User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:31 pm

Image
4500NM Range from Seattle

Image
4500NM Range from Narita

Now the Pacific routes are a bit longer than TransAtlantic. An A321LR like aircraft won't do.
Plus you need more seats to lower unit costs on longer flights too.

But if :

- fuel prices keep rising over time
- LCC keep growing
- by-passing hubs, connecting the dots grows
- hub carriers want more spokes
- airfreight further declines

there might be a place for lighter, cheaper dedicated aircraft types.

E.g. NMA's, MoM's and Not-So-NarrowBodies are cheaper/ lower risk to operate then traditional 8000NM cargo capable WideBodies.

5000NM Looks better than 4000NM Range in these markets. I guess a Boeing 5000NM MoM would have an advantage over a pumped up A320NEO version.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 717
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:03 pm

Basically...you're looking at a new technology 763-ER.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:30 pm

What is the point of this thread? Is there a question? The range charts simply show the range that currently 767s and A333s flying transpacific have.
 
c933103
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:42 pm

other than that it is basically 763/333, the amount of market covered in those maps are pretty little and those are already the total of all the remotely possible TPAC destination. Even a chart from like Australia would look better
The message in signature have been removed according to demand.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:57 pm

I get it. The transpacific market for a 4500nm range plane is small, so therefore the proposed range for a 797 is excessive and an A322 is a better proposal? I could see John Leahy standing in front of a crowd saying that.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:14 pm

763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range. A proper A322 will destroy it.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:20 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range. A proper A322 will destroy it.


Yes, there is no point in a new plane, especially for Airbus. The A322 can cover the transatlantic market and A338 cover the transpacific market. Narrowbodies are better. I could see some people having that point of view.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:36 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range. A proper A322 will destroy it.


Yes, there is no point in a new plane, especially for Airbus. The A322 can cover the transatlantic market and A338 cover the transpacific market. Narrowbodies are better. I could see some people having that point of view.

Since when were the 763 and A333 the same size? The A332 is even bigger than the 763.

The current new planes anywhere near the 763 are all dying of dead already such as the 788 and A338 and anyone who thinks either of them will go on to fill that gap might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy imo. An A322 could be an option, but it would be heavy for the same reason the A346 is.
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 PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:49 am

SCAT15F wrote:
763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range. A proper A322 will destroy it.

Exactly.
There might be a market for such a plane, but it would not be the MoM (Middle of the market). I see a long narrow body, a new DC8 if you will. And it will not be Trans Pac. Transcontinental America will do - and includes Trans-Europe and Trans SE Asia, and short Transatlantic.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:11 am

lancelot07 wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range. A proper A322 will destroy it.

Exactly.
There might be a market for such a plane, but it would not be the MoM (Middle of the market). I see a long narrow body, a new DC8 if you will. And it will not be Trans Pac. Transcontinental America will do - and includes Trans-Europe and Trans SE Asia, and short Transatlantic.



If a MoM NB had additional cabin, wing, routes up to 5000NM would be possible.
E.g the biggest 5 cities in Japan directly daily from Seattle. Or the other way around from Narita.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
YIMBY
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:42 am

IMO, MoM should be optimized for Transatlantic services and like, i.e. 4000 nm (true) range.
An airliner for 4500-5000 nm range would be less optimal (to heavy) for TATL. That can be left for 330/767 territory. (Even though that may lie in the sweet spot for 24h rotation.)
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:11 pm

YIMBY wrote:
IMO, MoM should be optimized for Transatlantic services and like, i.e. 4000 nm (true) range.
An airliner for 4500-5000 nm range would be less optimal (to heavy) for TATL. That can be left for 330/767 territory. (Even though that may lie in the sweet spot for 24h rotation.)


That's my observation too. If you create a big MF Narrowbody like above, you pretty much get into small WB ~ 767 territory, in terms of weights, costs. So it becomes a less attractive Business case.

