texl1649
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
parapente wrote:
Thanks for posting/re posting the latest JonO's words and pic's on the 797. Key quote.

The yet-to-be-launched NMA is slated to arrive in 2025. First with the base model, the NMA-6X (225 passengers at 5,000nm) and the NMA-7X (265 passengers at 4,500nm) two years later, according to two people familiar with Boeing’s planning today.

To me Boeing have been absolutely consistent with what they see as a 'Middle of market' aircraft. It isn't an A321LR nor is it a 788 - it is a MOM.
Of course it will overlap and compete at both edges of its performance profile both pax and range but it is a different aircraft. Different fuse size, different power requirements optimised for the job it will do best.

I'm with you.

I think we're down to two possibilities:
a) Boeing will be producing an all-new ovoid twin-aisle NMA with the general characteristics above
b) Boeing has run a masterful disinformation campaign that has fooled the CEOs of DL, QF, UA, et al and they're actually making 788-lite
c) Boeing can't convince itself/customers/BoD that there's a business case here, move on, nothing to see here

Personally, I'm thinking (a) is the most likely outcome.


This is very true. People often fantasize about a reborn L1011-DC10 type of competition where airlines compete mfg's closely against 'like' models, but I think it's unimaginable that Boeing and Airbus would deliberately produce similar planform/era direct competitors again. Airbus will certainly have A32X options to pursue, but none will be direct competitors in any sales campaigns with actual airlines vs. any putative MOM Boeing creates, no matter what online personalities speculate.

As with the A330 series' multi-decade history of sales, or 77W, or A321NEO, or 787, or A359 (or the flip side of 748, A340, A330NEO) the industry winds up seeing certain moderately differentiated options as winners vs. losers pretty quickly, especially the widebodies.

The 788 lite just won't...hunt/fly.
 
mham001
Posts: 4750
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:45 pm

WPvsMW wrote:


Please, that article is a month old.
 
parapente
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:50 pm

And - what's changed?
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:07 pm

parapente wrote:
And - what's changed?

On this site in the last weeks, nothing!

Just the ever-shrinking group of addicts/excentrics who keep on and on and raise the irritation level with each other every day or so.

I'm out of here until there is some REAL NEWS on this topic! There is a real life outside of these a.net threads!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:31 pm

It seems that an argument on the minutia of marginal performance advantage to either side is occurring.

Which to me is kinda moot. Merely incrementing on the A321's CASM is not nearly good enough when trip costs will rise appreciably.

Will the 797 justify:
(i) an ~$10m dollar higher price tag
(ii) an ~$20m dollar higher price tag
(iii) an ~$30m dollar higher price tag

than an A321LR? Don't forget, it has to sink both the R&D (on what is expected to be a fairly limited production run compared to single aisles) and the extra cost to manufacture the bigger airframe.

If its only (i) then forget about it, it'll never pay its way. If its (ii), then your probably better putting your money elsewhere and if its (iii), then I think Boeing have a program.


edit: I'm not convinced that a 797 will be able to do peak time short hauling in morning and evening, then fit in a 6+hr 3000nm mission around that, it could be jack of all trades, master of none. If you stick to short haul, how do you justify the metal (or plastic :-P ) in the middle of the day and late at night with bigger trip costs? Maybe late at night can be a longer haul, but you aren't returning that airframe back to its starting point the next morning - somewhat complicating planning.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:03 pm

sassiciai wrote:
parapente wrote:
And - what's changed?

On this site in the last weeks, nothing!

Just the ever-shrinking group of addicts/excentrics who keep on and on and raise the irritation level with each other every day or so.

I'm out of here until there is some REAL NEWS on this topic! There is a real life outside of these a.net threads!

What will we do without your high value add posts, I wonder? :scratchchin:
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
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4296
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:14 pm

I posted this in the "Is Boeing outfoxing Airbus", thread, and just for fun, and because I'm lazy, I thought I'd copy and paste it here.

Boeing had a chance to do a quick and dirty MOM by MAXing the 767, with the GEnx -2B's. They would have gotten 90% of the advantages of going all new, with a plane that is currently still in production and has an OEW almost exactly between the 321 and 330/787.

It would have ticked most of the range, efficiency, passengers, payload boxes that Boeing says they are looking for...and it would have cost peanuts to do. They could have filled the coming 767 sized gap with a better 767.

Now...they are stuck...mainly because of engines...and good luck with that. We've seen the problems all of the engine makers are having with bleeding edge engine tech, and the odds are pretty slim that they are going to end up with anything much more hi tech than the -2B anyway.

Airlines are really getting tired of getting the shaft by engine performance and reliability promises that just can't be met on time...if at all. As well, engine makers really must be getting tired of losing their shirts by footing the tab for warranty parts and engine replacements.

It might be time to consider a 3 or 4 holer for the MOM job. If Boeing insists on going all new, then a new engine configuration can be built into the airframe with less time, expense and grief than developing an all new engine. And...if new engines are magically developed, they can remove the middle engine, (and structure), from the airframe.

3 GTF's or LEAP's put out almost exactly the thrust Boeing is looking for. Of course, the extra weight of adding a 3rd engine would negate a bunch of the OEW advantages of going all new, (instead of a 767MAX), but at least it would be new....right...?
What the...?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:36 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
I fully agree that the 797 will rule at 3000nm. It was just not my topic.

So if I got this right you agree the 797 will rule at 3000nm but the A321 will rule at 1000nm?

That is fine and might actually be the case. However this means there is a crossover point somewhere between the two ranges where they are both equal. This crossover point marks the lower range boundary where the 797 would be the aircraft of choice if an airline wanted to pick the most efficient aircraft. There would also be an upper range boundary where the 797 hands over to the 787.

This envelope is where the 797 would be the the most efficient aircraft. Being competitive you don't have to be the most efficient. The 797 would still remain competitive well past these boundaries.

The 797 might have a small range envelope where it is the most efficient aircraft but it has a much larger envelope where it will be competitive. Some members might see the small envelope and think there is no market but they should look at the larger envelope where it is still competitive.

rheinwaldner wrote:
I just wonder whether my posts really were so hard to understand. Maybe some other users, who have read my posts, can give me feedback whether the topic "short-haul competitiveness of medium-range aircraft" was made clear enough or not...

I present my arguments and statements more like dot points. For members or lurkers where English is their second language my posts would still be very clear to them.



Amiga500 wrote:
I'm not convinced that a 797 will be able to do peak time short hauling in morning and evening, then fit in a 6+hr 3000nm mission around that, it could be jack of all trades, master of none.

Slot costs are the biggest factor. We could develop a new metric "yearly slot costs per passenger moved."

The 797 moves more passengers per slot so at the hubs where a slot can cost millions allows the 797 to win big time. For this reason I see the 797 dominating on the peak times at big hubs.

Operational usage in the US you could have 797's on both coasts. Doing short haul in the peak then do one transcontinental flight at night. The 797 would then do the short haul peak on the opposite coast.

It adds flexibility. If your long haul 797 flying New York to Paris goes tech you can swap in a 797 that just arrived on a short haul flight. The network can recover in a couple hours with no passenger compensation.
Last edited by RJMAZ on Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:49 am

Edit double post due to bad mobile reception.
 
User avatar
stcsko
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:31 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:00 am

OK, I'm going to see how this goes.

Forest for the trees, people: what is the overwhelming business case for this new airliner and without which Boeing hasn't acted since the 70s? Boeing is not spending a single moment sweating whether certain N A-Eur city pairs can be tied together. All this endless debate about 767 vs 321 and... well, you're not thinking strategically.

Don't hate me, but Boeing is facing two issues and the first is the 737/320 is dead, as far as Boeing is concerned. Hence why Boeing didn't even invest the money to get the damn thing two feet higher off the ground. Sure, new engines (which Boeing didn't pay to develop), funky wingtips, sure... but real investment? At the end of the day, Boeing is publicly held, has to justify every capital expenditure to those who provide it (stockholders), and they have to think strategically knowing they will still be selling this 797 thing 50+ years from now.

The 737/320 space has become commoditized. The entry of the Chinese, in particular, guarantees that, if the CS and E190 didn't already. (Logical to think India will enter as well.) Boeing isn't Chevy; they have no need to make subcompacts to balance CAFE standards. If a plane isn't profitable, Boeing walks away; veteran Boeing employees know they'll virtually shut down the company rather than run at a loss. They walked away from 757/767 15+ – 15!! -- years ago and have never sweated a replacement; you think they are now because it fills one recently-discovered niche, which they did tell everyone about when it was released? No, no, no. It’s Boeing’s job to be profitable, not offer “variety for your shopping convenience!”

But Boeing is bracing for something big. They have brought manufacturing in-house or under control for this one. They’re buying expansion land next to their SC plant. And even though Boeing is stressing affordability, they are clearly ramping up in a way that returns maximum ROI. And the response from airlines has been jockeying to be the launch customer. Considering we haven’t even seen it, what would make airlines drool? The first thing you do is solve a seemingly insolvable problem:

CAPACITY. Airports aren't expanding (except for mature cities trying to squeeze the last few dollars out) but more importantly airport expansion and ATC improvements are something airlines can't control. But traffic is forecast to continue to grow. How do you get a bigger plane into an existing stand? THAT's the key thing, people. Boeing has to design this plane to use existing infrastructure. And you can find a 737/320 stand anywhere in the world.

The object of this plane: 250 pax, 30 min turns, fits a 737 stand, no infrastructure changes necessary. <<--- That's Boeing's must list. Everything else is gravy. That it gets to Europe is simply a function of "The big boys go 9000+, the step down should do 4500-5000." (Stop thinking like first-world people; no growth there.)

When I said Boeing has given up on the 737, a critical reason is that we've reached the limit of what a single-aisle can do. If you doubt it, the poster child for LCCs (WN) has the worst on-time rate in the U.S., and the more -800s and MAXs it takes delivery of the worse it will get. Engineers still can’t solve that damn human factor. Feedback has given Boeing the distinct feeling that single-aisles have maxxed out. (So sue me.) Cargo isn’t a concern now any more than it currently is with 737s. And the way this airliner is positioned, frankly, it doesn’t matter whether the customer is mainline or LCC: they’re going to use it as a people mover, nothing more.

It also helps to guarantee the life of the 737, which seems to contradict what I said. Boeing’s perfectly willing to sell you a 737; they’re just not going to lose money on it. The only way to do that is type commonality with the 797: now LCCs have a clear upgrade path without retraining. So you sell them as a set. How extraordinarily convenient that Boeing has just developed a state-of-the-art cockpit for the MAX – so that absorbed the development cost.

Think it over: Boeing’s going to be able to absorb development costs in other programs too, again to maximize profit with the 797. The wings and “how to work with carbon fiber”: 787. Foldable wings – how you make the 797 fit the 737 stand – 777x costs. Ditto for the new flight deck and the MAX – an idea first used in 757/767, but this time it will SELL. (I mean 737 numbers.) The ovoid is the only real expense here. (And you note the expensive designer model 787 is where they learned and made mistakes, like outsourcing too much.) The 797 is designed to be low-cost and yet highly profitable, and not replicable by anyone but Airbus in the short term. (If the Chinese get there 20 years from now, Boeing figures it’s OK with the huge numbers and fleet strength it will have then.)

If you doubt me, then why on earth was WN not only in the meeting but enthusiastic? It HAS to fit on a 737 stand. Southwest isn't walking away from airports.

And look at the job distracting everyone Boeing’s done. I wonder if they’ve actually had people stirring up discussions online to distract you into ignoring that they are attempting to build, literally, the (air) bus of the 21st century.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:29 am

This reads like a marketing brochure for the A300B2.
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2954
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:47 am

This all comes back to how Boeing truly dropped the ball by not developing a 737 and 757 replacement in tandem. Instead, airlines are stuck with a cutting edge 50-year old aircraft that had its fuselage MAXed out to proportions not originally intended.
.......
 
User avatar
AAlaxfan
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:54 am

jmc1975 wrote:
This all comes back to how Boeing truly dropped the ball by not developing a 737 and 757 replacement in tandem. Instead, airlines are stuck with a cutting edge 50-year old aircraft that had its fuselage MAXed out to proportions not originally intended.

And slapping NEO engines on a 22 year old frame is cutting edge how? Both A and B need to come up with a NSA. However, their current models are still selling and the technology is not there to support new NSA's at this time. In the MOM, there is a hole in the market for this type. We can all speculate as to it's shape, capacities (both cargo and passenger) and it's range

There's a ton of armchair engineer's and fleet managers in this thread. That's what makes ANET so enjoyable. Me, I'm gonna keep the popcorn warm and keep watching the screen.
Grumpy. Not a dwarf, not an attitude. It's a lifestyle.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 15409
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 am

AAlaxfan wrote:
Both A and B need to come up with a NSA.


Zero chance of that while neo and MAX are still selling like hot cakes. Come back in about ten years.
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.
 
brindabella
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:03 am

jmc1975 wrote:
This all comes back to how Boeing truly dropped the ball by not developing a 737 and 757 replacement in tandem. Instead, airlines are stuck with a cutting edge 50-year old aircraft that had its fuselage MAXed out to proportions not originally intended.


Every chance you will get to see exactly that IMO.

But the 757replacement will not be an NG. Nor will it be the 797, which should be 762/763/A332 size.

The only way I can see BA developing an aircraft that can get into the 321neo market is to take the forthcoming FSA(Jon Ostrower's term) and add wing, fan & fuel.

Of course it will be expensive - the FSA family, the FSA-upgrade as above and finally the 797 family. Plenty of commonality - but still $billions and $billions.

However,
1) BigJKU has already outlined a great deal of this, and
2) the massive sales forecasts by both BA and AB for the next 20 years will demand more (expensive) optimising by both AB and BA than we have seen before as the prizes are getting richer all the time!

And strangely I would see this as an additional step to the FSA, and again after the pattern outlined by BigJKU.

In a nutshell, BigJKU suggests the 787 and 797 are maybe steady advances to the FSA - each proves-up more and more of the technology so that when it is time for the FSA there is really NO new technology on the new type at all - all the ingenuity will be devoted towards the production process - that will be the "moonshot".

But how to finesse that with a MAX family that has a backlog of 4,500 frames and will sell many more (if allowed) and make $billions more?
How not to get tangled-up with the MAX types, especially the MAX8, of course?

Well that would be time to build the FSA body, cockpit, empennage, systems etc at a relatively low rate - by introducing them first on a wing capable of the 757-category missions.
Say another 2 seat-rows above the MAX10 (and so a smidgin larger than the 321neo).
But with a much better wing & systems.
In total, the true 757-successor so beloved of so many on a.net!

Build the rate up slowly and charge plenty.

That should leave all the MAXes clear to keep selling for a while longer while neutralising the 321neo.

Then when all the ducks are in a row for the high-tech, high-vol production envisaged above; then the FSA follows and the 737 is (finally) consigned to the History books.




cheers
Billy
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 9:30 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Slot costs are the biggest factor.


They are a factor. The biggest? I've yet to see a DOC chart that indicates anything approaching that.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 moves more passengers per slot so at the hubs where a slot can cost millions allows the 797 to win big time. For this reason I see the 797 dominating on the peak times at big hubs.


What gates will they use? Are many airports not typically constrained by the available gates as opposed to their runway cycles?

RJMAZ wrote:
Operational usage in the US you could have 797's on both coasts. Doing short haul in the peak then do one transcontinental flight at night. The 797 would then do the short haul peak on the opposite coast.


Possibly. What happens middle of the day? Just accept your gonna run with low load factors?

Is red-eye demand enough on enough routes to justify the larger capacity across a fleet?

Does anyone know of routes where A321s are typically flying full to the gills to the point the route would benefit from an upgauge, or routes where 787/A330 are flying medium haul on low load factors and would benefit from a downgauge?


edit: This is not the same scenario as the 787 making new thinner routes viable by being ~20% cheaper to operate than the current fleet (B767/A330ceo). If the 797 is only marginally better than A321LR from DOC point of view (in certain scenarios that may not be typical usage too!), and only offers a range capability that opens up relatively few new city pairs, then I don't see how Boeing will be able to charge enough to pay back their R&D and larger manufacturing costs. Indeed, the argument would stack up more if 797 were significantly cheaper to operate than 787 and A330neo over enough city pairs that both these aircraft routinely fly between. But cannibalizing their latest clean sheet (and very expensive) program is not something Boeing will be keen to do.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:01 am

A gate is more than a jet bridge connecting the terminal to the plane, it is also a building and has lots of attached services to it.

If you have 10 797 with 320 pax instead of 10 787-8 with 180 pax, you need terminal space for 1400 extra people, or about 75% more. Very few slot constrained airports will have this at peak times. In the end a waiting area in an airport is not technically different to an airplane. You need a seat, some space, toilets and preferably a food option for each passenger. You can not suddenly cram in 75% more, or if you can it is unlikely that the airport is slot or gate constrained.
 
parapente
Posts: 2435
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:13 am

The 'poster child' for LCC's over this side of the pond is Ryanair.They also use the 737 But on the whole the bigger ones.Indeed they were the driving force behind the MAX 200 seater.It is today an enormous business covering the whole of Europe with many many hubs.But they have one of the best ontime records in Europe.Last time I looked it was a shade under 90% and they use this factor in their marketing.
I am pretty sure MOL said he might even be interested in the 230 seat MAX 10 (at the right price).
Furthermore there are other LCC,s in Europe happily using A321's at circa 230+pax and plenty more lining up for the revised exit NEO at 240 ( one class sardine)

So quoting one US airline's on time figures does not a summer make.As stated above the enormous backlog of NB's shows how profitable they are.Furthermore most of the action is in the larger sizes.
That's not to say dis embarking of pax is not an issue,it is.Particulary on short high frequency flights (when only one exit door is used)-But clearly the 797 is not optimised to do short hops look at the suggested 797 range numbers.It would get eaten alive by either NB.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:31 am

seahawk wrote:
A gate is more than a jet bridge connecting the terminal to the plane, it is also a building and has lots of attached services to it.

If you have 10 797 with 320 pax instead of 10 787-8 with 180 pax, you need terminal space for 1400 extra people, or about 75% more.


I don't think a 75% growth in traffic would be reasonable.

But, if you have 10 aircraft at your terminal, packed into cat C gates, then switch that for 8 single aisle + 2 797, you may not have two cat D gates to spare and you may not be able to cram 10 aircraft around your terminal.


Unlike the A380, which needed a few bigger gates - the usage pattern of the 797 would need many more gates upscaled (or diverted from existing widebody operations).
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:14 pm

AAlaxfan wrote:
jmc1975 wrote:
This all comes back to how Boeing truly dropped the ball by not developing a 737 and 757 replacement in tandem. Instead, airlines are stuck with a cutting edge 50-year old aircraft that had its fuselage MAXed out to proportions not originally intended.

