Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:24 pm

parapente wrote:
IMHO MOM is simply a Boeing PR invention. They cannot say the market needs a one class 240 seater / a 2 class 200 plus seater that can cross the pond and more (which is the market ).Because that is what Airbus have managed to achieve already! So they 'invent' a slightly bigger MOM plane with a slightly bigger range and say 'thats what the airlines really want'. It fools no one - hence they are really looking at the MAX 10 which would be an A321LR equivalent. The real danger for them is that one is starting to see LCC's moving to the A321 NEO (esp in Asia).If that trickle becomes a flood they are in a dark place and they know it.


Unless a major portion of the market does want something larger with more range. A 5000nm design range centered around Southeast Asia puts the entire Asian and Australian continents in range, along with the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and eastern Africa.

If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer. So Airbus would be forced to respond with their own clean-sheet design or risk losing a potential large market (2500+ frames?) to Boeing.
Last edited by Stitch on Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:29 pm

The payload and range of 762, with the economics of a 737- 8 and that for a low list price. What did they say about no more moonshots?
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:29 pm

seahawk wrote:
The payload and range of 762, with the economics of a 737- 8 and that for a low list price. What did they say about no more moonshots?


Wasn't it supposed to be the payload and range of a 762, but with the economics of a 752?
Last edited by NYCRuss on Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
StTim
Posts: 3856
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:35 pm

Grandfather that design!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:52 pm

texl1649 wrote:
Putting a new cockpit on a 737 seems like the most outlandish idea for this model I've read yet.


Image
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:04 pm

Stitch wrote:
Unless a major portion of the market does want something larger with more range. A 5000nm design range centered around Southeast Asia puts the entire Asian and Australian continents in range, along with the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and eastern Africa.

If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer. So Airbus would be forced to respond with their own clean-sheet design or risk losing a potential large market (2500+ frames?) to Boeing.



Why would a A322 with more seats than an A321 and with that single aisle economics that airlines want not be an effective answer? How big is the market for an model that would be heavier than an A322 and have worse economics but have the little bit of more capacity and range?
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:34 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Unless a major portion of the market does want something larger with more range. A 5000nm design range centered around Southeast Asia puts the entire Asian and Australian continents in range, along with the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and eastern Africa.

If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer. So Airbus would be forced to respond with their own clean-sheet design or risk losing a potential large market (2500+ frames?) to Boeing.



Why would a A322 with more seats than an A321 and with that single aisle economics that airlines want not be an effective answer? How big is the market for an model that would be heavier than an A322 and have worse economics but have the little bit of more capacity and range?


How big is the market? I think that we'll find our next year. If Boeing announces a small twin MoM, then they believe that it is big enough and will have persuaded their Board to approve the project.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:48 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Why would a A322 with more seats than an A321 and with that single aisle economics that airlines want not be an effective answer? How big is the market for an model that would be heavier than an A322 and have worse economics but have the little bit of more capacity and range?


Why must we assume that Boeing would develop a clean-sheet that could easily be outclassed by a refresh of an existing Airbus model?


NYCRuss wrote:
How big is the market?


keesje seems to believe it's in the thousands based on his various posts about how many A321-200LRs Airbus is going to be selling if Boeing does nothing to put itself into this market.
 
Natflyer
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:51 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The payload and range of 762, with the economics of a 737- 8 and that for a low list price. What did they say about no more moonshots?


Wasn't it supposed to be the payload and range of a 762, but with the economics of a 752?


I think people are forgetting that the 762 only sold about 250 examples. Once the 763 came, nobody wanted it except CO bought a few examples as part of the 764 order. The 762 is un uneconomical size, heavy and with a large frontal (wetted) area. I really doubt the MOM/NMA is heading that way 30-40 years later.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:00 pm

Stitch, Airbus probably would launch a bigger A320. If they ever launch a MoM it would probably be a big one. Replacing the A330 in the process. Somewhere in the middle of a A322 and A350-900 after 2025-2030. I wonder how propulsion will look like by then.

Image

If the market is not sizeable at all, it would be non-sense for Boeing to look at, and for Airbus to build 20-30 per month in the coming years. And for the airlines to order.. Oh they did..
Last edited by keesje on Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12424
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:02 pm

Natflyer wrote:
NYCRuss wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The payload and range of 762, with the economics of a 737- 8 and that for a low list price. What did they say about no more moonshots?


Wasn't it supposed to be the payload and range of a 762, but with the economics of a 752?


I think people are forgetting that the 762 only sold about 250 examples. Once the 763 came, nobody wanted it except CO bought a few examples as part of the 764 order. The 762 is un uneconomical size, heavy and with a large frontal (wetted) area. I really doubt the MOM/NMA is heading that way 30-40 years later.


