Widebody Airliner Developments

Bigger A340s

Airbus is putting in place the same changes to its A340 that Boeing is planning for the 747: a heavier structure powered by bigger engines lifting either more passengers in a longer fuselage or more fuel for greater range. This would take the biggest A340s to 300t MTOW, putting it into second place ahead of the MD-11 and getting close to early 747 weights. The A340 currently comes in two fuselage lengths: the 260 passenger A340-200 and the A340-300 seating 303. Weights go as high as 271t. The planned A340-400 would carry 350 people over an unchanged range, 12,700km. Applying the new MTOW to the short -200 fuselage produces a second variant, the A340-8000 with a range near 14,800km or 8000nm. Airbus is already offering the A340-8000. Unlike the 747-500 and -600, the enlarged A340s do not have an obvious engine. The current versions have 33,000lb (150kN) class CFM56s, but a 300 tonner needs more. CFM, the GE-SNECMA joint venture, is offering a new engine, the CFMXX with a thrust range of 178kN to 200kN. Pratt & Whitney proposes a new version of the PW2040, which is offered on 757s. CFM would have to make a big gain in efficiency to justify a new engine in this range, which is already well served by the PW2000 and the Rolls-Royce 535. Pratt is reportedly talking about a ducted propfan for future A340s.

A Shorter 777

This would be the 747SP of the 1990s: more range bought by trading off fuselage weight for fuel. With that tubby fuselage it would be an unusual sight. The short 777, the -100, would be a direct reply to the A340-8000 threat. But with such extravagantly high installed thrust (and the associated cost and weight) for just 250 passengers, the 777-100 might appeal mostly to already signed-up 777 operators. The standard 777-200 carries 305 in three classes. Singapore Airlines, which bought an astonishing 34 777s (plus 43 options) in November, might be interested, although it has already bought the latest heavyweight version of the A340. Four-engined aircraft have a distinct advantage over twins as range goes higher: because All’s quiet on the small widebody twin front. Airbus’s A310 and A300 and Boeing’s 767-200 and 767-300 have recorded declining sales over the past two or three years. To overcome soft sales in this segment, Airbus is looking at lightening the A310 and has launched a shortened A330 to rival the long range 767-300ER and complement the A300-600R, while Boeing is considering stretching the narrowbody 757. McDonnell Douglas is studying a number of variants of the MD-11 to breathe new life into the embattled trijet, which has consistently run third in order battles with the 777 and A330. The A340-8000 would be an 8000nm or 14,800km ultra long range A340 based on the fuselage of the current A340-200. Boeing’s response is the 777-100X. they don’t need so much reserve thrust in case an engine fails on takeoff, they do not carry so much surplus powerplant weight through their very long flights. Actually, it looks like there could be two distinct 777-100 variants. Boeing has two structure designs for the 777: the basic ‘A’ structure, used for medium haul sub-variants of the standard -200 version, can lift off at 243t, while the beefier ‘B’ structure can manage 287t. It appears the heavy structure would be applied to the long range development, aiming at 15,700km (8500nm), the greatest ever. Boeing is also looking at a lighter version aimed simply at providing a medium range aeroplane with fewer seats. Why develop such a plane? First, to chase the A330 downmarket as Airbus shrinks its model to take on the 767-300 (see below); and second, Boeing may see the 767-300 approaching the end of its run and is setting up a replacement. Boeing launched a stretched 777-300 version last year with around 350 seats (three class) and aimed primarily at replacing the early 747s and wide body trijets. More recently on the 777 front, Boeing has been talking of an ultra long range development of the 777-200. This higher gross weight (13.5t extra fuel) long range 777-200 would have range comparable to the 777-100X but with better seat kilometre costs.

A Shorter A330

The airliner market between 180 and 300 seats (two class) is dead. Boeing is racking up orders for 737s and 777s but is moving only a few 757s and 767-300s. Sales of 767-200s have dried up entirely. Airbus’s position is worse: the A320 is selling well but almost no A310s and A300-600s are coming off the shelves. Airbus is taking two initiatives to support sales in this area: it is cutting back the A330 fuselage to help the A300-600 in the fight against the 767-300; and it is lightening the A310 to make it more serious competition for the 757. The new A330-200 (called the A330M10 until its launch last year) is 10 fuselage frames, or 5.3m shorter than the A330-300, which until now was the only fuselage length available. At 58.3m it will be shorter than the A340-200 and will carry 256 pax in three classes or 293 in two classes. (The two class arrangement is comparable with Australian or US domestic; three classes correspond with roomier international long haul arrangements.) The A330-200 also amounts to an attempt to revive A330 sales, which climbed rapidly to about 100 after the model’s launch but have stayed there. A few recent sales have proved that the model has not stalled entirely, but Boeing’s enormous success with the 777 over the past year suggests that Seattle has at least temporarily gained the ascendancy in this area. For the longer term, Airbus has a problem in the A300-600’s section of the market, 260-280 pax (two class). The aircraft, basically a circa 1970 design, nowadays is not selling and therefore needs replacement. But it probably cannot be replaced by any adaptation of the A330, whose wing must be too big for the job.

