← Back to Squawk list
  • 46

Airbus thinks there is no technology available yet for a better aircraft than A320neo

Submitted
Toulouse - According to John Leahy, chief operating officer - customers at Airbus, the A320neo should not have a successor before 2030 because of the lack of technology available to develop a much better aircraft. (airlinerwatch.com) More...

Tom Novak
TrendsetterNews junkieTrusted friendOutspokenAmateur PhotographerPromoterAltruistAnnouncerAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


abowland
Andy Bowland 14
John Leahy should ask for input from Airbus users, I can think of some of updates that would make even the NEO much nicer. For example, update the FMS, how about V-Nav (true VNAV), change the pneumatic system so it doesn’t create toxic fumes, how about fixing the strobe lights on the sharklets so they don’t flash straight into the cockpit—super awesome at night!

FMS update-the 40 knot window for speed targets during a descent is a bit excessive, or that the automation can revert to an unmanaged NAVmode or even fail the autopilot because of an intermediate level off with the approach activation in between.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 1
Why would John ask customers since he has retired from Airbus..Eric Schultz could but that wouldn't happen until next month. I agree about the wing strobes.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lbflight
Burke Files 1
I do all of my flying as a passenger 100,000 plus each year. I would like to have a seat that is comfortable. Not vinyal - which we all stick after an amount of time (shorter in summer longer in winter). A seat that does not hurt my lower back, I now fly with a lower back pillow and some Rx. Last one where my knees are not in the kidney of the person in front. You can also tell I am flying on my dime, so I am in the back of the plane. I sit in a very nice mesh seat at my office, why not move to mesh? I also know all seating is coming from subcontractors as specified by the airlines, but one lives in hope. Even just going back to the fabric would be better.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
IanDeans
Ian Deans 2
It is the airlines who fit out the cabin...not the airframe manufacturers. It is they who cram as many passengers as the can fit in to the space. Hence our discomfort.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 0
Aircraft manufactures have no say in airline interiors other than the dimensions of the area and structure
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lbflight
Burke Files 0
"I also know all seating is coming from subcontractors as specified by the airlines", I know the seating is the airliners choice not the airframe manufacturer. Thanks for being more precise
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mig82au
Michael Groszek -2
What does an avionics improvement have to do with the economics of a clean sheet airframe design?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 4
Because Airbus is so shortsighted that they contend that nothing can improve their airplane. Simple improvements of software issues that exist today could vastly improve the day to day operation and even the efficiency of the airplanes.

Or maybe if they had bothered to fly the sharklet design update at night they would have noticed their design flaw...but then again, nothing can improve their design.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mig82au
Michael Groszek 0
I think you missed that Airbus is saying that an all new airframe is a bad idea. Do you have any idea how much that costs?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 4
Nope...I read the article, and 15-25 billion is what the 380 program cost Airbus, so yes I do know.

Maybe you didn't read my response to your question...Airbus is so arrogant that their contention is that nothing can improve their design. As an Airbus user, I am telling you and Airbus they can vastly improve their design by using simple software updates.

But yes, I get it...and sure a new airframe, yes I get it--



I'm saying Airbus doesn't get it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
btweston
btweston 0
I also read the article, and I think that you have an unhealthy animosity towards Airbus.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
patpylot
patrick baker 5
the eu does not support them under the table- they are supported upfront and in full public view, because these manufacturing assets are national, regional and continental vital treasures that cannot be outsourced. European pride and hubris would not imagine flying in Chinese transports powered by Chinese jet engines. It is a mistake in my thought for airbus to build any assembly plants in china
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djames225
djames225 2
Patrick..a great many pieces of both Airbus and Boeing are already "outsourced" to Chinese and Russian corps..what I have been failing to see is how folks are so bloody blind and think "all China made stuff is junk" yet use that same "junk" day in and day out without a worry in the world..the old adage "You Get What You Pay For" still strongly holds true..the thing about China is, even thou you pay more to get good quality (think Apple, Samsung, Lenovo, just to name a few) you still pay a heck of a lot less.
As far as Airbus building a plant or 2 in China, why not?..it isn't the Chinese people themselves who are making the "jumk", it's the companies making the "junk" via the people.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 1
What is funny about the Airbus China FAL, is that none of the US carriers accept the Chinese Airbus into their fleets.

And unless China and Russia are suppliers to suppliers of Airbus, I don't seen anything from either China or Russia that is directly sourced into an airplane.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 3
The same can be said about the US carriers reluctance to get A320's into their fleet as well..that is until Airbus built the Alabama plant and then A320 sales went wayy up.
And you would be surprised how many components are sourced out of China suppliers directly to Airbus and Boeing..as I said, "you get what you pay for"..you want crap, pay crap prices, you want good, show more green. And that goes anywhere in the world, for any country.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 1
I'm not sure that Airbus sale went "way up" because of the Alabama FAL. Airbus has years and years of back orders that AA, B6, NK, etc all refused deliveries from China but welcomed US built airplanes, as well as France and German built.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 -1
Ok I dont know where you pulled that info from, and frankly don't care..there are no years and years of back orders and yes, orders from US carriers rose when Mobile opened...the Airbus FAL in China produces the A320 family for China and Asia markets..European and Western Hemisphere markets are handled by Toulouse, Hamburg and Mobile..I have not heard, in the past 10 years, of any China built Airbus "falling" out of the sky.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 1
Right from Airbus, “As of 30 November, Airbus’ overall backlog of jetliners remaining to be delivered stood at 6,616 aircraft – representing the equivalent of approximately nine years of production at current rates.”. All airframes but 320 family is most popular.

