User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:26 pm

Simple, if you have the technology to be competitive against a not outdated single aisle with a twin aisle design, you have the technology to built a single aisle that will re-establish the advantage of the singe aisle.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
And it is only true if by efficiency you mean putting as many passengers into as many seats with as little comfort as possible.


I think that's exactly what is meant. Sort of like "avoiding the middle man", we're avoiding the whole "Airline X is now putting an extra seat in each row on their 797" dialogue - they won't be able to because it will have already built to accommodate that X seat.

-
lightsaber wrote:
The A321NEO is begging for more wing. A modern wing will save 8%+ in fuel. The A320 and A330 families lack electric subsystems, that cut maintenance costs.

A CFRP wing saves tons of weight. Both the A320 and A330 wing lack underside laminar flow. Both lack folding wingtips.

This new 797 will be more aerodynamic and weight less than the A339 (A338 hasn't sold well as too high of cost per flight for the number of pax). It will weight much less, cruise higher than both, with slightly more efficient engines of lower thrust and fuel burn. Lightsaber


That's gonna stir up the hornet's nest a bit.

c933103 wrote:
Posts above mentioned MoM's competitive advantage against existing 321, but then Boeing's NSA and Airbus's equivalent are coming in like 5 year's time after MoM's launch, and at that time would the MoM still have enough competitiveness against new platform, that are newer than the MoM itself? If not then the product life of the MoM would be only 5 years


I'd assume that's around when we'd see the mentioned "-10" stretch. A 797-8/797-9 to start, then a 797-10 after around [8] years or so.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14900
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:15 pm

c933103 wrote:
If the MoM to be out in 2025 would be ~10% larger than 321, then when Boeing release NSA in a timeframe of about 2030, would the NSA have a product in 321 size range? And persumably the NSA shall be able to fly at least as far as current 737 which would again mean the NSA would cover at least 90% of the market, unless they decided something similar to 737 would be too much and change to something with fewer range? Such new NSA shall also offer certain level of economic improvement over existing plane, but what would the NSA's economy be compared to MoM's economy? Posts above mentioned MoM's competitive advantage against existing 321, but then Boeing's NSA and Airbus's equivalent are coming in like 5 year's time after MoM's launch, and at that time would the MoM still have enough competitiveness against new platform, that are newer than the MoM itself? If not then the product life of the MoM would be only 5 years

All things to consider. But right now Boeing isn't going to cover things with a 9 or 10 max. And frankly the failure of the 788 long term shows that there's room to move the MoM up without hurting the 789 business case.

As for the narrow body argument. You aren't going to get 225 actual in service multiclass seats in a narrow body. The 753 came close but it was not popular, maybe the A322 will come close but it will be limited in range. If the aircraft is supposed to be a 757+, 763, A332 market aircraft a super stretch 6Y just isn't going to work. But there are inefficiencies in 7Y that get clawed back when you reach 8Y especially at tourist class comfort level.

But you can get 225 and 265 in an 8Y with an eventual 300 stretch down the road if there is demand.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4316
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:36 pm

c933103 wrote:
If the MoM to be out in 2025 would be ~10% larger than 321, then when Boeing release NSA in a timeframe of about 2030, would the NSA have a product in 321 size range? And persumably the NSA shall be able to fly at least as far as current 737 which would again mean the NSA would cover at least 90% of the market, unless they decided something similar to 737 would be too much and change to something with fewer range? Such new NSA shall also offer certain level of economic improvement over existing plane, but what would the NSA's economy be compared to MoM's economy? Posts above mentioned MoM's competitive advantage against existing 321, but then Boeing's NSA and Airbus's equivalent are coming in like 5 year's time after MoM's launch, and at that time would the MoM still have enough competitiveness against new platform, that are newer than the MoM itself? If not then the product life of the MoM would be only 5 years

The MoM negates the need to replace the 737 at least until such time as Airbus does it's own A320 update post the NEO. Airbus won't be wanting to do that since they already have a large backlog so Boeing would have breathing room for at least 10 years before having to make a decision. Of course if the MoM fails then that changes things and Boeing might have to look at a NSA that covers 150-230 seat range.
59 types. 41 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:46 pm

I think airlines prefer an aircraft capable up to 250 seats up to 5000NM.

If Boeing comes up with a capable 7-8 abreast aircraft, it seems the answer to a question not asked.

Image

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/10/AI29_pie2.jpg

In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.

A 225 seats 8 abreast aircraft, that's a WB at the lenght of a A320. Stubby would be an euphemism..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:07 am

keesje wrote:
I think airlines prefer an aircraft capable up to 250 seats up to 5000NM.

If Boeing comes up with a capable 7-8 abreast aircraft, it seems the answer to a question not aske

In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.

A 225 seats 8 abreast aircraft, that's a WB at the lenght of a A320. Stubby would be an euphemism..

Image


There is no need to photo shop a 767 to make it look silly. This plane has 222 seats and is used on the exact type of route that a MOM would be expectedly to fly. It is also slightly longer than an A321.

Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:07 am

keesje wrote:
I think airlines prefer an aircraft capable up to 250 seats up to 5000NM.

If Boeing comes up with a capable 7-8 abreast aircraft, it seems the answer to a question not asked.

Image

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/07/10/AI29_pie2.jpg

In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.

A 225 seats 8 abreast aircraft, that's a WB at the lenght of a A320. Stubby would be an euphemism..

Image


Nice A310 pic. I didn't realize any got into that DL livery but that was a long time ago. Aside from that, the 200-300 seat market looks to be 35% of the total. I'd imagine a fair number of airlines might consider a clean-sheet 797 over the existing split of A321/A330. They might even choose the 797-8/797-9 instead of the A321/A330 (or MAX 10/788). Which of those two combos has been more popular of late (or even exists) and therefore which builder has the most to lose from a 797 launch?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21411
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:12 am

keesje wrote:
In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.


Great -- we now have you on the record advocating for a A380 mid-life update in 2021 and calling the MOM a fairy tale.

Looking forward to seeing how your track record stacks up against Nostradamus.

Since you love posting irreverent photos, I'll join in:

Image
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:23 am

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.


Great -- we now have you on the record advocating for a A380 mid-life update in 2021 and calling the MOM a fairy tale.



That is a little unfair. He didn't say the MOM is a fairy tale as you are stating, he said that a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is according to his opinion not possible. That seems a mile away from calling the MOM a fairy tale when we don't know what the MOM is at this point in time.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:07 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think airlines prefer an aircraft capable up to 250 seats up to 5000NM.

If Boeing comes up with a capable 7-8 abreast aircraft, it seems the answer to a question not aske

In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.

A 225 seats 8 abreast aircraft, that's a WB at the lenght of a A320. Stubby would be an euphemism..

Image


There is no need to photo shop a 767 to make it look silly. This plane has 222 seats and is used on the exact type of route that a MOM would be expectedly to fly. It is also slightly longer than an A321.



To be honest the smaller version, which seems to be favoured by more airlines according to the market research would more look like,



That is a 200.
 
mrcomet
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:20 am

This may turn out to be a dumb question but in order to get something to market quickly, why not just do a 757NG. I know they've gotten rid of a lot of their equipment and the design is old but you clean that design up, put on new engines and push it out. That has to save some time in certifications, costs and design work and maybe gets only marginal penalties vs a clean sheet.
The dude abides
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:28 am

Leeham reports that Boeing is now defining the MOM as a two variant family, one with 225 seats and the other with 260 to 270 seats, both in an international 3-class configuration. This is 787-8 and 787-9 size, respectively!

British airways 787-8, 214 seats (J, Y+, and Y @ 9 abreast):
Image

The MOM is getting larger and larger. It now seems it is just a short range version of the 787-8 and 787-9.

@keesje I agree with you that a widebody MOM would be inefficient (and look strange) if we assume that we are talking about a MOM with 225 seats @ 31 pitch in an all Y configuration. As you know the A321LR (from 2019) can be configured with 220 seats @ 31 pitch, even without space-flex lavs.

How large is the MOM? Number of rows of Y seats @ 31 pitch, @ number of seats abreast?

And when it comes to range it is also not clear what capabilities the proposed MOM will have. 5000 nm is often referred to as an upper limit.

The A321LR will fly 206 passengers and their bags up to a nominal range of 4000 nm, according to Airbus. With this load the aircraft will be completely full. There is absolutely no possibilities for additional cargo.

The most capable A333 variant (242t), has a nominal range of 6350 nm, according to Airbus. This is with 277 passengers and their bags onboard. In normal operations we would like to fill those large cargo compartments with additional revenue cargo. When we do this, the range of the A333 drops significantly, maybe to around 4500 nm nominal range, depending on cargo weight. Should the MOM have a similar range as the A333?

Maybe It would be better to define the MOM market in scheduled flight time (hours)? I think of the MOM market as from about 6 hours to about 10 hours. Agree?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:46 am

mrcomet wrote:
This may turn out to be a dumb question but in order to get something to market quickly, why not just do a 757NG. I know they've gotten rid of a lot of their equipment and the design is old but you clean that design up, put on new engines and push it out. That has to save some time in certifications, costs and design work and maybe gets only marginal penalties vs a clean sheet.


As you know, hundreds of post can be found on this topic. Some of the reasons, no engine available, supply chain gone, suppliers gone, eighties production technology, blueprints, heavy, range limited, no container capability, old systems, cockpit. We could go on but you get the picture.

I think Boeing can focus at the larger aircraft segment 220-280 seats if the have the huge 160-220 seat segment covered.

What if (theoretically) they're not ok here. In a case that 737-7, 737-9, 737-10 aren't hot & -8 sell on fleetcommonality & price only?
In that case we'll be looking at a "Mini MoM" /NSA soon. Regardless of what lessors, airlines and analysts told us recently.

