Re: new jetliner developments

From:         spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.Stanford.EDU (Stefano Pagiola)
Date:         04 Mar 93 01:53:33 PST
References:   1
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Tobias Henry Lutterodt writes:

> My  own assessments of aircraft presently under
> development:
> 

> A321:  Will be a mild success but will have trouble
> attracting non-A320 customers because of the
> performance and versatility of the 757

Depends what you mean by `mild success.'  I agree it probably won't  
reach 757 numbers, but since its development, given commonality with  
the A320, should have been cheaper, it'll probably make money for  
Airbus.  It'll also benefit from the `family effect,' especially if  
the A319 (shortened A320) is finally launched (expected soon; one  
lessor has already placed an order).  I believe cockpit commonality  
with the A330 and A340 is also high, which might allow pilots to be  
certified for both (as on the 757/767).
(A puzzle in all this, BTW, is why Iberia has ordered _both_ A321s  
and 757s) 


> A330:  Likely to be a big success as long as it targets
> airlines who don't need the size and range of the 777; 

> could be the next 767 of the Atlantic
> 

> A340:  Will probably flop because airlines will soon be
> able to by two engined aircraft to do the same job;  With
> today's reliablity, two are safer  than four!;  The
> aircraft is also underpowered and the cost and weight of 

> equipping it with RB211-535's or PW2000's will be
> unacceptable;  The  -200 may find a niche in very long range
> specialty markets like  all first class London-Perth
> service or something similar;

Agreed that the A340 looks a little underpowered.  Still, call me  
old-fashioned but I still prefer 3 or 4 when flying over vast  
expanses of water.  How you reach the conclusion that 2 is safer than  
4 is a little beyond me.

> Boeing 777:  It's in a very hard fought three-way battle,
> but the aircraft is  likely to attract the stronger, more
> stable carriers (as it already has) and  in the long run, it
> will be the market leader;  Perhaps it is a little too big, 

> though, for the market it seeks;

Same comment as above.  I think this aircraft (and the A330) are  
excellent replacement for the likes of DC-10s and L-1011 on US  
internal routes; I'm not sure I relish the thought of flying them on  
long overwater routes.
One thing that is really helping the 777 is that given the current  
recession, the fact that it will arrive 3-4 years after the MD-11 and  
the A330/A340 won't count too much against it.  Douglas (especially)  
and Airbus had really bad luck on this one.

> MD-90:  Will be stillborn unless Douglas is much more
> aggressive about  finding new customers;  Nevertheless,
> the aircraft has distinct  advantages over its
> competitors (noise, pax comfort, ...);

My feeling here is that this aircraft is about 3-4 years too late.   
If it had been shipping in say, 1990, the DC-9/MD-80 production line  
would not be down to about 40 ships a year (Douglas projection for  
the next few years).

Ciao, Stefano
---
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)