Image

There's one "but" here. The 767 is practically gone and 9 abreast expensive 787 / A350 like aircraft have taken their place. So the NB - Twin aisle gap is pretty large. Another point is the 767 proved just too narrow to fit standard WB containers and pallets & & slight bigger aircraft that could cleaned it's clock. Maybe avoid a second try?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:47 pm

keesje wrote:
If a MoM NB had additional cabin, wing, routes up to 5000NM would be possible.
E.g the biggest 5 cities in Japan directly daily from Seattle. Or the other way around from Narita.

Technically possible, yes. Those routes are done for some time now.
But not with a plane that is middle of the market. It would be too much airplane for the middle of the market.
Read: too heavy, too expensive. Not a good business decision.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:00 pm

lancelot07 wrote:
keesje wrote:
If a MoM NB had additional cabin, wing, routes up to 5000NM would be possible.
E.g the biggest 5 cities in Japan directly daily from Seattle. Or the other way around from Narita.

Technically possible, yes. Those routes are done for some time now.
But not with a plane that is middle of the market. It would be too much airplane for the middle of the market.
Read: too heavy, too expensive. Not a good business decision.


:confused: it would be way lighter & cheaper than you typical 8000NM 300 seater, e.g. 40t lighter.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 11695
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:57 pm

keesje wrote:

:confused: it would be way lighter & cheaper than you typical 8000NM 300 seater, e.g. 40t lighter.

Image


How many LD3 could they take? 18?

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:26 am

tommy1808 wrote:
keesje wrote:

:confused: it would be way lighter & cheaper than you typical 8000NM 300 seater, e.g. 40t lighter.



How many LD3 could they take? 18?

Best regards
Thomas


15, 16? Or a combination of AKH's, pallets and bulk as many airlines use.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Richard28
Posts: 2748
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:42 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:11 pm

Would provision of crew rest facilities be a problem for such a long haul narrowbody?

I guess this would mean either dedicating some J class seating (reducing capacity), or creating an underfloor crew rest area, sacrificing some cargo space - as there would not be room in the crown area?
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:25 pm

Richard28 wrote:
Would provision of crew rest facilities be a problem for such a long haul narrowbody?

I guess this would mean either dedicating some J class seating (reducing capacity), or creating an underfloor crew rest area, sacrificing some cargo space - as there would not be room in the crown area?


In reply #10 I included a curtain based cockpit crew test (1CD) and cabin crew rest (Door4 R). I looked for options in an extended cockpit and a below cabinfloor solution. But both are challenging, even on a fat narrowbody like this. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1360865&hilit=keesje

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

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:38 pm

If you tweaked your design a little (fractionally wider and shorter)I honestly think you are looking at the 797!
Max pax possibly a little less at 250-270 from what has leaked out so far.(But as usual further down the line Boeing may try for a double stretch).
 
tontherok
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:43 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:26 am

parapente wrote:
If you tweaked your design a little (fractionally wider and shorter)I honestly think you are looking at the 797!
Max pax possibly a little less at 250-270 from what has leaked out so far.(But as usual further down the line Boeing may try for a double stretch).


I like your thinking. Take the B767 as your starting point. The MoM NB plane is a 86.5% shrink of the B767-200, B767-300, and B767-400, for overall length of the frame and fuselage width.

The MoM, as I see it, is to allow airlines to offer for the first time non-stop service from their hubs to smaller domestic and international cities which could not be served economically by larger twin-aisle aircraft, hence new aircraft in three size variants seating 140, 170, and 200 passenger in two-class configuration and capable of flying a true range of 5,000+ nm.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:31 am

Maybe if the 797 was 757 sized, but it clearly isn't at "220-270 multi-class" (so I've heard it means multi-class). Delta's international 767s for example, carry about 200-230ish passengers and would do such a transpack with ease and farther if necessary with the range it has. Wouldn't such routes already exist? An internationally configured 757 on the other hand, carries as few as 160-180 passengers in dual-class, much less than what a 797 would carry.

What if there was a one-stop service from the US to Asia via Anchorage? In theory you could do Anchorage to Hong Kong with a 797, and people could either change planes at PANC, or offload for a fuel-stop and continue the journey on the same plane.