And slapping NEO engines on a 22 year old frame is cutting edge how? Both A and B need to come up with a NSA. However, their current models are still selling and the technology is not there to support new NSA's at this time. In the MOM, there is a hole in the market for this type. We can all speculate as to it's shape, capacities (both cargo and passenger) and it's range

There's a ton of armchair engineer's and fleet managers in this thread. That's what makes ANET so enjoyable. Me, I'm gonna keep the popcorn warm and keep watching the screen.


The A320 is the first commercial frame with an all digital FBW system. It is in a completely different category than the 737 in regards to a modern frame. The FBW system is upgradable, regarding the hardware, but most important regarding the software. In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350. Everything developed for a new frame is back portable to the A320.
Otherwise all those frames are tubes with wings, using different materials for certain parts. If we look at additive manufacturing, than the A320 family is, beside the A350, the area, where Airbus is pushing hardest to implement.

If you do not get that difference, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:06 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
A gate is more than a jet bridge connecting the terminal to the plane, it is also a building and has lots of attached services to it.

If you have 10 797 with 320 pax instead of 10 787-8 with 180 pax, you need terminal space for 1400 extra people, or about 75% more.


I don't think a 75% growth in traffic would be reasonable.

But, if you have 10 aircraft at your terminal, packed into cat C gates, then switch that for 8 single aisle + 2 797, you may not have two cat D gates to spare and you may not be able to cram 10 aircraft around your terminal.

Unlike the A380, which needed a few bigger gates - the usage pattern of the 797 would need many more gates upscaled (or diverted from existing widebody operations).


Fully agree with you. The 797 is not the magic tool to increase traffic at existing airport infrastructure.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2095
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:27 pm

[/quote]
stcsko wrote:
OK, I'm going to see how this goes.

Forest for the trees, people: what is the overwhelming business case for this new airliner and without which Boeing hasn't acted since the 70s? Boeing is not spending a single moment sweating whether certain N A-Eur city pairs can be tied together. All this endless debate about 767 vs 321 and... well, you're not thinking strategically.

Don't hate me, but Boeing is facing two issues and the first is the 737/320 is dead, as far as Boeing is concerned. Hence why Boeing didn't even invest the money to get the damn thing two feet higher off the ground.
A misunderstanding o what the issue actually is here. The 737 benefits from grandfathering its certification forward from the 1960's and the main driver for being able to keep the original tye certificate are the cabin and systems, the wing update for the NG was a minor hurdle in the realms of certification. If Boeing were to raise the gear by 2 feet as you suggest then the trailing edge of the main wing would gain enough height such that its distance above the ground would mean that it is not suitable for evacuation without slides, this means you would have to re-certify the fuselage and cabin which would mean certifying it to 2018 standards rather than 60s standards at which point you would have to add other safety features and design elements not present in todays 737 which allow it to maintain a lower weight than would otherwise be the case. Its not that Boeing could not be bothered to spend the money, in fact I dare say if the recertification requirements weren't there then adding the extra 2 feet would be cheaper than the rigmarole they have to go through to maintain it at its low level.

stcsko wrote:
Sure, new engines (which Boeing didn't pay to develop), funky wingtips, sure... but real investment? At the end of the day, Boeing is publicly held, has to justify every capital expenditure to those who provide it (stockholders), and they have to think strategically knowing they will still be selling this 797 thing 50+ years from now.

The 737/320 space has become commoditized. The entry of the Chinese, in particular, guarantees that, if the CS and E190 didn't already. (Logical to think India will enter as well.) Boeing isn't Chevy; they have no need to make subcompacts to balance CAFE standards. If a plane isn't profitable, Boeing walks away; veteran Boeing employees know they'll virtually shut down the company rather than run at a loss. They walked away from 757/767 15+ – 15!! -- years ago and have never sweated a replacement; you think they are now because it fills one recently-discovered niche, which they did tell everyone about when it was released? No, no, no. It’s Boeing’s job to be profitable, not offer “variety for your shopping convenience!”

But Boeing is bracing for something big. They have brought manufacturing in-house or under control for this one. They’re buying expansion land next to their SC plant. And even though Boeing is stressing affordability, they are clearly ramping up in a way that returns maximum ROI. And the response from airlines has been jockeying to be the launch customer. Considering we haven’t even seen it, what would make airlines drool? The first thing you do is solve a seemingly insolvable problem:

CAPACITY. Airports aren't expanding (except for mature cities trying to squeeze the last few dollars out) but more importantly airport expansion and ATC improvements are something airlines can't control. But traffic is forecast to continue to grow. How do you get a bigger plane into an existing stand? THAT's the key thing, people. Boeing has to design this plane to use existing infrastructure. And you can find a 737/320 stand anywhere in the world.

The object of this plane: 250 pax, 30 min turns, fits a 737 stand, no infrastructure changes necessary. <<--- That's Boeing's must list. Everything else is gravy. That it gets to Europe is simply a function of "The big boys go 9000+, the step down should do 4500-5000." (Stop thinking like first-world people; no growth there.)

When I said Boeing has given up on the 737, a critical reason is that we've reached the limit of what a single-aisle can do. If you doubt it, the poster child for LCCs (WN) has the worst on-time rate in the U.S., and the more -800s and MAXs it takes delivery of the worse it will get. Engineers still can’t solve that damn human factor. Feedback has given Boeing the distinct feeling that single-aisles have maxxed out. (So sue me.) Cargo isn’t a concern now any more than it currently is with 737s. And the way this airliner is positioned, frankly, it doesn’t matter whether the customer is mainline or LCC: they’re going to use it as a people mover, nothing more.

It also helps to guarantee the life of the 737, which seems to contradict what I said. Boeing’s perfectly willing to sell you a 737; they’re just not going to lose money on it. The only way to do that is type commonality with the 797: now LCCs have a clear upgrade path without retraining. So you sell them as a set. How extraordinarily convenient that Boeing has just developed a state-of-the-art cockpit for the MAX – so that absorbed the development cost.

