astuteman
Posts: 6729
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:31 am

bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
2175301 wrote:


OR: That Boeing is working real hard at making something work that Airbus cannot immediately effectively respond to.


That sounds almost the same as what I said.

I think this comes down to manufacturing methods. All composite barrel with wide wings; where the cost to assemble the composite barrels is less than the AL frame experience that Airbus has.


First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.

Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.


I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.


There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.
Same goes for the ALM "drug-like rush" that I see on here - as if Boeing are doing something that Airbus aren't, or can't.
I suspect a reasonably thorough search will show that Boeing are focussing their ALM efforts on the 787 whist Airbus have prioritised the A320 series.

The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.
The 350 is not as far down the learning curve. But it will be. And it will also ramp up to much higher levels
The 330NEO is jammed in the process of trying to ramp up to a level half that of the 787 whilst experiencing significant delays to engine availability. hence there is a transient window in which it is vulnerable to attack from the 787.

Which is why we're currently seeing Airbus backing off from the accusation of "dumping" A330NEO's in the USA specifically (not elsewhere) as the 330NEO is not currently at its cheapest.
But can readily sell A320NEO's in the USA as their cost base is low enough as that is where they have focussed their cost efforts. (By my calcs the 320 series must be making upwards of 16%-17% margin at the moment, possibly more when the engine issues work themselves out).
And it is established enough, to make a "dumping" attack by Boeing a waste of money. It is just not vulnerable like the A330

There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.
What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.
In DFM, in the application of ALM, in squeezing the supply chain, in smoothing the internal production flow, and in maximising the planned output.
None of those is what Michael porter would term a "sustainable competitive advantage" though
I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....

On a final note I'm astonished to learn on here that $4Bn cashflow per year (and likely to rise) is not enough for Airbus to indulge in an all-new response to MOM.
By my calculations they have the neck end of $30Bn to play with over a 7 year development period.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds
 
bigjku
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:09 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
bigjku wrote:
I think the rewing thing is a bit over simplified here. That won’t be a quick and easy project. Moreover they will need to find delivery slots for it and right now that is a big problem for what, 4-5 years? How far in advance of a new aircraft could this really be delivered? Do you want to push rates to 80 a month to try and open up spots to do this sooner rather than later? Otherwise you are likely just doing conversions because almost all those slots are spoken for.

Building MOMs at a high pace must certainly much easier, if today A320 production facilities are the base for the ramp up compared with building up everything from scratch for the new Boeing aircraft? Both on a timeline and even much more regarding the size of the investment. Boeing faces another 30 billion investment until factories will pump out 797s at 787-like rates...

B.t.w. IMHO PlanesNTrains wrote some of the best posts on this page of the thread. It is like it is...


Never said a new plane would be easier. Just that to deliver planes with a new wing too much before MoM would require either a rate increase or conversions both of which carry some risk.

Will Boeing have to spend lots of money to spin up new production? Sure. But there are long range perks to that. You get more experience and volume on your composites which progresses you forward towards what seems to be the future of airplane construction. You get to put in place new avionics and systems that you can’t really do on a derivative as well.

It also seems as if it stacks further risk for Airbus if and when we reach the point that aluminum airplanes simply aren’t wanted anymore. I think we can mostly agree that eventually the narrowbody fight will be one between composite airplanes.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:07 pm

astuteman wrote:
bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

That sounds almost the same as what I said.



First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.

Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.


I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.


There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.
Same goes for the ALM "drug-like rush" that I see on here - as if Boeing are doing something that Airbus aren't, or can't.
I suspect a reasonably thorough search will show that Boeing are focussing their ALM efforts on the 787 whist Airbus have prioritised the A320 series.

The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.
The 350 is not as far down the learning curve. But it will be. And it will also ramp up to much higher levels
The 330NEO is jammed in the process of trying to ramp up to a level half that of the 787 whilst experiencing significant delays to engine availability. hence there is a transient window in which it is vulnerable to attack from the 787.

Which is why we're currently seeing Airbus backing off from the accusation of "dumping" A330NEO's in the USA specifically (not elsewhere) as the 330NEO is not currently at its cheapest.
But can readily sell A320NEO's in the USA as their cost base is low enough as that is where they have focussed their cost efforts. (By my calcs the 320 series must be making upwards of 16%-17% margin at the moment, possibly more when the engine issues work themselves out).
And it is established enough, to make a "dumping" attack by Boeing a waste of money. It is just not vulnerable like the A330

There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.
What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.
In DFM, in the application of ALM, in squeezing the supply chain, in smoothing the internal production flow, and in maximising the planned output.
None of those is what Michael porter would term a "sustainable competitive advantage" though
I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....

On a final note I'm astonished to learn on here that $4Bn cashflow per year (and likely to rise) is not enough for Airbus to indulge in an all-new response to MOM.
By my calculations they have the neck end of $30Bn to play with over a 7 year development period.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds


Agreed. On a strategic level, regardless of production technology, longer term it could be a real bonus to have aircraft segments produced in a way they can quickly, reliably be set up everywhere. Real mature production technology. It reduces supply chain risks, enormously simplifies logistics and enables you to remain competitive over longer periods. It seems Boeing is taking this in consideration with the NMA. Maybe you don't want to put the future of your company into the hands of 1 mandrel supplier.

If it isn't moonshot technology, probably the product life cycle will be shorter. But that's not a real problem in ROI comes faster and development risks are lower. Maybe Boeing is looking for a 15 years production life span of the NMA, not 40.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:22 pm

astuteman wrote:
bigjku wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:

That sounds almost the same as what I said.



First, 787 and A350 experience has already shown that composite barrel is not significantly cheaper than large integrated composite panels - and that both are still way more expensive than aluminium.

Second, this doesn't really tally with the observed mission creep. If the delay was them knuckling down on some manufacturing methods then I would expect the airframe itself to be quite well defined already. All the discussion in this thread is about how that (still) isn't the case.


I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.


There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.
Same goes for the ALM "drug-like rush" that I see on here - as if Boeing are doing something that Airbus aren't, or can't.
I suspect a reasonably thorough search will show that Boeing are focussing their ALM efforts on the 787 whist Airbus have prioritised the A320 series.

The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.
The 350 is not as far down the learning curve. But it will be. And it will also ramp up to much higher levels
The 330NEO is jammed in the process of trying to ramp up to a level half that of the 787 whilst experiencing significant delays to engine availability. hence there is a transient window in which it is vulnerable to attack from the 787.