Regarding China, Airbus initially tried to deliver aircraft from China to US airlines, which they all would not accept.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 0
Yes..all airframes..including the new A320NEO classes and the A350..sales of the A320 family sold to US carriers rose when the Alabama plant went online..it has nothing to do with refused China orders..more to do with engine delays, cabin interior equipment delays and new orders rolling in delays.
As far as Airbus trying to deliver China built A320's to US carriers, Id love to know where that info came from..as I remember both American and Delta took delivery of their A320's from Hamburg plant until Alabama came online.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 2
I'm not sure how my comment about the Airbus CEO saying they can't improve on the A320NEO became a fight about deliveries and orders.

Airbus orders in 2015 (the year Alabama FAL came online) went down from 2014 and down again in 2016.
2014-1796
2015-1190
2016-949
2017-388 YTD November 30

Airbus published information about the China FAL in that it is only building airplanes for the Asian market--it's on their website.

The 9+ year backlog of Airbus is on their website.

Please go troll on a different site now.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
btweston
btweston 1
He didn’t really say that. You’re being silly.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 0
Because of the comment you made to a reply I had made to a different poster..and perhaps, before you go off all half cocked about things, look at the line you made about US carriers not wanting to take deliveries of China built A320's and then the line "
Airbus published information about the China FAL in that it is only building airplanes for the Asian market--it's on their website."..I can also read about "orders pending final completion" but it doesnt add up to 9 years unless you are including recent orders of A350's thrown in and the diversions airlines made on orders (by recent I am including past 3 years)
For your information, I dont troll..I respond to comments who respond to mine made to a different poster! If you have ideas about making the A320 better, why not send, or better still, visit the Alabama office and show them their mistakes, and stop coming in calling folks trolls who are standing up to a comment they made to someone else!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
abowland
Andy Bowland 1
Look at their orders...I’d say 75% of the backlog is narrow body, so years of backlog.

And this entire thread is about improving Airbus, I simply posted my thoughts and off you went. Again the orders have not increased look at the data.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
djames225
djames225 0
You posted your thoughts earlier in a different post, which was in error yourself BTW as John Leahy retired from Airbus as of the end of last year!..My reply, in this post, was to Patrick..perhaps I should have been more clear "sales of A320's to American carriers appeared to have increased once the Alabama plant went online" ie they were not as interested before as after" You also shot yourself in the foot when you replied "Airbus has years and years of back orders that AA, B6, NK, etc all refused deliveries from China but welcomed US built airplanes, as well as France and German built." and then, after all the arguing, slipped in "Airbus published information about the China FAL in that it is only building airplanes for the Asian market--it's on their website." which is what I said to begin with.
Kile I said, if you have an idea or 3 that would improve the A320, go to Airbus and point it out to them, but dont go calling folks trolls because they stand up for themselves, errors in data or not.
You have a great day, I'm out!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
renb
Ren Babcock -1
No but one in the US is possible.. oh wait.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
lbflight
Burke Files 3
The statement by Airbus reminds of what was said at the turn of the 19th century, "In colloquy, a genius asked: "isn't there a clerk who can examine may patents?" A boy behind the counter replied "Quite unnecessary, Sir. Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
btweston
btweston 2
That’s not really what’s being said, here.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ianmcdonell
ian mcdonell 2
Thanks for your comments Andy - a true users perspective that as a light aircraft pilot and frequent commercial flyer I find very interesting
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jpcooper
Peter Cooper 1
All these Boeing v Airbus arguments bring back the old days when Preacher1 stood up for his country and its aircraft. It has been just over 2 years since we lost him and i still miss his posts, his knowledge and his enthusiasm for aviation and aviators.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
saitek290pro
saitek290pro 1
Not going to lie; but this is just silly. Airbus' A320neo and A321neo look identical to the Boeing 737NG family. Boeing on the other hand with their MAX family looks ahead of the Airbus with efficiency. I hope that airlines like Delta, realize that their expenses are higher than others like Southwest to realize that the MAX is better than the Neo.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
btweston
btweston 1
Feel free to elaborate, because don’t think you’re right.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
saitek290pro
saitek290pro 0
Look at the 737NG. It has the winglet. The A320neo and A321neo have winglets that essentially Boeing created years ago. Boeing now has their MAX winglet, which is both up and down. Boeing clearly see's how they can create the planes more efficient, Airbus does not. Boeing is going to cost Southwest, Alaska, etc; a whole lot less to operate than Airbus is going to cost Delta, jetBlue, etc.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
linbb
linbb -4
Too bad they think so highly of themselves shows how cheeky they are about things. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Oh forgot the EU will continue supporting them under the table.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
btweston
btweston 2
Under the table? The governments who own the company are supporting the company. Wow. What a scandal.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 0
Leahy was certainly entertaining. His retirement coincides with an EU public distaste for further support of Airbus through one type of subsidy or another by governments.

With Sgt. Schultz the heir apparent Rolls-Royce and Airbus will probably grow closer together to the disadvantage of buyers that might benefit from P&W or GE engines.

The first thing on his plate should be to take the sharp pencils from the accountants and get new work stations in engineering to develop some airframes that sizzle to help airlines make money.

He might also shutter the A380 shop and place a nice plaque like the one at the Graf Zeppelin plant, "nice while it lasted."
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mikeprodanovic
mike prodanovic -5
just have to explain what is reason that QA refused delivery. Piece of crap problems with operation in hot temperatures, hi altitude airports...Only pilots who was flying B & A can have real opinion. 787 is LAW
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss