Search
British activities experiencing difficulties 7This comfortable world where we were only two is almost goneAt the national level there are the same boundariesThe decision however did not unanimously the dryThe recovery is less vigorous than expected In addition we have kept our Parisian storesIn short a banal pyramid of Ponzi schemefrBlack tide Spotlight on disaster on lesechosAt the time the seat employed 25 employeesBut the luck will smile to Pierre OmidyarTouch the A320 is not easy to take a decision. First because the device sells very much. The advance, it is therefore the risk of cutting the Horn of abundance, when Airbus should count with two other expensive programs: the A350 and A400M. On the other hand, a subsidiary of EADS cannot ignore environmental pressures, nor those of the old customers of the aircraft. Among them, Air France and Lufthansa have old fleets that they would replace it with much less greedy A320 fuel. Especially when it comes to resist low-cost companies, equipped with newer models. The solution The simplest to short term, and less expensive, is to equip the aircraft with a new engine.
Two competing projects
Two competing projects exist, promising each a gain of 15 of consumption by 2015 at the latest. On the one hand, the Leap-X, an evolution of the Snecma - General Electric tandem, CFM engine which team an A320 on two in the world and which has been selected by Comac for his future C919 Chinese. Undoubtedly, a very nice reference. On the other, Pratt & Whitney defends its turbofan concept to reducer ("WGF" in English), selected by Bombardier for its future C-Series, already sold to Lufthansa. Not bad either.
Airbus has always opted for the double source policy. The two engine manufacturers have good hopes to be successful. This does not preclude criticized each other publicly. "Contrary to the Leap-X ..., the WGF is a technology for the future", recently declared as to the "Echos" David Hess, President of P & w. nose to live, Snecma officials responded week last that the MTG "does not gain in performance compared to the Leap-X and that the latter presents a lower risk and cost less to maintain." The manufacturer's engineers will decide.
Operating costs
The problem is that a new engine is not necessarily enough to settle for airlines seeking to reduce their operating costs in a not too distant future. Airbus could be tempted to engage in more important developments of the A320, incorporating, in addition to a new system of propulsion, a few elements in composite materials, or even a more aerodynamic wing. For a delivery in 10 years maximum. As its 737 is oldest design, Boeing leaves to hear elsewhere might opt for this approach. The apparatus being shorter on legs, install a new engine means important changes of structure. All go beyond a re-engining in these conditions.
Is the third track: fully review the design of the next generation. But this must be that all technology failure, those that would fall to at least one quarter the consumption of fuel over the current generation, are available. Impossible before 2025, estimated Snecma, which has a motor project in boxes called "Open Rotor". "Technologies are missing for a new aircraft," confirms Eric Bernardini, Alix Partners as an associate.
And to complicate matters a bit more equation, Airbus must consider banks and hirers who were of many relatively young A320 locked in their balance sheets. If a new version to see the day in 10 years, the residual value of these devices could take a shot.