Which is why we're currently seeing Airbus backing off from the accusation of "dumping" A330NEO's in the USA specifically (not elsewhere) as the 330NEO is not currently at its cheapest.
But can readily sell A320NEO's in the USA as their cost base is low enough as that is where they have focussed their cost efforts. (By my calcs the 320 series must be making upwards of 16%-17% margin at the moment, possibly more when the engine issues work themselves out).
And it is established enough, to make a "dumping" attack by Boeing a waste of money. It is just not vulnerable like the A330

There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.
What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.
In DFM, in the application of ALM, in squeezing the supply chain, in smoothing the internal production flow, and in maximising the planned output.
None of those is what Michael porter would term a "sustainable competitive advantage" though
I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....

On a final note I'm astonished to learn on here that $4Bn cashflow per year (and likely to rise) is not enough for Airbus to indulge in an all-new response to MOM.
By my calculations they have the neck end of $30Bn to play with over a 7 year development period.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds

I don’t think anyone here truly believes that Airbus couldn’t afford to build an all new MOM response if they wanted to. I do think there are some people here who truly think Boeing Commercial is on the verge of going bankrupt and think that if Airbus does a quick response (ie A320 rewing) and hurts MOM profitability that Boeing will somehow be out of the game (and will trought out 787 deferred production costs without understanding them, A320 vs 737 numbers, the C series, and A350 vs 777X, etc). The MOM isn’t a moon shot last chance program for Boeing.

I think it is clear, however, that Airbus is not particularly keen on building an all new response, as Airbus would have to forego any cost and time to market advantage, and the market for two profitable all new planes in this segment is unclear.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2652
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:30 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.


I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15409
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:33 pm

Polot wrote:
the market for two profitable all new planes in this segment is unclear.


The market for one profitable all-new plane in this segment is still unclear.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.


I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.


That would be a waste of the A330 completion center they openend half a year ago. However in the grand scheme of things.. http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/airbus-a330-tianjin-completion-center-strengthen-china-ties I don't have the numbers, but at different Asian hubs like HKG, Seoul, Shanghai I find it amazing how many different A330 tails you can see at any moment.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:06 pm

I think the A330R failure to win big sales in China is odd. They do seem to fly a silly amount of long distance aircraft relatively short distances; this fact would disfavor a smaller/efficient widebody I think.

Relative to this discussion, the CR929 or whatever is only going to have about 30-80 more seats than the 797, and I'd have to guess that the Boeing will be strongly disfavored domestically relative to the "home" produced (Communist) aircraft here. I'm sure the CR929 will be delayed multiple times, but if in fact it launches near 2026 with a (reliable/Non Pratt) western engine, why would China order a lot of 797's in the next 10 years for domestic use? The only reason I can fathom is if Boeing goes to the mat with Chinese subcontractors/sells out to give away the IP related to this aircraft for short term sales. I kinda doubt it, but I've been surprised before.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:35 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.


I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.


If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:01 pm

texl1649 wrote:
I think the A330R failure to win big sales in China is odd. They do seem to fly a silly amount of long distance aircraft relatively short distances; this fact would disfavor a smaller/efficient widebody I think.


Well an A330-300 Regional is just an A330-300 certified with lower than maximum operating weights to save on purchase price and operating fees. Some A330-300 Weight Variants also offer a "Dynamic Payload" which allows them to have a higher MTOW (and lower payload) when operating long flights and a higher MZFW (and higher payload) when operating shorter flights. So a Chinese operator could operate with the lower MTOW / higher MZFW for regional missions to save on airport and navigation fees and then swap to the higher MTOW / lower MZFW for longer missions.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:10 pm

Maybe that's a success factor for the A330 intra China/Asia. China is the worlds factory & the A330 is the smallest aircraft lifting full size cargo containers and pallets, up to 25t of them in the belly on top of 250-300 passengers.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2652
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:29 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.


I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.


If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.


I do not think it ever said the 797 would not take any freight. The discussion was about how much volume was available with US Carriers wanting less than Asian Carriers. It never said no freight, but the 797 would have less freight volume than a 787 for example. How much less is up for debate. I think it was shared that the 797 volume is more than the A321
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:31 pm

c933103 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I think Chinese airlines probably won't want to order a lot, if any, of this proposed 797 design? As Boeing propose to make it a wide body, and there seems to be some sort of limit on number of widebodies that Chinese airlines can order every year, seems like they would really prefer wide body aircrafts that can actually fly intercontinentally despite they would also use them a lot in domestic routes. That's also said as why 33R were mot able to attract any Chinese customers despite that model isn't that much attractive in other aspects of economy either

I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.

They do use more wide body aircraft domestically but I don't think any Chinese airlines have created a widebody subfleet for domestic flying yet, unlike what Japanese airlines did. Surely, it is a waste to use more capable aircrafts in short missions, but when the opposite would be cutting back the long haul fleet for these short ranged aircraft I don't think that would be attractive. Also, some of these domestic widebody flights are actually domestic to international tag on, which obviously can't be replaced by short range wide body.


I doubt Chinese Airlines would create a dedicated wideboody subfleet just for domestic use, but any MOM doesn't solely have to be for domestic runs. A huge, huge chunk of the Chinese Airlines traffic is routes to SEA/APAC destinations, which are well in range of what the MOM is projected to be at. 4500nm from PEK gets as far south as PER, while 4500nm from CAN gets as far west as IST and ADD. That's a big distance of route maps, many done by A330s now which can be more efficiently operated by a newer medium haul, medium-size widebody.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2652
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:44 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I think it's the opposite. China have brand new 747-8's flying domestic as they have massive gate shortages. They are flying more domestic widebody aircraft than any other country I can think of.

These widebody aircraft are all built for long range and are taking off half fueled well below maximum takeoff weight. This wasted capability has a large penalty in empty weight and fuel burn. The larger shorter ranged 797 version will be a huge hit in China. They'll be able to move 80-90% of the people of an A330 but with 75% of the airport fees and 75% of the fuel burn.

For the last 5 years in China we've seen more narrow body flights being upgauged to long range widebody aircraft despite them having worse CASM. The 797 will accelerate this trend it as it won't have a CASM hit.


I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.


That would be a waste of the A330 completion center they openend half a year ago. However in the grand scheme of things.. http://atwonline.com/manufacturers/airbus-a330-tianjin-completion-center-strengthen-china-ties I don't have the numbers, but at different Asian hubs like HKG, Seoul, Shanghai I find it amazing how many different A330 tails you can see at any moment.

Image


I think the goal for Boeing is to have the A330 completion center be wasted :) No Chinese operator has purchased the A330neo yet. Sales competitions between the 797 and A330neo will be interesting
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:54 pm

It would not be a competition.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2095
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:58 pm

How far does an A330 go when its full of cargo?

