• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:36 am

A few years ago the widely endorsed strategy was no more "moonshots" this decade.

Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney said Wednesday the jet-maker won’t shoot for the moon in the foreseeable future by launching risky, game-changing new airplanes like the 707 in the 1950s or the 787 Dreamliner 10 years ago.

After sinking billions of dollars into the 787, and confronting downward pricing pressure in an industry where airlines demand “more for less” and Airbus provides cutthroat competition, for now Boeing is backing away from the bleeding edge of technology innovation.

Instead of Boeing inventing expensive new technologies, McNerney wants to re-use those already developed and cut costs.

“All of us have gotten religion,” said McNerney, speaking to Wall Street analysts at the annual investor conference in the Fairmont Olympic Hotel in Seattle. “Every 25 years a big moonshot … and then produce a 707 or a 787 — that’s the wrong way to pursue this business. The more-for-less world will not let you pursue moonshots.”


http://www.seattletimes.com/business/mcnerney-no-more-lsquomoonshotsrsquo-as-boeing-develops-new-jets/

Image

Hello 2017.

An old lesson repeated; Every long term strategy serves short term goals and will be quickly adjusted if the situation changes.
Maybe except in China.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:42 am

Aither wrote:
It won't replace narrow body aircraft
It won't replace wide body aircraft
It's just another aircraft type to be added in the fleet which would be a good fit for... only 10% of the routes maybe.
Fleet planners will enjoy...


It's "sweet spot" seems to be routes you can't service with A321 or 739 on the small end and A338 or 788 on the big end.
It's not a very sweet "sweet spot" IMHO.
Billions of dollars spent for a market that isn't that big and is easily undermined by the competition.
Boeing will need laser-like focus on hitting the goal of widebody at narrowbody economics, and I'm pretty dubious that they can.
Even if they do, there might not be enough market volume to recover the costs.
I guess fortune favors the bold...
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
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:50 am

Nothing much new here. Of course airlines are interested in a MOM concept: they have been saying this for years. We had dozens of MOM threads on a.net.

It's just that Boeing still hasn't launched anything.

keesje wrote:
A few years ago the widely endorsed strategy was no more "moonshots" this decade.

Boeing Chief Executive Jim McNerney said Wednesday the jet-maker won’t shoot for the moon in the foreseeable future by launching risky, game-changing new airplanes like the 707 in the 1950s or the 787 Dreamliner 10 years ago.

After sinking billions of dollars into the 787, and confronting downward pricing pressure in an industry where airlines demand “more for less” and Airbus provides cutthroat competition, for now Boeing is backing away from the bleeding edge of technology innovation.

Instead of Boeing inventing expensive new technologies, McNerney wants to re-use those already developed and cut costs.

“All of us have gotten religion,” said McNerney, speaking to Wall Street analysts at the annual investor conference in the Fairmont Olympic Hotel in Seattle. “Every 25 years a big moonshot … and then produce a 707 or a 787 — that’s the wrong way to pursue this business. The more-for-less world will not let you pursue moonshots.”


Hello 2017.

An old lesson repeated; Every long term strategy serves short term goals and will be quickly adjusted if the situation changes.
Maybe except in China.


Subject is about airlines being interested in a MOM concept, Boeing hasn't launched anything. Even if they would do so, McNerney is not around anymore. Whatever he said in the past is not relevant anymore.

Besides, a new jetliner doesn't have to be a "moonshot". Boeing can build a new airplane out of existing materials and put a new engine on it.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Btblue
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:10 pm

Would them doing something with the 767 be feasible. Max it, CFRP elements of the fuselage, not all of it, similar to what Airbus have done with the A350 to keep the costs down but offering significant weight savings. Refined wing, new engine, refreshed interior in essence utilising all learnings from the 787 And MAX programme.

Twin aisle comfort against single aisle. 8 abreast seating (still offering comfort with spacing sought from new walling).

Tooling for the 767 is there, supply chain there...

Allow the 737MAX to cover the 150-220 market and the 767MAX to top off the growing markets for the 210-280 seat market handing the baton to the 787 for the 240-290 seat market etc. Cockpit commonality so seeing the 767MAX as a step to the larger offerings.

Airbus would have to develop a clean sheet or, stretch the A321.

What boarding efficiencies would a twin aisle offer against a single aisle of similar seating capacities?

Just some thoughts.
 
