Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:16 am

One thing I have noticed on larger aircraft larger than the 757 for both Boeing and Airbus in general, the initial release is second best seller, the first stretch is the best seller, and the second stretch is third best seller. The 757-300 did not cannibalize 767-300 even though they were within 20 passengers of each other in two class seating. Obviously there were differences in performance however i think the argument that a new Boeing aircraft would cannibalize the 787-8 because they have about the same number of seats is an overly simplistic argument.
 
User avatar
CPHFF
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:03 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:20 am

What if all MoM discussions would take place in ONE thread? Now that would be great.




Ps. By the time MOM arrives, it will be a Granny.
If it weren't for UAW, Detroit would shine!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9747
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:39 am

StTim wrote:
I am looking forward to the oval fuselage design to see how Boeing overcome the compressive loads on the floor structure without significant weight.


More the inherent inefficiency not only when it comes to load bearing, but also when it comes to useable space.
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:40 am

That as well.
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:54 am

I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
StTim
Posts: 3754
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:06 am

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.


It will all depend on the economics. Can Boeing really make a widebody with the same economics as a single aisle? If the NB has the reach and a cost advantage then people will fly it. We know we all say we wouldn't but when push comes to shove most people vote with their wallet!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9747
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:11 am

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.


On a 7 hours and longer flight boarding becomes less of an issue and if you have a choice between 3-3 at 18" and 2-3-2 or 2-4-2 at 17", I think the longer boarding becomes very acceptable.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14099
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:36 am

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.


Well, if the seats are a bit wider and comfortable and the aircraft weighs less, burns less, costs less, most passengers and airlines will be ok.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1504
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:32 pm

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.

And when Airbus develops a new aircraft to match, all of a sudden the doubters will see the light. It is as immutable as any law in the universe.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:06 pm

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.

Boeing gets that and in reality so does Leahy, a 240-260 seat narrowbody is a bunch of crap whereas a new MOM twin aisle isn't. Leahy's comments indicates that AB expects the new MOM to become reality.


The A321 @ 240 seats will be available from 2019, as a result of a new exit door configuration. Door 2 will be removed and over-wing exits added. Equipping the A321 with about 240 seats will probably be popular among short haul low cost carriers. We don't know how many airlines that have the A321 on order that will opt for this maximum configuration, but one of the largest European LCC, Wizz air, ordered 110 A321s and issued a press release stating the aircraft will be equipped with 238 seats. Many European LCC typically use both front and rear exits, meaning 119 per exit door. Your boarding pass tells you which door to use. The A321 has wider doors than the 737/757.

On long haul flights boarding and deplaning is not the limiting factor for turnaround time. One of the main reasons turnaround time for a widebody exceeds 90 minutes is because of the massive amounts of fuel that needs to be tanked. Turnaround time is not that important for long haul flights. It is a a.net myth that narrowbody aircraft has longer turnaround time than widebody aircraft. In fact the opposite is true. On a widebody the cabin crew checks the boarding pass of each passenger in order to direct the passenger to the correct aisle. This takes time. Additionally there are more passengers to board.

If we equip the A321 (or a possible stretch) with the exact same Y-seats as legacy carriers has on the 787, we would have a very wide aisle on the A321. Actually 40 % wider. With such a wide aisle you can pass other passengers, which speeds up boarding. You can also pass the trolley on the way to the toilet. It is a a.net myth that having two aisles makes the flight more comfortable for the passengers.

Here is a picture from one of the largest European LCC, Easyjet. Note that you can pass the man in yellow while he is putting up his luggage in the overhead bins.

Airbus A320 family:
Image

Compared to a Boeing 737 (Southwest Airlines):
Image
 
VC10er
Posts: 4273
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:54 pm

Are there any concept drawings of the OVAL MoM from Boeing that have been published?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:03 pm

My guess is that Boeing is looking at building something that can replace the 757-200 to 767-200 in terms of carrying capacity but with a range of up to 5,300 nautical miles and way lower CASM than either the 757-200 and 767-200. AA, DL and UA would certainly snap them up very quickly, European charter airlines would certainly want them (since 5,300 nautical miles is enough to fly from central Europe to US East Coast and Caribbean destinations), and would certainly be welcome for inter-regional routes in eastern Asia and on the African continent.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

There is one difference between legacy airlines and a LCC. The business class passengers in the front of the airplain take often a lot of time to get moving. The rest of the passengers have to wait for them to disembark. Icelandair, with the Saga class to the front of L2, while deboarding through L2, does not wait for all passengers in Saga Class before letting economy disembark, the slower Saga Class passenger are than slotted into the outgoing stream when they are ready.