Image

If United shows Boeing a LOI for 100 A321NEOs, there'll be a plan B.

Reidar, it seems up 5000Nm is a range required. The A321LR and 757 come short. About capacity, agree the A321 is on the small side.
Advantage is it is available short term and can do TATL with a 150-180 seat two class cabin. At very low cost compared to alternatives.

I think it's a big gamble for Boeing. They know Airbus is capable and has the opportunity to respond quickly. Depressing margins similar to A330-787.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 am

5000nm is required for the large MoM, I doubt it would be required for the single aisle version.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/13/ponti ... more-22608

Imho 7M7 is turning more and more into a competitor to the A330 and less and less into a problem for the A321.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:07 am

seahawk wrote:
5000nm is required for the large MoM, I doubt it would be required for the single aisle version.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/13/ponti ... more-22608

Imho 7M7 is turning more and more into a competitor to the A330 and less and less into a problem for the A321.


Agree, and that seems to me the "problem" to be solved in the first place.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:46 am

Well reading the Leeham article it appears (if it is to believed -and there is nothing else to go on).That the 797 is indeed 2X3X2 in Y (same as their patent drawings as it happens).One must assume it is a drag reducing 'ovoid' in some way otherwise you might as well use a 767 fuse.
Max range seems to be settled at between 500-1000 miles more than an A321NEO.That seems fair clearly the A321NEO cannot do all the tatl routes that carriers have mentioned.I am personally not surprised at the 220-260 pax number as that would make the aircraft the right length Vs width.
As the journo says it's effectively a 767-2 and 767-3 but 40 years more modern.(The 757-2 and 757-3 effectively fall into the same space -as does the A310.).
I believe the engines are certain to be gtf'S of some kind perhaps 5:1 gearing.(Ultra anyone).
What Boeing really have to 'ace' is the wing.Super critical in every sense of the word!

I guess that means 2x3X2 in Y.2X2X2inPrem and 1X2X1 in biz ? (no call for first here)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:57 am

Why not use an improved 767 fuselage? Sculpture the sidewalls and you can even fit a 2-4-2 into Y. If you then "only" need a new wing and a new engine, the development costs go down and all existing 767 users will be happy to keep using existing containers. This would offer better economics than a A330NEO or 787-8/9 on the routes it is designed for. Sure it would not compete with the A321LR, but it would be more capable. This would even make sense if you also do the 737-1000MAX.

If you would want to keep the LD2 (which imho you must as LD3-45s won´t offer enough room for the baggage in an all Y configuration) the 767 fuse is not the inefficient.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/767-100 ... 1264024428
 
edibletomb
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:58 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:55 am

@seahawk, because then it would just be a waste of money. If Boeing had gone through the whole hog designing a new wing, engine, etc., why not just design a new fuselage? The 767's fuselage have always been terribly optimised. It's too heavy, old, and big for a 2-3-2, too tight for a 2-4-2, and uses a baggage standard that only itself alone uses. Converting to LD3-45 ensures compatibility with other aircrafts, the new fuselage is more advanced and uses lighter material (and is of smaller dimension overall). The MoM doesn't have to be big - Boeing have the 787 for that. It just have to fend off the A330-200
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:59 am

LD3/45 seem a little bit small for the predicted length of the fuselage and numbers of pax. And by "improved 767 fuselage" I mean something mostly metal with a not much changed cross section, compared to a fancy wide oval.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:19 am

It's 2X3X2 (in Y) because the best published information leaked so far says it is.Of course if one ignores these journo's and their direct access to senior 'real' business players in the market then you can dream up what you like.But best to stick to the closest information we have to hand.
In any event I think we will hear from Boeing v soon.Its time for them to put up or shut up,they have been talking about it for years.All the competition fact are on the table now.Either the market wants it or they don't.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:27 am

Imho still a design aiming for LD3/45 units only, would not work, as you would reduce the cargo capability by nearly 50%.

1x LD3/45 = 3,6 m³ vs. 2 x LD2 = 6,8 m³
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:29 am

seahawk wrote:
LD3/45 seem a little bit small for the predicted length of the fuselage and numbers of pax. And by "improved 767 fuselage" I mean something mostly metal with a not much changed cross section, compared to a fancy wide oval.


But than their's not much left of the 767. It's essentially a new plan than, still compromissed. The problem with older models is also much underneath their skin, meaning old systems designed for much lower electrical power requierements, computational power, more hydraulics than today etc. etc.

But furthermore a new wing is not enough - like in the case of the 777 - because the wing angle is oldschool, this means a new wingbox at top. All what will be left is an compromised fuse - not really a deal.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21411
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:48 am

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
In my opinion a 7-8 abreast aircraft with (operating) costs similar to a narrow-body are a fairy tale. Also if you shrink it.

Great -- we now have you on the record advocating for a A380 mid-life update in 2021 and calling the MOM a fairy tale.