Ferroviarius
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:28 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:11 pm

c933103 wrote:
so, they want a new A310?


Yes, I think that's what it looks like.

Best,

Ferroviarius
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 2698
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:32 pm

With everything I'm reading, a decision will be made this year no matter what. They can't delay this any longer if they want to do this, the airlines want the plane. It's either they launch his thing or enjoy the A321LR at basically every airline that flies 757s over the pond or airlines that want to operate MOM like flights.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:46 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
With everything I'm reading, a decision will be made this year no matter what.


Everything I'm reading is that some customers [airlines and lessors] want to see it launched this year. There is nothing from Boeing that suggests a launch will happen this year.

Also remember that current Boeing management is focused on cutting costs.

Muilenburg on the R&D budget:

Muilenburg’s vision does not leave room for increasing how much the company is spending on research and development. The company has between $2 billion and $3 billion of R&D spending tied up through 2021 on existing programs, including the 777X, the 737 MAX and 787-10.


Ref viewtopic.php?t=1356311

That doesn't leave much room for the development of a new jetliner.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Boeing717200
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:00 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.


That needs 5600nm.
240 years and the top two candidates are named Dumb and Dumber. Stay classy!
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Topic Author
Posts: 2698
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:47 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
With everything I'm reading, a decision will be made this year no matter what.


Everything I'm reading is that some customers [airlines and lessors] want to see it launched this year. There is nothing from Boeing that suggests a launch will happen this year.

Also remember that current Boeing management is focused on cutting costs.

Muilenburg on the R&D budget:

Muilenburg’s vision does not leave room for increasing how much the company is spending on research and development. The company has between $2 billion and $3 billion of R&D spending tied up through 2021 on existing programs, including the 777X, the 737 MAX and 787-10.


Ref viewtopic.php?t=1356311

That doesn't leave much room for the development of a new jetliner.


Oh trust me I get their money situation but it seems to me they really don't have much of a choice. A321LR is arriving in 2 years and airlines don't need to wait for a paper plane.
 
c933103
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:02 pm

Btblue wrote:
Would them doing something with the 767 be feasible. Max it, CFRP elements of the fuselage, not all of it, similar to what Airbus have done with the A350 to keep the costs down but offering significant weight savings. Refined wing, new engine, refreshed interior in essence utilising all learnings from the 787 And MAX programme.

Twin aisle comfort against single aisle. 8 abreast seating (still offering comfort with spacing sought from new walling).

Tooling for the 767 is there, supply chain there...

Allow the 737MAX to cover the 150-220 market and the 767MAX to top off the growing markets for the 210-280 seat market handing the baton to the 787 for the 240-290 seat market etc. Cockpit commonality so seeing the 767MAX as a step to the larger offerings.

Airbus would have to develop a clean sheet or, stretch the A321.

What boarding efficiencies would a twin aisle offer against a single aisle of similar seating capacities?

Just some thoughts.

making something like A330-700 or A350-600 should not cost more thann renewing 767?
Peace cannot counter violence when violence are being used by the powerful without mercy. #HongKong
But there is one possible exception. That is if the world could come together and make those who use violence lose their power. #China
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1389
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:06 pm

How about they cut the $&^%I^ financial engineering (stock buybacks) and put that money into their future? Sorry, a guy can dream can't he?
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:09 pm

BlueSky1976 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Wouldn't a MOM face growing to a 5500 range and upwards of 300 passengers? And that before it even gets into the air.


There's already a MOM for that. It's called 787-10.


More likely one more threat to the ever suffering 787 program.

ps the -10 has a range of 6500 miles and 300-440 passenger capacity, would co-exist with the MOM
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:12 pm

Would this help them to find the desired mix of performance, availability and price airlines want? The problem is that airlines want a plane with a performance that needs cutting edge technology, but they only want to pay the price for a plane made with cheap and proven technology.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1008
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:39 pm

c933103 wrote:
Btblue wrote:
Would them doing something with the 767 be feasible. Max it, CFRP elements of the fuselage, not all of it, similar to what Airbus have done with the A350 to keep the costs down but offering significant weight savings. Refined wing, new engine, refreshed interior in essence utilising all learnings from the 787 And MAX programme.

Twin aisle comfort against single aisle. 8 abreast seating (still offering comfort with spacing sought from new walling).

Tooling for the 767 is there, supply chain there...