Regarding the oval 7 passengers a row wide body, I have to see the data to believe it being as efficient as a narrow one aisle tube.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:08 pm

RayChuang wrote:
My guess is that Boeing is looking at building something that can replace the 757-200 to 767-200 in terms of carrying capacity but with a range of up to 5,300 nautical miles and way lower CASM than either the 757-200 and 767-200. AA, DL and UA would certainly snap them up very quickly, European charter airlines would certainly want them (since 5,300 nautical miles is enough to fly from central Europe to US East Coast and Caribbean destinations), and would certainly be welcome for inter-regional routes in eastern Asia and on the African continent.


I hope you are right. I think such an aircraft could be a huge hit. An aircraft that size category will open up for far more direct flying, thus avoiding congested and reducing associated costs. It would be an aircraft that addresses the long and thin market and an aircraft that can he used to increase frequency on busy routes. The important thing is resist the temptation to make the MOM large aircraft.

I fear Boeing will make the 797 MOM quite large. Up to 270/280 passengers is frequently mentioned. That is to large to be game changer.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:20 am

seahawk wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:

I agree. the first victim will be 787 Gen1. However, perhaps we will see a 789ER as the baseline and a 78710ER if 787 is revisited as a Gen2 model. The 8 space could be taken up by 797. Any 787 revisit would come well after 777/797/7A7 (NSA.. (hey if we go hexidecimal we get 6 more numbers to use ;p)

777X could grow one more time to 777-10 (SIA was interested). So you'd have 7779 and 77710. I guess the 8 could stick around?

Then of course we will have an NSA that burrows heavily from MOM to replace the MAX family.. and may be just a 2 or 3 member family.

We will be back to a 4 frame family, 777/787/797/7A7, all much larger than their counterparts decades ago..

What will be interesting is to see if 797 is launched as a 2 plane family from the beginning.


I more or less disagree. The only obvious victim in the 787 family to be affected will be the -8, and it's not selling like it did anyways. The -9 and -10, and any subsequent models related will go on just fine.

The 747-8 is on her way out and the MAX is the final iteration of the 737. The 767 is slowing as well. The NSA could possibly be derived from the MoM, so here is what I think the Boeing lineup could look like in 10 years:

NSA8 - replaces 737 MAX 7/8
NSA9 - replaces 737 MAX 8/9
797-8 - replaces 737 MAX 10, 757-200
797-9 - replaces 757-300, 767, 787-8
787-9 - replaces 777-200ER/LR
787-10 - replaces 777-200/-300
777-8 - replaces 777-200LR/-300ER
777-9 - replaces 777-300ER/747


I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.


I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:41 am

Boeing778X wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.

I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves gentlemen. Only two planes in that list have been built or flown. Remember when Boeing was going to "rule them all" with Y1, Y2 and Y3?
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:16 am

ODwyerPW wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.

I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves gentlemen. Only two planes in that list have been built or flown. Remember when Boeing was going to "rule them all" with Y1, Y2 and Y3?


It's called speculation. Plans change. Obviously, Y2 is the 787, and the MoM could result into the NSA, the Y3.

The 777 will be Boeing's Flagship type for many years to come.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:01 am

Boeing778X wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves gentlemen. Only two planes in that list have been built or flown. Remember when Boeing was going to "rule them all" with Y1, Y2 and Y3?


It's called speculation. Plans change. Obviously, Y2 is the 787, and the MoM could result into the NSA, the Y3.

The 777 will be Boeing's Flagship type for many years to come.


NSA is Y1.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:14 am

ikolkyo wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:

Let's not get ahead of ourselves gentlemen. Only two planes in that list have been built or flown. Remember when Boeing was going to "rule them all" with Y1, Y2 and Y3?


It's called speculation. Plans change. Obviously, Y2 is the 787, and the MoM could result into the NSA, the Y3.

The 777 will be Boeing's Flagship type for many years to come.