That is a little unfair. He didn't say the MOM is a fairy tale as you are stating, he said that a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is according to his opinion not possible. That seems a mile away from calling the MOM a fairy tale when we don't know what the MOM is at this point in time.


I am being quite fair.

After all, Nostradamus did get quite a few things right, if you look at them from a certain angle.

Feel free to read any of the sources on what has just recently been said about the MOM ( here's a good one, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/ ) and tell me how a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is miles away from the current MOM proposal.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:27 am

Thanks for restating that link and of course there are others.Put them all together and there is very little missing.Ok we can't know the precise details until or if Boeing choose to launch.But in the mean time they are the facts.
And that's the trouble facts get in the way of a constructive argument.Well here they do!

I for one am fascinated to see exactly what they have designed.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21411
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:35 am

parapente wrote:
In any event I think we will hear from Boeing v soon.Its time for them to put up or shut up,they have been talking about it for years.All the competition fact are on the table now.Either the market wants it or they don't.

Boeing has stated they want to have reached some sort of conclusion on MoM this year i.e. 2017. Of course that answer might be to not accept the risks that so are so clearly going to come along with this program.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:40 am

Imho the 797 will launch this year. It seems like airlines love it and as if Boeing has again find the correct mix of capabilities to make airlines happy. Boeing has always been the company who has dared to risk the impossible and they have shown over and over gain, that they can do it.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:01 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Reply #362

I think this is fair to say that that is where Boeing might be targeting but as this seems to be at the same size category as the 787 then one would have to ask why they would be designing a new cross section? If as you say they are looking at 225 seats in a multi class format then there remains the large gap in capacity in the Middle between the A321 @125 seats to the B788 @225.

I'm not suggesting that you are obfuscating the issue of the MOM but if we are to compare seat numbers then we should be doing it on a like for like basis. The 788 size has a floor area 80% larger than the A321.

What would the Range of an A321NEOLR be with 125pax?

Making the MOM in this size would be Cutting off the nose to spite the face IMHO. Data on cabin floor area would suggest the capacity gap (the phrase MOM came about from "the gap in the middle of the market" I believe) is around 150-200M^2 of cabin area. A321 = ~127M^2, B788 = ~230M^2. Surely that's the gap no?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8726
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:08 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/

Contains one scary part:

“Light [twin-aisles] will never compete with a good single-aisle stretched airplane,” says John Leahy, chief operating officer for customers at the European airframer, at ISTAT. “Aerodynamically and physically, the widebody will just have more weight and more drag for the loads that you're carrying.”

He points to the Airbus A310 and the 767-200 as examples of small twin-aisles that never met expectations.

At least one fleet manager at a major airline scoffs at Leahy’s comments, saying that a clean-sheet twin-aisle with today’s composite and engine technology could certainly achieve the economics of a narrowbody.

“There’s a lot of medium-sized aircraft demand, you’ve just got to get the economics right,” they say.


I so hope this guy was not really a fleet manager at an airline. Because otherwise he should understand that you can use the same technology on a narrowbody and the problem described by Leahy remains the same.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Great -- we now have you on the record advocating for a A380 mid-life update in 2021 and calling the MOM a fairy tale.

That is a little unfair. He didn't say the MOM is a fairy tale as you are stating, he said that a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is according to his opinion not possible. That seems a mile away from calling the MOM a fairy tale when we don't know what the MOM is at this point in time.


I am being quite fair.

After all, Nostradamus did get quite a few things right, if you look at them from a certain angle.

Feel free to read any of the sources on what has just recently been said about the MOM ( here's a good one, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/ ) and tell me how a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is miles away from the current MOM proposal.


I think the article sums up Keesje's view. Keesje is a big fan of Airbus (I think I have seen Keesje post in about a dozen threads that he expects UA will be ordering the A321) and what John Leahy says. They share an opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

Asked about Airbus' long-range variant of the A321neo, Levy says it "does a nice job but it doesn’t quite meet all the needs we have out of Newark".

Airbus, while agreeing that Boeing needs a clean-sheet aircraft in the middle-of-the-market segment, thinks a twin-aisle aircraft is the wrong idea.

“Light [twin-aisles] will never compete with a good single-aisle stretched airplane,” says John Leahy, chief operating officer for customers at the European airframer, at ISTAT. “Aerodynamically and physically, the widebody will just have more weight and more drag for the loads that you're carrying.”

He points to the Airbus A310 and the 767-200 as examples of small twin-aisles that never met expectations.

At least one fleet manager at a major airline scoffs at Leahy’s comments, saying that a clean-sheet twin-aisle with today’s composite and engine technology could certainly achieve the economics of a narrowbody.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:22 pm

I would'nt take the specific phrase from Leeham by word. Yes, the MOM has and will be considerably bigger than an A321 to avoid any "easy" awnser from Airbus e.g. A322. However the numbers in 3-class configuration may or may not be correct, or at least they are with 7 abreast Y, 6 abreast Y+ and 4 abreast J, which isn't exactly srtandart. I don't expect anything bigger than 787-8 -10% floor space for the larger variant, e.g. A330-200, 767-300 capacity with a possible (future) douple stretch about the floor space of the 787-8 as the absolut limit.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:37 pm

A twin aisle aircraft will never compete with a single aisle ----Until it does...
If major knowledgeable customers 'get it' then who here is to argue?
As stated above Boeing wants to come to a decision this year - as do their customers.Key American ones particularly.They have circa 400 old 757's and 767's that need replacing soon.They will wait - but not for ever.