Think it over: Boeing’s going to be able to absorb development costs in other programs too, again to maximize profit with the 797. The wings and “how to work with carbon fiber”: 787. Foldable wings – how you make the 797 fit the 737 stand – 777x costs. Ditto for the new flight deck and the MAX – an idea first used in 757/767, but this time it will SELL. (I mean 737 numbers.) The ovoid is the only real expense here. (And you note the expensive designer model 787 is where they learned and made mistakes, like outsourcing too much.) The 797 is designed to be low-cost and yet highly profitable, and not replicable by anyone but Airbus in the short term. (If the Chinese get there 20 years from now, Boeing figures it’s OK with the huge numbers and fleet strength it will have then.)

If you doubt me, then why on earth was WN not only in the meeting but enthusiastic? It HAS to fit on a 737 stand. Southwest isn't walking away from airports.

And look at the job distracting everyone Boeing’s done. I wonder if they’ve actually had people stirring up discussions online to distract you into ignoring that they are attempting to build, literally, the (air) bus of the 21st century.

Do you believe that the whole of Boeings plan for the last 15 years has been about developing technologies specifically for the 797 in secret? Like priming harry potter to fight Voldemort? Its a nice story but like most companies being are just doing the best with what information they have available and what they learn the keep and carry on moving onward and upwards.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
AAlaxfan
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:56 pm

scbriml wrote:
AAlaxfan wrote:
Both A and B need to come up with a NSA.


Zero chance of that while neo and MAX are still selling like hot cakes. Come back in about ten years.

Did you read my next sentence? I said nearly the exact same thing.
Grumpy. Not a dwarf, not an attitude. It's a lifestyle.
 
User avatar
AAlaxfan
Posts: 572
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:09 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
AAlaxfan wrote:
jmc1975 wrote:
This all comes back to how Boeing truly dropped the ball by not developing a 737 and 757 replacement in tandem. Instead, airlines are stuck with a cutting edge 50-year old aircraft that had its fuselage MAXed out to proportions not originally intended.

And slapping NEO engines on a 22 year old frame is cutting edge how? Both A and B need to come up with a NSA. However, their current models are still selling and the technology is not there to support new NSA's at this time. In the MOM, there is a hole in the market for this type. We can all speculate as to it's shape, capacities (both cargo and passenger) and it's range

There's a ton of armchair engineer's and fleet managers in this thread. That's what makes ANET so enjoyable. Me, I'm gonna keep the popcorn warm and keep watching the screen.


The A320 is the first commercial frame with an all digital FBW system. It is in a completely different category than the 737 in regards to a modern frame. The FBW system is upgradable, regarding the hardware, but most important regarding the software. In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350. Everything developed for a new frame is back portable to the A320.
Otherwise all those frames are tubes with wings, using different materials for certain parts. If we look at additive manufacturing, than the A320 family is, beside the A350, the area, where Airbus is pushing hardest to implement.

If you do not get that difference, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.

I know the difference between the two. The A320 is still a 22 year old frame. Certainly a more modern frame than the 737 and definitely more technologically advanced. Both Airbus and Boeing keep updating their products, but until there is a great technological advancement, you are still MAXing out outdated frames.
Grumpy. Not a dwarf, not an attitude. It's a lifestyle.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:35 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The A320 is the first commercial frame with an all digital FBW system. It is in a completely different category than the 737 in regards to a modern frame. The FBW system is upgradable, regarding the hardware, but most important regarding the software. In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350. Everything developed for a new frame is back portable to the A320.
Otherwise all those frames are tubes with wings, using different materials for certain parts. If we look at additive manufacturing, than the A320 family is, beside the A350, the area, where Airbus is pushing hardest to implement.

If you do not get that difference, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.

If you do not get that 22 year old hardware can't run modern software never mind support back port of software features from newer hardware, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.
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
 
pabloeing
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:54 am

AA with the B797 in the near future:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f186896142
 
morrisond
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:03 pm

With Mullenberg talking 4,000-5,000 NMA that has me still thinking that NMA will be a 7W and use a lot of the same parts as NSA. Albeit with a different wingbox/wings and probably folding tips to fit in 737 gates. Basically NMA will be an NSA XL. But done first to get the bugs out at lower volumes, and optimize weight before moving on to NSA. Kind of like the A322 big wing studies, but 7W for a lot more premium seating options.

Cargo will be containerized but probably a new shape to fit a 7W oval cross section - Basically an Extra Wide LD3-45 - call it 36" wider for the extra seat and aisle - which shouldn't be an issue airlines adopting it if it will be the common container for NMA and NSA which could easily be in excess of over 10,000 frames over time.

The other thing to consider with costing of the NMA is that if they continue to use Program Cost accounting and launch NMA with NSA together (albeit NSA being delivered 3-5 years later) they could possibly amortize the cost of development, and early production of the common elements over a lot of frames....This could include major systems architecture, Nose, Front Fuselage barrel, Rear Fuselage/tailplane, Development of the Oval 7W cross section. The unique elements of NSA vs NMA could be different Wing/Wingbox, and gear - the tailplane may even be able to be reused with fly by wire.

It is not inconceivable that they could be amortizing these costs over 8,000 - 10,000 frames (I would say 2,000 - 4,000 NMA and 6,000 - 8,000 NSA). Even if the whole program cost $30B that is only $3.75 Million per frame worst case - at $20B and 10,000 frames that is only $2M per frame - relatively peanuts.

I would guess they don't necessarily have to launch them at the same time either - just state that they will use a lot of NMA when they do NSA so they can spread the costs over the production run of both and give airlines comfort that NMA will be very cross compatible with NSA in terms of Maintenance, training and operations.
 
morrisond
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:17 pm

Theoretically if you made the base of an an LD3-45 wider - from 62" to 98", and assume the internal depth is about 56" (outside depth 60" or about two rows), and with about 41" internal height - you pick up 82,656 Cu In of Volume. A standard Airline bag has max linear dimensions of 62" and the most common size is 27"x21"x14" or about 7,938 cu in - that seems like you could get an easy 6-8 bags in that extra space allowing for dead space/inefficient packing.

As you would only need space for 2-3 more passengers (to account for the length of the fuselage that doesn't have an LD3-45/98 below it) baggage that leaves a lot of extra space.
 
wingman
Posts: 3317
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:26 pm

pabloeing wrote:
AA with the B797 in the near future:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f186896142


If AA "doesn't know much" about the 797 or its specs I don't think anyone else does either. Still lots of phantasmagorical details to be molded into something tangibly realistic.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:21 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A320 is the first commercial frame with an all digital FBW system. It is in a completely different category than the 737 in regards to a modern frame. The FBW system is upgradable, regarding the hardware, but most important regarding the software. In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350. Everything developed for a new frame is back portable to the A320.
Otherwise all those frames are tubes with wings, using different materials for certain parts. If we look at additive manufacturing, than the A320 family is, beside the A350, the area, where Airbus is pushing hardest to implement.