Allow the 737MAX to cover the 150-220 market and the 767MAX to top off the growing markets for the 210-280 seat market handing the baton to the 787 for the 240-290 seat market etc. Cockpit commonality so seeing the 767MAX as a step to the larger offerings.

Airbus would have to develop a clean sheet or, stretch the A321.

What boarding efficiencies would a twin aisle offer against a single aisle of similar seating capacities?

Just some thoughts.

making something like A330-700 or A350-600 should not cost more thann renewing 767?


Those would be shrinks and everyone knows that those don't work out to well especially if you over do it. See the 736 and A318.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:02 pm

c933103 wrote:
Btblue wrote:
Would them doing something with the 767 be feasible. Max it, CFRP elements of the fuselage, not all of it, similar to what Airbus have done with the A350 to keep the costs down but offering significant weight savings. Refined wing, new engine, refreshed interior in essence utilising all learnings from the 787 And MAX programme.

Twin aisle comfort against single aisle. 8 abreast seating (still offering comfort with spacing sought from new walling).

Tooling for the 767 is there, supply chain there...

Allow the 737MAX to cover the 150-220 market and the 767MAX to top off the growing markets for the 210-280 seat market handing the baton to the 787 for the 240-290 seat market etc. Cockpit commonality so seeing the 767MAX as a step to the larger offerings.

Airbus would have to develop a clean sheet or, stretch the A321.

What boarding efficiencies would a twin aisle offer against a single aisle of similar seating capacities?

Just some thoughts.

making something like A330-700 or A350-600 should not cost more thann renewing 767?


I looked at a A330-700 based on A330-200 fuselage years ago. But no free ride either. You would have to cut weight / operating costs dramatically. New smaller just right wings, a new light wingbox (not made for 270t MTOW), suitable landing gear and optimized engines would be required. Do it right or not.. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA330-700Light.jpg
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:48 pm

Boeing717200 wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.


That needs 5600nm.


Guess so, it's around 4500 from Nashville, around 5000 from Austin, around 5600 from San Diego.

I think United knows that the Norwegianization and Allegianting of leasure TATL travel at less than daily frequencies across America is inevitable. They need something they can be flexible with to compete with that.

Anyone ask Norwegian their thoughts on a MOM that could possibly open up even more options.

Where would Boeing build such a plane? New factory in right to work state, expansion of South Carolina plant or give something to the Seattle area?
 
IADCA
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:06 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The only way a twin isle 200 passenger aircraft can possibly be economically competitive is if has some sort of advanced elliptical fuselage like the "kermit cruiser" otherwise its going to have to be single isle.

I'll be the first to say that I love and prefer "short" fuselage aircraft such as the 762, 747SP, A310, A318, etc., but that design philosophy runs completely counter to current trends in economically viable aircraft design.

What is with this apparent obsession with MOM being twin isle anyway? Single isle between 752 and 753 size should be perfect for this VERY specific mission.


There's probably not enough potential sales volume in that very specific mission to justify a clean sheet. Whatever comes out will have to either handle other missions off the bat (short haul, high density, for which twin aisle helps for quick turns: domestic Japan, probably some U.S. and European short haul - the old A300/310 role) or be easily and cheaply stretched into something that covers at a very minimum the low end of the 763/332 size and range envelope. Any new sheet is going to be a family (at least in concept), which would develop over time just like many other families have.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14936
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:44 pm

It will be designed as 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 17.2" seats from the start. There is no motivation to offer luxury in Y these days. The 767 is about 186in across, the A330 about 207, this aircraft can be 197 and fit 8Y with 18" aisles and 2" armrests.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:57 pm

ikramerica wrote:
It will be designed as 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 17.2" seats from the start. There is no motivation to offer luxury in Y these days. The 767 is about 186in across, the A330 about 207, this aircraft can be 197 and fit 8Y with 18" aisles and 2" armrests.



Will this be able to deliver the single aisle economics that airlines are looking for? What weight would this be that couldn't be countered at least for 90% of the missions by a stretched and re-winged A322?
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2507
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:00 pm

So, the Boeing MOM concept = Essentially the replacement for a 757 type aircraft that we've long pined for (as avgeeks).

Or have I misunderstood?
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:11 pm

garpd wrote:
So, the Boeing MOM concept = Essentially the replacement for a 757 type aircraft that we've long pined for (as avgeeks).

Or have I misunderstood?