The 762 was uneconomical because it was heavy/overbuilt for it's size/payload-range. It wasn't uneconomical because there is something magical about its pax count that automatically means it can't work (the similar sized 753 is quite economical, albeit introduced way too late in the 757's lifecycle to garner significant sales).

The question is if the market is big enough to get a return of investment in designing an aircraft optimized around that size/payload-range.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:28 pm

Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Why would a A322 with more seats than an A321 and with that single aisle economics that airlines want not be an effective answer? How big is the market for an model that would be heavier than an A322 and have worse economics but have the little bit of more capacity and range?


Why must we assume that Boeing would develop a clean-sheet that could easily be outclassed by a refresh of an existing Airbus model?


You posted that,
Stitch wrote:
If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer.


I am wondering how you are getting to a place where a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 but with better economics will have significant orders, yet you don't think a stretched A321 would be of any use in this area.

Surely any design of Boeing that has an EIS of around 2025 or later will have better engines than the current A321. You would figure though that these same engines would be available to Airbus to use on any stretch of the A321 so the efficiency will need to come from the frame. I think Boeing would have a tough time developing a twin aisle with single aisle economics. If this was easy or even possible I think it would have been done already. You are either going to have to decide which one you want, do you want a twin aisle or do you want single aisle economics as either one will have its own compromises.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:13 pm

enzo011 wrote:
I think Boeing would have a tough time developing a twin aisle with single aisle economics. If this was easy or even possible I think it would have been done already.


I think Boeing will, too, but that it has not yet been done by either OEM might be because it has not been a priority for either OEM. They've enjoyed a comfortable duopoly below 200 seats and their focus has therefore been in the market above that (in some cases, well above that). The 767 surpassed the A300/A310 and then the A330/A340 surpassed the 767. So Boeing's focus was on that part of the market and they responded with first the 777 and then the 787. This forced Airbus, in turn, to respond with first the A350 and then also the A330neo. And now Boeing has thrown the 777X into the mix.

With the top-end of the market generally "locked in", now the focus is moving back to the smaller frames. Airbus and Boeing are still in a comfortable duopoly at 140-200 seats, but Boeing has been weak just above 200 seats and continues to be so. So that is where there current focus is moving to and where Airbus' will, as well, if for no other reason to support their current dominant position. That might be MoM next decade or it might be NSA (and NRA for Airbus) the decade beyond that.


I'll be honest here - I don't believe keesje believes his "737-10ER" or "737-11" have any chance in hell of being the equal of, much less actually being better than, the A321-200LR or "A322". IMO, he's just putting them out there to a) yank Boeing Booster's chains and, perhaps, b) in the hope Boeing really does launch them, fails miserably, and this subsequently cripples their ability to get NSA into the skies before 2040 (as opposed to 2030) to allow Airbus an extra decade of raking in money with the A321-200neo at the expense of the 737-9 before launching NRA in lock-step with the NSA and the two OEMs settle back into a 50-50 split of the market.

I am of the opinion that if the "737-10" launches, it's going to be a 2m stretch with improved wing devices (trailing edge extensions, etc.) and a CFM-1B engine with an extra 2-3000lbs of thrust. Something that can offer compelling enough economics on 80-90% of the missions I believe this class of airplane (below 250 seats in a single class at 29-30" pitch) will be operated at on a daily basis and at a price low enough to Boeing that they can match Airbus on RFPs at similar gross margins.

Because, frankly, that seems to be what the airlines really want. Competition where the bulk of their purchasing decisions are going to be made. Not the extreme edge cases.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:18 am

Revelation wrote:
That's quite a leisurely pace, one that should be easy for Airbus to disrupt, if they should choose to do so.


They wouldn't spend 9 years on a MoM. They'd overlap 777X, 737-10 (if it happens) and MoM (if it happens) development. Any MoM program would likely be the usual 6-7 year development cycle, probably not launching for another 2-3 years.

And what would there be for Airbus to disrupt with other than the A321LR and maybe an A322 with a new wing? Airbus is already pretty well positioned. Boeing has to determine if there's room for an additional aircraft in the purported gap. Unless everybody is wrong - even Boeing who says the middle of the market is modest in size and would be divided between a MoM and existing aircraft - and the market for a dedicated MoM turns out to be huge, Airbus would be foolish to create a clean sheet MoM to further divide that niche.

Stitch wrote:
If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer. So Airbus would be forced to respond with their own clean-sheet design or risk losing a potential large market (2500+ frames?) to Boeing.


