User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

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

Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:43 pm

CRMCPILOT31 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
I like the idea of a 757-300 capacity airliner. Oh yeah, it better look prettier than the 757 (sorry but it's not the best aircraft in terms of looks)


How can you write that? Lol...the 757 is one of the best looking planes ever! lol....... What made me fall more in love with the 757 is the height, the landing gear which reminds me of the Concorde and those big engines and narrow body! Too bad airlines saw the work horse it was once it was done building it.

Hope the 797 brings the best of 787/767/757


I agree with you on the long legs and big cans sentiment. She was a looker then and still is today. My hope for the 797 is a multi length option 'family' of single aisle aircraft that in appearance look like a MAX'd 757 might do if it had received the same onwards development as the 737 has. The often touted 797 graphic from Boeing that could resemble something real (or not) is our best guess so far. To me that is an all new 757 with 787 DNA. Exciting times ...
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

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

Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:09 pm

So supposedly it looks like doing 2-3-2 isn’t something the airlines want because they’re only adding a seat per one extra aisle (as opposed to 2 per extra aisle), or perhaps not being able to make it 2-4-2. Wouldn’t making it 2-4-2 make the 797 more than 220-270 PAX? Or otherwise wider but stubbier like an a310 if it was going to be carrying that amount?

No doubt if airlines _can_ add an extra seat abreast, they will do it, because “cheaper fares”, supposedly. It’d just be more efficient aerodynamically to have a slender plane than a wide one with just as many seats, wouldn’t it?

I guess the thing to draw from that is, 2-4-2 realistically (“cramped”) for 220-270 means we get an a310 (shorter than a 767-200 which is 2-3-2), on the short end... although I don’t know about configurations much.
 
User avatar
Btblue
Posts: 656
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

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

Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:28 pm

I can see Boeing going with a 757-200/300 sized aircraft which in essence covers the 220-270 seat segment. I just don't see this being a twin aisle at all. Boeing could develop a new fuselage that works from the top (797) all the way down to the 737 replacement (when that time comes). Here's the tube (whatever it may be made of), shrink and re-wing accordingly ensuring good wing clearance for future propulsion options.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:31 pm

CX747 wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
CX747 wrote:
... You can't really compare Boeing and Airbus. One is a commercial aircraft manufacture, the other an aerospace giant that also produces a commercial aircraft line.


Not sure if you are overestimating or underestimating any of them, but you should read more about both aerospace giants and their different projects and divisions before making such ignorant statements. Last time I checked Boeing was succesfully testing the CST-100, as an example of many, and Airbus was stuck building satellites all around :lol:


No, it was spot on. Aerospace Giant and a company that has a commercial product line and some other daliances.


I think I know both companies, but honestly I would not know which you don't consider a company that has a commercial product with some other businesses (e.g. space, defense, helicopters).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

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

Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:51 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
So supposedly it looks like doing 2-3-2 isn’t something the airlines want because they’re only adding a seat per one extra aisle (as opposed to 2 per extra aisle), or perhaps not being able to make it 2-4-2. Wouldn’t making it 2-4-2 make the 797 more than 220-270 PAX? Or otherwise wider but stubbier like an a310 if it was going to be carrying that amount?

No doubt if airlines _can_ add an extra seat abreast, they will do it, because “cheaper fares”, supposedly. It’d just be more efficient aerodynamically to have a slender plane than a wide one with just as many seats, wouldn’t it?

I guess the thing to draw from that is, 2-4-2 realistically (“cramped”) for 220-270 means we get an a310 (shorter than a 767-200 which is 2-3-2), on the short end... although I don’t know about configurations much.


Yes, 2-4-2 is too short at 220 seats. This idea of 3 lengths that will all sell is ludicrous.

2 lengths, 225 seat and 270 seat, 2-3-2 with narrower seats, aisles and wall panels. 767 on a diet. 1-2-1 for lie flat product. 2-2-2 for true Y+ or tight regional J. 2-1-2 (or 1-2-2) also an option like the 767.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:39 pm

keesje wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Jayafe wrote:

Not sure if you are overestimating or underestimating any of them, but you should read more about both aerospace giants and their different projects and divisions before making such ignorant statements. Last time I checked Boeing was succesfully testing the CST-100, as an example of many, and Airbus was stuck building satellites all around :lol:


No, it was spot on. Aerospace Giant and a company that has a commercial product line and some other daliances.


I think I know both companies, but honestly I would not know which you don't consider a company that has a commercial product with some other businesses (e.g. space, defense, helicopters).


Yes, I too was waiting for clarification of exactly which company was "an aerospace giant" and which was "commercial aircraft manufacturer plus dalliances". CX747 is obviously trying to be funny but it falls totally flat since both companies occupy the same category AFAICT.
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25825
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.

Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with.


Isn't it quite obvious that a smaller 797 aircraft will cost less to build than a larger 787? Keep in mind Boeing mentioned that 797 will not be a moonshot program, but rather based on exiting technologies. It would be an accomplishment if it turns out to be more expensive than the 787.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:06 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.

Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with.


Isn't it quite obvious that a smaller 797 aircraft will cost less to build than a larger 787? Keep in mind Boeing mentioned that 797 will not be a moonshot program, but rather based on exiting technologies. It would be an accomplishment if it turns out to be more expensive than the 787.

Yes, the question is how much lower will the 797 cost to produce relative to 787 and other twin-aisle designs. The referenced article makes it clear that manufacturing cost is a primary metric for the program. It seems that in the 787 program, Boeing left a lot of the cost equation in the hands of its vendors, some of whom they had to buy out because they weren't able to perform and others they bypassed when moving from 787-8 to 787-9/10. Let's hope that their early focus on the NMA program pays off.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Amiga500
Posts: 1446
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:43 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.

Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with.


Isn't it quite obvious that a smaller 797 aircraft will cost less to build than a larger 787? Keep in mind Boeing mentioned that 797 will not be a moonshot program, but rather based on exiting technologies. It would be an accomplishment if it turns out to be more expensive than the 787.


If the fixed costs are amortised over a much smaller production run...

Say, $10B USD to develop and 4000 aircraft run, that works out at only $2.5m /frame. But, if R&D spirals to say $15B USD and the run is only 2000 aircraft, then that's $7.5m. Quite the handicap if your competitor (A321LR) has long since had its fixed costs paid off and is probably being built for <$40m USD.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5840
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:48 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The work is key to helping Boeing make fundamental changes in its production process to enable the NMA to be built for lower cost than previous twin-aisle designs.

Everyone knows if 797 costs as much as 787 does to build, it will fail.

It will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with.


Isn't it quite obvious that a smaller 797 aircraft will cost less to build than a larger 787? Keep in mind Boeing mentioned that 797 will not be a moonshot program, but rather based on exiting technologies. It would be an accomplishment if it turns out to be more expensive than the 787.


However market research showed that the market segment is way more price sensitive than that of the 787. If I remember correctly, numbers indicated airlines are willing to pay roughly about 30-40% of the 787-8 list price and thus below the list price of the 737-9MAX.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... they-hear/
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:16 pm

I wonder what new aircraft concept would wipe the smile of Leahy's face and send some fire crackers into Champion's office.
:bomb:
In my opinion the proposed 2-3-2 NMA would have JL retire comfortably, and even Champion..
:champagne:
We need / I expect something better from Seattle. E.g. a smaller, very lean / mean NMA that can be build/ assembled everywhere.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Jayafe wrote:
CX747 wrote:
... You can't really compare Boeing and Airbus. One is a commercial aircraft manufacture, the other an aerospace giant that also produces a commercial aircraft line.


Not sure if you are overestimating or underestimating any of them, but you should read more about both aerospace giants and their different projects and divisions before making such ignorant statements. Last time I checked Boeing was succesfully testing the CST-100, as an example of many, and Airbus was stuck building satellites all around :lol:


<manic laughter>
Orion:
Boeing is testing the cab inclusive its multicolored ashtray
while Airbus Defence and Space builds the chassis based on the ATV for the cab to sit on. :-)

( Though I think the original poster likened Airbus with "commercial aircraft manuf." and Boeing to "Aerospace giant".)
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:22 pm

keesje wrote:
I wonder what new aircraft concept would wipe the smile of Leahy's face and send some fire crackers into Champion's office.
:bomb:
In my opinion the proposed 2-3-2 NMA would have JL retire comfortably, and even Champion..
:champagne:
We need / I expect something better from Seattle. E.g. a smaller, very lean / mean NMA that can be build/ assembled everywhere.