Whatever Boeing have conjured up its clearly clever.Lots of pressure on the engine manufacturers mind you.Gotta produce a blockbuster of a 40k engine (Boeing have stated this is the ballpark thrust).RR are obviously going to put forward Advance-Ultra (if they go it alone).That looks pretty sexy to me.But I bet the wing will also have some surprises too.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
I am being quite fair.

After all, Nostradamus did get quite a few things right, if you look at them from a certain angle.

Feel free to read any of the sources on what has just recently been said about the MOM ( here's a good one, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/ ) and tell me how a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is miles away from the current MOM proposal.



If you leave the poster out of the equation and look at what he said, which has been said by others as well, designing a twin aisle with single aisle economics will be very difficult, if not impossible to do. You add extra weight and surface areas against the single aisle for only one extra seat and a extra aisle. Now you have Leahy expressing the same opinion as well in the article you posted.

I have seen a lot of talk about the twin aisle at single aisle economics and that airlines are interested in such a proposal. Which airline wouldn't be? If Boeing can do this they are basically killing the A332/788 (not that it needs much tbf.) and it will kill the A321neoLR. So people are questioning how Boeing will be able to build a new aircraft and what material will be used to shave off the extra weight that the bigger aircraft will have against the single aisle.

You attacked the poster and not what he said, which has been posted by others as well without the snarky reply about Nostradamus.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:08 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I am being quite fair.

After all, Nostradamus did get quite a few things right, if you look at them from a certain angle.

Feel free to read any of the sources on what has just recently been said about the MOM ( here's a good one, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/ ) and tell me how a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is miles away from the current MOM proposal.



If you leave the poster out of the equation and look at what he said, which has been said by others as well, designing a twin aisle with single aisle economics will be very difficult, if not impossible to do. You add extra weight and surface areas against the single aisle for only one extra seat and a extra aisle. Now you have Leahy expressing the same opinion as well in the article you posted.

I have seen a lot of talk about the twin aisle at single aisle economics and that airlines are interested in such a proposal. Which airline wouldn't be? If Boeing can do this they are basically killing the A332/788 (not that it needs much tbf.) and it will kill the A321neoLR. So people are questioning how Boeing will be able to build a new aircraft and what material will be used to shave off the extra weight that the bigger aircraft will have against the single aisle.

You attacked the poster and not what he said, which has been posted by others as well without the snarky reply about Nostradamus.


I see this as a classic A vs B argument. Boeing obviously believes they can build an efficient twin that can compete with larger narrowbodies and smaller widebodies, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. Airbus (John Leahy) is saying that " light twin aisles will never compete with a good single aisle stretched plane".

Who should we believe? Posters like Keesje seem to agree with Airbus. I usually don't like personally attacking people, but Keesje was being provocative when he posted a goofy looking photoshop image of a 767 and said the plane would be the length of an A320, so I got a good laugh at the equally goofy reply about Nostradamus. Personally I am going to give much more credence to what Boeing says about what they are capable of doing than what Airbus marketing is going to tell us about what Boeing is capable of doing.

John Leahy is trying to slam the new MOM concept because he doesn't want airlines to buy it and he wants to sell more A321s. I see it as marketing spin, but others on this forum put more faith in what he says than me. I believe that if Boeing didn't have a credible way to compete with the A321, then we would not see airline executives get behind the MOM as enthusiastically as they have. Both Airbus and Boeing marketing teams spin things to favor their product. The airlines decide what to believe. Other than John Leahy and Airbus marketing, what customers as in airlines and leasing companies are saying that a widebody MOM competing with a single aisle is a fairy tale?
 
StTim
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:18 pm

What John Leahy is saying is that the laws of physics dictate that the widebody starts off at a disadvantage due to the additional weight to build the larger structure. There is also the additional drag due to the larger cross section and greater wetted area.

If Boeing really have found a way to overcome these then it will be truly special.

This is why many/most are somewhat sceptical on the claims.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:25 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I am being quite fair.

After all, Nostradamus did get quite a few things right, if you look at them from a certain angle.

Feel free to read any of the sources on what has just recently been said about the MOM ( here's a good one, https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... om-434961/ ) and tell me how a 7 or 8 abreast twin aisle aircraft at single aisle operating costs is miles away from the current MOM proposal.



If you leave the poster out of the equation and look at what he said, which has been said by others as well, designing a twin aisle with single aisle economics will be very difficult, if not impossible to do. You add extra weight and surface areas against the single aisle for only one extra seat and a extra aisle. Now you have Leahy expressing the same opinion as well in the article you posted.

