Next passenger aircraft in the works?

[MattRat]

So, I've watched a lot of discussion on YouTube about possible PAX aircraft in the works, mainly for Boeing and Airbus as those are the big 2.

Suggestions I've heard are things like a re-engined Boeing 767, the Airbus A322, the Boeing NMA, extensions of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350 platform, and twin engined Jumbo Jets.

As there seems to be much speculation, I thought I'd put it to this forum to share their own ideas, as well as explanations as to why they think their idea will happen. So, what does everyone think?

 

[birchesgreen]

I don't get the talk of a twin engined "Jumbo", surely thats a 777X?

Newest airliner is the Comac C919, it'll be interesting to see that develop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There really needs (and I suspect Boeing knows it) to be a 737 replacement based on the 787 technology. But who knows how far along they are with it, and the 737 Max has pushed a 1960s design on a bit further.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't get the talk of a twin engined "Jumbo", surely thats a 777X?

Newest airliner is the Comac C919, it'll be interesting to see that develop.

Useful videos on both these on the Mentour Now channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/MentourNow/videos

He suggests the point of the twin-engine Jumbo would be as an A380 replacement - mainly for Emirates but if it can be based on an existing airframe with only two engines then the cost might be low enough for others to be interested too. Rolls-Royce is apparently developing an engine that's big enough for this application, and incidentally too big for anything else.

He also suggests that the C919 is likely to have higher running costs than the Boeing/Airbus competition, so probably won't sell many outside China.

 

[birchesgreen]

C919 might sell outside China though probably SE Asia mostly. Domestic demand will suffice for them in the short to medium term though.

I don't think anyone will build a new airliner for just one customer anymore, not with the costs of such programmes. I'd be very surprised if we see anything Jumbo or A380 sized anymore, though the 777X isn't that far off anyway.

re: 737, it uses part of the 707 fuselage still so can be considered even 50s technology in some ways! Boeing dropped the ball with a replacement, but i don't think we'll see one now until there is a paradigm shift in technology.

Though these things can always be hard to predict. I was looking through my mid 80s Salamander book on Commercial Aviation a few days ago, there were several propfan projects which were thought to be the future. Whatever happened to them?!

 

[RichJF]

So, I've watched a lot of discussion on YouTube about possible PAX aircraft in the works, mainly for Boeing and Airbus as those are the big 2.

Suggestions I've heard are things like a re-engined Boeing 767, the Airbus A322, the Boeing NMA, extensions of the Boeing 777X and Airbus A350 platform, and twin engined Jumbo Jets.

As there seems to be much speculation, I thought I'd put it to this forum to share their own ideas, as well as explanations as to why they think their idea will happen. So, what does everyone think?

If you're watching the channel I think you are, all those videos are based purely out of speculation & gut instinct rather than genuine inside information.

 

[MattRat]

If you're watching the channel I think you are, all those videos are based purely out of speculation & gut instinct rather than genuine inside information.

It's probably in the collection of channels I watch. But I know information may not be accurate. That's why I came to the forum, to get more information.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There really needs (and I suspect Boeing knows it) to be a 737 replacement based on the 787 technology. But who knows how far along they are with it, and the 737 Max has pushed a 1960s design on a bit further.

In the latest Air Britain News, it is stated that Boeing has currently ceased all development of new designs and the next one is expected in the 2030s which means the design and development work won't even start until near the end of this decade. That basically came from an official Boeing statement; if I remember I'll look tonight and edit this post with the exact wording.

 

[Benjwri]

There really needs (and I suspect Boeing knows it) to be a 737 replacement based on the 787 technology. But who knows how far along they are with it, and the 737 Max has pushed a 1960s design on a bit further.

I would assume Boeing had to give assurances to airlines that ordered the MAX that there wouldn't be a successor for a good few years, otherwise they just wouldn't have bought it.

 

[DanNCL]

Aeroflot I could see ordering the C919, now that the Irkut MC21 is effectively stalled in development.