If you do not get that difference, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.

If you do not get that 22 year old hardware can't run modern software never mind support back port of software features from newer hardware, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.


If you do not get that computer hardware and software are steadily upgraded. Have you never come near any computerized systems? In the commercial world you have to upgrade your hardware and your software, even if the only reason is that what was available ten years ago is not longer manufactured. It is only the military that uses systems without upgrading for 20 to 50 years.
 
estorilm
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:32 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
It seems that an argument on the minutia of marginal performance advantage to either side is occurring.

Which to me is kinda moot. Merely incrementing on the A321's CASM is not nearly good enough when trip costs will rise appreciably.

Will the 797 justify:
(i) an ~$10m dollar higher price tag
(ii) an ~$20m dollar higher price tag
(iii) an ~$30m dollar higher price tag

than an A321LR? Don't forget, it has to sink both the R&D (on what is expected to be a fairly limited production run compared to single aisles) and the extra cost to manufacture the bigger airframe.

If its only (i) then forget about it, it'll never pay its way. If its (ii), then your probably better putting your money elsewhere and if its (iii), then I think Boeing have a program.


edit: I'm not convinced that a 797 will be able to do peak time short hauling in morning and evening, then fit in a 6+hr 3000nm mission around that, it could be jack of all trades, master of none. If you stick to short haul, how do you justify the metal (or plastic :-P ) in the middle of the day and late at night with bigger trip costs? Maybe late at night can be a longer haul, but you aren't returning that airframe back to its starting point the next morning - somewhat complicating planning.

THIS! There aren't enough planes to sell to EVER justify it, even if people would pay out for the dramatically higher costs. I just don't see it a) selling and b) selling in numbers anywhere NEAR large enough to break even.

It doesn't solve a big problem either, it's a niche that's developed, but they've got major (future) issues with their 737 program that would be much better served by the resources of a potential 797. I don't think it'll happen, and I don't think the higher-ups will LET it happen.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:37 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A320 is the first commercial frame with an all digital FBW system. It is in a completely different category than the 737 in regards to a modern frame. The FBW system is upgradable, regarding the hardware, but most important regarding the software. In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350. Everything developed for a new frame is back portable to the A320.
Otherwise all those frames are tubes with wings, using different materials for certain parts. If we look at additive manufacturing, than the A320 family is, beside the A350, the area, where Airbus is pushing hardest to implement.

If you do not get that difference, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.

If you do not get that 22 year old hardware can't run modern software never mind support back port of software features from newer hardware, than you can count yourself right beside the armchair engineers you are talking about.


If you do not get that computer hardware and software are steadily upgraded. Have you never come near any computerized systems? In the commercial world you have to upgrade your hardware and your software, even if the only reason is that what was available ten years ago is not longer manufactured. It is only the military that uses systems without upgrading for 20 to 50 years.

Every upgrade (hardware or software) requires expensive and extensive certification. The flight computer is what ultimately is making the plane flyable...altering it is not a trivial change in the eyes of certifying authorities. Computer hardware updates do not happen as much in commercial aviation as you seem to think it does.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:38 pm

[@mjoelnir & Revelation]
You are both incorrect about different things.

1. FBW allows Airbus to do all sorts of tricks with load alleviation via the spoilers/ailerons etc so they can play with winglets, with higher MTOW and fatigue life.
2. Compute hardware on airframes (and other things like engines) are not steadily upgraded. Indeed, they are left unchanged unless there is a very, very, very, very compelling reason to do so. As, any change requires a whole re-run of certification of that software on the new hardware.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:02 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
1. FBW allows Airbus to do all sorts of tricks with load alleviation via the spoilers/ailerons etc so they can play with winglets, with higher MTOW and fatigue life.

I think Revelation realizes that but what he meant is ultimately the hardware has to be designed to allow for those features. If the motors or hinges or whatever are not designed to perform a certain function then a computer cannot make them do that function. The aircraft may not also have the proper sensors to give the computer the information to correctly make the decisions on when and how to perform a function.

That’s not to say it can’t be added to the aircraft, but it is a little more complicated than saying just because something new is in the A350 FBW system you can easily add it to the A320 because the aircraft is FBW too.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:10 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
[@mjoelnir & Revelation]
You are both incorrect about different things.

1. FBW allows Airbus to do all sorts of tricks with load alleviation via the spoilers/ailerons etc so they can play with winglets, with higher MTOW and fatigue life.
2. Compute hardware on airframes (and other things like engines) are not steadily upgraded. Indeed, they are left unchanged unless there is a very, very, very, very compelling reason to do so. As, any change requires a whole re-run of certification of that software on the new hardware.

To me the bottom line with regard to both points is that the statement "In this point the A320 is as modern as the 787, the perhaps coming 797 and the A350" is almost certainly false. It might be true in the most superficial of senses that all three have FBW architecture, but in any practical sense you can't back-port algorithms from this decade's environment and expect them to be feasible on three decade old hardware or even decade old hardware that was not designed to implement the current algorithms.

I did a bunch of research a year or so ago to see exactly what kind of hardware was being used for A320 FBW functions and it was not modern. I could have missed an upgrade because these things aren't widely discussed (for business and security reasons) but I found no evidence of a modern upgrade.
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
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25218
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm

morrisond wrote:
Theoretically if you made the base of an an LD3-45 wider - from 62" to 98", and assume the internal depth is about 56" (outside depth 60" or about two rows), and with about 41" internal height - you pick up 82,656 Cu In of Volume. A standard Airline bag has max linear dimensions of 62" and the most common size is 27"x21"x14" or about 7,938 cu in - that seems like you could get an easy 6-8 bags in that extra space allowing for dead space/inefficient packing.


At least a few people claim that the LD2/DPE and LD8/DQF as used on the 767 is a "DOA option" because it would be another container airlines would have to stock, and yet would not the same apply for these modified LD3-45/AKH containers (including keesje's "expandable AKH")?