I have seen a lot of talk about the twin aisle at single aisle economics and that airlines are interested in such a proposal. Which airline wouldn't be? If Boeing can do this they are basically killing the A332/788 (not that it needs much tbf.) and it will kill the A321neoLR. So people are questioning how Boeing will be able to build a new aircraft and what material will be used to shave off the extra weight that the bigger aircraft will have against the single aisle.

You attacked the poster and not what he said, which has been posted by others as well without the snarky reply about Nostradamus.


I see this as a classic A vs B argument. Boeing obviously believes they can build an efficient twin that can compete with larger narrowbodies and smaller widebodies, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. Airbus (John Leahy) is saying that " light twin aisles will never compete with a good single aisle stretched plane".

Who should we believe? Posters like Keesje seem to agree with Airbus. I usually don't like personally attacking people, but Keesje was being provocative when he posted a goofy looking photoshop image of a 767 and said the plane would be the length of an A320, so I got a good laugh at the equally goofy reply about Nostradamus. Personally I am going to give much more credence to what Boeing says about what they are capable of doing than what Airbus marketing is going to tell us about what Boeing is capable of doing.

John Leahy is trying to slam the new MOM concept because he doesn't want airlines to buy it and he wants to sell more A321s. I see it as marketing spin, but others on this forum put more faith in what he says than me. I believe that if Boeing didn't have a credible way to compete with the A321, then we would not see airline executives get behind the MOM as enthusiastically as they have. Both Airbus and Boeing marketing teams spin things to favor their product. The airlines decide what to believe. Other than John Leahy and Airbus marketing, what customers as in airlines and leasing companies are saying that a widebody MOM competing with a single aisle is a fairy tale?


The issue with this as I see it is that the there is an inherent disadvantage to the economics of widebody aircraft that is completely independent of the technology available. Whilst it is conceivable that a widebody jet could be made that had economics that rivaled the current crop of narrowbody jets by utilizing better/newer technology including engine tech, new materials etc it is my belief that there is nothing inherent in the technologies that we are aware of that prevent them being applied to a new generation of narrow bodied aircraft.

I believe Boeing have said "Would you like a widebody jet with the economics of a narrowbody" rather than "we know how to make a widebody jet with the economics of a narrow body"

I believe this is a smoke and mirrors tactic, I don't think Boeing have technologies that are solely applicable to widebody aircraft.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:27 pm

dare100em wrote:
I would'nt take the specific phrase from Leeham by word. Yes, the MOM has and will be considerably bigger than an A321 to avoid any "easy" awnser from Airbus e.g. A322. However the numbers in 3-class configuration may or may not be correct, or at least they are with 7 abreast Y, 6 abreast Y+ and 4 abreast J, which isn't exactly srtandart. I don't expect anything bigger than 787-8 -10% floor space for the larger variant, e.g. A330-200, 767-300 capacity with a possible (future) douple stretch about the floor space of the 787-8 as the absolut limit.


Again, all of this "Airbus easy answer" bit is not so easy for Airbus.
A. Does Airbus invest big money into an all encompassing platform to replace the A320/321 and cover the A322 space as they have stated?
B. Or does it stay with present A320, re-wing it and build the A322 off it?

IMO,with the price of oil low, and airlines rationalizing orders made in the past, I can see order Airbus going the cheaper route (B) However, Airbus may come to a different decision after seeing Boeing's MOM in detail.

Airlines have all the data on the A321 they need to make a decision to order or not. So what is it that Boeing is dangling in front of the airlines that have them so excited? We will have to wait till launch time.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:34 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


If you leave the poster out of the equation and look at what he said, which has been said by others as well, designing a twin aisle with single aisle economics will be very difficult, if not impossible to do. You add extra weight and surface areas against the single aisle for only one extra seat and a extra aisle. Now you have Leahy expressing the same opinion as well in the article you posted.

I have seen a lot of talk about the twin aisle at single aisle economics and that airlines are interested in such a proposal. Which airline wouldn't be? If Boeing can do this they are basically killing the A332/788 (not that it needs much tbf.) and it will kill the A321neoLR. So people are questioning how Boeing will be able to build a new aircraft and what material will be used to shave off the extra weight that the bigger aircraft will have against the single aisle.

You attacked the poster and not what he said, which has been posted by others as well without the snarky reply about Nostradamus.


I see this as a classic A vs B argument. Boeing obviously believes they can build an efficient twin that can compete with larger narrowbodies and smaller widebodies, otherwise they wouldn't be proposing it. Airbus (John Leahy) is saying that " light twin aisles will never compete with a good single aisle stretched plane".

Who should we believe? Posters like Keesje seem to agree with Airbus. I usually don't like personally attacking people, but Keesje was being provocative when he posted a goofy looking photoshop image of a 767 and said the plane would be the length of an A320, so I got a good laugh at the equally goofy reply about Nostradamus. Personally I am going to give much more credence to what Boeing says about what they are capable of doing than what Airbus marketing is going to tell us about what Boeing is capable of doing.