I think Western airlines will avoid it for fears of what would happen to product support should Comac be sanctioned for whatever reason, like Huawei was.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I wonder if, in 20 years or so when the A380 and 747-8 (certainly the 747-400, surely) have stopped flying with passenger airlines - and that's not an unrealistic timescale considering Air France, Malaysian Airlines, Lufthansa, Emirates (by 2035, so more distantly than the others), Korean Air, Thai Airways, Asiana Airlines, Qatar Airways (returning soon but ultimately planned to be withdrawn in next few years), Etihad Airways and China Southern have all either withdrawn or laid out plans to withdraw their A380 aircraft, and Virgin Atlantic along with many others cancelled their orders before production then closed - the novelty of flying a double-decker plane will be confined to the past.

Certainly many airlines consider the A380 too heavy and big and expensive, and seem to prefer the A350.

To think that young children may go "What? There were double-decker planes like there are double-decker buses?"

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't it the case with the 747 that it was only really intended to be something a bit more like the 777-300ER (the large long haul aircraft of choice these days, and very nice it is too) but that it got that "pod" on top so cargo aircraft could have a fully open nose door without the cockpit getting in the way? So really the A380 was the only true double decker?

Double decker aircraft generally hit the same issues as double decker trains - even the A380 does to an extent - namely that the optimum shape for a pressure vessel is a cylinder (usually a slightly squashed one, but I believe the 777 is very close to actually round), and the maximum width (which means most seats across) is found in the middle of that. Thus upstairs is always going to be a bit narrow. While if you put downstairs a bit lower down in the cylinder, it's narrow and impinges on valuable cargo space.

 

[MattRat]

I wonder if, in 20 years or so when the A380 and 747-8 (certainly the 747-400, surely) have stopped flying with passenger airlines - and that's not an unrealistic timescale considering Air France, Malaysian Airlines, Lufthansa, Emirates (by 2035, so more distantly than the others), Korean Air, Thai Airways, Asiana Airlines, Qatar Airways (returning soon but ultimately planned to be withdrawn in next few years), Etihad Airways and China Southern have all either withdrawn or laid out plans to withdraw their A380 aircraft, and Virgin Atlantic along with many others cancelled their orders before production then closed - the novelty of flying a double-decker plane will be confined to the past.

Certainly many airlines consider the A380 too heavy and big and expensive, and seem to prefer the A350.

To think that young children may go "What? There were double-decker planes like there are double-decker buses?"

I think the issues lie with the A380, not double deckers necessarily. Of course there are engineering problems that have to be overcome, but the A380 was poorly designed. Airlines had to work around it instead of the other way around. The 747 used normal infrastructure. If Airbus had built a plane that could simply slot into where the 747 sat, instead of being too big and requiring new equipment and rules, then it wouldn't have been as big of a flop.

It really was more of a vanity project than a 747 rival, and I think the only reason airlines bought it was they are also prey to vanity projects, and wanted one as their flagship, rather than a smaller 747 (size measuring contest).

Boeing, despite their issues, still seem to understand the limitations of airports and airlines, and made sure the 777X worked around airlines instead of airlines having to work around it like the A380.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

In the latest Air Britain News, it is stated that Boeing has currently ceased all development of new designs and the next one is expected in the 2030s which means the design and development work won't even start until near the end of this decade. That basically came from an official Boeing statement; if I remember I'll look tonight and edit this post with the exact wording.

As a number of other posts have been made, I'll reply to myself instead so it's visible...

The item states that:

"Calhoun's decision to drop all-new aircraft development effectively kills the 767-300ERF replacement currently under development and also places the fate of the 787F in jeopardy."

...and further down:

"Boeing will not deliver its next all-new commercial jet to airlines until the mid 2030s, implying that no such design will be launched for development until late this decade."

...which means it's a bit of analysis but based directly on statements put out by Boeing, so it's fairly certain that nothing new will emerge from them for at least a decade from now.

 

[MattRat]

As a number of other posts have been made, I'll reply to myself instead so it's visible...

The item states that:

"Calhoun's decision to drop all-new aircraft development effectively kills the 767-300ERF replacement currently under development and also places the fate of the 787F in jeopardy."

...and further down:

"Boeing will not deliver its next all-new commercial jet to airlines until the mid 2030s, implying that no such design will be launched for development until late this decade."