I think the opposite is true. Airbus likely will be worried about the future of the A330neo. If Boeing can get the leasing companies on board, they'll take significant market share in the entry level widebody market and the high capacity short haul market where the A330neo is targeted. The 737-10 competes very well against the A321neo on the short haul missions. The smaller NMA will compete against the A321LR on longer missions. The larger NMA will compete against the A330neo on shorter missions. The 787 already competes against it on longer missions. I think the A330neo is at risk while A321 margins will shrink. It's not a doom and gloom situation, but certainly no celebrations or champagne at Airbus.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:48 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... th-443696/ tells us NMA has a big fan, QANTAS:

Qantas sees the prospect of Boeing developing its proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) specifically for short/medium-haul routes as "fantastic" and is working with Seattle to help define the design.

"We're really excited about [NMA]. If they do that it, that's going to be a great aircraft," Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told FlightGlobal at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London. "It will be a great transcontinental domestic aircraft."

Joyce says that for Qantas to grow high-frequency domestic routes like Brisbane-Sydney, on which it currently has flights every half-hour, it will need a bigger aircraft. "And you don't want an aircraft designed for longer haul like the 787 as they're too heavy. So an aircraft that's particularly designed for domestic [routes] would be fantastic."

Seems like they are fans of the higher capacity, lower range variant, and it seems like the time lines would line up (they're not buyers till the mid 2020s).

QF also welcomes some competition for the A321LR.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

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

Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:44 pm

keesje wrote:
In my opinion the proposed 2-3-2 NMA would have JL retire comfortably, and even Champion..
:champagne:
We need / I expect something better from Seattle. E.g. a smaller, very lean / mean NMA that can be build/ assembled everywhere.


If it will be a (new) twin-aisle, the only possible sensible option is 2-4-2 seating, potentially with an extra cargo door. That will enable 200-280 pax, boarding and de-boarding as quick as an average narrow-body. Effective range 3500-3600nm. Ticks all the boxes.

Anything else, their best option would be to pimp the 757. Which I doubt to be perfectly honest.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/qantas-excited-about-nma-and-assisting-boeing-with-443696/ tells us NMA has a big fan, QANTAS:

Qantas sees the prospect of Boeing developing its proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) specifically for short/medium-haul routes as "fantastic" and is working with Seattle to help define the design.

"We're really excited about [NMA]. If they do that it, that's going to be a great aircraft," Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told FlightGlobal at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London. "It will be a great transcontinental domestic aircraft."

Joyce says that for Qantas to grow high-frequency domestic routes like Brisbane-Sydney, on which it currently has flights every half-hour, it will need a bigger aircraft. "And you don't want an aircraft designed for longer haul like the 787 as they're too heavy. So an aircraft that's particularly designed for domestic [routes] would be fantastic."

Seems like they are fans of the higher capacity, lower range variant, and it seems like the time lines would line up (they're not buyers till the mid 2020s).

QF also welcomes some competition for the A321LR.



"Boeing will be clever to put an aircraft in [to the market] because they have to have something that competes against that [the A321LR]," says Joyce.


So Joyce wants it to be ~A321 sized too? Great ! The 737-10 I presume..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:12 pm

keesje wrote:

"Boeing will be clever to put an aircraft in [to the market] because they have to have something that competes against that [the A321LR]," says Joyce.


So Joyce wants it to be ~A321 sized too? Great ! The 737-10 I presume..


He may want something to compete against the A321LR for range not necessarily size. There are many routes from Austalia to Malaysia/Singapore/Indonesia where the current generation A320s and 737-800s don't have enough range and A330 are too big. The A321LR may be the only option on the market right now. I could see an airline like Qantas wanting the longer range smaller NMA version for their international network and the shorter range higher capacity NMA version for their domestic market.
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:25 am

"We're really excited about [NMA]. If they do that it, that's going to be a great aircraft," Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told FlightGlobal at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London. "It will be a great transcontinental domestic aircraft."

Joyce says that for Qantas to grow high-frequency domestic routes like Brisbane-Sydney, on which it currently has flights every half-hour, it will need a bigger aircraft. "And you don't want an aircraft designed for longer haul like the 787 as they're too heavy. So an aircraft that's particularly designed for domestic [routes] would be fantastic."

This enthusiasm has driven Qantas to assist Boeing with the definition of the NMA, adds Joyce. "We're absolutely talking to Boeing about what our requirements in that space would be. That's a longer-term commitment; it won't be until the mid-20s."