Thing is, a 788 (that isn't selling like the 789) could already do such long routes over 7-8000 miles, and some carriers use as few as 200 passengers on them (BA, ANA, etc.), so probably no to using ANC as a stop for the 797 if another plane can carry the same capacity without a stop....
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:40 am

The graphics fell away in this thread thanks to photobucket's sudden, unannounced asking $400/yr for co hosting all pictures on their site, after encouraging / facilitating users to share pictures this way for 15 yrs. Taking x00k people that based their websides/ forums on in. Let's say customer ethics was a kind of lowish on the priority list :yes: So re-publishing:

Image

A Transpac MoM would have to be a size up from current NB, while keeping away from A330/787 weights / operating costs. E.g. Cargo would give in.

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

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:52 am

The first two responses by Airbus to the 787 were in effect copies (they even said the 787 was a Chinese copy of the 330!).Then they suddenly blindsided everybody by changing their target and produced an aircraft aimed directly at the 772/773 family.

This left the 330 to compete with the 787.A tactic that worked fine in the shorter max the 787 was 3 years late.This gave them time to go back to plan 'A' and launch the 330 NEO.This has not flown.The 339 looks as if will be OK (early days) but the 338 is in uber trouble even before it has taken off.Either way it is a warmed over old a/c it's roots lie in the A300.So it has to be an interim solution IMHO.

In that sense for Airbus the 'MOM' gap is/ will be a large one to fill when the day comes.They may rewinged the 320 but recent rumours are that they are trying to find a few more miles out of the 321lr (Leeham).If they do/can then that will leave a nice big gap for the MOM/330 replacement a/c.

Can't see it happening for at least 3 years but it will happen eventually.Just have to wait and see how the 330 NEO performs in the medium term.BTW have they slapped those T7000 engines on yet?Need to get on with it!
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:14 am

What about a 797 who would be a kind of "B763ERW NEO"
New Engine
New Wing & Winglets
2-3-2 (so appreciated by the long haulers)
250-270 pax
5000NM true range

Just one issue, No LD3s exept with bigger width from the original 763.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13511
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:53 am

A380MSN004 wrote:
What about a 797 who would be a kind of "B763ERW NEO"
New Engine
New Wing & Winglets
2-3-2 (so appreciated by the long haulers)
250-270 pax
5000NM true range

Just one issue, No LD3s exept with bigger width from the original 763.


I think there under a certain seat capacity having a (spacy) 3-3 15% longer fuselage is lighter than a 2-3-2 shorter fuselage. Both can't handle full height LD3's.

If capacity requirements go high, a narrower tube become relative heavy and the single aisle becomes a major restriction. I assume that for a real wide aisle (30 inch) cabin where people can pass each other / a trolley that point lays at around 300 seats / 50 rows / 50m cabin in single class.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 651
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:57 am

what the point with this fly at rear of the cabin :)
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:15 am

parapente wrote:
The 339 looks as if will be OK (early days) but the 338 is in uber trouble even before it has taken off.Either way it is a warmed over old a/c it's roots lie in the A300.So it has to be an interim solution IMHO.

In that sense for Airbus the 'MOM' gap is/ will be a large one to fill when the day comes.They may rewinged the 320 but recent rumours are that they are trying to find a few more miles out of the 321lr (Leeham).If they do/can then that will leave a nice big gap for the MOM/330 replacement a/c.


I agree, I think Airbus need a two-prong strategy:

1 Plan to re-work or replace the A320. No rush given the neo backlog, but they need a clear idea of what the top end of a new or re-worked single aisle family would look like before addressing the MoM issue.

2 Address the MoM issue by filling the whole gap between the hypothetical top-end replacement A320 and the A359, by default replacing the A330neo in the process. There should be room in that gap for a new two-member family at least, comprising a long range widebody of 767 size and a regionally-optimised version of A333 size.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9085
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:05 pm

The wider aisle will never be taken on. Comfort does not sell and if the standard aisle saves 1% fuel burn, it is the better choice.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:15 pm

A 5000nm MOM won't happen. Its CASM won't be low enough and will sell poorly.

There are some rough trends that exist in the industry. Shrinks have higher CASM and stretches have lower CASM in the same family. To further explain why I'll give some examples.

If you had three planes optimised to fly 6000nm, a 200 seat, a 400 seat and a 600 seat aircraft. The larger plane will always have lower cost per seat mile.

