn etc related? Wish Jetstar went with the A330Neo vs the 787. A330 seems to be very reliable.

 

[Forg]

It means AFF speculation on a laptop vs fluid dynamic engineer and supercomputers.

Sorry I meant I was agreeing with your “2nd point”, as in this is all just discussion … even though the hypothetical twin-aisle aircraft we were talking of has a higher cross-sectional area per passenger, the actual impact on fuel-economy would involve actual calcs of a real aircraft … which doesn’t exist.

Currently there are no single aisles with the capacity of twin aisle.

No, but that’s what we were talking about, “what if someone made a twin aisle with the capacity of a single-aisle”.

 

[cambriamarsh]

Because airlines stopped ordering them.
Just as airlines stopped ordering B747's


Most passengers only prefer only 3 things

1. low air fares
2. low air fares
3. low air fares

Nor when booking what the aircraft type is. (99% have no interest).
On AFF we are in the 1% who are interested in such information.

Sorry I meant I was agreeing with your “2nd point”, as in this is all just discussion … even though the hypothetical twin-aisle aircraft we were talking of has a higher cross-sectional area per passenger, the actual impact on fuel-economy would involve actual calcs of a real aircraft … which doesn’t exist.


No, but that’s what we were talking about, “what if someone made a twin aisle with the capacity of a single-aisle”.

Some good points being made here, quite interesting to us amateurs (well to me anyway).

In my imaginary engineering department I was thinking of say 3 rows of 4 J, say 18 rows of 8 Y for a total of 176, able to handle wide body freight cans and a range sufficient to cross the Pacific from Aus or do NZ India.
That is long thin routes with good freight demand. It can't justify a daily A330 or 787 but might fill that capacity 5 to 7 times a week.

Anyone on here a network planner?

 

[oz_mark]

That's my point.

1. If you're carrying the same number of people in the two single-aisle aircraft as you are in one double-aisle aircraft, then you have the current scenario - twin-aisle aircraft are twice as large.
2. But if the aircraft have the same carrying-capacity as each other, then two single-aisle aircraft are carrying twice as many passengers as your one twin-aisle aircraft is ...

So on a per-passenger basis, the single-aisle still has less cross-sectional area per passenger. Admittedly, to your 2nd point, whatever that actually means ...

There's still the issue of carrying the weight (ie. including structure to support that aisle) of a seat-sized piece of aisle every 6 pax in a 737 vs every 4.5 or 5 pax (because 2 aisles for a 9 or -ick- 10-seat row) in a 787. That's gotta be a cost, in fuel as well as cost-to-build.

I think the weight issue of having two aisles, means whatever technology you come up with, a big narrow body is always going to be cheaper than a small wide body of the same carrying capacity.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Others things to consider too, like overheads bins, crew rest facilities, and freight. Larger aircraft means you can get all of the above.

Re the comment above about disembarking from a narrow body… I think twin aisles disembark, and board, faster. One person can hold up the boarding of an entire 737 if they’re slow. With twin aisles pax flow seems to keep moving.

 

[Forg]

^ My comment about speed to fill & empty was related to capacity rather than the number of aisles.
If a technology came-up allowing twin-aisle aircraft to be viable in the 737 or A220 or A320 capacity, I agree, considerably quicker to exit!
But with current tech, you’re trying to get 60 rows of pax off a twin-aisle vs 30 off a single-aisle.

 

[Bundy Bear]

With the current Qantas A330-300 fleet being 18 years old Qantas will need to consider a replacement aircraft. They could go with a A330-900 or could look at adding more 787-800s. The plane makers seem to be interested flying planes further instead of building them for medium range high density city pairs, Boeing originally offered the 787-300 which was meant to be the 767-300; 767-400 replacement but airlines wanted planes to do more.

 

[docjames]

From a PaxEx point of view, seat pitch and width are far far ahead of number of aisles, although aisle width is a minor factor, as is number of toilets and overhead room (headroom, bins, ambiance etc).

From an airline point of view, most seats crammed in and most revenue is the most important, dovetialing into operating costs.

Boeing have been “studying” a new midsized aircraft for ages, and cant seem to get it launched, no doubt (partially) because cost to develop and then cost per ASK doesn’t stack up to extended length and lifecycle of current narrow bodies. Airbus lead the “medium” category with the A321 and A321XLR. There needs to be a large step in efficiency to beat them. Boeing seem unable to find that solution.

 

[moa999]

They could go with a A330-900 or could look at adding more 787-800s

No more 737s for Qantas. They all in on the 321 family for both Qantas and Jetstar.

These will undoubtedly replace some of the 332s.

But for the broader 332/333 replacement it's either
333neo - pilot transfer
More 787s - existing fleet commonality
359s - future fleet commonality with Sunrise aircraft

Boeing's big issue on a future MOM widebody, is Airbus could relatively cheaply produce a 322 which would cut into its market. And at the same time after the MAX it's clear it also needs a new narrow body platform.

Finally the risk of regulation (European in particular) on shorthaul flying versus trains and the risk that a commercial model develops for a 100-150 seater hydrogen jet for shorter routes.

 

[justinbrett]

I think this is what you're after:

NASA - Blended Wing Body Fact Sheet

 

[Forg]

^ That’s the sort of thing I had in mind when I said “ground infrastructure problems” …

 

[Feka742]

I was also wondering this. The ideal players that would suit a A330neo, seem to going with the 787 in many cases, or A350 (which is significantly more expensive vs A330).

I assume it is headline price etc, higher fuel burn etc related? Wish Jetstar went with the A330Neo vs the 787. A330 seems to be very reliable.

Similar gross operating costs compared to the A350/B787, with a smaller carrying capacity and a cheaper yet still not-insignificant acquisition cost.

The A330N looks to work well enough for some airlines but most have opted for the bigger frames, with the flexibility to sell more seats. This probably results in a penalty compared to the A330 when operating with empty seats, but likely ends up in the black in the aggregate, compensated by the flights that go out full. The current undersupply trend is vindicating airlines that stumped up for the A350/B787.

The other barrier to acquiring the A330N is that it works less well than the A330-200 on shorter-range missions as it carries more structural weight than its predecessors. The Trent 7000 engine is more efficient but heavier than the CF6 or older RR Trents. The shorter the flight, the less benefit can be derived from fuel efficiency - fixed costs eat into the improved margin.

The A330-200 is already heavier than airlines would like for flights below six-seven hours - it only works at near 100% capacity with very strong yields (like the peak SYD-MEL, PER or AKL). QF used to run the 767 throughout the day on those triangle routes but the A330 only during peak.

The A330N can't seem to beat the A321 (at the low end) or the A350/B787 (at the high end) as a replacement option - it's then a question of priorities (fewer seats, higher yield, less belly freight, or the opposite) as to what the mix looks like.

 

[Quickstatus]

twin-aisle aircraft to be viable in the 737 or A220 or A320 capacity, I agree, considerably quicker to exit!

How?. Most of these flights use one JetBridge

 

[Forg]

How?. Most of these flights use one JetBridge

Once the door’s open & pax are flowing, the hold-ups I’ve observed tend to be people stuffing-around with getting luggage out of overhead bins etc; blocking people behind them in that aisle.

However now you’ve asked that question, I do have doubts about my comment, I reckon I’ve only been on a dozen twin-aisle flights in Y which I remember … if there are no gaps in pax exiting that single door, then the blockages I mentioned are having no nett effect.