Fred
Image
 
2175301
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:18 pm

astuteman wrote:
There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds


Astuteman: I'm not sure many on this forum have claimed that CFRP barrels are an "unanswerable" advantage for Boeing. There is speculation that Boeing has figured out how to lower the cost of these to be able to produce a cheaper to produce aircraft than the old frame and panel approach. That is not an unreasonable speculation at this point. Whether it's true or not is unknown - but, it is plausible. Also, even it it's a few million per aircraft... that's a few million per aircraft that it can be priced below the competition.

Of course Airbus could learn how to do the same... it's just that Boeing likely has a minimum 5 year - and potentially 10 year learning curve advantage on this angle... if CFRP Barrels are the real low cost future for aircraft of this size. A lot of airplane market space can be eaten up with a 5 year, or more, advantage.

As long as we seem to be discussing potential A-net Myths. I propose the concept that an older design aircraft with some modest tweaks will be competitive to, and even effectively kill, a clean sheet optimized new design as a myth. No one else seems to claim this concept when discussing other aircraft development.

Now can Airbus protect some market segments short term with a modification of their existing aircraft. Likely. My feeling is though that what they can protect (or retain) with such an aircraft will be a rather small segment of whatever Boeing actually releases.

My opinion is that whatever Boeing releases as the "797" will in fact require a major, costly, and time consuming response by Airbus to effectively match it. Given the size of the market and perhaps the learning curve lead time... It might not be financially worth Airbus doing so; although they may have to in order to really learn a new production method.

Another angle rarely discussed: Boeing has a fairly large design and manufacturing engineering group working on the 797. Perhaps it's not that the business case has not closed... but that Boeing has not closed it as they want to have 1 or 2 years of design work done before announcing the project - and thus be able to get to market 1-2 years earlier than in past projects. I.e. perhaps Boeing will announced the project, with a bunch of launch customers... and the same day order parts to be produced to final prints for long term items.

Now, in reality; neither of us really knows what is going to happen (nor do I think anyone on this board). But, plausible speculation is not a myth.

Respectfully,
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7629
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:43 pm

2175301 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds


Astuteman: I'm not sure many on this forum have claimed that CFRP barrels are an "unanswerable" advantage for Boeing. There is speculation that Boeing has figured out how to lower the cost of these to be able to produce a cheaper to produce aircraft than the old frame and panel approach. That is not an unreasonable speculation at this point. Whether it's true or not is unknown - but, it is plausible. Also, even it it's a few million per aircraft... that's a few million per aircraft that it can be priced below the competition.

Of course Airbus could learn how to do the same... it's just that Boeing likely has a minimum 5 year - and potentially 10 year learning curve advantage on this angle... if CFRP Barrels are the real low cost future for aircraft of this size. A lot of airplane market space can be eaten up with a 5 year, or more, advantage.

As long as we seem to be discussing potential A-net Myths. I propose the concept that an older design aircraft with some modest tweaks will be competitive to, and even effectively kill, a clean sheet optimized new design as a myth. No one else seems to claim this concept when discussing other aircraft development.

Now can Airbus protect some market segments short term with a modification of their existing aircraft. Likely. My feeling is though that what they can protect (or retain) with such an aircraft will be a rather small segment of whatever Boeing actually releases.

My opinion is that whatever Boeing releases as the "797" will in fact require a major, costly, and time consuming response by Airbus to effectively match it. Given the size of the market and perhaps the learning curve lead time... It might not be financially worth Airbus doing so; although they may have to in order to really learn a new production method.

Another angle rarely discussed: Boeing has a fairly large design and manufacturing engineering group working on the 797. Perhaps it's not that the business case has not closed... but that Boeing has not closed it as they want to have 1 or 2 years of design work done before announcing the project - and thus be able to get to market 1-2 years earlier than in past projects. I.e. perhaps Boeing will announced the project, with a bunch of launch customers... and the same day order parts to be produced to final prints for long term items.

Now, in reality; neither of us really knows what is going to happen (nor do I think anyone on this board). But, plausible speculation is not a myth.

Respectfully,


I don’t think we can lump all clean sheet v “tweaked” options together. For example, the 797 might beat whatever tweak Airbus comes up with, but only if it can ramp to 20/month. If it only gets to 12/month, what does that do to pricing and the business case?

It might just be that the tweak sells less but earns more, and when you couple that with then leap-frogging mid-2030s with a true step-change in production/design/efficiency, you just might have a 1-2 punch.

But - again - maybe not. We just don’t know enough at this stage to make a judgment.
-Dave
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:08 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
How far does an A330 go when its full of cargo?


It depends on the MTOW and MZFW and environmental / mission variables, but using the ACAP as a rough guide, at 233,00kg TOW the A330-300 will carry 45,000kg 3500nm and the A330-900 will carry 45,000kg 3900nm. Of course, you can now get TOWs up to 251,000kg for both, which will add maybe another 1000nm or so of range at that payload.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:26 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

I see the Chinese airlines as one of the core markets for the 797 proposal. The Chinese airlines have been buying A330s for regional operations. None have purchased the A330neo. There are gate, airspace and slot restrictions in China that will likely result in them transitioning to bigger airplanes. Chinese airlines are shedding smaller planes like A319s because they need bigger planes. I see the 797 being designed with the domestic Chinese market in mind. Eventually COMAC will start displacing A320neo and 737MAX once it’s production line is moving. Boeing will continue to have an airplane in the market that won’t have competition from COMAC for probably a decade by building a bigger plane.


If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.


I do not think it ever said the 797 would not take any freight. The discussion was about how much volume was available with US Carriers wanting less than Asian Carriers. It never said no freight, but the 797 would have less freight volume than a 787 for example. How much less is up for debate. I think it was shared that the 797 volume is more than the A321


That was exactly what the talk was about. An oval fuselage with a single row of LD3-45 or slightly bigger container, in a rather short twin aisle body. Cutting out belly freight to save fuselage weight. That is what the North American airlines want.The Asian airlines want to be able to move belly freight, in a smaller twin aisle than the 787-8 or A330-800. Than a double row of LD2 would be needed doing away with the oval fuselage.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:37 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.


I do not think it ever said the 797 would not take any freight. The discussion was about how much volume was available with US Carriers wanting less than Asian Carriers. It never said no freight, but the 797 would have less freight volume than a 787 for example. How much less is up for debate. I think it was shared that the 797 volume is more than the A321


That was exactly what the talk was about. An oval fuselage with a single row of LD3-45 or slightly bigger container, in a rather short twin aisle body. Cutting out belly freight to save fuselage weight. That is what the North American airlines want.The Asian airlines want to be able to move belly freight, in a smaller twin aisle than the 787-8 or A330-800. Than a double row of LD2 would be needed doing away with the oval fuselage.