It's a twin aisle so will definitely be larger than the 757.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:33 pm

garpd wrote:
So, the Boeing MOM concept = Essentially the replacement for a 757 type aircraft that we've long pined for (as avgeeks).

Or have I misunderstood?

The closest interpretation I can think of is a 75.57MAX.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:39 pm

enzo011 wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
It will be designed as 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 17.2" seats from the start. There is no motivation to offer luxury in Y these days. The 767 is about 186in across, the A330 about 207, this aircraft can be 197 and fit 8Y with 18" aisles and 2" armrests.



Will this be able to deliver the single aisle economics that airlines are looking for? What weight would this be that couldn't be countered at least for 90% of the missions by a stretched and re-winged A322?


Damned if they do and damned if they don't, right? Of course, that seems to keep some entertained wildly on here.

A theoretical A322 seems like a no-brainer if Boeing launches a MoM, but that doesn't mean that it would have the same capabilities or mission profile. You mention the single aisle economics, but we don't know what benefits will come from a twin aisle with competitive costs. After all the yammering on here from those who want a twin aisle when traveling across the pond, I'd imagine at least a few would book the all-new MoM over the 80's pencil-stretched A322, just as people book the A380 over the 77W in head to head markets.

Or not. We don't really know much about this concept at all yet.
-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: 14936
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:49 pm

At a length between the 762 and 763 and a stretch between the 763 and 764 you get more efficient aircraft that hold 763 and 764 capacity. The 762 is inefficient and eaten by the long single aisles. The A330 becomes less efficient on shorter because it's 10" wider but carries same number of pax.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14936
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 6:11 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
It will be designed as 2-4-2 or 3-2-3 17.2" seats from the start. There is no motivation to offer luxury in Y these days. The 767 is about 186in across, the A330 about 207, this aircraft can be 197 and fit 8Y with 18" aisles and 2" armrests.



Will this be able to deliver the single aisle economics that airlines are looking for? What weight would this be that couldn't be countered at least for 90% of the missions by a stretched and re-winged A322?


Damned if they do and damned if they don't, right? Of course, that seems to keep some entertained wildly on here.

A theoretical A322 seems like a no-brainer if Boeing launches a MoM, but that doesn't mean that it would have the same capabilities or mission profile. You mention the single aisle economics, but we don't know what benefits will come from a twin aisle with competitive costs. After all the yammering on here from those who want a twin aisle when traveling across the pond, I'd imagine at least a few would book the all-new MoM over the 80's pencil-stretched A322, just as people book the A380 over the 77W in head to head markets.

Or not. We don't really know much about this concept at all yet.

The 753 was not appealing to that many customers. Granted it was late to the game, but it had good economics. But it also had poor turn times due to slow loading and unloading. As a customer, if you were in the back, expect 20 minutes of deplaninv time. I also believe it was not efficient to load bags and cargo into a narrow fuse that long.

The A322 can take ld3 at one across, but that's not that efficient either.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:27 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Damned if they do and damned if they don't, right? Of course, that seems to keep some entertained wildly on here.

A theoretical A322 seems like a no-brainer if Boeing launches a MoM, but that doesn't mean that it would have the same capabilities or mission profile. You mention the single aisle economics, but we don't know what benefits will come from a twin aisle with competitive costs. After all the yammering on here from those who want a twin aisle when traveling across the pond, I'd imagine at least a few would book the all-new MoM over the 80's pencil-stretched A322, just as people book the A380 over the 77W in head to head markets.

Or not. We don't really know much about this concept at all yet.



We will have to wait and see if Boeing launches the MoM and what design they go with. If they are able to achieve what they have been talking about themselves, which is a twin aisle with single aisle economics, I think Airbus will have to counter with a similar design as the extra seats and capability will kill the theoretical A322. Airbus is in the enviable position of being able to wait and see what Boeing does before they decide if they need to respond and what this response will be.

Regarding people's preference on what to fly with we should surely follow the adage that the price will dictate the preference. If the A322 allows tickets to be cheaper than a MoM then that is what people will choose to fly on, or if the MoM allows cheaper tickets then people will prefer it to any other aircraft.
 
c933103
Posts: 3855
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:00 am

767333ER wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Btblue wrote:
Would them doing something with the 767 be feasible. Max it, CFRP elements of the fuselage, not all of it, similar to what Airbus have done with the A350 to keep the costs down but offering significant weight savings. Refined wing, new engine, refreshed interior in essence utilising all learnings from the 787 And MAX programme.