If you had three planes all that had 200 seats, one optimised for 3000nm, one optimised for 5000nm and one optimised for 8000nm. The plane optimised for 3000nm will have lower cost per seat mile.

So when an aircraft is optimised for a shorter range the cost per seat mile reduces. But as the plane gets fewer seats its cost per seat mile increases. A small capacity narrowbody aircraft manages to match the CASM of aircraft with twice as many seats as they optimise it to fly only half the distance.

This is why the MOM should aim for the same range as an A321 but with 25-30% more seats. This guarantees the lowest cost per seat mile.

If the MOM aims for 25% more seats AND 25% more range than the A321 then its CASM will be similar. Airlines will just buy more A321's.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:24 pm

keesje wrote:
5000NM Looks better than 4000NM Range in these markets. I guess a Boeing 5000NM MoM would have an advantage over a pumped up A320NEO version.

Let's reinvent the wheel then..... :idea:

Image
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairl ... 014828.jpg

Use 787 flightdeck, maybe a new wing box and shorter 787 style wings, hang GEnx2Bs under those, new LGs (if needed) and presto :!: - we have our true 5,000nm 764MAX. :bigthumbsup:

I guess development cost for that would be considerably less thus improving the business case and pricing flexibility. :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign: :dollarsign:


SCAT15F wrote:
763/333 size is way too big. There is absolutely no point in making an MOM that large with so many aircraft both old and new in that size range.

This.....
keesje wrote:
Plus you need more seats to lower unit costs on longer flights too.

Also makes sense at slot constrained airports. :crowded:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:10 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Use 787 flightdeck, maybe a new wing box and shorter 787 style wings, hang GEnx2Bs under those, new LGs (if needed) and presto :!: - we have our true 5,000nm 764MAX. :bigthumbsup:

I guess development cost for that would be considerably less thus improving the business case and pricing flexibility.

Bad idea as it is too heavy. The 767 fuselage is too wide for 7 abreast and too narrow for 8 abreast. The oval fuselage is taller to fit LD2 containers which gives extra drag over a clean sheet circular design that would fit LD3-45. If you are already putting in a lighter wingbox, carbon wing, lighter landing gear, new engines and new digital cockpit then why not do a clean sheet and then go with an optimised fuselage for either 7 abreast or 8 abreast?

767-400 is 104T empty with 214m2 cabin area.
A330-300 is 122T empty with 259m2 cabin area.

The 767-400 is heavier per square metre than the A330-300. That tiny advantage resulted in a 10+times the sales to Airbus

The 767-400MAX would have worse CASM than the A330NEO.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:13 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Bad idea as it is too heavy.

It's lighter than the A330-200 at ~120t.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 767 fuselage is too wide for 7 abreast and too narrow for 8 abreast.

Which passengers love! :thumbsup:

RJMAZ wrote:
The oval fuselage is taller to fit LD2 containers which gives extra drag over a clean sheet circular design that would fit LD3-45.

It is assumed that this will primarily be a people mover so the underfloor disadvantage is minimized and it saves on fuselage redesign as well --- which could still go through the existing line.

RJMAZ wrote:
If you are already putting in a lighter wingbox, carbon wing, lighter landing gear, new engines and new digital cockpit then why not do a clean sheet and then go with an optimised fuselage for either 7 abreast or 8 abreast?

To avoid the $10B project cost bandied about as the OP gave a requirement for a 5,000nm, 250 pax aircraft. And only because the wing is too Jurassic...and to get that plane to market fast enough before the competition sweeps it all up.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 767-400 is heavier per square metre than the A330-300. That tiny advantage resulted in a 10+times the sales to Airbus

But not as much compared to the A330-200, which is its nearest competitor capacity wise.

RJMAZ wrote:
The 767-400MAX would have worse CASM than the A330NEO.

What about the A338? I'd say par for the course for a quick and dirty undertaking.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:10 pm

Airlines prefer frequency but not at the expense of worse cost per seat mile. Airlines will only pick a smaller aircraft if its CASM is equal or better than the larger aircraft.

