General Aviation Thread

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Seems the prediction from some Aviation Industry beginning to come true. The prediction that with Airbus take over Bombardier C series as A220, they're actually will take out A318, and A319 market share.

This deal for A220 by Air France group shown in the end newer design A220 is more effecient compare to A318 and A319.
My opinion is that it's actually a good thing. Now Airbus have more solid regional Jets product with A220, and let Mid-Long range narrow body handle by A320 and A321.

Question is when will Airbus decide to pull the plug for A318 and A319.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The plug will surely be pulled if there isn’t a significant improvement in the COVID situation by the start of the 4th Q. Airbus has the single aisle market now and this will be what keeps them busy as wide body sales are flat and will stay that way until tourism returns.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

According to this article, Boeing CEO already confirm that NMA will be the next Airliners to be developed. Seems they aim to get it launch at mid of this decade.

No detail yet what NMA (or many Industry analyst called 797) configuration. However it's predicted will be twin aisle 270 pac class. Some prediction based on Boeing rendering on NMA will have 2+3+2 configuration. This's if set as final config will make NMA as true mid size twin aisle.

The article also shown NMA being aim to answer A321 XLR as MAX10 can compete with A321 capacity, however fall significant short in range (9000 km on XLR vs 6000+km on MAX10). For that some analysts prediction (not in this article) that NMA will have 8000-10000+ km in range.

Whatever the final design turn out, this's important move for Boeing to keep competitive toward this segment. As mentioned before, the business model of Airlines already switched more to more point to point rather than relied on Hub model. Thus long range but relatively thin market seems getting traction to become larger part of overall market.

Well people like more to have direct flight or only one lay over at most as possible.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A mid decade launch...aggressive move for Boeing that didn’t work out so well when responding to the C-Series threat. In any event, this is all moot until COVID is sorted.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

According to this article, Boeing CEO already confirm that NMA will be the next Airliners to be developed. Seems they aim to get it launch at mid of this decade.

No detail yet what NMA (or many Industry analyst called 797) configuration. However it's predicted will be twin aisle 270 pac class. Some prediction based on Boeing rendering on NMA will have 2+3+2 configuration. This's if set as final config will make NMA as true mid size twin aisle.

The article also shown NMA being aim to answer A321 XLR as MAX10 can compete with A321 capacity, however fall significant short in range (9000 km on XLR vs 6000+km on MAX10). For that some analysts prediction (not in this article) that NMA will have 8000-10000+ km in range.

Whatever the final design turn out, this's important move for Boeing to keep competitive toward this segment. As mentioned before, the business model of Airlines already switched more to more point to point rather than relied on Hub model. Thus long range but relatively thin market seems getting traction to become larger part of overall market.

Well people like more to have direct flight or only one lay over at most as possible.
In my opinion its an unlogic and weird decision to create a mid-size widebody as a replacement for the 757 and to compete with the A321XLR, it should be a narrowbody too.
But it will maybe a good replacement for the 767-200/-300 or a cheaper alternative for the 787-8.


Now something else, i post it here because there is no Kazakh Air Force and Air Defence thread.
Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on 1 February that it has taken delivery of its first battalion set of the Russian-made 9K317M2E Buk-M2E self-propelled air-defence system, which is the export variant of the Buk-M2 used by the Russian military.
It is expected that the Kazakh Air and Air Defence Force will operate the Buk-M2E.

 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
In my opinion its an unlogic and weird decision to create a mid-size widebody as a replacement for the 757 and to compete with the A321XLR, it should be a narrowbody too.
But it will maybe a good replacement for the 767-200/-300 or a cheaper alternative for the 787-8.


Now something else, i post it here because there is no Kazakh Air Force and Air Defence thread.
Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on 1 February that it has taken delivery of its first battalion set of the Russian-made 9K317M2E Buk-M2E self-propelled air-defence system, which is the export variant of the Buk-M2 used by the Russian military.
It is expected that the Kazakh Air and Air Defence Force will operate the Buk-M2E.

