Airbus Naming Convention

[Robert Sutherland]

I have wondered this for a while, and I can't find an answer on the web about it, so here goes. 

Airbus have named their planes chronologically (with the exception of the A380!), and typically derivatives of those models are then named according to size. 

So you have the A330, with the smaller model being the -200, and then bigger model the -300 (or in the NEO's case, the A330-800 and A330-900!)

You have the A340, with the smaller model being the -300, then the mid-sized being the -500, and the largest being the 600. 

You have the A350, with the smaller model being the -900, and the larger being the -1000. 

But when it comes to the A320, they've amended the name of the plane. 

Small - A318. 
Medium - A319. 
Large - A320.
Extra Large - A321. 

Why? Why didn't they name them all the A320, then add derivatives according to the size? So A320-100 being the A318? A320-200 being the A319? A320-300 being the Large?

It's just something that's bugged me  

[Sabine Meier]

You forgot the A340-200 and -400.

also you have to consider that with the a320 family the -200 indicates the EIS2 system. Then you have the engine specific numbers that are added which also indicates if it is a neo or not in the -200 series.

when they created the A320: the first one was the A320-100 series. but the A320 has always been the odd one out.

[Robert Sutherland]

14 minutes ago, Koen Meier said:

You forgot the A340-200 and -400.

also you have to consider that with the a320 family the -200 indicates the EIS2 system. Then you have the engine specific numbers that are added which also indicates if it is a neo or not in the -200 series.

when they created the A320: the first one was the A320-100 series. but the A320 has always been the odd one out.

Ah yes, I did forget those two A340 derivatives! 

It's just interesting. There doesn't seem to really be an explanation of it. 

[Riccardo Masia]

Because you have a lot of variety in the A320 series that you do not have in the other aircraft I suppose? If you just go to the A320 page you can see how many models you have.

[Kevin Hall]

13 hours ago, Koen Meier said:

also you have to consider that with the a320 family the -200 indicates the EIS2 system.

Not true, there were many A320-200 aircraft produced with the EIS1 system, so that is not the differentiator. The A320-200 had higher MTOW and wing tip fences compared to the original A320-100, of which very few were built.

I suspect the real reason is that Airbus changed their naming convention for wide bodies. When the stretched A320 was launched it got the name A321, rather then A320-300. the shortened version then naturally became the A319. However when the wide body A330 and A340 were being developed they had different versions in mind from the outset and gave them different series numbers, as Boeing does. But it made no sense to go back and renumber the A320 family in a similar fashion.

[Sven Sappa]

On 3/4/2020 at 12:57 AM, Kevin Hall said:

Not true, there were many A320-200 aircraft produced with the EIS1 system, so that is not the differentiator. The A320-200 had higher MTOW and wing tip fences compared to the original A320-100, of which very few were built.

[...]

This and the second to- and last digit stands for the engine type/customer specific needs, List can be found here.

So naming the whole A320 family -100,-200,-300 etc. would only have caused more clutter with the variant names than there is already, so I guess that's the reason.

Also does anyone know if there are still A320-100s in service with any airline?

[Sabine Meier]

15 minutes ago, Sven Sappa said:

This and the second to- and last digit stands for the engine type/customer specific needs, List can be found here.

So naming the whole A320 family -100,-200,-300 etc. would only have caused more clutter with the variant names than there is already, so I guess that's the reason.

Also does anyone know if there are still -100s in service with any airline?

Lufthansa has some a321-100 I think.

[Sven Sappa]

3 minutes ago, Koen Meier said:

Lufthansa has some a321-100 I think.

That's right but I meant A320-100, my bad.  

[Felipe Widmano]

No, they have all been retired from service, with most of them scrapped by now. I think the last one to join the Coca-Cola can club was a British Airways -100 in 2008.

[Kevin Hall]

15 hours ago, Sven Sappa said:

o naming the whole A320 family -100,-200,-300 etc. would only have caused more clutter with the variant names than there is already, so I guess that's the reason.

Renaming it would be a problem, but if there was a new short haul family of aircraft it would probably follow the current series numbering convention, as per the A330. Note, the second and third digit numbering system applies to all Airbus aircraft, right back to the A300.

[Søren Dissing]

18 hours ago, Kevin Hall said:

... , but if there was a new short haul family of aircraft it would probably follow the current series numbering convention, ...

There is - and it does: A220-100 and A220-300

[Sven Sappa]

What I also find interesting is that the sharklet's version of the A320 family's IATA code starts with 32 (even for the A318/19, why ever the hell anyone would order a A318 w/ SL anyway)

• 32C - Airbus A318 (with Sharklets)
• 32D - Airbus A319 (with Sharklets)
• 32A - Airbus A320 (with Sharklets)
• 32B - Airbus A321 (with Sharklets) 

Kinda interesting that they have used that naming convention for the IATA codes. The non-sharklet version's IATA is as usual. 

So for example a A319 with SL would be "32D" but without the sharklet would be considered a "319".

Just wanted to share that here since I found it quite interesting they opted for discussed naming in this regard. Source of IATA codes here.