The 777 and 787 manages to equal the CASM of the A380 due to better optimisation in the 777 and newer materials in the 787.

So a 767-400MAX has to equal or beat the CASM of the larger A330-900NEO and 787-9 to have a chance. That is impossible with just a new wing and similar technology engines.
 
crazyplane1234
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:58 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:32 am

Devilfish wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
The 767 fuselage is too wide for 7 abreast and too narrow for 8 abreast.

Which passengers love! :thumbsup:

But they won't pay more for it, which is what matters

A380MSN004 wrote:
what the point with this fly at rear of the cabin :)

Keesje puts a fly on all his concepts.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:59 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Bad idea as it is too heavy. The 767 fuselage is too wide for 7 abreast and too narrow for 8 abreast. The oval fuselage is taller to fit LD2 containers which gives extra drag over a clean sheet circular design that would fit LD3-45. If you are already putting in a lighter wingbox, carbon wing, lighter landing gear, new engines and new digital cockpit then why not do a clean sheet and then go with an optimised fuselage for either 7 abreast or 8 abreast?

767-400 is 104T empty with 214m2 cabin area.
A330-300 is 122T empty with 259m2 cabin area.

The 767-400 is heavier per square metre than the A330-300. That tiny advantage resulted in a 10+times the sales to Airbus

The 767-400MAX would have worse CASM than the A330NEO.

I'm not going to say a 767-400 MAX is a good idea or a realistic one, these are very simplistic approaches. It would be one thing to say that 7 across configuration just doesn't work, but I certainly wouldn't say the 767 is too wide for it. The 767 has similar seat and aisle widths to the A330 or any Airbus really. I guess by that logic all Airbuses have failed. The 767-400's failure was a lot more complex than weight. It had a lot to do with how the engines and wing aren't capable enough to get the plane up to efficient altitudes very quickly. They usually have to step climb a ways into the flight from the low 30ks to the mid/high 30ks as opposed to the other widebodes that generally go better. Weight isn't the be all end all especially on long haul flights, if it were the A339 would be beating the slightly heavier, yet not much larger 789. Much of what matters is engine efficiency and also aerodynamics which the proposed new wing and engines would fix and would also allow for better climb performance. The 767-400 weight with those modifications and would still be somewhat behind the others in a few areas maybe, but it would certainly be more efficient than the A338 and would likely be more efficient than the 788 and would be significantly cheaper than it too. Maybe convert more of it to FBW to remove more weight. It obviously won't happen, but it wouldn't be the worst thing a manufacturer has done or could do.
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 PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:22 am

When comparing to the 767.

The 787 has seats a full inch narrower while using the same width aisles.

The A350 seats are half an inch narrower while using the same width aisles.

A plane with 3-5-3 would want wider aisles than a 2-3-2 cabin. The 767 could easily have narrower aisles than the A350 and 787 as its 7 abreast vs 9 abreast.

The only workable option would be 8 abreast with narrow aisles. An 8 abreast 767-400 definitely is too big for a MOM. A smaller lighter wing, wingbox and landing gear on the shorter 767 models makes more sense.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:00 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Airlines prefer frequency but not at the expense of worse cost per seat mile. Airlines will only pick a smaller aircraft if its CASM is equal or better than the larger aircraft.

But what if the larger aircraft is too big for their requirement and the next smaller aircraft has limited range and capacity? They end up paying more for what they don't need or not serving the need at all.

RJMAZ wrote:
So a 767-400MAX has to equal or beat the CASM of the larger A330-900NEO and 787-9 to have a chance. That is impossible with just a new wing and similar technology engines.

CASM becomes meaningless when you're flying a half-empty expensive plane over a 5,000nm distance.


crazyplane1234 wrote:
But they won't pay more for it, which is what matters

Won't they when it's the only game in town? More difficult then for the bigger airplane which cannot muster a viable load factor.


RJMAZ wrote:
The only workable option would be 8 abreast with narrow aisles. An 8 abreast 767-400 definitely is too big for a MOM.

You still would need to push a standard trolley up and down those aisles and also pass the evacuation tests. You already said above that the 767-400 is too narrow for 8-abreast and that bigger aircraft would win over it. How come it's now too big for this intended application?