Twin aisle comfort against single aisle. 8 abreast seating (still offering comfort with spacing sought from new walling).

Tooling for the 767 is there, supply chain there...

Allow the 737MAX to cover the 150-220 market and the 767MAX to top off the growing markets for the 210-280 seat market handing the baton to the 787 for the 240-290 seat market etc. Cockpit commonality so seeing the 767MAX as a step to the larger offerings.

Airbus would have to develop a clean sheet or, stretch the A321.

What boarding efficiencies would a twin aisle offer against a single aisle of similar seating capacities?

Just some thoughts.

making something like A330-700 or A350-600 should not cost more thann renewing 767?


Those would be shrinks and everyone knows that those don't work out to well especially if you over do it. See the 736 and A318.

see 332 or 310
Peace cannot counter violence when violence are being used by the powerful without mercy. #HongKong
But there is one possible exception. That is if the world could come together and make those who use violence lose their power. #China
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:37 am

I'm afraI'd for Boeing that Airbus really has a substantial upper hand here. If Boeing goes the expensive route and does a "radical" clean sheet design, it will necessarily be very expensive to purchase and involve a ton of crew training. Even if it results in a running operating cost improvement of 25% per seat mile as compared to the a321neo, it would have to face the likelihood of airbus being able to sell the a321 for substantially less, resulting in a lifetime seat cost that is much closer, and not even taking into account potential fleet commonality advantages that are enjoyed by the a321. If airlines show cosniderable interest in such a product, Airbus can produce an A322 that is very close to the same capacity, requires less investment (mild thrust bump for existing engines, extra fuselage sections, and the most expensive part, a lengthening of the wing), and can likely be produced on the existing assembly lines. It will still be able to cost less than the Boeing mom, and likely have similar economics.

There is no win here for Boeing.

If I was Boeing, with the cs100,300,500 encroaching on the bottom end of the 737 market, I would instead work on the next generation of the 737 market, optimizing around the -900 size, with a smaller sibling and a larger sibling that is a few rows longer than the a321 with the potential to grow one more length if needed.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:44 am

I can't imagine a twin aisle being more efficient than a longer single aisle. Compare the same capacity, age, 757 and 762. OEW differs significantly.

A big single aisle, with wider fuselage/ aisle for quick deboarding and twin aisle premium class option, dedicated wingsets for short and medium range, could be a better compromise. Lighter anyway.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:50 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
I'm afraI'd for Boeing that Airbus really has a substantial upper hand here. If Boeing goes the expensive route and does a "radical" clean sheet design, it will necessarily be very expensive to purchase and involve a ton of crew training. Even if it results in a running operating cost improvement of 25% per seat mile as compared to the a321neo, it would have to face the likelihood of airbus being able to sell the a321 for substantially less, resulting in a lifetime seat cost that is much closer, and not even taking into account potential fleet commonality advantages that are enjoyed by the a321. If airlines show cosniderable interest in such a product, Airbus can produce an A322 that is very close to the same capacity, requires less investment (mild thrust bump for existing engines, extra fuselage sections, and the most expensive part, a lengthening of the wing), and can likely be produced on the existing assembly lines. It will still be able to cost less than the Boeing mom, and likely have similar economics.

There is no win here for Boeing.

If I was Boeing, with the cs100,300,500 encroaching on the bottom end of the 737 market, I would instead work on the next generation of the 737 market, optimizing around the -900 size, with a smaller sibling and a larger sibling that is a few rows longer than the a321 with the potential to grow one more length if needed.


I would not be surprised to see a crossover between a theoretical MoM and an NSA. Something similar to, but perhaps more involved than, the 757/767 models. We've had countless iterations discussed on A.net but I can't recall the details. Suffice it to say, in that scenario you'd debut the MoM for example then follow up within a few years with the NSA. I believe the biggest hangup all along with the NSA has been the powerplant. As it is, the NSA is in the same boat viz a viz the A32Xneo - a competitive frame in the neo at a fraction of the development cost, and available years sooner.