NSA is Y1.


I stand corrected.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:37 am

Boeing778X wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

I more or less disagree. The only obvious victim in the 787 family to be affected will be the -8, and it's not selling like it did anyways. The -9 and -10, and any subsequent models related will go on just fine.

The 747-8 is on her way out and the MAX is the final iteration of the 737. The 767 is slowing as well. The NSA could possibly be derived from the MoM, so here is what I think the Boeing lineup could look like in 10 years:

NSA8 - replaces 737 MAX 7/8
NSA9 - replaces 737 MAX 8/9
797-8 - replaces 737 MAX 10, 757-200
797-9 - replaces 757-300, 767, 787-8
787-9 - replaces 777-200ER/LR
787-10 - replaces 777-200/-300
777-8 - replaces 777-200LR/-300ER
777-9 - replaces 777-300ER/747


I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.


I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


You do make good jokes.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
seahawk wrote:

I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.


I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


You do make good jokes.


After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4648
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:52 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


You do make good jokes.


After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.

NSA will come after MoM which would be in 2030s and is also the expected era for Airbus to release a new narrowbody.
MoM or 322 is like 757 vs 767 so the overlap is probably not too much like how Boeing managed to market both of them some decades ago.
777X or 380? They aren't in the same class. You mean 350?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1892
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:27 pm

billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.


Funny thing is that I don't remember you saying the same about the 757-300. Airlines who bought it didn't have any problem with it in an era before slimline seats, and don't have problem with it now.

Fact is, fuel-burn wise, stretched and rewinged A321neo-plus-plus could decimate Boeing's MoM-plane, due to being a narrowbody with more comfortable, 18-inch seats and an aisle wider than the one from the 737.
Proudly avoiding 737 MAX since 18.11.2020.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:32 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

I can agree to that statement. The A350 is very competitive, but otherwise, everything in that lineup is a generation ahead of everything in Airbus' books.


You do make good jokes.


After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.


And all the while Airbus is sitting on their hands doing nothing. :)
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
texl1649
Posts: 1465
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:30 pm

Boeing to unveil details of its concept at Paris.

http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-s ... ails-paris
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14099
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:38 pm

They are looking for support.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24789
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:02 am

keesje wrote:
They are looking for support.

As opposed to, what? Investing a few billion dollars to launch a program without any support?
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
RayChuang
Posts: 8138
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:06 am

keesje wrote:
They are looking for support.


I'm not surprised. Boeing is probably going to show its first concept and will ask airlines--especially the European charter airlines and airlines in eastern and southeastern Asia--is this the right idea and get suggestions on "size adjusting" the design.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:49 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.


Funny thing is that I don't remember you saying the same about the 757-300. Airlines who bought it didn't have any problem with it in an era before slimline seats, and don't have problem with it now.

Fact is, fuel-burn wise, stretched and rewinged A321neo-plus-plus could decimate Boeing's MoM-plane, due to being a narrowbody with more comfortable, 18-inch seats and an aisle wider than the one from the 737.


Agreed. A re-winged 260 seat A322 would not only decimate a twin isle MOM, its a true 757 replacement which the MOM is not (anymore) thanks to the increase to 767-200/300 size.
 
Aither
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:03 am

Will LCCs stop operating narrow body aircraft for this "widenarrow body" ? no
So that will be a sub fleet - if LCCs decide to operate 2 aircraft types. Some will do, like in Asia. But in Asia they also need widebody. So that's actually a 3rd aircraft type. And then after a while you realize you are no longer an LCC...

When you go for a subfleet you must make sure it will generate enough revenues to compensate for the additional complexity. Large aircraft flying long routes bring a lot of revenues so it's fine to have sub fleet of such big aircraft. But a sub fleet of aircraft generating only marginal l revenues over what you have in the fleet ? would that really compensate of all the additional hassles ? this MOM better be a breakthrough in term of performance
Last edited by Aither on Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:22 am

SCAT15F wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.


Funny thing is that I don't remember you saying the same about the 757-300. Airlines who bought it didn't have any problem with it in an era before slimline seats, and don't have problem with it now.

Fact is, fuel-burn wise, stretched and rewinged A321neo-plus-plus could decimate Boeing's MoM-plane, due to being a narrowbody with more comfortable, 18-inch seats and an aisle wider than the one from the 737.