...which means it's a bit of analysis but based directly on statements put out by Boeing, so it's fairly certain that nothing new will emerge from them for at least a decade from now.

See this is the part that confuses me. All-new aircraft. See, maybe I'm crazy, but all-new means a new airframe, not a modified old airframe.

And then to add further confusion, the leading theory (although possibly wrong), was that the new 767F would be based on the old one. However, if that's the case, why is that project fully cancelled while the other modified aircraft, the 787F, is 'only' in jeopardy, and not fully canned?

Am I missing something? Because if I'm not there might be hope for a modified aircraft of some type, especially when a market gap does exist (The A321XLR only barely squeaks into it).

 

[DanNCL]

The A380 is an odd one. Many airlines haven't managed to make the A380 work for them, see the likes of Air France and Etihad retiring them early. Yet two airlines have seemingly managed to make it work for them - Emirates clearly consider the type to be viable otherwise they wouldn't have anywhere near the number of them that they have, and British Airways are investing in a refurbishment for their A380s this year and are flying them to destinations that they only flew smaller aircraft to pre covid.

It's very difficult to predict what'll be the norm for aircraft in 20 years time, as a lot could change for the aviation industry in that time, but on the other hand there might not be much change at all. Take the difference between 1940s and 1960s airliners vs the difference between 2000s and 2020s airliners as an example. And what might now seem likely to happen could always end up being scrapped - in the 1960s it was thought that supersonic travel was they way forward, yet in the Western world Concorde was the only type actually built, only two airlines flew it, and the last one was retired 20 years ago with only sub-sonic airliners operating ever since.

Boeing's strategy seems to be making newer versions of their existing 7x7 designs. See for example the 737 MAX and the 777X. I've heard several industry insiders suggest that Boeing are working on a 757 MAX too to compete with the A321 NEO - the 757 hasn't been built for 18 years so that's quite a revival if they do go for a 757 MAX as has been suggested rather than an all new design, but a 757 MAX would be much cheaper to design.

I wonder if, in 20 years or so when the A380 and 747-8 (certainly the 747-400, surely) have stopped flying with passenger airlines - and that's not an unrealistic timescale considering Air France, Malaysian Airlines, Lufthansa, Emirates (by 2035, so more distantly than the others), Korean Air, Thai Airways, Asiana Airlines, Qatar Airways (returning soon but ultimately planned to be withdrawn in next few years), Etihad Airways and China Southern have all either withdrawn or laid out plans to withdraw their A380 aircraft, and Virgin Atlantic along with many others cancelled their orders before production then closed - the novelty of flying a double-decker plane will be confined to the past.

The 747-400 will still be flying in 20 years, albeit not with mainstream passengers airlines. Military and Cargo operators still have 737s and 747s built in the 1970s flying, and North Korea's Air Koryo is still flying some Soviet aircraft from the same era in passenger service.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the issues lie with the A380, not double deckers necessarily. Of course there are engineering problems that have to be overcome, but the A380 was poorly designed. Airlines had to work around it instead of the other way around. The 747 used normal infrastructure. If Airbus had built a plane that could simply slot into where the 747 sat, instead of being too big and requiring new equipment and rules, then it wouldn't have been as big of a flop.

I'm not sure I agree.

The A380 needed some infrastructure works but not much, and the work wasn't particularly expensive. A lot of it was things like airbridges.

The A380 was designed for hub-to-hub work in slot constricted airports. A big people mover. It succeeds where it is used for this. It's why Emirates have succeeded with it, because of Dubai's excellent location as a global hub. Away from this it was unsuitable, and airlines have also generally moved towards smaller planes but more frequently.

ETOPS rules changes got rid of the other selling point of four-engine aircraft.

It's fair to say the 747-8 was a flop too, certainly in the passenger variant, for the same reasons.

 

[dosxuk]

The biggest problem with the A380 was allowing one customer to dominate the sales like Emirates did, for a product which only had one purpose. Airlines wishing to compete with Emirates found themselves unable to buy the aircraft at the same prices, and therefore unable to compete effectively on the same routes - almost all then decided to concentrate on smaller aircraft and not look at the hub-hub routes the A380 excels at.