The amount of belly freight is all speculation. Boeing is talking about it having less freight volume than a typical wide body with a comparable cabin width. That doesn’t mean there will be zero space for cargo. I’m sure even NA airlines want the ability to carry a little cargo if necessary.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:48 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.

How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1402
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:50 pm

Polot wrote:
astuteman wrote:
bigjku wrote:

I think that the A350 and 787 issue saw no difference in the past but it may well be seeing a difference now. Recent RFP results have hinted at this. I think we have all acknowledged that it is speculation to this point. But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility either that one or the other picked the wrong way forward.


There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.
The cost of the barrel assembly, or panel assembly or fuselage section assembly, is such a tiny amount of the overall cost of manufacturing an aircraft that any differences in their efficiency are going to be vanishingly small in the grand scheme of things.
Same goes for the ALM "drug-like rush" that I see on here - as if Boeing are doing something that Airbus aren't, or can't.
I suspect a reasonably thorough search will show that Boeing are focussing their ALM efforts on the 787 whist Airbus have prioritised the A320 series.

The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.
The 350 is not as far down the learning curve. But it will be. And it will also ramp up to much higher levels
The 330NEO is jammed in the process of trying to ramp up to a level half that of the 787 whilst experiencing significant delays to engine availability. hence there is a transient window in which it is vulnerable to attack from the 787.

Which is why we're currently seeing Airbus backing off from the accusation of "dumping" A330NEO's in the USA specifically (not elsewhere) as the 330NEO is not currently at its cheapest.
But can readily sell A320NEO's in the USA as their cost base is low enough as that is where they have focussed their cost efforts. (By my calcs the 320 series must be making upwards of 16%-17% margin at the moment, possibly more when the engine issues work themselves out).
And it is established enough, to make a "dumping" attack by Boeing a waste of money. It is just not vulnerable like the A330

There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.
What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.
In DFM, in the application of ALM, in squeezing the supply chain, in smoothing the internal production flow, and in maximising the planned output.
None of those is what Michael porter would term a "sustainable competitive advantage" though
I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....

On a final note I'm astonished to learn on here that $4Bn cashflow per year (and likely to rise) is not enough for Airbus to indulge in an all-new response to MOM.
By my calculations they have the neck end of $30Bn to play with over a 7 year development period.

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds

I don’t think anyone here truly believes that Airbus couldn’t afford to build an all new MOM response if they wanted to. I do think there are some people here who truly think Boeing Commercial is on the verge of going bankrupt and think that if Airbus does a quick response (ie A320 rewing) and hurts MOM profitability that Boeing will somehow be out of the game (and will trought out 787 deferred production costs without understanding them, A320 vs 737 numbers, the C series, and A350 vs 777X, etc). The MOM isn’t a moon shot last chance program for Boeing.

I think it is clear, however, that Airbus is not particularly keen on building an all new response, as Airbus would have to forego any cost and time to market advantage, and the market for two profitable all new planes in this segment is unclear.


95% of posters here can't even read an approach plate. They just look at airplane pictures and read 'trip reports' on flyer talk. I would take their opinion with a grain of nothing.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
Jayafe
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:11 pm

seahawk wrote:
It would not be a competition.


True. Planes don't compete with projects. The A330 has a long shot in China for the next decade at least.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:21 pm

astuteman wrote:
There's a couple of points being made in this thread that get repeated on others, and seem to be gaining the momentum of an "A-net fact" when in fact they're nothing more than myths.

The notion that CFRP barrels are about to suddenly turn into an unanswerably advantage for Boeing that Airbus will have to "re-create their manufacturing paradigm for" is frankly ludicrous in my opinion.

The reality of the 787 vs the A330 or A350 is that a) the 787 has come down the learning curve finally, and b) it's output is increasing significantly - something that will affect unit cost by orders of magnitude more than any supposed advantage of CFRP barrels.

There is NO massive manufacturing technology step that is going to put MOM out of reach of an Airbus response.
Sorry but there isn't.

What there is, is a massive effort to optimise incrementally across ALL fronts.

I suspect the last one is the real sticking point for the MOM business case. I can see it being a really finely balanced tipping point.
There is clearly a market (of some sort) for MOM
Is it big enough to allow the economies of scale production to make it cheap enough to expand the size of the market window.
Chicken and egg .....

Like I said - I think there are some reality checks needed before some of these fantasies become embedded, incorrectly, as fact.

Rgds


I know you have been at the front lines of a major high tech project and know how hard it is to get it right and under budget. Your points here are spot on.

I see Boeing planning to have a coordinated set of offerings across the model line. The last time this really occurred was at the introduction of the 757 & 767 where the 737, 747, 757, and 767 were all of a similar generation of current technology, but now 35 years later it is time to begin afresh in order to stay competitive. Right now the 737 is in the game but has less than half of the market. Besides for what Airbus can do, there are a number of competitors coming in the NB market.

Getting it right for Boeing this time is critical, the MOM has the opportunity to enter in a segment that does not have direct competition at this time. Another run at the design begun with the 787 in an evolutionary fashion gives more lessons learned before taking on the 737 replacement, but also get a lot of commonality in systems. There is a need to do a lower volume model for its lessons learned before going for the NB. It seems that CFRP structures have a practical limit of 10/mo for a single line, so the MOM will start with one line, increment to a 2nd line once production is smooth. Eventually with the replacement there could be 6 lines total for the 797 and 737 replacement, located at 2 sites.

I personally think Boeing is just trying to ensure they stay competitive and hopefully have enough clout to lead the market. But if they do not go ahead now, they risk losing further market share. Yes, Airbus or an emerging design out 10 years can put out a model that will be challenging for BA to defend against.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:24 pm

Jayafe wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It would not be a competition.


True. Planes don't compete with projects. The A330 has a long shot in China for the next decade at least.


That and if they can not differentiate the 797 from a A339 so much that they are not in a competition, the MoM should not even be built. Because if they were, there is simply no reason to not sell a 787 instead.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:31 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
If Boeings MOM will be good at short- and long-haul (as you say), it will impossibly cruise at .85M.

Sometimes to me it seems people believe Boeing does not design aircraft, but they somehow have a big machine with a web frontend, where you can tick "good at short-haul", "good at long-haul", cruise speed "hm, lets pick 0.85M", now press "Submit" (after entering a credit card with 30bn credit line) and - plop - a freshly designed aircraft is thrown through the opening at the rear of the machine...


Oh come on, this is uncalled for and beneath your usual standards.
The merit of A32X-based MoM entry is using an older, cheaper design against a newer, more expensive design.
A newer, more expensive design will have some capabilities (e.g. .85M cruise at acceptable short-range cost) that an older design will lack.