Granted, every airline CEO talks to all the OEMs. But this sounds like deja vu,(QF, 777) but better because they are actively engaging Boeing about the design and QFs requirements. If QF is indeed this committed to to this program, if they do it, then I can't see why the ULH RFP would not go in the favor of Boeing. Opinions?


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... th-443696/
 
2175301
Posts: 1045
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:38 am

So what is the "NMA"? Is that possibly the replacement for the 737, or is it a different name for the Middle Of Market (MOM), etc?

Have a great day,
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:40 am

2175301 wrote:
So what is the "NMA"? Is that possibly the replacement for the 737, or is it a different name for the Middle Of Market (MOM), etc?

Have a great day,


New
Medium/Mid-haul/Mid-capacity/Middle-of-Market/Master-of-Mediocrity
Airplane

Not so much a 737 class airplane, but something modern in the vein of 757-767, to perform those missions efficiently in an aircraft's sweet spot, rather than pushing a 737MAX beyond the max, or abusing a 777/787.
 
parapente
Posts: 1992
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:10 am

Alan Joyce is another of those 'noisy' CEO's who just loves to hear the sound of his own voice.Qantas is frankly a small airline on the edge of nowhere.It is primarily fed by the ME3 anyway.Mind you if Boeing can flatter the man's oversized ego then why not.As stated above will help them with their ULR (but it's theirs to loose anyway).As for MOM I think there are a few other 'real' players out there that have the clout to persuade Boeing one way or another.But hell if it gives him his 15 mins of fame I guess it doesn't matter either way.
 
User avatar
Spiderguy252
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:58 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:12 am

Just curious - were they 'excited' by the 777 when it was in the works?
Vahroone
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:20 am

At the risk of overreading heavily doctored PR statements, the fact that QF wants the NMA primarily as a high-density transcon people hauler says plenty about their desired stage lengths. 3500nm circle from MEL is way more than necessary for Straya+NZ, and covers SEA locations like CGK, DPS, SIN and KUL as well. OTOH, they'd love to have more capacity because frequency is capped, so I can see AJ requesting something with 789 or larger capacity (300+ pax HD) with sod all for range and weight.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:35 am

parapente wrote:
Qantas is frankly a small airline on the edge of nowhere.


Would you classify SQ and CX as being "small" as well? :scratchchin:

QF/SQ/CX all have similar market capitalisations...
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
 
Aither
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:57 am

SYDSpotter wrote:
parapente wrote:
Qantas is frankly a small airline on the edge of nowhere.


QF/SQ/CX all have similar market capitalisations...


The point is QF has only 4 regional routes with more than 10 daily flights...
I've never seen an airline starting to operate a new fleet for 4 short haul routes...
Never trust the obvious
 
Armaghman
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:09 am

Agree with the sentiment re Qantas importance.

If you are going to do his aircraft for anywhere if should be China and India your talking too. Only benefit of talking to Qantas is good for scoping the issues Asia will hit more and more between multiple city's.
 
SYDSpotter
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:10 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:10 am

Aither wrote:
The point is QF has only 4 regional routes with more than 10 daily flights...
I've never seen an airline starting to operate a new fleet for 4 short haul routes...


And what's stopping QF from using the "NMA" on other domestic routes?? Not sure why you think it's only limited to 4 routes? The routes where QF would need an aircraft like the NMA on include:

SYD-MEL
SYD-BNE
MEL-BNE
SYD-PER
MEL-PER
BNE-PER

These are either high frequency routes and/or routes where something bigger than a A321/739 capacity wise is required.

Aither wrote:
I've never seen an airline starting to operate a new fleet for 4 short haul routes...


At the time, QF bought the 747-400ER subtype almost exclusively for MEL-LAX.
319_320_321_332_333_388 / 734_737_738_743_744_762_763_772_773_77W
 
Aither
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:35 am

SYDSpotter wrote:

Aither wrote:
I've never seen an airline starting to operate a new fleet for 4 short haul routes...


At the time, QF bought the 747-400ER subtype almost exclusively for MEL-LAX.


Long routes + big aircraft = lots of revenues. So small fleet can make sense there.