I fully expect similar size aircraft to come back into fashion in the future, as the larger the aircraft the more efficient it becomes at moving individual people / items of freight, and efficiency = environmentally friendly. 1x A380 is already better than 10x A320 on a daily route.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

See this is the part that confuses me. All-new aircraft. See, maybe I'm crazy, but all-new means a new airframe, not a modified old airframe.

And then to add further confusion, the leading theory (although possibly wrong), was that the new 767F would be based on the old one. However, if that's the case, why is that project fully cancelled while the other modified aircraft, the 787F, is 'only' in jeopardy, and not fully canned?

Am I missing something? Because if I'm not there might be hope for a modified aircraft of some type, especially when a market gap does exist (The A321XLR only barely squeaks into it).

It said 767F replacement, therefore an all-new design, not a version of the 767.

 

[MattRat]

It said 767F replacement, therefore an all-new design, not a version of the 767.

I was going off the speculation about it, but what you say does make sense. However, since the 787F isn't an all-new design, why is it in jeopardy? Plus, if it ends up being built still, that opens the door to other modified airframes.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm not sure, but I wonder if the 787F requires more design work than a straight conversion because of the way the aircraft is constructed?

 

[Ted633]

I'm not sure, but I wonder if the 787F requires more design work than a straight conversion because of the way the aircraft is constructed?

Boeing say they are looking at doing a 787F variant, but haven't announced anything yet. The 767 can't go on forever.
I can't see there being an issue with manufacturing brand new 787 freighters, however conversions from existing pax aircraft could be awkward as it's all carbon fibre. Not sure if anything like that has ever been done.

The A380 is an odd one. Many airlines haven't managed to make the A380 work for them, see the likes of Air France and Etihad retiring them early. Yet two airlines have seemingly managed to make it work for them - Emirates clearly consider the type to be viable otherwise they wouldn't have anywhere near the number of them that they have, and British Airways are investing in a refurbishment for their A380s this year and are flying them to destinations that they only flew smaller aircraft to pre covid.

Is this still the case? Aware they are currently focusing on the 777 fleet and moving onto the 787-8 after.

 

[DanNCL]

Is this still the case? Aware they are currently focusing on the 777 fleet and moving onto the 787-8 after.

Yes, the A380s are getting a refurbishment in the next 12-18 months.

 

[birchesgreen]

Here is something of interest:

New aircraft design from NASA and Boeing could benefit passengers in the 2030s

NASA and Boeing will work together on the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project to build, test and fly a single-aisle aircraft that reduces emissions, according to an announcement from the agency on Wednesday.

edition.cnn.com

The design that NASA and Boeing are working on could reduce fuel consumption and emissions by up to 30% compared with today's most efficient aircraft, according to the agency.

It's called the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing concept, which relies on elongated, thin wings stabilized by diagonal struts that connect the wings to the aircraft. The design's shape creates less drag, which means burning less fuel.

The Sustainable Flight Demonstrator will also incorporate other green aviation technologies.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Ahh... interesting... that could explain the sudden halt on conventional design development from Boeing that we were talking about a few posts up the thread couldn't it?

 

[najaB]

Certainly many airlines consider the A380 too heavy and big and expensive, and seem to prefer the A350.

If anything, it's too small. The wing and landing gear were designed with the -900 in mind and are oversized.

 

[Snow1964]

The problem is now that new aircraft design and certification is so expensive that needs to be a lot of potential orders.

Under 100 seats, Embraer seems to be a todays choice
Around 100-170 seats got A220 series (which Airbus bought from Bombardier), and is a newish plane, so not needing a replacement soon
160-240 seats (in high density) have the Airbus A320, A321 neo and Boeing 737 max, both updates of old planes. Can even get some longer range versions, and some of these have flat beds in business class

Then move onto the wide body, twin aisle planes.
Airbus is still making variants of A330, Boeing is selling 787, depending on seat configuration and how many premium seats tends to cover anything from 250-350 seats.