Taking for granted that Boeing will build the MOM as a .85 aircraft just because it is a greenfield design is believing in the machine I described...

These are conflicting requirements (high cruise speed and good short-haul efficiency at the same time). Do you remember the two MOMs Boeing designed from scratch (757/767) which came next after their fastest design (747)? Despite being a new, expensive design the cruise speed dropped significantly. And there are good reasons for that:
- The shorter the range, the longer the time the aircraft spends in the first and third segment.
- If the aircraft spends fewer percentage of the flight time in cruise, a high cruise speed design looses relevance
- A high cruise speed inflicts a penalty elsewhere (e.g. unfavorable wing loading for good low speed specs)
- Until today, no short- to mid-haul aircraft design with 0.85 cruise has ever been brought to the market

- So if Boeing would decide to make it a .85 airplane, it would not be a good short-haul aircraft anymore
- Or Boeing decides to cover short ranges as good as possible too and as a result, the cruise speed would have to be lowered

So you cant have all of these things at the same time. And if they design in a bit of all of it, the result will be below optimum in all of it too.

Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
The A321 does not have rotation constraints.


Why the 2-slot flaps then? The A321 may not currently be constrained by rotation angle, but if we use A320's wing (as the discussion suggested), there isn't sufficient lift.

The A321 at rotation allows such an enormous angle of attack, that the answer would never be an even larger angle of attack. Civil airliners shall fly and not plow through the air. So the today HLD could just be kept, couldn't they?

Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
You are aware that the cost for the A340NG program is something completely different than the cost to develop the tapered wing?


Wing plus were part of the A340NG program, no? I didn't say they're the only part...

He said the tapered wings of the A340NG could be an option and you are asking for the cost the A340NG program to counter that idea? It is not the relevant question.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1609
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:38 pm

The reality is we don't know exactly what a MOM will and up being.

As some have stated it could be oval shaped, round like the 767, carry 10 tonne of cargo over the stated range or carry none. As such we are still discussing an aircraft that is still to be defined.

In contrast, we have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that a space in the market exists for a MOM type plane. I don't think anyone would be surprised to know a market for the plane exists.

For Boeing, the discussion revolves around the size of the market, what type of aircraft would best suit the market, the manufacturing process (and subsequently cost) and how shareholder value can be added by building an MOM aircraft.

As such, the primary exercise isn't about cost, but the opportunity associated with building an aircraft for this segment of the market. For instance, we often hear there is a potential market for 4000 aircraft in the MOM segment. This market isn't like a light switch that can be turned off and on. It's of a significant size, it exists and its ready to be exploited.

....and this is why we are currently hearing Boeing are defining the business case for the MOM project.

For Boeing, a part of the business case equation would revolve around the "do nothing" option. In other words, Boeing would assess the potential for sales in the MOM market with its current aircraft offerings and project profits going forward. In assessing a "do nothing" business case they might project an opportunity to capture 40% of the market. As such a business case for a new MOM aircraft would have to revolve around the 4000 aircraft size market less 40%.

Another consideration would revolve around the Airbus response. Some have stated the A322 option. Again a business case for the MOM would revolve around how such an aircraft would affect sales of an MOM.

Just as Boeing are considering its options for an aircraft for the MOM segment of the market, Airbus would be doing the same.

Considering they have already successfully developed a NQMOM (Not Quite an MOM) for the lower end of the MOM market........and sold an additional 2000 aircraft in doing so, the business case for their response would have to consider how any such proposal would create or diminish either shareholder and A321NEO customer value.

...and this, in my opinion is the conundrum for Airbus.

Arguably, a re-wing of the A321 would be a second best option. It could diminish the value of the current A320NEO range of aircraft. For airlines who have already ordered the A321NEO, they could be contracted to take Airbus's second best option. As such, financing, valuations, etc could adversely affect the value of the aircraft in an airlines fleet. This could result in cancellations or conversions to a the new model resulting in lower deliveries of the current range. This would be very disruptive to Airbus's long term plans.

For me, the suggestions that Airbus could simply respond to a Boeing MOM with a re-wing of the A321 is just too simplistic. From the discussions we have had to date it is obvious that defining and optimizing an aircraft for this segment is where the business case lies. The opportunity is based around how to optimise an aircraft to best cater fro this market.

The reality is, if Boeing can't make the business case work, than the Airbus second best option is probably going to make them a whole lot of money....and for me this is just business. Swings and round about's. You win some and you loose some.

The game is still to play out!
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:34 pm

Rheinwaldner wrote:
- So if Boeing would decide to make it a .85 airplane, it would not be a good short-haul aircraft anymore
- Or Boeing decides to cover short ranges as good as possible too and as a result, the cruise speed would have to be lowered


You're conflating "not good" and "less good."
Yes, .85M cruise will be less good for shorthaul efficiency. No, it does not mean NMA would be "not good" for shorthaul.
An NMA will be ~40 years newer than A32X and won't face clean-sheet shorthaul competition until/unless A&B launch their single aisle replacement programs.
A slightly suboptimal new design can be better than a once-optimal old design.
Why is this point so hard for you to understand?

--------------------------------------------

On the broader question of the NMA business case, I'm gradually changing my mind.
Previously I expected NMA to use Ultrafan--gen engines with ~15% lower SFC than today's LEAP/PW1000. That business case seemed compelling.
If Boeing is seriously considering "derisking" by using only "LEAP-1.5" type engines with, say, ~5% better fuel burn, then I can't see a business case for this plane.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2652
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.

How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????


I have no idea where Mjoelnir came up with the idea a 797 would take no freight and not appeal to chinese operators. Neither Boeing nor any credible article that i have read has ever mentioned the LD3-45. Only keesje and his repetive graphics are discussing LD3-45s. None of that means the plane can take no freight
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:38 pm

Rheinwaldner wrote:
So the today HLD could just be kept, couldn't they?


In your zeal to be confrontational you're missing the point and probably making an argument where there is none.
RJMAZ proposed the clever idea of A321ish capacity on the A320's wing - so no, the HLD wouldn't be kept.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:24 am

This whole cargo in the belly thing is very over rated. The circle Vs oval is overrated.

The oval design will need to be heavier due to the unusual load path. This will offset most of the drag decrease from less surface area. If it is a cleansheet I strongly believe it will be simple circular design similar in size to the 767 but a few inches wider to allow for 8 abreast while keeping LD2 containers.

It is the weight of the cargo itself that gives the weight penalty. US carriers can run without additional cargo and allow more fuel before hitting MTO and have more range.

