mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Apr 6, 2019 15:21:30 GMT 1
I think it is a bit early to write the disaster or success story for the A319neo.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Apr 7, 2019 9:09:34 GMT 1
I think it is a bit early to write the disaster or success story for the A319neo. Just my guess..... It is not going to be dissaster - too small volume to make some significant impact. The A318 was also not a disaster - just a plane which was made only a few pieces and which very few airlines wants, and on which - my guess - AB did not had any profit.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 8, 2019 17:32:50 GMT 1
I don't see much in common between the A318 and A319neo stories.
The decision to make the A318 was made at a late stage, and I happen to have had some insight into it at the time. I had several opportunities to discuss a possible A318 (a competitor to Boeing's 736) with Airbus staff, and almost to the end their answer was 'with those big (CFM 56) engines, the plane would fly like a smoothing iron (!!)'.
Then, came the SAS RFP for 100 to 110 seat aircraft, which I was somehow involved in on Airbus' side. I can testify that, given the existing ties between MDD and SAS, and the adequation of the MDD product to the requirement, we expected the MD 95 (the future 717) to win. We ranked our chances as low, and we weren't surprised to lose, but we didn't expect Boeing's 736 to be the winner. That win kindled a reassesment of the 736 by Airbus, and led to the A318, albeit with a new launch engine (P&W's PW 6000, which later met with many problems).
As you all know, the A319neo had been planned by Airbus from the outstart. It was never intended to be a sales leader since heavier engines penalise the smaller frames more than the larger ones. I think Airbus did not want to create a large hole in its lineup, especially taking into account upcoming competition from new entrants like BBD's CSeries ... Of course, hindsight might lead to different choices ! Now, the A319neo is here to stay as an ACJ and niche airliner.
|
|
|
Post by ca350 on Apr 8, 2019 21:33:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Apr 10, 2019 4:09:05 GMT 1
Thanks for the nice feedback/story philidor. I didn't know the A318 had engines problems and the wiki page doesn't mention it, what happened with them at the time?..
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Apr 10, 2019 9:09:01 GMT 1
Thanks for the nice feedback/story philidor. I didn't know the A318 had engines problems and the wiki page doesn't mention it, what happened with them at the time?.. The engine problems were with the PW6000. The engine was supposed to be lighter than the CFM56-5B. The engine ended up at the same weight as the CFM and had a higher than promised fuel burn. In the end only LAN bought 15 frames with the the PW engine, all together with the spares 34 engines.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 10, 2019 10:25:05 GMT 1
Thanks for the nice feedback/story philidor. I didn't know the A318 had engines problems and the wiki page doesn't mention it, what happened with them at the time?.. Mjoelnir provided the answer. Wikipedia tells the same story about the P&W 6000. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_PW6000
|
|
|
Post by marlibu on Apr 10, 2019 21:15:36 GMT 1
Thanks for the nice feedback/story philidor . I didn't know the A318 had engines problems and the wiki page doesn't mention it, what happened with them at the time?.. The engine problems were with the PW6000. The engine was supposed to be lighter than the CFM56-5B. The engine ended up at the same weight as the CFM and had a higher than promised fuel burn. In the end only LAN bought 15 frames with the the PW engine, all together with the spares 34 engines. it seems P&W and A320 Family Engine problems are nothing new....oh my. my ignorance level is lowered with each day read this website...
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Apr 11, 2019 9:22:54 GMT 1
As you all know, the A319neo had been planned by Airbus from the outstart. It was never intended to be a sales leader since heavier engines penalise the smaller frames more than the larger ones. I think Airbus did not want to create a large hole in its lineup, especially taking into account upcoming competition from new entrants like BBD's CSeries ... Of course, hindsight might lead to different choices ! Now, the A319neo is here to stay as an ACJ and niche airliner. On the end (after some discussion) we do see the current situation EXACTLY the same. The life brought A319neo here - it exists, and will be produced (and of course sold) in small quantities, and AB will have overall no profit on the model.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Apr 11, 2019 10:07:27 GMT 1
As you all know, the A319neo had been planned by Airbus from the outstart. It was never intended to be a sales leader since heavier engines penalise the smaller frames more than the larger ones. I think Airbus did not want to create a large hole in its lineup, especially taking into account upcoming competition from new entrants like BBD's CSeries ... Of course, hindsight might lead to different choices ! Now, the A319neo is here to stay as an ACJ and niche airliner. On the end (after some discussion) we do see the current situation EXACTLY the same. The life brought A319neo here - it exists, and will be produced (and of course sold) in small quantities, and AB will have overall no profit on the model. The overall not profit of the model I can not agree to, not that early in the life of that model. High altitude use, government use and ACJ could amount together to quite a few frames. I know Avianca cancelled the A319neo, but what will airlines in South America use for the high airports? Now there are enough A319ceo operating. The A318 did not manage to really go into ACJ and government use.
|
|