Airbus has relatively new A350 (available in 3 sizes), and Boeing should have B777X (supposed to be in service from 2020 at time they started taking orders in 2013, but delayed until at least 2025). These two are covering bigger end of market for now, although not as big as A380

Realistically only two gaps to be filled, and if they could generate enough volume to justify a new type without stealing sales from another model is debatable. One is effectively a smaller wide body (B767 replacement), and other is a replacement for A380, for bulk flows on slot restricted airports, but really that needs new generation engines.

Personally I see next plane as one with an oval, rather than round fuselage cross section, maximum carrying capacity but using lowest amount of fuel. Will continue to update existing designs. But I don't see anything completely new being commenced in next 5 years, and probably not in service until at least 2035

 

[Strathclyder]

ETOPS rules changes got rid of the other selling point of four-engine aircraft.

The same rules also doomed widebody tri-jets for much the same reasons as quad-jets, though since the former had a much smaller market share to begin with, it's little wonder they disappeared from mainstream airlines fleets first (KLM being the last major holdout with their MD-11s).

The 747-400 will still be flying in 20 years, albeit not with mainstream passengers airlines. Military and Cargo operators still have 737s and 747s built in the 1970s flying, and North Korea's Air Koryo is still flying some Soviet aircraft from the same era in passenger service.

747-400s will gradually go the same way the likes of the 727, DC-10, MD-11 & the eariler 747 variants (100/200/300/SP) have gone as the years go on: living out the rest of their careers with cargo operators or in military/scientific/research roles (the last airworthy L-1011 is used as a mothership for the Pegasus launch vehicles for example). It was much the same for the earliest of the successful jetliners (707, DC-8 etc) once their mainstream service was finished.

 

[Speed43125]

The A380 is an odd one. Many airlines haven't managed to make the A380 work for them, see the likes of Air France and Etihad retiring them early. Yet two airlines have seemingly managed to make it work for them - Emirates clearly consider the type to be viable otherwise they wouldn't have anywhere near the number of them that they have, and British Airways are investing in a refurbishment for their A380s this year and are flying them to destinations that they only flew smaller aircraft to pre covid.

It's very difficult to predict what'll be the norm for aircraft in 20 years time, as a lot could change for the aviation industry in that time, but on the other hand there might not be much change at all. Take the difference between 1940s and 1960s airliners vs the difference between 2000s and 2020s airliners as an example. And what might now seem likely to happen could always end up being scrapped - in the 1960s it was thought that supersonic travel was they way forward, yet in the Western world Concorde was the only type actually built, only two airlines flew it, and the last one was retired 20 years ago with only sub-sonic airliners operating ever since.

Boeing's strategy seems to be making newer versions of their existing 7x7 designs. See for example the 737 MAX and the 777X. I've heard several industry insiders suggest that Boeing are working on a 757 MAX too to compete with the A321 NEO - the 757 hasn't been built for 18 years so that's quite a revival if they do go for a 757 MAX as has been suggested rather than an all new design, but a 757 MAX would be much cheaper to design.


The 747-400 will still be flying in 20 years, albeit not with mainstream passengers airlines. Military and Cargo operators still have 737s and 747s built in the 1970s flying, and North Korea's Air Koryo is still flying some Soviet aircraft from the same era in passenger service.

British Airways is an odd one, at one point (actually for roughly 2 decades) they had over 50 747-400s. The replacement with smaller 787s and A350s in an airport as slot-constrained as Heathrow* may have been made on the understanding of a 3rd runway being built, but clearly wouldn't be viable if they stayed in a like for like market position. The A380 is thus in its niche and working as per the design brief for them.

Wasn't LHR at one time the airport with the second highest or even highest A380 movements anywhere? Operators with only a handful of A380s preferring to work them, sometimes exclusively, to Heathrow. MAS for instance left them working to LHR longer than anywhere in the Americas or Paris as their (latterly only) other A380 destination.

Somewhere like CDG doesn't have anywhere near the same constraints (Easyjet can get slots to fly in for one!) and AF therefore can take advantage of lower per passenger costs with modern composite aircraft.


*and people wonder why flying Dash 8s in may not have been the wisest move...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wasn't LHR at one time the airport with the second highest or even highest A380 movements anywhere?

I'd guess second after Dubai - and it probably is thus right now; there's quite a lot in and out daily at the moment.