Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Airbus thinks there is no technology available yet for a better aircraft than A320neo
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) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
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.
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.
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.
Aircraft manufactures have no say in airline interiors other than the dimensions of the area and structure
"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
What does an avionics improvement have to do with the economics of a clean sheet airframe design?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I also read the article, and I think that you have an unhealthy animosity towards Airbus.
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.