Asian carriers can simply fill the hold with cargo and take a range hit.

I still think everyone will be very disappointed when the Boeing NMA 7X ends up being a lightweight short range 787NEO. The 6X ends up being a simple shrink to create a medium range version. A couple members have crunched the numbers and it ticks nearly all of the boxes and would most likely cost significantly less than a design that ticked all of the boxes.

After too much thinking and analysis regarding code C gate issues I have worked out the best and most simple option for Airbus to implement in 5 years time.

The A320X is launched. It is the A320.5 or A320 stretched by 2m for 200 seats. Range would take a hit down to 3000nm as it is a simple stretch. The original A320 will be discontinued and production slowly faded away. You can offer upgrades to current orders as it would have 99% commonality.

The A321X is launched. Starting with the 97T A321LR it gets a 2m stretch to allow for comfortable 250 seats. 1 or 2 ACT's would have to be removed. Range would drop down to below 3500nm. The current A321NEO and A321LR fade away. This would have 99% commonality so it would be easy to develop. This solves the code C gate issue as it retains the small wing.

The A322X is launched.This model is the MOM competitor. It gets two wing root plugs adding 1m per side and 2m long wingtips extensions bringing wingspan up to 42m. As mentioned before the wingroot would allow atleast 1 ACT tank worth of fuel. The quad wheel bogie already in use gets added. As the bigger wing improves lift to drag the fuel burn and cruising altitude will improve. The landing and takeoff speeds will slightly lower so the same engine can be used and allow for a small maximum takeoff bump to 102T. Empty weight would be around 55T. Just like the current A321LR it can swap passengers for an extra ACT. So you could push this close to 5000nm with 200 passengers 2 class or 4000nm with 250 passengers full economy. The A321LR is an "Atlantic rim" aircraft. The A322X would have 10+% more range. It could do Germany to New York westbound without restrictions.

The A320X would attack the 737-8 head on.
The A321X would attack the 737-10 from above.
The A322X would attack the NMA 797 from below.

Cheap to develop and it would free up resources to allow Airbus to concentrate on a new 8 abreast cleansheet to sit half way between the A322X and the A350-900.




rheinwaldner wrote:
The A321 at rotation allows such an enormous angle of attack, that the answer would never be an even larger angle of attack. Civil airliners shall fly and not plow through the air. So the today HLD could just be kept, couldn't they?

Actually the double slot flaps on the A321 change the lift angle of the wing. The air deflecting off the flap is being deflected at a greater angle so the nose is lower and the tail is higher. This is the primary reason they were fitted.

An A320 stretch to make a A321lightweight would have the single slot flaps. The wing would have to have a higher angle of attack to produce the same amount of lift. This would increase the chance of a tail strike as Matt pointed out. So the A320.5 proposal might actually be the maximum length that could be used with the A320 wing.

However reducing the maximum takeoff and landing weights also reduces the lift requirement and the angle of attack required by the wong. So the A320 wing on an A321 length fuselage could work providing the weights are kept as low as possible. This would result in significantly reduced fuel load and probably reduced payload to get the landing weight down. Lots of compromised but it would have excellent short haul CASM.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:35 am

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.

How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????


An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:08 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
If the proposal will be the no freight version, I do not see a big market for the 797 in Asia.

How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????


An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

We don’t know the specs of the 797 and its fuselage. You are the one saying that it only has space for a single row of LD3-45s. Boeing never said that. You are making up an oval in your head and claiming it as fact. Believe it or not Boeing is not required to design a hold around a LD3, LD3-45, or LD2.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:26 am

Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?
 
jagraham
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:46 am

Matt6461 wrote:
Rheinwaldner wrote:
- So if Boeing would decide to make it a .85 airplane, it would not be a good short-haul aircraft anymore
- Or Boeing decides to cover short ranges as good as possible too and as a result, the cruise speed would have to be lowered


You're conflating "not good" and "less good."
Yes, .85M cruise will be less good for shorthaul efficiency. No, it does not mean NMA would be "not good" for shorthaul.
An NMA will be ~40 years newer than A32X and won't face clean-sheet shorthaul competition until/unless A&B launch their single aisle replacement programs.
A slightly suboptimal new design can be better than a once-optimal old design.
Why is this point so hard for you to understand?

--------------------------------------------

On the broader question of the NMA business case, I'm gradually changing my mind.
Previously I expected NMA to use Ultrafan--gen engines with ~15% lower SFC than today's LEAP/PW1000. That business case seemed compelling.
If Boeing is seriously considering "derisking" by using only "LEAP-1.5" type engines with, say, ~5% better fuel burn, then I can't see a business case for this plane.


While I agree that Ultrafan should make the 797 better, there is another approach.

Airlines say they want narrowbody efficiency. That would mean 40% more thrust for a ~40% more pax (270 pax version). 40% more than 35k lbs thrust would be 49K lb thrust. Which is what Boeing is talking about.

If the engine manufacturers can produce a LEAP or GTF at 49K lbs thrust, it would be equal to the A321. Which would be enough.

But the 767A uses 48K thrust engines. Re-engining the 767A would meet the goal, since the 767A already flies far enough. A new high aspect wing should allow for a significant reduction in thrust along the lines of what the 77x has achieved over the 77W (although even better because the 767 has a compromised LaGuardia wing). All with current LEAP or GTF technology.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:37 am

travelhound wrote:
The reality is we don't know exactly what a MOM will and up being.

As some have stated it could be oval shaped, round like the 767, carry 10 tonne of cargo over the stated range or carry none. As such we are still discussing an aircraft that is still to be defined.

In contrast, we have a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that a space in the market exists for a MOM type plane. I don't think anyone would be surprised to know a market for the plane exists.

For Boeing, the discussion revolves around the size of the market, what type of aircraft would best suit the market, the manufacturing process (and subsequently cost) and how shareholder value can be added by building an MOM aircraft.

As such, the primary exercise isn't about cost, but the opportunity associated with building an aircraft for this segment of the market. For instance, we often hear there is a potential market for 4000 aircraft in the MOM segment. This market isn't like a light switch that can be turned off and on. It's of a significant size, it exists and its ready to be exploited.

....and this is why we are currently hearing Boeing are defining the business case for the MOM project.

For Boeing, a part of the business case equation would revolve around the "do nothing" option. In other words, Boeing would assess the potential for sales in the MOM market with its current aircraft offerings and project profits going forward. In assessing a "do nothing" business case they might project an opportunity to capture 40% of the market. As such a business case for a new MOM aircraft would have to revolve around the 4000 aircraft size market less 40%.

Another consideration would revolve around the Airbus response. Some have stated the A322 option. Again a business case for the MOM would revolve around how such an aircraft would affect sales of an MOM.