Agreed. A re-winged 260 seat A322 would not only decimate a twin isle MOM, its a true 757 replacement which the MOM is not (anymore) thanks to the increase to 767-200/300 size.



If the airlines wanted a stretched Boeing A321 they would offer it, the fact Boeing is going this route shows what the airlines want.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:22 am

SCAT15F wrote:
BlueSky1976 wrote:
billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.


Funny thing is that I don't remember you saying the same about the 757-300. Airlines who bought it didn't have any problem with it in an era before slimline seats, and don't have problem with it now.

Fact is, fuel-burn wise, stretched and rewinged A321neo-plus-plus could decimate Boeing's MoM-plane, due to being a narrowbody with more comfortable, 18-inch seats and an aisle wider than the one from the 737.


Agreed. A re-winged 260 seat A322 would not only decimate a twin isle MOM, its a true 757 replacement which the MOM is not (anymore) thanks to the increase to 767-200/300 size.


My guess is there will only be 3-4 major 757-200 operators left excluding freight by the time a 797 or A322 is built. I'm not sure it is worth going directly after the 757 any more. That market is somewhat gone. Less than 100 757-200s IMO in service use the full capability of the plane in regular operations. The 737 and A320 families overlap it enough that I think something bigger than a 757-200 is on the horizon.
 
Aither
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:39 am

william wrote:
If the airlines wanted a stretched Boeing A321 they would offer it, the fact Boeing is going this route shows what the airlines want.


Airlines are still very silent about the MOM if you compare to the situation with the 787 a few years ago.

The MOM rather looks more like what Boeing wants as they are losing on the big single aisle market and did not manage to kill the A330 (still ultra dominating on medium haul routes). They can't afford 2 new programs at the same time so the MOM is an attempt to kill 2 birds with one stone. So I'm not sure it's market driven, it looks more driven by what Boeing can do and then they will try to persuade the airlines it's the right product.
Never trust the obvious
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:18 am

c933103 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

You do make good jokes.


After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.

NSA will come after MoM which would be in 2030s and is also the expected era for Airbus to release a new narrowbody.
MoM or 322 is like 757 vs 767 so the overlap is probably not too much like how Boeing managed to market both of them some decades ago.
777X or 380? They aren't in the same class. You mean 350?



If the NSA from Boeing comes at the same time has AB then that's a fail imop. NSA should be 2024-25 at the latest.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4414
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:41 am

People are overestimating the popularity of a long narrow body such as the 757, and underestimating what a modern smaller light wide body might do. Oh yes, then Airbus may counter with a slightly larger small/light wide body. Then Boeing will counter with a redo of the 787-8. "As the world Turns"
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9747
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:09 am

c933103 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

You do make good jokes.


After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.

NSA will come after MoM which would be in 2030s and is also the expected era for Airbus to release a new narrowbody.
MoM or 322 is like 757 vs 767 so the overlap is probably not too much like how Boeing managed to market both of them some decades ago.
777X or 380? They aren't in the same class. You mean 350?


If the A320 gets a replacement by 2030 (which I think it will) investing money into a new wing + wingbox + MLG for the A321 makes little sense, as it would be viable only for a very short period.
Airbus has to answer to the MoM which will kill A321 + A330NEO.
 
User avatar
LatAmFlyer
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:48 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:02 am

Can anybody get or access a blue-sky illustration of the new bird?

And as a lowly instrument pilot on small piston airplanes, I don't know what MoM is, and I probably should. Good gracious.
 
Aither
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:10 am

LatAmFlyer wrote:
And as a lowly instrument pilot on small piston airplanes, I don't know what MoM is. Good gracious.


MoM stands for "Middle of the Market" : an aircraft between big single aisle & small twin aisle aircraft.Hopefully it won't be a niche market.
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:21 am

BlueSky1976 wrote:
billreid wrote:
I am laughing at Leahy's comment on 240 seats on a narrowbody. How many airlines are lining up for this really bad option for the consumer. Boarding and deplaning would take forever thereby damaging operating times. Take a wide body like a B767 type over a narrowbody that long. This plane would be incredibly uncomfortable going across the pond.


Funny thing is that I don't remember you saying the same about the 757-300. Airlines who bought it didn't have any problem with it in an era before slimline seats, and don't have problem with it now.