I tend to think Airbus would not need to respond head-to-head. As others have argued, a dedicated MoM could not really hope to beat the A321LR on CASM alone. It would have to be justified based on need for more payload-range than the A321, at lower cost than the A330NEO and 787. That much, you and I seem to agree on.

That leaves a market, probably of respectable size, where Airbus can sell a significant number of A321LR's and maybe A322's, and would be quite happy to do so because the development cost was low. If they invest far more money in their own dedicated MoM, they'll need higher margins to make a profit, but the more direct competition would not help them achieve those higher margins.

I think that would be a good split for airlines, too. They'd have a choice of a 200-250 heavy narrowbody with a range of 4000 miles, or a 225-270 seat light twin-aisle with a range of 5000 miles - the same kind of capacity and range leap-frogging we see in the widebody market.

* Edit - fixed malformed quotes, removed an extraneous sentence fragment.
Last edited by iamlucky13 on Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:35 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Thunderboltdrgn wrote:
That's quite a leisurely pace, one that should be easy for Airbus to disrupt, if they should choose to do so.


They wouldn't spend 9 years on a MoM. They'd overlap 777X, 737-10 (if it happens) and MoM (if it happens) development. Any MoM program would likely be the usual 6-7 year development cycle, probably not launching for another 2-3 years.

And what would there be for Airbus to disrupt with other than the A321LR and maybe an A322 with a new wing? Airbus is already pretty well positioned. Boeing has to determine if there's room for an additional aircraft in the purported gap. Unless everybody is wrong - even Boeing who says the middle of the market is modest in size and would be divided between a MoM and existing aircraft - and the market for a dedicated MoM turns out to be huge, Airbus would be foolish to create a clean sheet MoM to further divide that niche.

Stitch wrote:
If Asia is "where the traffic is" in the future, a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330 with better economics than both could be of significant interest - and consummate orders. And a stretched A321 or LGW A330neo would not be an effective answer. So Airbus would be forced to respond with their own clean-sheet design or risk losing a potential large market (2500+ frames?) to Boeing.
or if they should just leave it to Airbus.

I tend to think Airbus would not need to respond head-to-head. As others have argued, a dedicated MoM could not really hope to beat the A321LR on CASM alone. It would have to be justified based on need for more payload-range than the A321, at lower cost than the A330NEO and 787. That much, you and I seem to agree on.

That leaves a market, probably of respectable size, where Airbus can sell a significant number of A321LR's and maybe A322's, and would be quite happy to do so because the development cost was low. If they invest far more money in their own dedicated MoM, they'll need higher margins to make a profit, but the more direct competition would not help them achieve those higher margins.

I think that would be a good split for airlines, too. They'd have a choice of a 200-250 heavy narrowbody with a range of 4000 miles, or a 225-270 seat light twin-aisle with a range of 5000 miles - the same kind of capacity and range leap-frogging we see in the widebody market.


I agree that Boeing should leave the top of the narrow body market to Airbus... for now.

Develop the MoM, which will be a small twin that might be in production for 30–40 years. A market big enough for just one: Boeing.

Then a decade or so from now, launch the 737's replacement. A design that spans the 737-7.5 to 752 sizes, with a few wing sizes. At that time, Boeing will again be able to go head-to-head with Airbus at all points in the narrow body market.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:52 am

But if we believe there is a market for the MoM, which frames would be sold if there is no MoM? For me the most obvious answer is the 787 or the the A330. But as, by Boeing logic, the A330 will not take many sales from the 787 it would surely be mostly 787s. It is not as if the passenger that could be flown on a MoM would be left behind today. So maybe it is not a 787, but 2 737s, that are not sold.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:30 am

Airbus next decade could decide to MoM the A330 back into a A300 kind of specification, highly unlikely though.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA330-700Light.jpg

Image
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:35 pm

keesje wrote:
Airbus next decade could decide to MoM the A330 back into a A300 kind of specification, highly unlikely though.


An "A330-700" would probably fail worse than the 787-3 did, personally. The 787-3 at lease didn't have the structural inefficiency of a shrink added to the aerodynamics inefficiency of a smaller wing.



MoM pretty much has to be clean-sheet, even if dimensionally it is similar to a pre-existing airframe (A300 / 767), in order to optimize it for the role. However, I think that optimization may make it a "one-trick pony" and Airbus and Boeing are likely not only concerned about the market being large enough to justify the investment, but also that it might only be large enough to justify one entrant (as the VLA market proved to be).