A new wide body as a A-321XLR alternative seems strange to me as well and as a modernized 767 replacement, is this realistic? In the case of the latter, why not a downsized Dreamliner. Boeing should have done a clean sheet design for a new narrow body family design 10 years ago. Instead they screwed around with the 737 yet again. I understand the pressures they were under with Dreamliner delays but having a new narrow body now would be a huge confidence builder for shareholders and a potential revenue stream once COVID is resolved. Damn important considering the the KC-46 cluster and perhaps a disappearing market for the 777X.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
NMA being aimed for filling 757 market. 757 now being used for long range thin routes. A321XLR now try to fill that market, as Boeing do not have the replacement for 757 market considering MAX10 shorter range.

Boeing should have done a clean sheet design for a new narrow body family design 10 years ago.
Yes, that's what many Industrial analysts also agree on. They should kill 737 with new more efficient single aisle. If they want to play around on existing design, they think Boeing should tinkering and optimizing 757 instead 737. Thus creating 757 MAX to fill current 757 market. However since Boeing already go with 737 MAX instead, now they have to develop something to fill 757 market.

Long range thin routes is the trend for the market. Even regional Jets like C series and E series getting longer range. Trend like Baltic Air use to open smaller market with direct routes is getting more demand. Connecting long range secondary cities direct to other secondary cities or long range smaller market direct to big primary hubs getting more traction. This kind of market use to be in North America and Cross Atlantic. However now Asia Pacific also getting traction on this kind of market. This's what NMA aim.

Let's see if they can make NMA/797 as lighter more efficient double aisle. In such double aisle with efficiency of single aisle for that kind of market.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Is this just do to COVID or Trend in the Industry ? That's the question that some analysts or people in Financial Institution watching now. Even if you talk with the Airlines, they can't give definite answer yet.

Some 777 users say they are not need new 777 as their 777-300ER still relative new. However at the same time many of those customers still ordering 787. This raise question as 787 also provide relative similar range capabilities with 777X, while provide relative more efficient operation cost for some routes.

For me, I suspect not only due to COVID why Airlines opted for more efficient and smaller capacities Airliners. However changing business model on direct thinner routes, also reduce the need for larger capacities Airliners.

A350 on the other hand provide option for capabilities on the between of 787 to 777X. Thus some Airlines see that as more preferable option than 777X. Still to see if the Industry capacities back to normal, whether the need for larger Airliners like 777X will be back or not. We know 747 and A380 are dead. Many attribute that due to Airlines preference to dual engines only. Off course it's the main reason, however I do suspect preference on smaller capacities also affect.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Singapore Airlines switch some of it's 787-10 order to 777-9. This seems going to help Boeing 777X program image. Order from major International players like Singapore Airlines will help shown the attractiveness of 777X for long haul International routes.

However I put this not only on that, but the latter part of Video where all the orders are deferred to 2025/26. This happen not only for Boeing orders but also Airbus orders from Singapore Airlines. If a major player like Singapore Airlines doing it, can be also say that this will be a trend from other Airlines. In such they don't see the Industry capacities will be back before 2024. Which means neither Boeing nor Airbus will be back to capacities for next couple of years.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@Ananda At present I would suggest that we would be looking at 2023 at the earliest before cross border travel and air travel starts to really pickup again to anywhere near the levels it was pre COVID-19. It's going to take a long time to achieve world wide herd immunity, there have been suggestions that the vaccines may have to be annual jabs and at present not enough is known about the long term efficacy of the vaccines. So I think we're still at the wait and see stage.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Pretty much prediction of vaccination being done this year for most big economies. However it will take next year for most others. In such this year and next the capacity will not be back yet. So I do think right also that 2023 will be around time at fastest the capacity back to 2019 level. Thus for Airlines making 25/26 as beginning period for expansion (thus new airplanes) make sense.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The timing is really going to be dependant on how effective vaccines are against the increasing number of mutations. If there is going to be a need for vaccine manufacturing for on-going mutations on an annual basis, I would imagine there will be a need for for huge investment in new vaccine manufacturing sites. This will take time as will the annual vaccine development (although this time should be less than the initial development). I can envision some new infrastructure for vaccine passports as well.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Here in NZ we already have the infrastructure to start vaccine production, but our government won't use it. We have a large agricultural animal vaccine manufacturing infrastructure here that could be utilised for human vaccine manufacturing. Of course it would have to pass health requirements and be certified, but there is no real reason why it cannot be used except political will. It would solve a lot of problems for us, especially if vaccine passports or similar will be required for international air travel.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The timing is really going to be dependant on how effective vaccines are against the increasing number of mutations. If there is going to be a need for vaccine manufacturing for on-going mutations on an annual basis, I would imagine there will be a need for for huge investment in new vaccine manufacturing sites. This will take time as will the annual vaccine development (although this time should be less than the initial development). I can envision some new infrastructure for vaccine passports as well.
There has already been huge investment in expanding vaccine production capacity in the last year, & more is being spent as we write, e.g. Pfizer is expanding its factory in Belgium, which is supplying the BioNTech vaccine to Europe.
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
There has already been huge investment in expanding vaccine production capacity in the last year, & more is being spent as we write, e.g. Pfizer is expanding its factory in Belgium, which is supplying the BioNTech vaccine to Europe.
interesting. I joined a study here in the USA. Got both shots in December. Found it was vaccinated then. (Unmasked, they call it). Very light side effects.

