The manufacturer has promised a 15% improvement NEO vs. CEO. I believe there is a significant difference in the order of 30-50% (Wiki- for this discussion, Wiki is appropriate. It’s not a research paper) improvement in performance between a 747-100 vs. a 747-400 and 737-200 vs. a 737-700. IMO, the 15% promised by Airbus is not enough to make up for the CEO’s current lack of performance. If Airbus promised a 30-50% improvement, then I think the airplane would comfortably do what HA wants.

Just to clarify, I am not a Boeing vs. Airbus guy. I have more time in Airbii than any other make. My A320 type and time in type saved my career. I know that Boeing makes fine airplanes as well.

I am not bashing HA or their decision.

I can see HA's predicament. There are no ideally suitable aircraft for their needs. Boeing no longer makes the 757 and their next bigger offering is too big. I do not believe that current B737-700/800/900 would be ideal for HA’s missions either. The MAX hasn't been fully defined yet- It is expected to be competition for the A321 NEO. However, the Max 9 will most likely share the same lack of performance as the A321 NEO. As I said in a earlier post, maybe a mix of all three variants or at least a few A320 NEOs and a majority A321 NEOs would have a provided a hedge for performance critical airfields and/or routes.

Interestingly, Air Asia already has their first A320 CEO with sharklets. The sharklets allow for a 4% less fuel burn (Airbus.com). The rest of the the savings will be from new engines I guess.

I wish nothing but the best for HA. I just wanted to state my opinions on a forum that I believe promotes an open exchange of ideas. I know it can be tricky to gauge tone on a forum, but maybe some lightening-up is in order.