While one entrant on the surface sounds desirable (no competition means higher Average Sales Prices), that could push airlines to explore other alternatives, like more frequencies with smaller frames (as we're kind of seeing in the VLA market).
 
texl1649
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:01 pm

Boeing on any mad max basically has to keep changes to a minimum. If you're not gonna resurrect the 757 (reasonable), I don't know why you'd resurrect her cockpit, on a low-risk/engineering effort. I figured the lower lobe even there was different anyway. Sure, the 757 nominally started as a 737/727, but it wound up being an entirely different bird. This isn't a plane they plan/want/will product through 2040.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:07 pm

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
Airbus next decade could decide to MoM the A330 back into a A300 kind of specification, highly unlikely though.


An "A330-700" would probably fail worse than the 787-3 did, personally. The 787-3 at lease didn't have the structural inefficiency of a shrink added to the aerodynamics inefficiency of a smaller wing.


MoM pretty much has to be clean-sheet, even if dimensionally it is similar to a pre-existing airframe (A300 / 767), in order to optimize it for the role. However, I think that optimization may make it a "one-trick pony" and Airbus and Boeing are likely not only concerned about the market being large enough to justify the investment, but also that it might only be large enough to justify one entrant (as the VLA market proved to be).

While one entrant on the surface sounds desirable (no competition means higher Average Sales Prices), that could push airlines to explore other alternatives, like more frequencies with smaller frames (as we're kind of seeing in the VLA market).


The A330-700 I looked at yrs ago was not a simple shrink but a A332 fuselage build on an light optimized carbon wingbox/wing with state of the art engines/landing gears. Of course it could be stretched trading capacity for range. A kind of LD3 capable 767X similar to 777X. But Airbus kept the wing, naming it A330-800.
Doing a new 4500 NM wing/engine LDG on a possible A322 is probably a better investment.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:12 pm

Stitch wrote:
An "A330-700" would probably fail worse than the 787-3 did, personally. The 787-3 at lease didn't have the structural inefficiency of a shrink added to the aerodynamics inefficiency of a smaller wing.

I agree. The A330-700 would no doubt fail especially since the A330-800 is failing. One could argue though that the 787-8 (and 787-3 if it were real) suffers from the inefficiency of a shrink as the optimal size for that airframe is the 787-9.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:24 pm

I don't see Airbus building a small(er) wide body anytime soon. The middle of Airbus' market is smaller than the middle of Boeing's. Boeing doesn't have anywhere else to go unless they make a 737-10, which only gets them to the a321. Airbus can still develop an a322. It may require a new wing, but an a322 seems like a less risky proposition for Airbus than a 2-3-2 wide body or a new a300/310.

So a 737-10, from what I've read, will require new landing gear. Maybe a new wing. How much will that cost to develop? We have a rough idea of the market size based on a321 sales. Will that cover it? And what happens if Airbus launches an a322? How much will that eat into a321 and 737-10 sales?

I think that a small wide body is a better move for Boeing. Boeing won't have to worry about constantly playing catchup. Boeing just has to make sure that the market size is real. And if Airbus responds with an a322? To me that would simply validate Boeing's analysis.
Last edited by NYCRuss on Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:53 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
I agree that Boeing should leave the top of the narrow body market to Airbus... for now.

Develop the MoM, which will be a small twin that might be in production for 30–40 years. A market big enough for just one: Boeing.


I highly doubt Airbus would do nothing but watch for 30-40 years if Boeing launched an MoM. Airbus and Boeing each have an assymetric market share, but leaving an entire segment to the competitor is unlikely to happen. Boeing is so concerned over the 737-9/A321neo situation, they're considering launching a -10MAX. And that's not even a segment.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:21 am

JetBuddy wrote:
NYCRuss wrote:
I agree that Boeing should leave the top of the narrow body market to Airbus... for now.

Develop the MoM, which will be a small twin that might be in production for 30–40 years. A market big enough for just one: Boeing.


I highly doubt Airbus would do nothing but watch for 30-40 years if Boeing launched an MoM. Airbus and Boeing each have an assymetric market share, but leaving an entire segment to the competitor is unlikely to happen. Boeing is so concerned over the 737-9/A321neo situation, they're considering launching a -10MAX. And that's not even a segment.


If the market for small wide bodies turns out to be large enough for two, then Airbus will do something. Otherwise they'll just tinker at the edges with a larger narrow body. Neither Airbus nor Boeing will develop a money losing plane to spite the other.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:51 am

Stitch wrote:
I think Boeing will, too, but that it has not yet been done by either OEM might be because it has not been a priority for either OEM. They've enjoyed a comfortable duopoly below 200 seats and their focus has therefore been in the market above that (in some cases, well above that). The 767 surpassed the A300/A310 and then the A330/A340 surpassed the 767. So Boeing's focus was on that part of the market and they responded with first the 777 and then the 787. This forced Airbus, in turn, to respond with first the A350 and then also the A330neo. And now Boeing has thrown the 777X into the mix.