Fact is, fuel-burn wise, stretched and rewinged A321neo-plus-plus could decimate Boeing's MoM-plane, due to being a narrowbody with more comfortable, 18-inch seats and an aisle wider than the one from the 737.


The thing is, the 757-300 was just under 10m longer than the A321 so 240 seats (even without newer slimline seats) was more plausible amd reasonable, wider seats and aisles or not.

Airbus' own Aircraft Characteristics pdf documents has the A321/neo with 220 seats at 28/29 inch pitch. That is tight even with slimline seats. How they manage to get to 240 seats is amazing! Will it be able to consistently get across the Atlantic or do US transcon with 240 seats?

I love Airbus and really appreciate them giving us aircraft with slightly wider seats but it is surprising that people seem "cool" with 28/29 inch pitch if the seat is 18 inches wide but scream bloody murder about a 17 inch seat with 31/32 inches of pitch... what gives?
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:31 am

LatAmFlyer wrote:
Can anybody get or access a blue-sky illustration of the new bird?

And as a lowly instrument pilot on small piston airplanes, I don't know what MoM is, and I probably should. Good gracious.


There are no drawings and if, they are based on guessing. Boeing has neither discussed data nor performance.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4648
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:48 am

grbauc wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.

NSA will come after MoM which would be in 2030s and is also the expected era for Airbus to release a new narrowbody.
MoM or 322 is like 757 vs 767 so the overlap is probably not too much like how Boeing managed to market both of them some decades ago.
777X or 380? They aren't in the same class. You mean 350?



If the NSA from Boeing comes at the same time has AB then that's a fail imop. NSA should be 2024-25 at the latest.

MoM most likely won't come before 2025... And work on NSA would be after that, so the timeframe you proposed does not sound possible and that would also mean 737 MAX only have 5 years life in your proposal ... although Airbus's 320 replacement could still come later...

seahawk wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:

After you finish getting mad, go tell keesje. He'll laugh too.

NSA or A320? NSA.
MoM or A322? Probably MoM.
787 or A330neo? 787.
777 or A350? A350.
777X or A380? 777X.
747-8 or A380? Both dead.

Now get.

NSA will come after MoM which would be in 2030s and is also the expected era for Airbus to release a new narrowbody.
MoM or 322 is like 757 vs 767 so the overlap is probably not too much like how Boeing managed to market both of them some decades ago.
777X or 380? They aren't in the same class. You mean 350?


If the A320 gets a replacement by 2030 (which I think it will) investing money into a new wing + wingbox + MLG for the A321 makes little sense, as it would be viable only for a very short period.
Airbus has to answer to the MoM which will kill A321 + A330NEO.

I think it would be after 2030 instead of before ...
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14099
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:43 am

the fact Boeing is going this route shows what the airlines want.


We have a believer ;)

A re-winged 260 seat A322 would not only decimate a twin isle MOM, its a true 757 replacement which the MOM is not (anymore) thanks to the increase to 767-200/300 size.


My guess is there will only be 3-4 major 757-200 operators left excluding freight by the time a 797 or A322 is built. I'm not sure it is worth going directly after the 757 any more. That market is somewhat gone.


3000 A321 sold today (~3x 757 sold in 25 yrs) would indicate this is more than a "757 replacement" market. BTW the market doubled since 757..

The MOM rather looks more like what Boeing wants as they are losing on the big single aisle market and did not manage to kill the A330 (still ultra dominating on medium haul routes). They can't afford 2 new programs at the same time so the MOM is an attempt to kill 2 birds with one stone. So I'm not sure it's market driven, it looks more driven by what Boeing can do and then they will try to persuade the airlines it's the right product.


That will be interesting, what airlines think. They are not that vocal unfortunately. SUH is..

If the NSA from Boeing comes at the same time has AB then that's a fail imop. NSA should be 2024-25 at the latest.


I would be surprized if this MoM transforms into an NSA. Like Sonic Cruiser transformed into a carbon A330.

Airbus has to answer to the MoM which will kill A321 + A330NEO.


Both? 220 seats / 1000NM plus 400 seats / 6000NM? That would mean be a highly compromized design.. They could try 1 fuselage..