John Leahy is trying to slam the new MOM concept because he doesn't want airlines to buy it and he wants to sell more A321s. I see it as marketing spin, but others on this forum put more faith in what he says than me. I believe that if Boeing didn't have a credible way to compete with the A321, then we would not see airline executives get behind the MOM as enthusiastically as they have. Both Airbus and Boeing marketing teams spin things to favor their product. The airlines decide what to believe. Other than John Leahy and Airbus marketing, what customers as in airlines and leasing companies are saying that a widebody MOM competing with a single aisle is a fairy tale?


The issue with this as I see it is that the there is an inherent disadvantage to the economics of widebody aircraft that is completely independent of the technology available. Whilst it is conceivable that a widebody jet could be made that had economics that rivaled the current crop of narrowbody jets by utilizing better/newer technology including engine tech, new materials etc it is my belief that there is nothing inherent in the technologies that we are aware of that prevent them being applied to a new generation of narrow bodied aircraft.

I believe Boeing have said "Would you like a widebody jet with the economics of a narrowbody" rather than "we know how to make a widebody jet with the economics of a narrow body"

I believe this is a smoke and mirrors tactic, I don't think Boeing have technologies that are solely applicable to widebody aircraft.

Fred


How do you know? Airlines can smell BS too (look at the 737-10 response), and they are excited about Boeing's MOM concept.

Aero is a strange bird, its the reason midsize cars get just as good of as gas mileage as a smaller and lighter compact car. In simplistic terms, the air likes a longer object, which make midsize cars more aerodynamic and more efficient despite the heavier weight. Granted we are talking length not width here. Has Boeing figured something out that not taught in text books? We will have to wait till launch time.

Imagine being an airline exec hearing Boeing's first sales speech about a 767 replacement with a carbon fiber skin, "say what?" "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ! "
Last edited by william on Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:36 pm

StTim wrote:
What John Leahy is saying is that the laws of physics dictate that the widebody starts off at a disadvantage due to the additional weight to build the larger structure. There is also the additional drag due to the larger cross section and greater wetted area.

If Boeing really have found a way to overcome these then it will be truly special.

This is why many/most are somewhat sceptical on the claims.


What law of physics backs up his claim? I want to know.

-A wider fuselage has more drag and weights more
-A shorter fuselage has less drag and weighs less

What is the magic number where the shorter and wider is better than longer and narrower? Airbus fuselage and Boeing fuselage design is relatively similar in concept with frames, stringers, etc. I have more faith in Boeing marketing telling us what Boeing is capable than Airbus marketing telling what the "laws of physics" say.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:41 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
The issue with this as I see it is that the there is an inherent disadvantage to the economics of widebody aircraft that is completely independent of the technology available.


Yes, and so I echo what you, StTim and Parapente commented above.

Sorry MOM fans, but Leahy is simply speaking science and that fleet manager is clearly a PowerPoint Ranger.

Boeing may be able to deliver a future small widebody with economics similar to *current* narrowbodies (which is exactly what I think they've been presenting to the airlines)... but apply those same technologies to *future* narrowbodies and they will beat that small widebody again.

Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Jim!
"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."
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:49 pm

In actual fact neither 'side' is talking about the same (type of) aircraft.Airbus have stated that in a 3 class (no first class) layout the A321lr would seat 164 pax.With a 'calculated' max range of 4K miles.That actually is nothing close to what Boeing is offering its customers if the press leaks are to be believed.Not even close.
So perhaps both are right in their own way.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:00 pm

I am just laughing at how so many people on this website seem to think that John Leahy knows more about physics than Boeing's own engineers do about designing their own plane.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The issue with this as I see it is that the there is an inherent disadvantage to the economics of widebody aircraft that is completely independent of the technology available.


Yes, and so I echo what you, StTim and Parapente commented above.

Sorry MOM fans, but Leahy is simply speaking science and that fleet manager is clearly a PowerPoint Ranger.

Boeing may be able to deliver a future small widebody with economics similar to *current* narrowbodies (which is exactly what I think they've been presenting to the airlines)... but apply those same technologies to *future* narrowbodies and they will beat that small widebody again.

Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Jim!


Which law of physics is John Leahy using. Here is a reference for pressure vessel design criteria:

http://www.engineersedge.com/pressure_v ... menu.shtml

A fuselage is a pressure vessel. Longer weighs more than shorter. Wider weighs more than narrower. But it is not just a simple pressure vessel. There are bending loads. There also is the landing gear height. Landing gear is all steel and just about the densest and heaviest part of the airplane. Shorter gear and lower bending moments have an impact on pure pressure vessel design.

