Re: new jetliner developments

From:         h andrew chuang <>
Date:         04 Mar 93 01:53:36 PST
References:   1 2
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.220@ohare.Chicago.COM> Karl Swartz <> writes:
>In article <airliners.1993.217@ohare.Chicago.COM> Tobias Henry Lutterodt <luterodt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> 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

>Of course it's somewhat cheaper than the 757, and the 757 seems to be
>used in many cases where its inter-continental range isn't not needed.
>Still, I suspect your assesment is accurate, and with some of the really
>large buyers (American, British Airways, Delta, United) all flying the
>757 already the A321 (and A322 if it's built) seems to have something
>of an uphill climb to true success.

Am I missing something? I only know of A319, 320, and 321.  What is A322?
With either CFM56 or IAE2500 engines (which are at least 10-20% smaller than
those engines powered 757), the A321 should have shorter range and
theoretically not be competing directly with the 757.

>>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

>The A330 is about midway between the 767-300 and the A market 777.  If
>airlines already operating 767s think the 777 is too large then they
>may go smaller than the A330, down to the 767-300.  Then again the
>A330 may be a nice compromise between the two.  It's hard to say at
>this point but the A330 has some stiff competition.  (From the MD-11,

But the growth version (-400?) should compete directly with the 777.

>>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 ...

>While 180-minute ETOPS will allow the A330 (and 777) to do nearly the
>same job as the A340, the A340 may still prove more economical.  The
>number of engines isn't the only consideration -- witness the BAe-146
>which seems awfully silly with four engines on such a little plane,
>but has done fairly well.

>Two engines safer than four?!  Perhaps slightly, but only because of
>the added equipment and testing in a twin certified for ETOPS, and
>that's expensive.  I think it's pretty far-fetched to consider safety
>as a liability for the A340 versus the A330 and its competitors.

One has to remember the two engines on A330 are bigger than the ones on
767 and A300/310.  Although, all the engines are growth versions, none has
been proven.  Singapore Airlines once found out it was very expensive to
operate EROP's with their A310's between Mauritius and Singapore over the
Indian Ocean.  I guess that's why they ordered A340's (if you recall,
Singapore cancelled the MD-11 order before they ordered the A340).
Personally, I will probably refuse to fly across the Pacific on a B777.

>Looking at power/weight ratios, the A340 does appear to be a bit on
>the anemic side, though it's still a bit ahead of the DC-8 Series 50
>and Series 60 which in some regards it replaces, and not too far
>behind the 747-100.  I'm not sure how much of a liability this is for
>the A340.

>Overall, your outlook for the A330 is sufficiently rosier than for the
>A340, yet sales so far paint quite the opposite picture.  Either way,
>even modest sales of both types individually could make them a
>financial success due to their high degree of commonality.

>>Boeing 777:  It's in a very hard fought three-way battle ...

>You don't mention the third entry in this battle, the MD-11, which
>seems to be foundering rather badly.

Ever since Boeing lauched the 777, Airbus received very few orders for the
A330/340.  For the past year, GPA and NWA both cancelled the 340 orders.  
One must wonder if the program will be as successful as previous Airbus

MD11, in my opion, is going to be the L1011 of the 90's.  Any comments on
the MD11C and MD11D?

>>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, ...);

>Too late to be stillborn -- the first one was rolled out last month.
>But MacDAC does have a serious problem with sales.

>Advantages?  As far as I can tell the MD-90 is nothing more than yet-
>another-stretch of the DC-9 (except for the MD-90-10 which fits in
>between the MD-87 and larger MD-80 models) with the same wing.  Only
>new engines and, I assume, updated avionics seem to distinguish it
>beyond that.  And comfort has never been a word I would associate with
>any member of the DC-9 clan.

>Am I missing something on this one?

Well, the 2-3 layout is a little better than the 3-3 layout, especially if
you sit on the side with two seats.  Nonetheless, I still prefer to fly on a
widebody jet, if possible.

|  H. Andrew Chuang         || Tel:   (513) 774-5267          |
|  BS & AT                  || Fax:   (513) 774-5171          |
|  GE Aircraft Engines      || Email: |