Short haul + smaller aircraft = minimum fleet size has to be more important to cover the costs of the added complexity.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:04 pm

parapente wrote:
Alan Joyce is another of those 'noisy' CEO's who just loves to hear the sound of his own voice.Qantas is frankly a small airline on the edge of nowhere.It is primarily fed by the ME3 anyway.Mind you if Boeing can flatter the man's oversized ego then why not.As stated above will help them with their ULR (but it's theirs to loose anyway).As for MOM I think there are a few other 'real' players out there that have the clout to persuade Boeing one way or another.But hell if it gives him his 15 mins of fame I guess it doesn't matter either way.


Why such a needlessly vitriolic post? Alan Joyce, as CEO, has a responsibility to his shareholders to maximise value for them. Part of that is using the right aircraft for the missions his airline has. If no suitable aircraft exists for the anticipated future state of the market his airline will be in, then yes, the CEO should be in talks with aircraft manufacturers to encourage them to produce something that suits the airline's needs. That is not blowing his own trumpet, that is just business.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your rant.
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:02 pm

Bashing Qantas because their CEO is expressing interest in the NMA is very sad. Qantas has used widebodies for domestic short to medium haul for decades. They also have some longer and thinner routes to Southeast Asia which may be opportunities as well.

China and India are important markets but not the market not ones where there is opportunity for the NMA. I could see interest not only in Australia, but Japan, Central Asia, North America, Europe, etc. The aviation world has changed a lot since the days of the 757 and A310.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:31 pm

Armaghman wrote:
Agree with the sentiment re Qantas importance.

Many of us remember not too long ago that QF's choice of 787 over A350-not-XWB was the death knell of A350-not-XWB.

They don't have the same gravitas they once had back in the pre-EK glory days of the Kangaroo Route, but they still have a fair amount.

If you are going to do his aircraft for anywhere if should be China and India your talking too. Only benefit of talking to Qantas is good for scoping the issues Asia will hit more and more between multiple city's.

Why not both?

At this stage of the game, any/all positive comments from airline CEOs are welcome.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:41 pm

ikramerica wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
So supposedly it looks like doing 2-3-2 isn’t something the airlines want because they’re only adding a seat per one extra aisle (as opposed to 2 per extra aisle), or perhaps not being able to make it 2-4-2. Wouldn’t making it 2-4-2 make the 797 more than 220-270 PAX? Or otherwise wider but stubbier like an a310 if it was going to be carrying that amount?

No doubt if airlines _can_ add an extra seat abreast, they will do it, because “cheaper fares”, supposedly. It’d just be more efficient aerodynamically to have a slender plane than a wide one with just as many seats, wouldn’t it?

I guess the thing to draw from that is, 2-4-2 realistically (“cramped”) for 220-270 means we get an a310 (shorter than a 767-200 which is 2-3-2), on the short end... although I don’t know about configurations much.


Yes, 2-4-2 is too short at 220 seats. This idea of 3 lengths that will all sell is ludicrous.

2 lengths, 225 seat and 270 seat, 2-3-2 with narrower seats, aisles and wall panels. 767 on a diet. 1-2-1 for lie flat product. 2-2-2 for true Y+ or tight regional J. 2-1-2 (or 1-2-2) also an option like the 767.

Agreed. Anything larger is just too large and too heavy for the market segment. If Boeing were going to do a 2-4-2 or so MOM, why not bring the 787-3 back out.
Zac
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:42 pm

Armaghman wrote:
Agree with the sentiment re Qantas importance.

If you are going to do his aircraft for anywhere if should be China and India your talking too. Only benefit of talking to Qantas is good for scoping the issues Asia will hit more and more between multiple city's.


A "transcon + some SEA" people hauler NMA for QF would also, thanks to the density of Asia, be pretty good for China and Indian carriers. To cover all of SEA from even somewhere butt-north like HRB takes way less than 4000nm, likewise, 3500nm from BOM gets you to the populated parts of SEA (4000nm gets PER FWIW). An NMA for Asia really doesn't need to be more than 4000nm, heck, CNS is reachable to a whole bunch of East Asian locations from just 3500nm.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:42 pm

TranscendZac wrote:
If Boeing were going to do a 2-4-2 or so MOM, why not bring the 787-3 back out.

Alan Joyce just gave us the answer: anything based on the 787 is going to be too heavy. It's the same reason the -3 didn't make sense. It's a non-starter.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Qantas 'excited' about NMA and assisting Boeing with definition

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:29 pm

Spiderguy252 wrote:
Just curious - were they 'excited' by the 777 when it was in the works?


