Revelation wrote:parapente wrote:Boeing are never going to publicly say what everyone knows.Thats ok one would not expect them to.Just like Airbus saying that the 338 is a perfect mom a/c.Of course it's total BS but I would not expect them to say otherwise.
Boeing have a problem and its increasing by the day as the market moves upwards in (narrowbody) size.
Their 180-200 offering -The 8, is just fine for what it has to do and the 7 is there for those that need a 150-175 ac.
But above that...The 9 is rubbish and has had to be replaced.But the 10 is engineering by sellotape.
It's t/o performance will be better but not great.It is larger than the 9 but still too small and it is Range limited.
If these are Boeing's problems, then they are good ones to have.
Despite your opinions of the 737 product line, the production line is full for the foreseeable future.
Customers think enough of those 'rubbish' -9s and 'cellotape' -10s to spend $BILLIONS to buy them.
Having the market size move upwards is not a problem for Boeing, it's an opportunity.
Having the market size move upwards is a problem for Bombardier.
A lot of people on a.net like to think about maximum range and all the opportunities for a plane with more range. I've seen a number of posts about a bigger wing on the A320 family to give it more range. The reality from what I've heard is that airlines care about CASM on the core of the market. The average 737 flight is 900-1000 miles. Under 10% of flights are over 2000 miles. Airlines want maximum efficiency around 1,000 miles while having some flexibility to fly longer missions. There is a limit though. They don't want to be flying extra weight around burning fuel and paying higher landing fees. Very few passenger flights takeoff at MTOW and most passenger airlines operate their airplanes below the maximum MTOW option. The 737-10 being range limited may be just fine or better for some airlines who don't need 2500miles or more of range if the airplane burns less fuel over 500-1000 miles than its competitor if that is where an airline wants to use the plane.
The A321LR gets a lot of excitement on this forum for its range. How many photos of it have been shown as a MOM competitor in this thread? Well when reality comes into the conversation, maybe 2-4% of NEO family orders are the A321LR. More range on existing platforms is only going to sell a few planes. Perhaps a few hundred (which is enough to easily justify the cost of a 7000lbs MTOW increase on the A321). will be sold, but that's not what the NMA market would solely be comprised of.
The same conversation regarding how much range is too much range translates into the NMA. High max ranges offering flexibility are nice, but how much useless structural weight is being flown around? How many A330s & 787s are in regional configurations that never go more than 4000 miles? Smaller wing, smaller engines, smaller gear, lighter wingbox, lower thrust engines requiring less maintenance, lower landing fees, cheaper to build, can all result in the 10-20% CASM differences that can justify a new model. The question is how big the market is and how to size the airplane to capture the market.