With the top-end of the market generally "locked in", now the focus is moving back to the smaller frames. Airbus and Boeing are still in a comfortable duopoly at 140-200 seats, but Boeing has been weak just above 200 seats and continues to be so. So that is where there current focus is moving to and where Airbus' will, as well, if for no other reason to support their current dominant position. That might be MoM next decade or it might be NSA (and NRA for Airbus) the decade beyond that.


I'll be honest here - I don't believe keesje believes his "737-10ER" or "737-11" have any chance in hell of being the equal of, much less actually being better than, the A321-200LR or "A322". IMO, he's just putting them out there to a) yank Boeing Booster's chains and, perhaps, b) in the hope Boeing really does launch them, fails miserably, and this subsequently cripples their ability to get NSA into the skies before 2040 (as opposed to 2030) to allow Airbus an extra decade of raking in money with the A321-200neo at the expense of the 737-9 before launching NRA in lock-step with the NSA and the two OEMs settle back into a 50-50 split of the market.

I am of the opinion that if the "737-10" launches, it's going to be a 2m stretch with improved wing devices (trailing edge extensions, etc.) and a CFM-1B engine with an extra 2-3000lbs of thrust. Something that can offer compelling enough economics on 80-90% of the missions I believe this class of airplane (below 250 seats in a single class at 29-30" pitch) will be operated at on a daily basis and at a price low enough to Boeing that they can match Airbus on RFPs at similar gross margins.

Because, frankly, that seems to be what the airlines really want. Competition where the bulk of their purchasing decisions are going to be made. Not the extreme edge cases.



Not much to disagree with in your post. It doesn't really answer why you think a enlarged A321 will not be an effective answer if there is a market for a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:17 am

I think we might move into a scenario similar to 2011. While Boeing does market studies, business cases, trade-off's, long term projections and talks to the airlines, Airbus launches a bigger rewinged A322/23, with hundreds in the orderbook. The most damaging variant of being confident and self centered. In 2011 Airbus sold 1000 NEO's while Boeing was lumbering & they never fully recovered. I hope Boeing doesn't put itself in that corner again.
Last edited by keesje on Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2388
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:46 am

keesje wrote:
I think we might move into a scenario similar to 2011. While Boeing does market studies, business cases, trade-off, long term projections and talks to the airlines, Airbus launches a bigger rewinged A322/23, with hundreds in the orderbook. In 2011 Airbus sold 1000 NEO's while Boeing was lumbering & they never fully recovered.


I have not even seen more valid rumors other than here that AIrbus is considering that. And I do not count an anser of a Senior Sales Executive in style of "We are considering this and that" as a valid porrf about what seriously planning todo something. At the moment Boeing is much more active on this topic, but even here in the end maybe nothing is going to happen.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:59 am

Airbus would love it if nothing is done by Boeing. It's like not responding to a fire in their kitchen. Not responding doesn't mean there will be stability. It seems Boeing understands that now.
Last edited by keesje on Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:19 pm

Boeing doesn't need to respond. Market share is only important if it translates into profit. A 737-10 may not translate into profit.

In a Leeham article from last year, they wrote "a larger 737 MAX 10, while technically feasible, is a three-quarters new airplane, so why bother?"

Let's say that Leeham is correct that a 737-10 is ¾ of a new airplane. That makes it a bad investment. So why is Boeing floating a 737-10 now? My guess is that Boeing is performing due diligence for when the MoM is presented to the Board of Directors. There will be four options, and more than one can be selected.

  • An inexpensive 737-10 design that requires extremely long runways
  • A proper 737-10 that will cost $8+ billion to develop
  • An NSA, to be developed before the 737 MAX enters service
  • The MoM, a small wide body with similar capacity to a 762

The first three look to me like non-starters. If the numbers make sense, my guess is that the Board only votes for the MoM.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:24 pm

A new garage doesn't put out the fire in the kitchen. Stating there's no fire usually has unsatisfactory results too.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:26 pm

And in the meantime you slash your 787 sales forecast by how many frames?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKCN0Y70E8

http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/ ... 787-sales/

Wanna put even more pressure on the 787 by offering a product that would be an alternative on many TATL routes, many continental routes and many intra-Asian routes? This only makes sense if you believe that all widebody orders for medium routes would go to the competition, but so far Boeing has officially marginalized the sales potential of the A330NEO, so that would also mean a lot of backtracking.
Last edited by seahawk on Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:36 pm

keesje wrote:
A new garage doesn't put out the fire in the kitchen. Stating there's no fire usually has unsatisfactory results too.