I mean there are a fair number of 767s running around the world, both passenger and cargo. So if Boeing can get NMA (and even NSA) to take an LD2/LD8 and offer double the usable capacity (DQF compared to AKH), I don't see that as some terrible burden for airlines.
 
morrisond
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:00 pm

Stitch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Theoretically if you made the base of an an LD3-45 wider - from 62" to 98", and assume the internal depth is about 56" (outside depth 60" or about two rows), and with about 41" internal height - you pick up 82,656 Cu In of Volume. A standard Airline bag has max linear dimensions of 62" and the most common size is 27"x21"x14" or about 7,938 cu in - that seems like you could get an easy 6-8 bags in that extra space allowing for dead space/inefficient packing.


At least a few people claim that the LD2/DPE and LD8/DQF as used on the 767 is a "DOA option" because it would be another container airlines would have to stock, and yet would not the same apply for these modified LD3-45/AKH containers (including keesje's "expandable AKH")?

I mean there are a fair number of 767s running around the world, both passenger and cargo. So if Boeing can get NMA (and even NSA) to take an LD2/LD8 and offer double the usable capacity (DQF compared to AKH), I don't see that as some terrible burden for airlines.


That would be fine on Ultimate Width but it might be pushing it on Height - Maybe something like an LD8-50 or 55 as there should be a little more fuselage height in a 7W Oval with A320 + 12-18" Fuselage Height. Yes it would be another container - but if NMA and NSA use same cross section there will be so many out there I don't think it will really be an issue. Certainly many more than exist for 767 and that doesn't seem to be an issue and by the time NMA/NSA enter I doubt many 767's will be flying anyways - take one container size away and add another.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3202
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:21 pm

1) Single aisles selling like no tomorrow (how much more just THIS week? ... another 100?)
2) Backlog for YEARS.
3) No new engine technology to make it 10+% more efficient
4) No "perfect engine" for the task
5) If they go to make it fit a Single aisle gate (< 40 meters) a lot of expensive designs and development will occur. (folding wings for example).
6) If they go bigger than >40meters a lot of operators will have a though time facing such changes and airports will have some adjustment$$$ to do.
7) Airlines will consider the big changes in ancillary equipment such as parts, spares, crews, containers and even airport fees.
8) The fuel index alone and the possibility of making flight plans to keep cost low, due to higher MTOW and congested routes will be a very studied factor before someone like AA UA WN etc will take the plunge.
9) Today most Airlines are making money and manufacturers too, so neither of them are pressed to change the status Quo.

as of today the 797 is a BIG nothing burger.... years down the line things will get more interesting...specially with the cooling of the planet.

Best Regards

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5913
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:23 pm

Polot wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
1. FBW allows Airbus to do all sorts of tricks with load alleviation via the spoilers/ailerons etc so they can play with winglets, with higher MTOW and fatigue life.

I think Revelation realizes that but what he meant is ultimately the hardware has to be designed to allow for those features. If the motors or hinges or whatever are not designed to perform a certain function then a computer cannot make them do that function. The aircraft may not also have the proper sensors to give the computer the information to correctly make the decisions on when and how to perform a function.

That’s not to say it can’t be added to the aircraft, but it is a little more complicated than saying just because something new is in the A350 FBW system you can easily add it to the A320 because the aircraft is FBW too.


Computing power needed for control tasks is regularly overestimated.
( don't go by analogy from M$Windows waiting faster every year.
My CPM 2 based first system using a RAM disk and WordStar could take input as fast as any of the modern textprocessor beasts.)

Then look at how the software has been redesigned and some hardware repurposed on space missions
to work around hardware defects or changes in objective.
Often "more modern" is doing it differently and not doing more.

AFAIK the FBW computer hardware on A320 have been modernized over time all the time. No static build.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Elementalism
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:15 pm

estorilm wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
It seems that an argument on the minutia of marginal performance advantage to either side is occurring.

Which to me is kinda moot. Merely incrementing on the A321's CASM is not nearly good enough when trip costs will rise appreciably.

Will the 797 justify:
(i) an ~$10m dollar higher price tag
(ii) an ~$20m dollar higher price tag
(iii) an ~$30m dollar higher price tag

than an A321LR? Don't forget, it has to sink both the R&D (on what is expected to be a fairly limited production run compared to single aisles) and the extra cost to manufacture the bigger airframe.

If its only (i) then forget about it, it'll never pay its way. If its (ii), then your probably better putting your money elsewhere and if its (iii), then I think Boeing have a program.


edit: I'm not convinced that a 797 will be able to do peak time short hauling in morning and evening, then fit in a 6+hr 3000nm mission around that, it could be jack of all trades, master of none. If you stick to short haul, how do you justify the metal (or plastic :-P ) in the middle of the day and late at night with bigger trip costs? Maybe late at night can be a longer haul, but you aren't returning that airframe back to its starting point the next morning - somewhat complicating planning.

THIS! There aren't enough planes to sell to EVER justify it, even if people would pay out for the dramatically higher costs. I just don't see it a) selling and b) selling in numbers anywhere NEAR large enough to break even.

It doesn't solve a big problem either, it's a niche that's developed, but they've got major (future) issues with their 737 program that would be much better served by the resources of a potential 797. I don't think it'll happen, and I don't think the higher-ups will LET it happen.


It is a niche market Boeing believes will deliver 4000 frames over the course of its life cycle. 757\767 represent ~2400 frames sold over a different time period in aviation. Does anybody believe if the 757 was maxed and delivered a few years ago it would not be competing with the A321Neo? A frame that is selling to the tune of 1900 frames and counting. 737-10 is a band aid until they can deliver a 797. The fact they even went through with the 737-10 and Airbus selling the 321Neo LR shows there is quite a demand in this space imo.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:48 pm

TheRedBaron wrote:
3) No new engine technology to make it 10+% more efficient
4) No "perfect engine" for the task

This part I think keeps seeming like the stumbling block. If you've only got a 10% jump when less than five years later perhaps the ultrafan or the latest GTF could get another 10% plus on that you don't want to end up half a generation behind so quickly.