I think the reason we sit here and go around and around and get nowhere is that frankly what you say is true: There is no win here for Boeing. Airbus has the upper hand right now in the narrowbody field with their current platform. That doesn't mean Boeing can't or shouldn't move forward with something but it does mean that it is not an easy path and regardless what they do they are behind the 8 Ball.
-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
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5262
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:52 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
I'm afraI'd for Boeing that Airbus really has a substantial upper hand here. If Boeing goes the expensive route and does a "radical" clean sheet design, it will necessarily be very expensive to purchase and involve a ton of crew training. Even if it results in a running operating cost improvement of 25% per seat mile as compared to the a321neo, it would have to face the likelihood of airbus being able to sell the a321 for substantially less, resulting in a lifetime seat cost that is much closer, and not even taking into account potential fleet commonality advantages that are enjoyed by the a321. If airlines show cosniderable interest in such a product, Airbus can produce an A322 that is very close to the same capacity, requires less investment (mild thrust bump for existing engines, extra fuselage sections, and the most expensive part, a lengthening of the wing), and can likely be produced on the existing assembly lines. It will still be able to cost less than the Boeing mom, and likely have similar economics.

That's true to an extent, but there are plenty of examples of a clean sheet design which better addresses the needs of the market beating out a simpler and cheaper to produce derivative of an existing design, even when that clean sheet design comes to the market a bit later. For instance the 747 versus the DC-8-60, the 777 and A330/340 versus the MD-11, or the A380 versus the 747-8.

SCAT15F wrote:
... twin isle ... single isle ... twin isle ... Single isle ...

Please take this in the friendly and constructive manner it is intended. The words "aisle" (a walkway between groups of chairs) and "isle" (an island) are commonly confused, and this is a good example for us all to learn from.

This is a single aisle and a twin aisle:


This is a single isle and a twin isle:


V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:04 am

Theoretically a slightly wider NB fuselage could be lighter then a narrower one, above a certain lenght.

Cabin flexibility would also grow. As well as passenger perception of a wider tube on longer flights.

Luggage bins would be larger than on any NB today. The passenger deck is higher because the cargo hold doesn't grow in height compared to e.g. A320.

As said 2 sets of wings/engines for up to 2500NM and 5000NM and various lenghts/capacity versions for a wide range of airline network requirements.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
QXAS
Posts: 351
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:54 am

WaywardMemphian wrote:
Where would Boeing build such a plane? New factory in right to work state, expansion of South Carolina plant or give something to the Seattle area?

There should be plenty of space opening up in Everett soon with the 747 line winding down. That would be the most economical initial production site because the building is already there. However with Washingtons politics the way they are I wouldn't be surprised to see MOM produced in the southeast.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
atlflyer
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:13 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:22 am

So if Boeing goes with a twin aisle MoM solution, what do they do for a 737 replacement? Another new fuselage?
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:31 am

atlflyer wrote:
So if Boeing goes with a twin aisle MoM solution, what do they do for a 737 replacement? Another new fuselage?



Buy Bombardier , develop a CS500 and CS700. :lol:
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:58 am

WaywardMemphian wrote:
atlflyer wrote:
So if Boeing goes with a twin aisle MoM solution, what do they do for a 737 replacement? Another new fuselage?



Buy Bombardier , develop a CS500 and CS700. :lol:


Not the worst idea in the world. :-)

I do think that they might very well do two fuselage/wing combo's, but with as much commonality as possible. Of course, that might leave one or both less than optimum.

I'd hate to be the folks responsible for making that call.
-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
seahawk
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:58 am

With modern construction technology you can make a twin aisle competitive to old technology single aisle planes. Matching a 737NG at CASM should be doable.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:16 am

seahawk wrote:
With modern construction technology you can make a twin aisle competitive to old technology single aisle planes. Matching a 737NG at CASM should be doable.


Using that same technology would make a single aisle even better. Tha's the risk of a dual aisle. Airbus doing a slightly more modern single aisle 3 years later. I think creating a competitive fuselage cross section is key. Wings /engine can be optimized over time. Should open rotors in 10 years be part of the design development path?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:27 am

Fuselage cross section is rather simple in basics though. As little aisle for as many seats as possible. Then you just need to look at the desired seat count and a desired finesse ratio and you are done. I personally can not come up with a design in the 200-270 seat range that would be competitive to a single aisle except for the largest variant, which would then be probably be at a disadvantage compared to the larger twin aisles.

The only saving grace might be that airlines want a certain seat count, that gives you a too long single aisle.
 
sincx
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:41 am

seahawk wrote:
The only saving grace might be that airlines want a certain seat count, that gives you a too long single aisle.
Exactly.