RJMAZ wrote:
A smaller lighter wing, wingbox and landing gear on the shorter 767 models makes more sense.

So it's a complete turnaround. Aren't these what I've been saying all along, albeit on the slightly longer 764 -- which I guess airlines would ask after if a 763MAX were actually built? BTW, the 787-3 revival in the other thread made me smile. :)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
FoxtrotSierra
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:06 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:34 am

For a MoM TPAC capable plane, an A322 is barely going to cut it and the next option is the 787 which is simply too much plane for the intended purpose. I don't think the 767 is too big at all, especially TPAC, and the notion that narrowbodies are preferable TPAC is ridiculous; they definitely get the job done but preferable- no. The whole point of the MoM is to find the balance between the 757-767 duopoly which Boeing dominated for the longest time before the A321 started to gain traction; the A322 is on the lower half of this spectrum and that is the advantage that Boeing has with designing a clean sheet 797 design to the specifications of today's demands.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:50 am

7 abreast lightweight 767-400 makes no sense. No CASM advantage.

8 abreast lightweight 767-300 makes more sense. Slight CASM advantage maybe 5%.

A clean sheet, light, narrow, shortish ranged, ld3-45 holding, tight 7 abreast makes complete sense. Big CASM advantage maybe over 10%.

As the CASM improves the sales grow exponentially. If you produce a new aircraft that simply matches the existing competition's CASM you are dead on arrival. If you beat the competition by 5% you will sell 100 aircraft. If you beat their CASM by 10% you will sell 1000 aircraft.

So a rewinged 767MAX being half the price to develop means nothing if it gets only a tiny fraction of the orders.

Also rarely do airlines say an aircraft is "too big for their requirement". If the bigger aircraft has much better CASM for that flight they will use it and just operate less flights per week.

But when the aircraft all have equal CASM for the same flight then they will nearly always order the smallest for higher frequency.

That is why the MOM must have superior CASM to the A321, if it is built with too much range ta CASM will never be able to compete. The vast majority of airlines will just order A321. Only a minority of airlines will order the longer range aircraft to fill the niche medium range missions. They will probably just use a long haul aircraft for that medium haul mission like they do now.

That is why the MOM gap exists. It's hard to make an aircraft that has lower CASM and additional range. You should pick one or the other.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:52 am

Airbus 767-300ERneo
A350/CSeries = bae
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:01 am

With the CS100 and CS300 for example they have a CASM advantage. For them to break into a new market they need even greater CASM advantage than normal to offset the risk of say high maintenance or poor support. This explains the poor but acceptable sales. If it was optimised for a shorter range, it would be slightly lighter while carrying the same payload. A further 5% better CASM advantage may have seen it sell twice as many. That's why the push is for the CS500 which would improve CASM further but with reduced range. They could have made the CS300 lighter so there was no room for a stretch.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1137
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:07 pm

I don't see a A321 narrow body development on the table for such long missions as trans-Pac or Japan-NZ or Australia. Not from a manufacturer that has an A330 fuselage already available. For 9-10 hour missions I see twin aisle. That doesn't mean that I believe Airbus won't offer a development of the A321 just that if they do it won't be for that kind of mission. Rather, more focused on shorter missions for which there is a real demand. Only issue is deplaning and boarding which without deal airbridges or back stairs would be a potential snag for a single aisle jet of this size in terms of efficient turn around. Seems when we think of the MOM market we are talking in fact of two markets - a short-medium haul market and a medium-long haul market. Will indeed be interesting if we end up with quite different solutions from each manufacturer.
Plane mad!
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:23 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
What if there was a one-stop service from the US to Asia via Anchorage? In theory you could do Anchorage to Hong Kong with a 797, and people could either change planes at PANC, or offload for a fuel-stop and continue the journey on the same plane.

Thing is, a 788 (that isn't selling like the 789) could already do such long routes over 7-8000 miles, and some carriers use as few as 200 passengers on them (BA, ANA, etc.), so probably no to using ANC as a stop for the 797 if another plane can carry the same capacity without a stop....


Fascinating question, if you're AS. They currently don't compete in the TPAC market, but having an offering available would go far to cement the loyalty of the West Coast business traveler market that they're aiming for.