Well they part of the "Working Together" team of airlines that helped design it's capabilities so I would say "yes". That they never ordered it was down to their pilots/ops people and CASA who felt four engines was the safer option for long over-water routes. That conservatism seems to be loosening up now so TPAC operations with twins is becoming acceptable.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5840
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:33 pm

Compared to what though? And while he sounds positive the remarks pose many serious question for me.

1. it seems the current widebodies work okay for missions over 2500nm as this range covers all trancon missions in Australia and even if we extent this to missions to New Zealand it still remains below the 3000nm threshold.
2. this fits well with the transcon plane described by the some US majors

it is a bit too little for the TATL mission though.

Add the fact that he wants Boeing to built something that competes with the A321 it is also likely that he has no desire for something with 300+ seats in all Y config.
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
TranscendZac wrote:
If Boeing were going to do a 2-4-2 or so MOM, why not bring the 787-3 back out.

Alan Joyce just gave us the answer: anything based on the 787 is going to be too heavy. It's the same reason the -3 didn't make sense. It's a non-starter.

Oh I agree, I should’ve clarified my remark. My point was that for the people on here thinking 2-4-2 is happening, they’d just as well re-hatch the 787-3, which they won’t becaus it was too heavy and/or not enough range for the mission.
Zac
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24745
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
Compared to what though? And while he sounds positive the remarks pose many serious question for me...it seems the current widebodies work okay for missions over 2500nm as this range covers all trancon missions in Australia and even if we extent this to missions to New Zealand it still remains below the 3000nm threshold.


It has been said that the A330-200's size results in longer-than-desired turnaround times for domestic shuttle missions compared to the 767-300ER. An even smaller widebody NMA would be that much quicker to turn around, allowing for more frequencies per day.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:46 pm

TranscendZac wrote:
Revelation wrote:
TranscendZac wrote:
If Boeing were going to do a 2-4-2 or so MOM, why not bring the 787-3 back out.

Alan Joyce just gave us the answer: anything based on the 787 is going to be too heavy. It's the same reason the -3 didn't make sense. It's a non-starter.

Oh I agree, I should’ve clarified my remark. My point was that for the people on here thinking 2-4-2 is happening, they’d just as well re-hatch the 787-3, which they won’t becaus it was too heavy and/or not enough range for the mission.


The 787-3 wasn’t heavy because of the fuselage width. It’s was heavy because it still had essentially the same wing and wing box and engines for a much heavier longer ranged aircraft. It was basically a bastard child.

Something designed to fit in that 3-5k mile range is going to have much smaller wings, engines and fuel tanks. For it to be viable it has to be much lighter than a 787-3 would have been.
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1207
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:12 pm

I think they should lay the E section aisles out as a 1 - 4 - 3 and up-sell the 1 aisle as premium economy, with the same pitch. Can you imagine the wonder of having 2 armrests to one self?
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5840
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:52 pm

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Compared to what though? And while he sounds positive the remarks pose many serious question for me...it seems the current widebodies work okay for missions over 2500nm as this range covers all trancon missions in Australia and even if we extent this to missions to New Zealand it still remains below the 3000nm threshold.


It has been said that the A330-200's size results in longer-than-desired turnaround times for domestic shuttle missions compared to the 767-300ER. An even smaller widebody NMA would be that much quicker to turn around, allowing for more frequencies per day.


But his main argument was that the current widebodies are too heavy. I also must say that I fail to see how turn around time will give you an additional leg, if you fly 2000nm missions. So far all arguments and all hints make no clear an convincing picture of what the plane could be imho.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16650
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
But his main argument was that the current widebodies are too heavy. I also must say that I fail to see how turn around time will give you an additional leg, if you fly 2000nm missions. So far all arguments and all hints make no clear an convincing picture of what the plane could be imho.

That's a false equivalence: he said he it was a great/fantastic aircraft and QF was to assist Boeing with the definition of the NMA but he didn't say he was convinced.

It could very well be QF buys 797, or it could be they continue on with A321/A330 or perhaps some other path.

In the mean time, it's good news for the program that an airline CEO is saying it's a great/fantastic airplane.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25825
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:10 pm

Entry into service may be slated for 2027:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boein ... 7-sources/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:52 pm

Interesting.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boeing-moves-eis-target-nma-2027-sources/

- The right technology isn't mature enough? (compared to what ?)
- Other priorities, Sales isn't entirely comfortable with 737 competitiveness for the next 10 years?
- The market envisioned for 250+ seats up to 5000NM's so far seems somewhat smaller talking to airlines?