While a 757-300 may be very efficient, it also takes 20+ minutes to unload and 45+ minutes to load, where as a smaller single-aisle and a twin-aisle can both turn faster. Planes sitting on the ground are not making money, and busy hubs (like SFO) are becoming as much gate-constrained as they are landing slot-constrained.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:48 am

On the other hand this turn around time problem is less big for a 4000nm mission. When it becomes a huge problem, the stage lengths gets shorter and the problem of the additional weight of the twin aisle makes itself felt even more. Engineering wise the MoM is a big challenge imho to make it work for airlines with very conflicting needs. (just look at how different the past offerings in the size were)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:14 am

seahawk wrote:
Fuselage cross section is rather simple in basics though. As little aisle for as many seats as possible. Then you just need to look at the desired seat count and a desired finesse ratio and you are done. I personally can not come up with a design in the 200-270 seat range that would be competitive to a single aisle except for the largest variant, which would then be probably be at a disadvantage compared to the larger twin aisles.

The only saving grace might be that airlines want a certain seat count, that gives you a too long single aisle.


I think the MS21-400, that will be longer than the A321 has a wide fuselage. While this might be practical, passengers can pass each other / a trolley in the aisle. A driver probably also is stiffnes/ structural efficiency going over 35 seat rows. Plus for longer flights premium seats are in the equation. A wider fuselage allows for 4 abreast with direct aisle access, or 1-1-1 First. And that might be a significant part of the cabin.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Btblue
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:29 am

One thing is for sure, they'll hopefully give the aircraft some serious legs, allowing for any future engine growth.

Looking at the 737 cross section... To allow for a larger cargo area, I wonder if they've considered flipping the cabin upside down. So you've in essence got the old cargo section where the storage lockers would be... Looks like you could squeeze some space out there.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13281
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:38 am

atlflyer wrote:
So if Boeing goes with a twin aisle MoM solution, what do they do for a 737 replacement? Another new fuselage?


A totally relevant question. IMO NSA is more important than MoM longer term.

The NSA version of the commonfuselage should be optimized for low weight/cost for its specific purpose.

Smaller lighter wings, landing gears, engines. A bigger MoM/NMA version available prevents all kinds of compromises to be made on the light version.

Fuselage lengths in common with the bigger version, or uniquely for short haul can be offered to the market.

It wouldn't be a MoM and NSA for the price of one, but maybe 2 for the price of 1.4, with big commonality and flexibility options for the end users and Boeing.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:03 am

c933103 wrote:
so, they want a new A310?

Can anyone remind me what specifically the airline chiefs where demanding that gave rise to the A310 and 762 ? Are we coming full circle now and should there be an "A39" or "761" type being developed for the MOM & DAD fans ? (Dynamic Airliner Development) I'm claiming copyright on that acronym btw ! ;-)
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3981
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:08 am

LightningZ71 wrote:
I'm afraI'd for Boeing that Airbus really has a substantial upper hand here. If Boeing goes the expensive route and does a "radical" clean sheet design, it will necessarily be very expensive to purchase and involve a ton of crew training. Even if it results in a running operating cost improvement of 25% per seat mile as compared to the a321neo, it would have to face the likelihood of airbus being able to sell the a321 for substantially less, resulting in a lifetime seat cost that is much closer, and not even taking into account potential fleet commonality advantages that are enjoyed by the a321. If airlines show cosniderable interest in such a product, Airbus can produce an A322 that is very close to the same capacity, requires less investment (mild thrust bump for existing engines, extra fuselage sections, and the most expensive part, a lengthening of the wing), and can likely be produced on the existing assembly lines. It will still be able to cost less than the Boeing mom, and likely have similar economics.

There is no win here for Boeing.

If I was Boeing, with the cs100,300,500 encroaching on the bottom end of the 737 market, I would instead work on the next generation of the 737 market, optimizing around the -900 size, with a smaller sibling and a larger sibling that is a few rows longer than the a321 with the potential to grow one more length if needed.


If Boeing goes clean sheet?? They would no longer be bound by the B767 certification as a "derivative" and they could go to the next level of innovation in NOT having Cable follow-ups for flight controls and they could bring in the advances they put in the B777 and the B787 in Flight controls, engine controls , cabin comfort controls i.e. larger cabin windows new air conditioning and pressurization controls. stuff NOT tied to the previous certifications. New generations of innovations. in aircraft systems. adding computerized troubleshooting where system interrogation could be done remotely like on the B787. Even the B737 is on it's last legs and any new models will require a "clean sheet" approach, . It's not a matter of what they want to do It's what they Have to do to move forward.. Boeing can't forever continue to use "warmed over" designs or systems. The MoM airplane will free Boeing to use new and innovative designs for Hardware and software.
 