A Lighter A310

The A310 is at the bottom of the widebody market while the 757 is the biggest narrowbody. They are nearly direct competitors, although the A310 is bigger. Neither is selling well, but the 757 is clearly on top and should benefit from a continued flow of reorders, despite the apparent attractions of Airbus’s eight abreast cabin. (The A330, A340 and A310 all share the original A300 fuselage barrel.) Few A310s have sold in recent years, and Airbus is looking at cutting the model’s MTOW from the present 142 tonnes to, presumably, something like 130 tonnes. A lighter aeroplane doing the same job is more efficient, because it uses less fuel. Thrust would fall to 42,000lb (187kN), a little above the 757’s, and Airbus says it wants a new engine. That must mean the same engine to be chosen for the new 300-tonne A340 models described above. Airbus has not mentioned shrinking the A310, so passenger capacity would remain about 220. If Airbus was serious about cutting structural weight, range might fall.

A Longer 757

The 757 is remarkable for having lasted so long in production without a stretch. Apart from improved engines introduced in the 1980s, the latest copies are little different from the first, delivered in 1982. But nothing lasts forever, and Boeing’s elegant and efficient 757 may have to change to survive. Sales are sluggish (strangely, most seem to be coming from CIS countries lately) and the biggest of the new 737s, the 170 seat -800, is now uncomfortably close to the 757’s standard passenger capacity of 186. The A321 (185 seats) does a very similar job to the 757 on a lot less weight and with smaller engines, although its range is substantially less. So Boeing says it will probably stretch the 757, moving it into a different market. The market is calling for the longer 757. For some reason, the 757 is a favourite among European charter operators. Several of them have told Boeing they’d like to carry more tourists while retaining 757 commonality. No details are known, but weight would have to rise from the current maximum of 113 tonnes, probably to something near 130 tonnes, which would be similar to that of the lightened A310. A five metre stretch would fit in about 30 more passengers, so 757-300 passenger capacity could be very close to the A310’s. And, as usual, the extra weight could be spent on more fuel instead of fuselage length, to create a sub-variant of the 757-200 for a special niche of long but very, very thin routes. Boeing is looking at that, too. The 757-300 would need more thrust. If Boeing thought the stretched 757 had a big future, it might go for a new engine developed for the A340-400 and A310 Lite. Otherwise Rolls would just pump up the juice on the 535. Almost no one has bought Pratt-powered 757s in years.

Prospects

None of these aircraft, except the new 747s and A340s, seems likely to set the airliner market on fire. One says this cautiously, because the 737-300 proved (beyond Boeing’s wildest dreams) that a warmed-over product can enjoy far more success than the original model. But if no one wants a 200 seat airliner, is there really anything one can do to an A310 or 757 to generate a market? Perhaps the best that can be said is that it costs little to adapt an existing model, and if that creates a few more sales then it’s well worth the trouble. The A330’s position is extremely interesting. It has been losing against the 777 lately and Airbus is giving it a new market, which the 777 is chasing it into. Both of them might be disappointed, though: that market is also very quiet at the moment. The super long range 777-100 does seem to be the 747SP of the late 1990s. The SP was a short-lived niche model, whose economics only appealed while it alone offered enormous range. And as mentioned above, the 777-100 also has a twin’s disadvantage of excessive installed thrust. Our bet is that airlines already committed to the 777 will buy the -100 but that others will like the A340-8000. And what fate awaits the MD-11? Deliveries are down to only about a dozen a year and Douglas had talked about a temporary halt in production for a time. Its three engine configuration does not seem to appeal. (And it has to be admitted that everything these days is a twin, except for the ultra-long range A340 and the 747, which really have to have four engines.) MD-11 firm sales have reached only about 160 and, although Douglas has always put its bid in for airline orders, it has only recently sold the aircraft to Saudia as a freighter. In recent months Douglas has been talking of new MD-11 variants to boost flagging sales and the company’s position as a widebody airliner manufacturer. Two variants have been proposed. One would be an ultra long range competitor to the A340-8000 with a small stretch for 20 extra seats. The other would be a stretched medium to long range 747 replacement/777-300 competitor with a 305t MTOW and a 70m length. Both would feature a new wing. Earlier talk of MD-11 twin variants seems to have quietened down.