Image

Tuning the NMA specification down a bit 220+ seats, 4500NM could improve attractives if airline feedback holds any value. is to be believed.

Image

. moves it closer to A321NEO/LR territory with it's currently hard to beat value-costs- availability barrier.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 3797
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Compared to what though? And while he sounds positive the remarks pose many serious question for me...it seems the current widebodies work okay for missions over 2500nm as this range covers all trancon missions in Australia and even if we extent this to missions to New Zealand it still remains below the 3000nm threshold.


It has been said that the A330-200's size results in longer-than-desired turnaround times for domestic shuttle missions compared to the 767-300ER. An even smaller widebody NMA would be that much quicker to turn around, allowing for more frequencies per day.


But his main argument was that the current widebodies are too heavy. I also must say that I fail to see how turn around time will give you an additional leg, if you fly 2000nm missions. So far all arguments and all hints make no clear an convincing picture of what the plane could be imho.


An extra frequency can be gained on a sector such as MEL-SYD or BNE-SYD. Currently the A330's domestically do PER-BNE/SYD/MEL plus MEL-SYD sectors. Its not uncommon to see QF dedicate an A330 or 2 on just MEL-SYD which would typically operate 6 sectors a day. The average turn around time for the A330 is about an hour where as when QF operated the 767 the average turnaround was 45 minutes. Taking this into account providing a 797 could reduce the turnaround times to 45 minutes to what they are currently that would add the extra frequency
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:54 pm

qf789 wrote:
The average turn around time for the A330 is about an hour where as when QF operated the 767 the average turnaround was 45 minutes. Taking this into account providing a 797 could reduce the turnaround times to 45 minutes to what they are currently that would add the extra frequency


That extra frequency would be required to haul the same number of passengers per day :yes:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:04 pm

keesje wrote:
Interesting.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/04/boeing-moves-eis-target-nma-2027-sources/

- The right technology isn't mature enough? (compared to what ?)
- Other priorities, Sales isn't entirely comfortable with 737 competitiveness for the next 10 years?
- The market envisioned for 250+ seats up to 5000NM's so far seems somewhat smaller talking to airlines?
.


I can't see the whole article. Are those your opinions, or are they actually conclusions from the article? I don't understand your conjectures. The 737 continues to sell well and the backlog is bigger than ever with 4000 MAXs on order. All the MOM talk has shown that there is quite a bit of interest from a number of airlines at least speculating about the airplane.

This is the actual summary

Summary

Technology is at the heart of the new target EIS for the NMA.
The 737 replacement was always intended to follow the NMA.
Supply chain asked for 767 production rate ramp-up feasibility

.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5840
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:11 pm

Considering that the A330 fleet already clocks 15 hours each day, I dare say finding another frequency with the 797 will be a challenge.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/0 ... ilisation/
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10330
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:53 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Summary

Technology is at the heart of the new target EIS for the NMA.
The 737 replacement was always intended to follow the NMA.
Supply chain asked for 767 production rate ramp-up feasibility

.


Hi Newbie, if your conclusions will be Boeings, I can hear the Airbus bottles popping everywhere.

Yes, maybe the 767 is the best alternative anyway, it stopped selling 15 years ago, but times might have changed.. maybe the A330NEO and A321NEO are easier to beat than the A330 and A321 CEO's back then. Let's take a few years to think about that :crossfingers:

The 737 is doing better then ever. Half of the contracts are with soft conditions to big Lessors, 800 are for un-identifed and large number was sold on commonality, availability and price. The -7 and -9 were rejected, but OK, it's really only that "4000 orders" that really counts. Ewverything is fine. :covereyes:

Technology is at the heart of the new target EIS for the NMA. Like it was with the A330/787, NEO's, MAX. It's not only the engines that make the difference. Cabin humidity, big windows and imploding maintenance costs play a big role.. :tired:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:58 pm

46% of the market wants 150-200 seats, and 27% wants 200-250 seats. 13% actually wants less than 150 seats. That sounds more like a 737 replacement to me.

I think developing a new "MoM" aircraft for the 200+ pax market only is a mistake by Boeing. They should focus on developing a three size 737 replacement with 150-250 seats instead. A lot more revenue, and a lot more pressure on Airbus, while the development costs shouldn't be that different.

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