A350
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:16 am

I see the advantages of the MoM but I wonder:
1) The extra seat(s) per row have to "pay" for the additional aisle. I know the oval shape and the improved fuselage stiffness help here. But do they help enough to get CASM equal or below the A321 including a potential upgrade with AlLi fuselage and all new composite wings?
2) We all know airlines like short turnaround times but do they still like them when they have to pay for them?
3) The wider fuselage offers advantages for premium seats but with LCCs pentrating the "long shorthaul" and "short longhaul" market how relevant is this?

Altogether the advantages are very clear, but is there enough margin that they can pay for the development of a clean-sheet design and an additional aircraft family at the airline's fleets? I'm not yet convinved
 
Andy33
Posts: 2498
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:21 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
British airways comes to mind as a potential customer for high demand European flights.


That would have been a great idea if the MOM had been launched 3 or 4 years ago. Unfortunately for Boeing, BA is no longer an independent company, it is part of IAG, and IAG decides fleet policy. Part of that policy is to standardise on plane types across the group so that aircraft can be transferred between subsidiaries at a week or so's notice. Their vision has lots of A320 series and A350s in it.
BA only has a small subfleet of 7 short-haul configured 763s, their long-haul configured sisters have all gone already apart from one flying for OpenSkies out of Paris.
The shorthaul configured 757s went several years ago, everything else shorthaul out of LHR is A319/320/321. IAG has decided to replace the 763s with A321neos, the planes are on order, and the 763s all leave the fleet at the back end of next year. The problem with the replacement strategy isn't passenger capacity, it is cargo capacity, and the solution they have already devised is that IB A330s and A340s do regular rotations on MAD-LHR in otherwise idle time, and this has been happening for a while now. A BA 772 will join in, again in idle time, this year. This will be extended to other routes as necessary. EI A330s make occasional visits to LHR too.
Yes, it is misusing long haul aircraft, but the planes are already there and sitting unused for a few hours out of their day. It's a cheaper solution than adding a very small fleet of MOM planes, and it is a solution that can happen in 2018, not 2022 or later.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8850
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:59 am

JannEejit wrote:
c933103 wrote:
so, they want a new A310?

Can anyone remind me what specifically the airline chiefs where demanding that gave rise to the A310 and 762 ? Are we coming full circle now and should there be an "A39" or "761" type being developed for the MOM & DAD fans ? (Dynamic Airliner Development) I'm claiming copyright on that acronym btw ! ;-)


For the A310 is is easy. The demand was for more range so that it could go TATL.

The 767 started as a 707/720 replacement but quickly came the more successful ER versions, which added range. And for the A300 the 600/600R also sold best. Same as the A310-300 outselling the A310-200. And the A330 only becoming popular when its range grew.

Imho looking at the bast shows, that the demand for widebody with less than 4500-5000nm range is questionable.
Last edited by seahawk on Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airlines interested in Boeing MOM concept.

Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:18 pm

keesje wrote:
I can't imagine a twin aisle being more efficient than a longer single aisle. Compare the same capacity, age, 757 and 762. OEW differs significantly.

A big single aisle, with wider fuselage/ aisle for quick deboarding and twin aisle premium class option, dedicated wingsets for short and medium range, could be a better compromise. Lighter anyway.


I think you overanalyzing the impact of fuselage width on weight of the airplane. The 767-200 has a wing that is 50% larger than the 757. It has the structure in the wing, wingbox and tail for 50% higher MTOW. That is why it is so much heavier.

The fuselage tube itself doesn't weight that much compared to the wing, wingbox, gear and tail. I don't have exact numbers, but I remember reading that he 737 fuselages coming in on the trains are only 1/7 of the total weight of the plane once it rolls out of the factory. Adding the wings, gear, engines, systems and interior is a large part of the weight. I wish I could find that source to double check if it is correct because I cannot verify it is true. I think his is why we are seeing an aluminum fuselage and composite wing on the 777x.

Finding the right balance of structural weight for the wing and its structure for how much payload the plane is going to carry is more difficult.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12

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