There is no fire. It's pure hyperbole to say that there is.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:40 pm

SQ22 wrote:
At the moment Boeing is much more active on this topic, but even here in the end maybe nothing is going to happen.


Obviously. They are talking for their dear life :-) ... and talk is cheap.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:48 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Not much to disagree with in your post. It doesn't really answer why you think a enlarged A321 will not be an effective answer if there is a market for a plane larger than the A321 and smaller than the A330.


If they can pull it off, MoM will offer widebody capacity and flexibility with narrowbody economics. I don't see how a longer narrowbody can compete. MoM will be a 767-300 while the A322-200 will be a 757-300. Compare the order books of the two models. :)


keesje wrote:
I think we might move into a scenario similar to 2011. While Boeing does market studies, business cases, trade-off's, long term projections and talks to the airlines, Airbus launches a bigger rewinged A322/23, with hundreds in the orderbook.


See above - your A322-200 will be a 757-300 with better engines. The 757-300 barely made 50 sales. To think an A322 would sell twice that, much less 10 times? *shakes head*

Airbus will only go A322 if they are forced into it and then only if MoM proves to be only "okay" instead of "exceptional". And I don't see Boeing - or the airlines - going for a MoM that is only "okay".


NYCRuss wrote:
Let's say that Leeham is correct that a 737-10 is ¾ of a new airplane. That makes it a bad investment. So why is Boeing floating a 737-10 now? My guess is that Boeing is performing due diligence for when the MoM is presented to the Board of Directors. There will be four options, and more than one can be selected.

  • An inexpensive 737-10 design that requires extremely long runways
  • A proper 737-10 that will cost $8+ billion to develop
  • An NSA, to be developed before the 737 MAX enters service
  • The MoM, a small wide body with similar capacity to a 762

The first three look to me like non-starters. If the numbers make sense, my guess is that the Board only votes for the MoM.


I think the first one with more powerful engines and improved wing elements to improve runway performance will be where Boeing goes.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:26 pm

keesje wrote:
I think we might move into a scenario similar to 2011. While Boeing does market studies, business cases, trade-off's, long term projections and talks to the airlines, Airbus launches a bigger rewinged A322/23, with hundreds in the orderbook. The most damaging variant of being confident and self centered. In 2011 Airbus sold 1000 NEO's while Boeing was lumbering & they never fully recovered. I hope Boeing doesn't put itself in that corner again.


Just curious, but why do you "hope Boeing doesn't put itself in that corner again"?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:26 pm

WIederling wrote:
SQ22 wrote:
At the moment Boeing is much more active on this topic, but even here in the end maybe nothing is going to happen.


Obviously. They are talking for their dear life :-) ... and talk is cheap.


As A.net proves every day.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:32 pm

WIederling wrote:
They are talking for their dear life


Wild exaggeration.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:35 pm

Stitch wrote:
The 757-300 barely made 50 sales. To think an A322 would sell twice that, much less 10 times? *shakes head*.


Many folks agree that the 753 came too late. Had it been offered earlier, there probably would have been fewer 762 and fewer 752 sales and many more 753 sales.

Historical sales of the types may not be an accurate measure of future success of MAX/NSA/MOM/NEO jets.

While I'm anxious to see a clean sheet combo NSA/MOM family of jets, I'm coming around to an improved 737MAX at the top end... I wonder if they could just improve 9MAX and switch all of the customers like they've done with the MAX7? They haven't cut any metal on the 9 yet.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
See above - your A322-200 will be a 757-300 with better engines. The 757-300 barely made 50 sales. To think an A322 would sell twice that, much less 10 times? *shakes head*

I don't see this A322-200 happening but I'm not sure you can compare the two. The 753 was an airframe entering service at the twilight of the families life (only 87 of any variant were ordered after 1999) and used broadly the same generation engines as its stablemates. A hypothetical A322 would share many systems with a massed produced sibling which would help economics. Not to mention a larger market to sell into, and no small widebody competitors (maybe) to fragment it.

Stitch wrote:
I think the first one with more powerful engines and improved wing elements to improve runway performance will be where Boeing goes.

I'm with NYCRuss, either that or do nothing (except incremental upgrades) until they launch the NSA in 2023 give or take.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27044
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:59 pm

NYCRuss wrote:
There is no fire. It's pure hyperbole to say that there is.