Image
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NRT%0D%0AI ... =wls&DU=mi

Here are two ways they could do it. Option 1 is the outer range, 4500 nm from ANC, with the Boeing MoM. As you can see, with that range you can reach virtually all of China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, but getting slots out of the China-US bilaterals is a political problem that's beyond my desire to get into. AS could try to offer the ability to serve secondary markets, at a lower CASM than its US3 rivals.

Option 2 is the 3500 nm range from ANC, effective range for the A321LR. Japan and Korea are still easily in range, as are parts of Northeast China as far as Beijing and Dalian, although given Chinese ATC restrictions those destinations probably need a bit more range than the A321LR can deliver. Still, especially for a gradual ramp-up over the next 5-10 years or so (i.e. as the B MoM remains in development), Japan and Korea are no jokes as markets, especially for the US West Coast. And there is no question about the ability of the A321 to deliver "narrowbody economics"! Downsides to this strategy include AS having just invested a lot of political capital reaffirming its loyalty to Boeing, and the limited cargo capacity of the A321LR making it harder to compete for belly freight, not a small consideration for AS as a whole or ANC in particular. OTOH, delaying some of the VX-inherited A32xneo orders and converting them to A321LRs with TPAC-specialized interior layouts, would solve the issue of what to do with those once and for all.

There are particular downsides to using ANC as a connecting hub, but if there's anyone out there who understands that and knows how to handle it, it's AS.

Of course, Options 1 and 2 are not mutually-exclusive. If AS wants to build its experience in TPAC ops now with the A321LR, but convert to the MoM and expand its offerings when it becomes available, AS can do that.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:08 pm

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
What if there was a one-stop service from the US to Asia via Anchorage? In theory you could do Anchorage to Hong Kong with a 797, and people could either change planes at PANC, or offload for a fuel-stop and continue the journey on the same plane.

Thing is, a 788 (that isn't selling like the 789) could already do such long routes over 7-8000 miles, and some carriers use as few as 200 passengers on them (BA, ANA, etc.), so probably no to using ANC as a stop for the 797 if another plane can carry the same capacity without a stop....


Fascinating question, if you're AS. They currently don't compete in the TPAC market, but having an offering available would go far to cement the loyalty of the West Coast business traveler market that they're aiming for.

Image
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NRT%0D%0AI ... =wls&DU=mi

Here are two ways they could do it. Option 1 is the outer range, 4500 nm from ANC, with the Boeing MoM. As you can see, with that range you can reach virtually all of China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, but getting slots out of the China-US bilaterals is a political problem that's beyond my desire to get into. AS could try to offer the ability to serve secondary markets, at a lower CASM than its US3 rivals.

Option 2 is the 3500 nm range from ANC, effective range for the A321LR. Japan and Korea are still easily in range, as are parts of Northeast China as far as Beijing and Dalian, although given Chinese ATC restrictions those destinations probably need a bit more range than the A321LR can deliver. Still, especially for a gradual ramp-up over the next 5-10 years or so (i.e. as the B MoM remains in development), Japan and Korea are no jokes as markets, especially for the US West Coast. And there is no question about the ability of the A321 to deliver "narrowbody economics"! Downsides to this strategy include AS having just invested a lot of political capital reaffirming its loyalty to Boeing, and the limited cargo capacity of the A321LR making it harder to compete for belly freight, not a small consideration for AS as a whole or ANC in particular. OTOH, delaying some of the VX-inherited A32xneo orders and converting them to A321LRs with TPAC-specialized interior layouts, would solve the issue of what to do with those once and for all.

There are particular downsides to using ANC as a connecting hub, but if there's anyone out there who understands that and knows how to handle it, it's AS.

Of course, Options 1 and 2 are not mutually-exclusive. If AS wants to build its experience in TPAC ops now with the A321LR, but convert to the MoM and expand its offerings when it becomes available, AS can do that.


I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787? Another thing I've been picking at is what would the seat count be for an AS 788 (which would do it nonstop) versus an AS 797.

Maybe include a stopover in Anchorage like TAP does :p

Devilfish wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Bad idea as it is too heavy.