Art
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
No worries, Bombardier will play the Québec and Canadian governments to compete in giving them tax payer dollars.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Seems China and Russia already fixed the design of their JV Widebody C929, and begin to moving on development stage. This design seems will face 787 and A330 Neo. However if the range 'only' 12000 KM, then it will face uphill battle on International market against those two who have 13500-15000 KM range.

I suspect China with more deep pocket financing company will be task more on market this plane internationally. However both Russia and China will have to prove availability of their support network chain. Both Russia and China has competing products on narrow body with C919 and MC-21, and Regional Jet with Superjet and ARJ-21. Thus building cohesive network support chain for their aircraft, will be interesting to watch on how they solve that.

Both Airbus and Boeing already build their supply chain globally for decades. This's one of the entry barriers for other manufacturer to try come into International Airliners market. This infact one of the reasons why the market remaining mostly Duopoly control for more than three decade already. I don't see other non China and Russian Financing company willing to bet and financing procurement for Superjet, ARJ-21, MC-21, C919, and this C929, unless they see Russia and China able to provide support infrastructure globally for their Airliners.

Both China and Russia has to work together to build that, if they want to be seen as serious contender against the Duopoly.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

Seems China and Russia already fixed the design of their JV Widebody C929, and begin to moving on development stage. This design seems will face 787 and A330 Neo. However if the range 'only' 12000 KM, then it will face uphill battle on International market against those two who have 13500-15000 KM range.

I suspect China with more deep pocket financing company will be task more on market this plane internationally. However both Russia and China will have to prove availability of their support network chain. Both Russia and China has competing products on narrow body with C919 and MC-21, and Regional Jet with Superjet and ARJ-21. Thus building cohesive network support chain for their aircraft, will be interesting to watch on how they solve that.

Both Airbus and Boeing already build their supply chain globally for decades. This's one of the entry barriers for other manufacturer to try come into International Airliners market. This infact one of the reasons why the market remaining mostly Duopoly control for more than three decade already. I don't see other non China and Russian Financing company willing to bet and financing procurement for Superjet, ARJ-21, MC-21, C919, and this C929, unless they see Russia and China able to provide support infrastructure globally for their Airliners.

Both China and Russia has to work together to build that, if they want to be seen as serious contender against the Duopoly.
I also suspect that Russia will deliver the majority of the designwork, experience and expertise while china will be the one actually financing it.
I expect that Russia will be busy enough to supply the C929 to their traditional/own market, replacing the Il-86 and -96 and older foreign widebodies. Looking to the production rate of civillian airliners of the Russian aerospace industry the last decades, that will be already a challenge. And ive also the feeling that china will mostly sell their ARJ-21, C919 and C929 to their allies/vassal states and some 3rd Worldcountries.
 
Top