I agree. In the now-closed thread I made the point that there's a big difference between leaving some potential business on the table versus being on fire or bleeding etc.

seahawk wrote:
And in the meantime you slash your 787 sales forecast by how many frames?

seahawk wrote:
Wanna put even more pressure on the 787 by offering a product that would be an alternative on many TATL routes, many continental routes and many intra-Asian routes?


I don't buy this line of reasoning. The 787 is bigger than the 767-400 and has 9,000+ mile range and so is built strong to carry a lot of fuel and has bigger/heavier engines too. The MOM aircraft will be sized around 767-200 and will have around 5,000 mile range. It's a whole different size category. Most of the missions you describe aren't being filled by 787s, and if they are, the 78 is far from optimal at doing them.

NYCRuss wrote:
Let's say that Leeham is correct that a 737-10 is ¾ of a new airplane. That makes it a bad investment.


737-10 won't happen if it's 3/4ths of a new aircraft. I'm thinking it'll be more like 1/3rd of a new aircraft. Telescoping landing gear so they don't have to redo the wing box, maybe 3 more rows of seats as an extension, LEAP-1C engines, improved high lift devices for the wings, etc. Presuming this doesn't cause crazy knock-on effects, I don't see how anyone would see this as 3/4ths of a new aircraft, and if it is, it won't happen.

keesje wrote:
I think we might move into a scenario similar to 2011. While Boeing does market studies, business cases, trade-off's, long term projections and talks to the airlines, Airbus launches a bigger rewinged A322/23, with hundreds in the orderbook. The most damaging variant of being confident and self centered. In 2011 Airbus sold 1000 NEO's while Boeing was lumbering & they never fully recovered. I hope Boeing doesn't put itself in that corner again.


It'll be interesting to see if it does pan out the way you suggest.

Boeing indeed was in a bad position in 2011 but I don't see why you'd ascribe that to being confident and self-centered. They needed to put in the time to see if a NSA was viable and it was not. Airbus was in a much better position to just hang new engines on the A320 family and move forward, which is what they did. It also pays for Boeing to spend some time now trying to figure out what the market wants and what it can deliver and even begin preliminary design since they really can't move too far forward till the 777X workload decreases.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:55 pm

BaconButty wrote:
I don't see this A322-200 happening but I'm not sure you can compare the two. The 753 was an airframe entering service at the twilight of the families life (only 87 of any variant were ordered after 1999) and used broadly the same generation engines as its stablemates. A hypothetical A322 would share many systems with a massed produced sibling which would help economics.


What it won't share, however, is the capability and performance of a MoM.

Even compared to the 757-300, the A321-200LR has 25,000kg less MTOW and tanks 10,000 less liters of fuel. I expect Airbus is reaching the limits of the current undercarriage and while they do have the double-truck bogey from the Indian A320s, as I understand it that was only to spread the tire weight around for unimproved airfields and did not support any higher weights than the single-truck bogie. So Airbus would need to strengthen the landing gear and perhaps other areas of the structure and systems. Then they have to find another 10,000 liters of fuel capacity - if they do it via ACTs, they will exacerbate the A321-200LR's existing cargo-carrying issue (Leeham.net's analysis implies the A321-200LR with maximum ACTs cannot use LD-45s because they can't hold all the passenger's luggage so the plane would have to be bulk-loaded to maximize the use of available volume).
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:21 pm

I think a A322 would have a new bigger wing and stretched fuselage. To increase range and capacity while keeping intact runway performance.

Image
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:51 pm

I think that the cheapest and best option for the MOM is for Boeing to relaunch the B757 with new engines.
Even if the tooling is destroyed, the blueprints and type certificates are there. How much does tooling really cost?
The airframe was pretty light, the wing is quite good.
All it needs is EFIS and if there really is a demand for it, FBW.

We hear A321NEO LR here and A321NEO LR there, but so far, there have barely been any purely A321NEO LR orders.
The A321NEO LR is still not matching up to the B752 on many performance matters. On a hot summer day, the A321NEO LR is going to need a lot of runway to get off the ground. The extended range is achieved at the expense of cargo volume and ZFW.

The A321NEO LR's business case is for operators who are already operating a big A320 fleet and need a few of those aircraft to have longer legs.
That is the same business model that the B757 was based upon.
The B757's business case vanished when airlines started replacing those shorthaul B757's by A320/B737NG.

There isn't a market for a MOM.

Also, what's with all these A310 replacement concepts?
An empty aisle for every 3-4 seats in a stubby/short fuselage results in 50-seat RJ economics. What's the point of a widebody with ERJ145/CRJ200 efficiency? Also, where are you going to carry the checked luggage? There isn't going to be much room fore and aft of the wingbox.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27044
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:45 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
I think that the cheapest and best option for the MOM is for Boeing to relaunch the B757 with new engines.
Even if the tooling is destroyed, the blueprints and type certificates are there. How much does tooling really cost?
The airframe was pretty light, the wing is quite good.
All it needs is EFIS and if there really is a demand for it, FBW.