Image

Airbus' own Aircraft Characteristics pdf documents has the A321/neo with 220 seats at 28/29 inch pitch. That is tight even with slimline seats. How they manage to get to 240 seats is amazing! Will it be able to consistently get across the Atlantic or do US transcon with 240 seats?


6 hours in a 240 seat A321, free knee crushing, a few micro toilets, astronaut food and no entertainment? God forbid no! :gasp:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:11 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
People are overestimating the popularity of a long narrow body such as the 757, and underestimating what a modern smaller light wide body might do. Oh yes, then Airbus may counter with a slightly larger small/light wide body. Then Boeing will counter with a redo of the 787-8. "As the world Turns"


I think it is just a classic A vs B debate. John Leahy and those who avidly follow his words are out there trying to convince the market that a narrowbody is the most viable option and that a widebody would be too heavy, too expensive, too... whatever it takes to keep selling more A321s. I think the Airbus marketing team is trying hard to convince everyone of the opportunities of a long narrowbody because they are constrained using the A320 family.

“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.”

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

We are seeing the opposite from the Boeing side since Boeing doesn't have constraints on single aisle vs twin aisle and can build whatever they feel the market most wants based on their customer research.

Randy Tinseth, a Boeing marketing vice president, said in an interview. “To some extent you address the single-aisle market, to some extent you address the wide-body market and to some extent you are stimulating growth where no one has been before. And that has been a fascinating part of the whole project.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

A.net just follows the typical A vs B debate with the A fans talking about narrowbodies and the B fans talking about a rather nebulous widebody.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24789
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:17 am

Speaking of another MOM article, AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ion-target ) ( free registration required ) has an interview with Boeing's CEO. The juicy bits are:

Q: Where are you on the proposed NMA (New Midsize Airplane)?
A: We are beginning to hone in after a lot of productive conversations with our customers. We see a clear market space between our 737 and 787 families, an aircraft that is in the 5,000-nm range, 250-seat capacity. It’s bigger than the 757 and flies farther. But the business case has to make sense. If we decide to launch, this will be as much about production system transformation as airplane technology. We have the capacity to do this airplane if the market tells us to. We still see entry into service in the 2024-25 time frame, so we have time to do it right. We are in the heart of the 777X development now. This would feather in nicely on the back side of that.

And:

Q: The idea of developing a twin-aisle NMA that operates at single-aisle costs seems pretty challenging.
A: We are changing the nature of how we design and build airplanes. It’s [about] digital design and bringing smart innovation and automation into the production lines. It allows us to bring airplanes together with significantly reduced flow times and costs, which then turns into speed to market.

I'm wondering if Boeing is about to get another "drug like rush" like they did in the early Dreamliner days... I suppose that wasn't that a bad thing in that it got the BoD to finance the thing, but in the end, yes, it was a bad thing. Too many ideas all tried out at the same time. I hope the lessons of the 787 were learned. When I read "We are changing the nature of how we design and build airplanes", I cringe. They're still cleaning up the terrible teens for gosh sakes.
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
 
planecane
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:41 am

reidar76 wrote:
Here is a picture from one of the largest European LCC, Easyjet. Note that you can pass the man in yellow while he is putting up his luggage in the overhead bins.

Airbus A320 family:
Image

Compared to a Boeing 737 (Southwest Airlines):
Image


Those pictures are slightly misleading. While nobody can argue that the A320 aisle would be 6" wider than the 737 when both have the same width seats, it isn't quite as drastic as those pictures make it look. The A320 picture has a guy turned completely sideways at the edge of the aisle and the 737 has a woman facing forwards. For a true illustration, you'd have to take pictures of the same person on both planes with the same camera imager size and lens with the person in the same position and the same distance from the camera.