RJMAZ wrote:
The 767 fuselage is too wide for 7 abreast and too narrow for 8 abreast.

Which passengers love! :thumbsup:


I second that!
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:26 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787? Another thing I've been picking at is what would the seat count be for an AS 788 (which would do it nonstop) versus an AS 797.

Maybe include a stopover in Anchorage like TAP does :p


Sorry, I thought it was clearer on keesje's #1, but to clarify: SEA-ICN is 4,533nm great circle, and smaller markets that might be served advantageously with smaller aircraft throughout Korea and western Japan are similarly beyond the effective 4,500nm range. Which is not to say that it's completely out of the question; it might be worth taking the RASM hit from a payload restriction, or just focusing on eastern and central Japan, but I'm much more skeptical of that being a better solution than a carrier just owning and flying a widebody fleet, with all that goes with that.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1778
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:48 am

CarlosSi wrote:
I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787?

Good point. No one will pick the one stop option in Anchorage on a MOM aircraft. They will simply fly direct with the a 787.

The MOM will never get used to cross the Pacific. Its range really only needs to be 500nm longer than the A321LR which allows all of western Europe to fly direct to the East coast US.

If an additional 1000nm range is added you'll push the empty weight up 5+% and the maximum takeoff weight up by 10+%. CASM on an average 3000nm flight will then be worse. So that extra range comes at a cost on the majority of flights.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787?

Good point. No one will pick the one stop option in Anchorage on a MOM aircraft. They will simply fly direct with the a 787.

The MOM will never get used to cross the Pacific. Its range really only needs to be 500nm longer than the A321LR which allows all of western Europe to fly direct to the East coast US.

If an additional 1000nm range is added you'll push the empty weight up 5+% and the maximum takeoff weight up by 10+%. CASM on an average 3000nm flight will then be worse. So that extra range comes at a cost on the majority of flights.


It's an interesting idea though, trying to fly long thin routes like the 757 does across the Atlantic..... only to be replaced by a larger aircraft because Merica... I do think the sweet spot should be at 5000 nautical miles "still air" since then you could realistically still fly about 4500 nautical miles ish (EWR-TXL uses 90% of the advertised 757 range). You could theoretically do MCO-FCO, for example, at 4433 nautical miles. I don't think it needs to go any farther than that.

They could always add a 797ER to appease people who want to fly it even farther.
 
c933103
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:40 am

RJMAZ wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787?

Good point. No one will pick the one stop option in Anchorage on a MOM aircraft. They will simply fly direct with the a 787.

The MOM will never get used to cross the Pacific. Its range really only needs to be 500nm longer than the A321LR which allows all of western Europe to fly direct to the East coast US.

If an additional 1000nm range is added you'll push the empty weight up 5+% and the maximum takeoff weight up by 10+%. CASM on an average 3000nm flight will then be worse. So that extra range comes at a cost on the majority of flights.

And no one will pick an one stop option in KEF on a narrow body
The message in signature have been removed according to demand.
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: MoM Trans-Pacific Markets 2025-2040, Boeing & Airbus

Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
CarlosSi wrote:
I'm assuming with your second option that it's cheaper to make the stop in Anchorage rather than fly from Seattle/Portland straight to Japan/Korea with something like a 787?

Good point. No one will pick the one stop option in Anchorage on a MOM aircraft. They will simply fly direct with the a 787.

The MOM will never get used to cross the Pacific. Its range really only needs to be 500nm longer than the A321LR which allows all of western Europe to fly direct to the East coast US.

If an additional 1000nm range is added you'll push the empty weight up 5+% and the maximum takeoff weight up by 10+%. CASM on an average 3000nm flight will then be worse. So that extra range comes at a cost on the majority of flights.


I think the market would be more collecting travelers to from Secondary cities that don't have non stop service to Asia and so would be connecting anyway. In this case, they'd just be connecting in Anchorage rather than SEA, SFO, LAX, etc. Sort of using ANC for TPAC flights the way the ME3 use their hubs.

See also what I assume to be a sarcastic comment below.

c933103 wrote:

And no one will pick an one stop option in KEF on a narrow body

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