However we all remember the idea Boeing had on the 787 where you could switch engines, while I don't expect that to occur completely plug and play, what if Boeing designed the 797 with a possible NEO version not far off. It would also hedge their bets against an utter disaster if the new ultrafan or GTF didn't work out, or had major teething issues which is completely possible. Whether you could get the engine manufactures of the airlines to think it was a good idea I don't know, but the idea of launching with the LEAP+ aiming for 2025 with the option to in the 2030 range to jump on the latest and greatest tech might be an interesting way to do it. Especially given that if the latest and greatest has tech issues, you've got the LEAP as a great backup.
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:40 am

bluefltspecial wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

What exactly do you base that on?


He means a widebody with 200-250 pax would only have a few seats more than A322 at the cost of a considerably heavier weight. CASM wouldn't look so attractive.

2-3-2 is just too difficult to be justified when compared to a 3-3 configuration IMO. Why add another isle for the sake of gaining one seat only? I know 797 would be implementing newer design techniques that would make it highly efficient. But why wouldn't Boeing apply the same advanced methods to get an even more efficient 3-3 MOM?


Cargo.

Easily justified. Airplanes carry more than just passengers.


If you have a 767-200F with the operating weights and landing gear of the 767-300ERF, you can carry lots more fuel.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:10 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
TheRedBaron wrote:
3) No new engine technology to make it 10+% more efficient
4) No "perfect engine" for the task

This part I think keeps seeming like the stumbling block. If you've only got a 10% jump when less than five years later perhaps the ultrafan or the latest GTF could get another 10% plus on that you don't want to end up half a generation behind so quickly.

I for one would not be surprised if UltraFan ends up on the NMA as a second engine.

GE Aviation's CEO suggested that there could be two (but not three) different engine vendors on the aircraft.

But Joyce remains open to calls by some airline customers for Boeing to offer the NMA with a choice of two engines.

A dual-engine programme, however, “needs a market large enough to offset expenses”, Joyce says. “We have to sharpen our pencils on the size of the market before we would or wouldn’t” commit to a programme with two engine options.

But GE firmly rejects any proposal to offer the NMA with a choice of three engines. “Three is out of the question,” Joyce says, citing the engine industry’s lessons from the Airbus A330 programme, which was introduced with thee engine options.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-446993/

I think PW's issues make it an unlikely choice, and I think RR can make a strong case for itself even though UltraFan is still a paper project.

Then, as Joyce tells us, there's the concern that the market might not be big enough for two engines, and most of us share that concern.

But, what if you view NMA as the lead-in for the NSA, and getting on the NMA ends up being a vital advantage to getting on to the NSA?

Then the market you're targetting becomes tens of thousands of frames.

Personally I think the engine vendors are viewing it this way, and will all compete hard to get on to NMA.

These points might force them to accept a less than stellar business case to get on to the NMA project.
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
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 17739
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:15 am

Leeham: Air Canada sees secondary airport need for NMA says:

“There is a need for that size of aircraft that might be able to fill some number of seats that is smaller than the [Boeing] 787 and larger than a narrow-body, that you might be able to take to a secondary airport. When you look at the range capability it is significant for us.”

In the context of Air Canada’s strategy to take some traffic out of the USA and connect via its international hubs, an aircraft of the NMA size could work for the Canadian carrier, says Ravinescu.

“That size of aircraft could fill in well with some of the cities that have the aspirations to connect international flights without connecting to a hub.”

It's nice that one more airline CEO is displaying interest in the NMA.

Momentum seems to be building towards a product launch.
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
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:39 am

pabloeing wrote:
AA with the B797 in the near future:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f186896142


The industry downsizing trend is quite depressing...

737 to replace 757

787/797/A350 to replace 772 and 773

A330NEO, 773 and 779 to replace 747

In no way, shape for form does the consumer benefit from the gradual shrinking of the world's passenger aircraft.
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:48 am

The 797 is the only aircraft Boeing is behind aircraft wise vs Airbus.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:05 am

The engine decision is a catch 22. If Boeing wants to have an 2024 EiS they need something based on an existing engine, which speaks strongly for GE/CFM and an up-scaled LEAP. But for GE this only makes sense if they are sole supplier, as the business case does not work if another engine OEM is allowed in later on and able to bring an engine that is a full generation ahead by 2026/2027. (RR Ultrafan)

And that still leaves the P&W wild card. Who will be working hard to get their GTF up the specs and improve it, but with the only chance to hang it on being an Airbus product, so they would probably be very willing to improve the GTF for a theoretical A321+/++ or whatever Airbus decides to do.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:06 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
pabloeing wrote:
AA with the B797 in the near future:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... f186896142


The industry downsizing trend is quite depressing...

737 to replace 757

787/797/A350 to replace 772 and 773

A330NEO, 773 and 779 to replace 747

In no way, shape for form does the consumer benefit from the gradual shrinking of the world's passenger aircraft.


Except for more flight options between more hubs at greater frequency, which is exactly what consumers have wanted. Want a luxury A321 ride? Fly AA flagship. Want sardine? Fly Spirit. Want luxury in 787 between London and America? Fly BA/Virgin. Want low frills? Fly Norwegian. A321 and 788/A332 is a gap that will be filled, A and B will fill it with something and a NMA/MoM seems like what that will be.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:06 am

Engine tech 101.

As bypass ratios increase the cores get smaller and hotter. The higher bypass ratio improves fuel efficiency.

As a core matures it can run hotter and you can extract more power from it. This allows you to run a faster or larger fan giving more increased thrust.

The GenX engine currently on the 787 will eventually be replaced by an engine with a smaller core and higher bypass ratio.

Word on the grape vine is that GE has the NMA deal. A smaller core based on the best semi-mature tech will first appear in the NMA in the 50,000lb thrust class. It will be a high tech core but to ensure durability it will not be run at maximum heat. It will be below peak heat efficiency but still better than other engines on the market. The power extracted from the core will be kept to moderate levels running a slightly smaller/lighter fan than the 787. Derated engines do have significantly less maintenance than their more powerful siblings.

In the medium term this core will be run hotter as GE becomes comfortable with the new tech. This will most likely include production revisions in the core from experience with the NMA engine. Running the core hotter allows the core to produce more power to drive a larger fan in the 70,000lb thrust class for the 787-8/9/10.
 
User avatar
centrair
Posts: 2852
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Discussion Thread - 2018

Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:33 am

So why is it that Boeing just doesn't revive the 787-3?

It was supposed to be a replacement for 767 and 757. It had the range for US to Europe and good for domestic US use.
Image
My name is Centrair but HND is closer. Let's Japanese Aviation!

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