It is possible to squeeze by somebody on a Southwest 737. It isn't the most luxurious thing to do but I've done it a few times.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:55 am

The issue as I see it for a twin aisle is that there is a fundamental weight disadvantage vs a single aisle, an aircraft may be able to match current (read 30 year old tech) narrow body design and construction using new technologies but to do so leaves you wide open to the narrow body using that same technology. We keep hearing about how airlines are responding well to the idea of a wide body with narrow body economics and how this is great but the reality is that that has to be delivered not just talked about it and I cannot fathom out how that will be achieved.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14099
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
Speaking of another MOM article, AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... ion-target ) ( free registration required ) has an interview with Boeing's CEO. The juicy bits are:

Q: Where are you on the proposed NMA (New Midsize Airplane)?
A: We are beginning to hone in after a lot of productive conversations with our customers. We see a clear market space between our 737 and 787 families, an aircraft that is in the 5,000-nm range, 250-seat capacity. It’s bigger than the 757 and flies farther. But the business case has to make sense. If we decide to launch, this will be as much about production system transformation as airplane technology. We have the capacity to do this airplane if the market tells us to. We still see entry into service in the 2024-25 time frame, so we have time to do it right. We are in the heart of the 777X development now. This would feather in nicely on the back side of that.

And:

Q: The idea of developing a twin-aisle NMA that operates at single-aisle costs seems pretty challenging.
A: We are changing the nature of how we design and build airplanes. It’s [about] digital design and bringing smart innovation and automation into the production lines. It allows us to bring airplanes together with significantly reduced flow times and costs, which then turns into speed to market.

I'm wondering if Boeing is about to get another "drug like rush" like they did in the early Dreamliner days... I suppose that wasn't that a bad thing in that it got the BoD to finance the thing, but in the end, yes, it was a bad thing. Too many ideas all tried out at the same time. I hope the lessons of the 787 were learned. When I read "We are changing the nature of how we design and build airplanes", I cringe. They're still cleaning up the terrible teens for gosh sakes.


Thnx for the head-ups,. Agree, on top of your observation the comments seem very much focussed on production systems, costs and time to market. Less on operational gains for the airlines.

Boeing clearly seems to focus on something bigger than the 757, flying significant further. The risk IMO remains if Airbus comes with something
- not bigger than the 757,
- flying only marginally further,
- burning 25% less fuel,
- being more comfortable & quiet,
- container / pallet capable
- with an existing MRO/pilot global infrasctructure
- with FAL opportunity's in US and China
- within 5 years.

summarized: something lean & mean.

Boeing is looking brave again, but I can still see this morfing into a NSA..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9747
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:42 pm

Very positive statement by Boeing. The MoM will be a game changer and transform Boeing, making them more competitive than ever. Hard times coming for Airbus. Lessons learned from the Dreamliner will proof invaluable now.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24789
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:44 pm

keesje wrote:
Boeing clearly seems to focus on something bigger than the 757, flying significant further. The risk IMO remains if Airbus comes with something

The risk of being undermined by a cheapish Airbus follow-up is exactly why Boeing is going bigger than the 757. It also brings them into true 767 replacement turf. They're ready to cannibalize the 787-8 and threaten the A350 from below, at least verbally if not physically. To do all of that they have to go a half step bigger than any A320 derivative can achieve.

keesje wrote:
Boeing is looking brave again, but I can still see this morfing into a NSA.

I could see this being the 7E7-like sturm und drang phase of the 787 reboot that eventually morphs into a NSA, but at this point, who knows. All we do know is Boeing is spending a lot of time creating a lot of sizzle, but so far, no bacon.
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
keesje
Posts: 14099
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Another 797/MOM Article

Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:00 pm

seahawk wrote:
Very positive statement by Boeing. The MoM will be a game changer and transform Boeing, making them more competitive than ever. Hard times coming for Airbus. Lessons learned from the Dreamliner will proof invaluable now.


- Don't overpromise, don't
- Avoid surrealistic planning to convince investors/ stake holders
- Don't underestimate your competitor
- Don't underestimate upgrade potential existing competing airframes
- Ask your customer open questions instead of asking if they like free ice creams during hot days
- Avoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
- Be nice to your suppliers, you need their long term support.
- Avoid too much flag waving, the colors are not everyone's favorites. Three quarters should be for export.
- Don't brand critical engineers as unproductive or disloyal.

Image
Dreamliner 2007 Roll out

I could see this being the 7E7-like sturm und drang phase of the 787 reboot that eventually morphs into a NSA, but at this point, who knows. All we do know is Boeing is spending a lot of time creating a lot of sizzle, but so far, no bacon.


Indeed, so this is agood process for Boeing. We should realize Boeing has a public & behind the scenes strategic agenda on this.
MoM means no NSA before 2030. Who dares to leave MAX alone in the room with NEO for another decade? Will UA and SW still love you?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
  • 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