Just as Boeing are considering its options for an aircraft for the MOM segment of the market, Airbus would be doing the same.

Considering they have already successfully developed a NQMOM (Not Quite an MOM) for the lower end of the MOM market........and sold an additional 2000 aircraft in doing so, the business case for their response would have to consider how any such proposal would create or diminish either shareholder and A321NEO customer value.

...and this, in my opinion is the conundrum for Airbus.

Arguably, a re-wing of the A321 would be a second best option. It could diminish the value of the current A320NEO range of aircraft. For airlines who have already ordered the A321NEO, they could be contracted to take Airbus's second best option. As such, financing, valuations, etc could adversely affect the value of the aircraft in an airlines fleet. This could result in cancellations or conversions to a the new model resulting in lower deliveries of the current range. This would be very disruptive to Airbus's long term plans.

For me, the suggestions that Airbus could simply respond to a Boeing MOM with a re-wing of the A321 is just too simplistic. From the discussions we have had to date it is obvious that defining and optimizing an aircraft for this segment is where the business case lies. The opportunity is based around how to optimise an aircraft to best cater fro this market.

The reality is, if Boeing can't make the business case work, than the Airbus second best option is probably going to make them a whole lot of money....and for me this is just business. Swings and round about's. You win some and you loose some.

The game is still to play out!


I think the A321 second best option would be sold at a premium (great commonality / unique capability pricing) at relatively low cost. Airlines from the 2000-3000 A321NEO backlog would upgrade, but not for free, it is not in their contract sideletters. Adding new aircraft to an aircraft type is not devaluating the current range, why would it. The more options for airlines the better. Lower deliveries because of conversions? The aircraft come from the identical production lines / supply chain! Only adding more value for Airbus and the airlines.

Developping a slightly bigger wing / upgrading engines is not for free, Billions have to be spend, but nowhere near the investment of an entirely new aircraft. And I don’t see As a respons to a NMA but grabbing market share and additional revenues years earlier then a NMA, regardless of what Boeing will or will not do. We have seen it with the NEO before where Chicago was caught dragging their feet.

Developping an NSA slightly bigger, lighter and more efficient than the NEO’s with next gen propulsion, that would worry Toulouse. Retaining the 737 platform for years to come seems a gift that keeps giving.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:05 am

Years early? Boeing sees a 2024 EiS for the MoM, Airbus has not launched anything. So the advantage is 3 years at best.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:10 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?

None of those. Everything so far has pointed to a new design with a 2-4-2 as the minimum size. Basically a few inches wider than a 767-200. And the longer version a few inchs wider than the 767-300.

A few rumours point towards a lightweight 787 such as the wing would look identical and the very high thrust requirements. Obviously this would be quite short and stubby. If you picked the half way point between the A321 and the 787-8 the new NMA will be on the larger side of the halfway point.

I don't think anyone here still thinks it will be 3-3 and a few people who originally said 2-3-2 have since converted to 2-4-2 but slightly shorter fuselage. 2-4-2 is slightly better from an economic aisle area perspective.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:24 am

jagraham wrote:
Airlines say they want narrowbody efficiency. That would mean 40% more thrust for a ~40% more pax (270 pax version). 40% more than 35k lbs thrust would be 49K lb thrust. Which is what Boeing is talking about.

If the engine manufacturers can produce a LEAP or GTF at 49K lbs thrust, it would be equal to the A321. Which would be enough.

But the 767A uses 48K thrust engines. Re-engining the 767A would meet the goal, since the 767A already flies far enough. A new high aspect wing should allow for a significant reduction in thrust along the lines of what the 77x has achieved over the 77W (although even better because the 767 has a compromised LaGuardia wing). All with current LEAP or GTF technology.


As good as the A321 won't cut it, IMO. NMA is bigger and therefore has to be more efficient. There isn't enough traffic congestion to force enough NB->NMA upgaugings without a significant efficiency edge, and there aren't enough NMA longhaul routes to close the business case without shorthaul upgauging.

The 767A isn't a good comparison; being a better version of it won't do. NMA has to be on the order of 40% more efficient.

If Boeing isn't confident they can pull off an ambitious NMA, they shouldn't do this at all. Better to wait a few years for the tech and production system to mature.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:03 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?

None of those. Everything so far has pointed to a new design with a 2-4-2 as the minimum size. Basically a few inches wider than a 767-200. And the longer version a few inchs wider than the 767-300.

A few rumours point towards a lightweight 787 such as the wing would look identical and the very high thrust requirements. Obviously this would be quite short and stubby. If you picked the half way point between the A321 and the 787-8 the new NMA will be on the larger side of the halfway point.

I don't think anyone here still thinks it will be 3-3 and a few people who originally said 2-3-2 have since converted to 2-4-2 but slightly shorter fuselage. 2-4-2 is slightly better from an economic aisle area perspective.

sure! but if you go 2-4-2 why not 3-3-3? every airline is trying to squeeze the maximum utilization for any a/c. If Airbus could would go 3-3-3 with a new a300 / a310, of course with new design/materials/engine. it's a race to the bottom for the comfort for the passengers.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:29 am

Kikko19 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?

None of those. Everything so far has pointed to a new design with a 2-4-2 as the minimum size. Basically a few inches wider than a 767-200. And the longer version a few inchs wider than the 767-300.

A few rumours point towards a lightweight 787 such as the wing would look identical and the very high thrust requirements. Obviously this would be quite short and stubby. If you picked the half way point between the A321 and the 787-8 the new NMA will be on the larger side of the halfway point.

I don't think anyone here still thinks it will be 3-3 and a few people who originally said 2-3-2 have since converted to 2-4-2 but slightly shorter fuselage. 2-4-2 is slightly better from an economic aisle area perspective.

sure! but if you go 2-4-2 why not 3-3-3? every airline is trying to squeeze the maximum utilization for any a/c. If Airbus could would go 3-3-3 with a new a300 / a310, of course with new design/materials/engine. it's a race to the bottom for the comfort for the passengers.


A 3-3-3 NMA would be the "787 Light" option.
 
parapente
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:45 am

Kikko19.
Nope there is at least one 'idiot' who still thinks (along with the journalists) that it has a good chance of being an ovoid 2x3x2.
Stupid I know! But there you go.Just no telling some people!
 
c933103
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:52 am

Kikko19 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?

None of those. Everything so far has pointed to a new design with a 2-4-2 as the minimum size. Basically a few inches wider than a 767-200. And the longer version a few inchs wider than the 767-300.