There is a point where longer and narrower is not more efficient than wider and shorter. This is an engineering calculation. I have faith that the Boeing engineers will optimize the design for the payload, range and capacity that they believe the market wants. You can't change the laws of physics, but Leahy doesn't know the exact dimensions of what Boeing is planning. He is a marketing guy trying to sell his product and create doubts about the competitor.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:04 pm

william wrote:
How do you know? Airlines can smell BS too (look at the 737-10 response), and they are excited about Boeing's MOM concept.
How do I know? I can't, but I simply cannot conceive of a technology that can be applied to an aircraft solely based on how the seats are configured.
william wrote:
Aero is a strange bird,
Not so strange that 95+% of it cannot be figured out using simple arithmetic.
william wrote:
its the reason midsize cars get just as good of as gas mileage as a smaller and lighter compact car. In simplistic terms, the air likes a longer object, which make midsize cars more aerodynamic and more efficient despite the heavier weight. Granted we are talking length not width here.
Yes, length, the thing that a single aisle would have over the twin aisle.
william wrote:
Has Boeing figured something out that not taught in text books? We will have to wait till launch time.
Well they haven't patented anything that would counteract the additional 20% increase in fuselage weight from moving from 6 to 7 abreast that is solely applicable to twin aisle aircraft.
william wrote:
Imagine being an airline exec hearing Boeing's first sales speech about a 767 replacement with a carbon fiber skin, "say what?" "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ! "
I Know right, that stuff that's been used in large transport category aircraft for decades as a structural material, the stuff that's been used in motor racing for decades.

Fred
Image
 
StTim
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:05 pm

Let's wait and see when Boeing launch the plane, if they do, and what the desired figures are. They then have to deliver that in practice.

Re the design - you are correct over a certain length the design becomes more problematic and a wider structure than has advantages. It does all depend on where they want to sit this frame.
 
SonOfABeech
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:21 pm

I haven't gone through all the threads so I don't know if this has been answered, but: is it not possible to just put the 788 on a diet, giving up range for efficiency in 8-10 hour sectors?
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:29 pm

This whole "MOM" thing started out as a 757 replacement aircraft with 4500-5000 nmi range. Okay, so if its now 787-8 size, fine, but its NOT an "MOM" and its NOT addressing A321/757 size.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2894
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:32 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
There is a point where longer and narrower is not more efficient than wider and shorter. This is an engineering calculation.
Indeed it is but the calculation is also slightly different from a standard pressure vessel in that the money making part is a flat plane through the pressure vessel and therefore only scales linearly with fuselage diameter whereas weight scales with the square. There is an optimum for lowest fuselage weight and it is very dependent on material choices and overall shape but the weight estimation tool I have puts that limit where the change happens as somewhere between the B753 and B763.
Newbiepilot wrote:
I have faith that the Boeing engineers will optimize the design for the payload, range and capacity that they believe the market wants.
So do I, that's why I think this twin aisle thing is smoke and mirrors.

Fred
Image
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:36 pm

SonOfABeech wrote:
I haven't gone through all the threads so I don't know if this has been answered, but: is it not possible to just put the 788 on a diet, giving up range for efficiency in 8-10 hour sectors?


Structurally the 788 is different than the 789 to save weight. It is not a shrink like the A332 to A333 is, One of the problems though is the 787 is a high cost plane to build. When being developed oil prices were skyrocketing and oil prices of $200 per barrel were thought of as possible. They worked hard to reduce weight, but that comes at a cost. There is more high cost titanium in a 787 than probably would be in a new plane. The system architecture also has high costs. THey have worked to lower them, but the 788 will have a hard time being manufacturers at a price point low enough where it is economically viable for the airlines. We heard earlier in the thread that the sales prices targeted is in the $70-80 million range (after discounts). The 788 probably can't be manufactured for that price. The 789 is a better application where th price to build is closer to the price the airplane can sell for.
 
SonOfABeech
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:38 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
This whole "MOM" thing started out as a 757 replacement aircraft with 4500-5000 nmi range. Okay, so if its now 787-8 size, fine, but its NOT an "MOM" and its NOT addressing A321/757 size.


That's another thing that makes me wonder. They're going to develop a brand new plane with presumably high development costs; that is going to partially eat the lunch of their recent, still fresh plane that had pretty high development costs. Sure, the 788 is pretty much dead, but is that mostly because the 789 turned out to be such a peach?
 
Strato2
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:43 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Boeing may be able to deliver a future small widebody with economics similar to *current* narrowbodies (which is exactly what I think they've been presenting to the airlines)... but apply those same technologies to *future* narrowbodies and they will beat that small widebody again.


This MOM sounds exactly like another Sonic Cruiser. It was supposed to have the same efficiency as a 767 only 10-15% faster but we all know how it went.
 
olle
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:43 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Leeham reports that Boeing is now defining the MOM as a two variant family, one with 225 seats and the other with 260 to 270 seats, both in an international 3-class configuration. This is 787-8 and 787-9 size, respectively!


The MOM is getting larger and larger. It now seems it is just a short range version of the 787-8 and 787-9.


This sounds like the MOM will be a reworked 787, perhaps new smaller wings? Or only a 787 Regional?

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