Not gonna happen. All the infrastructure is gone, all the people have moved on, all the vendors aren't making the parts any more especially the engine makers.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:57 pm

keesje wrote:
I think a A322 would have a new bigger wing and stretched fuselage. To increase range and capacity while keeping intact runway performance.

Image


This along with your other posts about possible Airbus developments seems a bit off topic in a thread about the 737-10 since it turns the discussion more A vs B. Can you instead post this in the Airbus development thread that you started? When I read through the A320 family development thread that you started, I don't see you posting 737 graphics and talking about the strengths of the 737 or it's possible derivatives.

I still think that talk of Airbus gaining 2/3rds market share isn't supported by evidence. If Boeing creates a 737-10, I don't think it will result in Airbus gaining market share. Expanding the 737 product line up is a good thing to keep things close to parity. We know Airbus has commented about A320 developments at airs how's but everything that I have read is that they don't think it is worth it at this point.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:14 pm

Wasn't it just 6 or 7 years ago where Airbus went to airlines asking them if they wanted an updated A300-600 for cheap, cheap, cheap? This was right before they were making the decision to shut down the A300 line. They were offering an updated, 2 pilot, glass cockpit, with updated engines, that would have saved 5% to 7% in operating costs, and they got no takers.

Now, many of you are using the A300-600, A310s, B757-300, B757-200, DC-10, and DC11s, as proof the market needs a new or updated plane. Really?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:21 pm

Waterbomber wrote:
I think that the cheapest and best option for the MOM is for Boeing to relaunch the B757 with new engines.
Even if the tooling is destroyed, the blueprints and type certificates are there. How much does tooling really cost?
The airframe was pretty light, the wing is quite good.
All it needs is EFIS and if there really is a demand for it, FBW.

We hear A321NEO LR here and A321NEO LR there, but so far, there have barely been any purely A321NEO LR orders.
The A321NEO LR is still not matching up to the B752 on many performance matters. On a hot summer day, the A321NEO LR is going to need a lot of runway to get off the ground. The extended range is achieved at the expense of cargo volume and ZFW.

The A321NEO LR's business case is for operators who are already operating a big A320 fleet and need a few of those aircraft to have longer legs.
That is the same business model that the B757 was based upon.
The B757's business case vanished when airlines started replacing those shorthaul B757's by A320/B737NG.

There isn't a market for a MOM.

Also, what's with all these A310 replacement concepts?
An empty aisle for every 3-4 seats in a stubby/short fuselage results in 50-seat RJ economics. What's the point of a widebody with ERJ145/CRJ200 efficiency? Also, where are you going to carry the checked luggage? There isn't going to be much room fore and aft of the wingbox.


Once and for all the 757 is too heavy and a generation too old. Might as well start a fresh design.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:40 pm

Newbiepilot I'm responding to the post above. Apart from that the illustration is relevant to the topic. Airbus had 2/3 NB sales marketshare last year. IMO for Boeing a 737-10 MAX makes only sense if they do it right. Good engines, range capacity. A credible 4500NM cabin. The current 737 MAX seems maxed out.

When will officially the first 737-9 MAX fly and first -9 enter service? I can find no info, strange..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:48 pm

PacificBeach88 wrote:
Wasn't it just 6 or 7 years ago where Airbus went to airlines asking them if they wanted an updated A300-600 for cheap, cheap, cheap? This was right before they were making the decision to shut down the A300 line. They were offering an updated, 2 pilot, glass cockpit, with updated engines, that would have saved 5% to 7% in operating costs, and they got no takers.


That's news to me, and I follow the industry closely.

6-7 years ago Airbus was asking airlines if they wanted an updated A330 in response to the 787.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:57 pm

Stitch wrote:
That's news to me, and I follow the industry closely.

6-7 years ago Airbus was asking airlines if they wanted an updated A330 in response to the 787.


I just looked up the last A300 production date, it would have been 12 years ago I guess. But yes, I do remember Airbus looking for orders to fill the line for another 2 or 3 years assuming they made upgrades and got no takers. It reminded me of Boeing with the 2002 - 2004'ish 757 final push with no takers. I'm 99% I remember this correctly and will post it when I find it. But this would show both Airbus and Boeing tried everything they could to sell a few more dozen examples of the MoM aircraft, but got no takers. I'd be wary now.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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