A few rumours point towards a lightweight 787 such as the wing would look identical and the very high thrust requirements. Obviously this would be quite short and stubby. If you picked the half way point between the A321 and the 787-8 the new NMA will be on the larger side of the halfway point.

I don't think anyone here still thinks it will be 3-3 and a few people who originally said 2-3-2 have since converted to 2-4-2 but slightly shorter fuselage. 2-4-2 is slightly better from an economic aisle area perspective.

sure! but if you go 2-4-2 why not 3-3-3? every airline is trying to squeeze the maximum utilization for any a/c. If Airbus could would go 3-3-3 with a new a300 / a310, of course with new design/materials/engine. it's a race to the bottom for the comfort for the passengers.

It can be only slightly wider than 767 which some already put 242 into it
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:05 am

bigjku wrote:

It also seems as if it stacks further risk for Airbus if and when we reach the point that aluminum airplanes simply aren’t wanted anymore. I think we can mostly agree that eventually the narrowbody fight will be one between composite airplanes.


Airlines care about the bottom line and not about material. If they prefer one over the other it is because it's TOC are cheaper considering aqcuisition, maintenance, depreciation and residual value etc.
I doubt we will ever see the day that "Aluminium airplanes simply aren't wanted anymore"......
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:07 am

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
How did you jump from "“Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft.” ( ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet ) to "no freight" ????


An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

We don’t know the specs of the 797 and its fuselage. You are the one saying that it only has space for a single row of LD3-45s. Boeing never said that. You are making up an oval in your head and claiming it as fact. Believe it or not Boeing is not required to design a hold around a LD3, LD3-45, or LD2.


The talk was about a frame with greatly reduced belly volume, to keep the weight down, that is why an oval fuselage. No, Boeing does not have to design around the LD3, LD2 or LD3-45, they can do a new container. Not having the possibility of containers would be a huge disadvantage for a possible 797. That does not change the fact that the USA airlines were not interested in belly freight in regards to the 797 and the Asian airlines were. Even if the difference should only be between 5 t and 10 t, you need space to carry freight. I also doubt hat 10 t freight capabilities for the Asian market, that Bloomberg talks about, is enough, that number is downplaying the difference. The 767-300 can carry 20 t belly freight on shorter distances. And one of the discussion points has been that the 797 should be in the size of the 767-200/300.
Last edited by mjoelnir on Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Kikko19
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:25 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

An oval frame with a single row of LD3-45 for a small wide body, will hardly offer many more LD3-45 positions or bulk volume space than a A321, more passengers in the same length. Add to that the need for more space for bags in regards to the higher number of passengers than an A321. You can talk about payload, but the point is there will not even be space. And think about that the A321 is already tight on volume for belly cargo, rather than having payload limitations, the one area where the A321 does not match the 757. Only a sufficient belly space will allow the possibility of belly cargo.

We don’t know the specs of the 797 and its fuselage. You are the one saying that it only has space for a single row of LD3-45s. Boeing never said that. You are making up an oval in your head and claiming it as fact. Believe it or not Boeing is not required to design a hold around a LD3, LD3-45, or LD2.


The talk was about a frame with greatly reduced belly volume, to keep the weight down, that is why an oval fuselage. No, Boeing does not have to design around the LD3, LD2 or LD3-45, they can do a new container. Not having the possibility of containers would be a huge disadvantage for a possible 797. That does not change the fact that the USA airlines were not interested in belly freight in regards to the 797 and the Asian airlines were. Even if the difference should only be between 5 t and 10 t, you need space to carry freight. I also doubt hat 10 t freight capabilities for the Asian market, that Bloomberg talks about, is enough, that number is downplaying the difference. The 767-300 can carry 20 t belly freight on shorter distances. And one of the discussion points has been that the 797 should be in the size of the 767-200/300.


Again a new 767 at 2-4-2 would find airbus opponent with a a lighter a330/a300 with 3-3-3 or 2-4-3 ... so again considering the engines can be used by both and materials as well, there's the cost of design/production and cost of development to count. having slighter bigger fuses at this point is advantaging Airbus as they can stick one more pax. (with a reflected advantage for boeing on the 777x vs 350 competition)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:37 am

RJMAZ wrote:
JackMeahoff wrote:
Just one question about this MoM concept: will it be a 3-3 or 2-3-2 aisle design?

Or is there another layout that regulators will let them get away with like a 3-4 or 4-4?

None of those. Everything so far has pointed to a new design with a 2-4-2 as the minimum size.


:rotfl:

RJMAZ, there seem exactly 0 leads / links it will be 2-4-2.

You might think 2-3-2 is not a good idea, but at least you should include those "I think", maybe", even "hopefully" disclaimers.

I e.g. "feel" 2-4-2 will have development & operating costs in the 767/A330 category, at least.
And forget CASM or other "per seat" numbers, Airlines want 220-280 seats single class, not 300-400.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1382
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:45 am

parapente wrote:
Kikko19.
Nope there is at least one 'idiot' who still thinks (along with the journalists) that it has a good chance of being an ovoid 2x3x2.
Stupid I know! But there you go.Just no telling some people!


That's what Alan Joyce wants. Wide body turn around times for busy short/medium range routes. That seems to be what he thinks he has been promised.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:47 am

keesje wrote:
RJMAZ, there seem exactly 0 leads / links it will be 2-4-2.

You might think 2-3-2 is not a good idea, but at least you should include those "I think", maybe", even "hopefully" disclaimers.

Ha! You were still saying 3-3 only a few pages back and members here were correcting you that multiple CEO's have said the word "widebody"

Boeing vice president of airplane development, Mike Delaney, described the NMA wing design in these terms in June 2017:

“An NMA wing on a flight line, you will not be able to tell the difference between an NMA and a 787.”


Then we have discussion about engines..

CFM, the exclusive supplier on the Boeing 737 Max family, is considering an all-new engine in the 50,000lb thrust class for the NMA. The engine would likely have direct-drive architecture rather than incorporating a geared-fan design.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-ge-expects-boeing-nma-decision-this-year-445563/

You can join two and two together. You can work out the weight and size of the aircraft based on the wing size and thrust requirement. The 787-3 was designed to have 55,000lb thrust engines for example. This gives you an idea of the aircraft weight.

Aircraft are only getting lighter with equivalent range/payload. So this large wing and high thrust levels points to something bigger than a 767. Closer to A300 in size. An composite oval 2-3-2 would weigh much less than a 767 it would have wetted surface area closer to a 757-300. It will require engines closer to 40,000lb.

Members on here have already questioned the high thrust levels in recent threads and many are now expecting the NMA to be big.

Its pointing more towards a 787-3 done properly or a slightly narrower 8abreast clean sheet with a 787 sized wing but skinnier and lighter.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos