trpmb6 wrote:

jakubz wrote:

Wait, what? I thought some of ANZ's 787's are painted in the All Black/Black Fern Livery?

As I said, *sometimes.*

787 had the thermal profile to allow for all liveries. Some GA aircraft may have restrictions on livery.

There's also some considerations in color for control surfaces. You have to understand the thermal growth and manage your gaps so you don't produce a situation where you are jamming a control surface due to said thermal expansion.

Ah, ok. I missed that one little word. I appreciate the explanation.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower

SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Wonder how good Jon's sources are -- they're usually pretty good.

Interesting won't begin to tell the tale the next 12 months if all this come true.....

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower

SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

TropicalSky wrote:

Interesting won't begin to tell the tale the next 12 months if all this come true.....

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower
SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

Today has been a day of surprises -- first the NFL Patriots acquire Josh Gordon, now this!

Jon has more here but I do not have a subscription:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... g-the-nma/

So within 6 months the answer to the 6-7-8 ab will be revealed.

My guess would be a cattle class 8ab but 7ab with the majors. It does wonders with a business class in 2-2-2 or 2-1-2, and a nice 1st in a 1-2-1.
All systems same architecture as the 787, scaled down to this size. Future freight conversion will be in the design, avoiding the P2F problems of the 777. It will have CFRP barrels and CFRP wing.

The engine selection and launch timeline makes perfect sense. They already indicated their likely timeline for a launch decision was in 2019.

It's still a long time between now and Paris, though.

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower

SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Wonder how good Jon's sources are -- they're usually pretty good.

Oh what a tease!

As already noted, the decision between 6-7-8 will set a.net on fire.

One can hope the timeline holds, That is a FAST engine bid.

Lightsaber

I honestly don’t see how CFM has chance against PW and RR with a scaled up LEAP. I think it’s between RR and PW surprisingly.

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

Another Note: The current trade and tariff war started in Washington is not going to help with Chinese orders, potentially other international orders too !!

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower

SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Wonder how good Jon's sources are -- they're usually pretty good.

Wait a moment here! I thought the market was muddled, Boeing could not define the aircraft to any airline's satisfaction, and Boeing was urged to focus on the 787 0r 737-10. Now we hear engines are being selected and authority to launch coming in 2019. I guess Boeing folks didn't read the Leeham article

QuarkFly wrote:

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

I'll set down my marker here, so I can be embarrassed by it later. This is my guess for NMA launch (both carriers and numbers):

UA = 40 firm, 40 options
DL = 50 firm, 50 options
ANA = 50 firm, 25 options
JAL = 30 firm, 15 options

170 would be a very nice widebody launch order. But I wouldn't be surprised to see even a few more orders from Indian or Southeast Asian carriers. And I also expect that once there is a new administration in 2021 (or, less likely, the current president extricates his head from his nether regions about tariffs) there will be 100 orders from China. This plane will be a very nice narrowbody upgrade for a number of intra-China markets.

seabosdca wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

I'll set down my marker here, so I can be embarrassed by it later. This is my guess for NMA launch (both carriers and numbers):

UA = 40 firm, 40 options
DL = 50 firm, 50 options
ANA = 50 firm, 25 options
JAL = 30 firm, 15 options

170 would be a very nice widebody launch order. But I wouldn't be surprised to see even a few more orders from Indian or Southeast Asian carriers. And I also expect that once there is a new administration in 2021 (or, less likely, the current president extricates his head from his nether regions about tariffs) there will be 100 orders from China. This plane will be a very nice narrowbody upgrade for a number of intra-China markets.

I’m surprised you don’t have AA up there, I think a good chunk of the 788s in order (which are leased from Boeing to remind you) at prime for 797 conversion.

I hope it’s a 7ab. The 767 is the best airplane for a passenger all other factors being identical. This is going to be a really fun few months. I wonder how close to the NMA-6X and 7X the aircraft will end up being. The whole time reading the “Muddle of the Market” thread I thought to myself Mr. Ostrower will announce something big shortly.

seabosdca wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

I'll set down my marker here, so I can be embarrassed by it later. This is my guess for NMA launch (both carriers and numbers):

UA = 40 firm, 40 options
DL = 50 firm, 50 options
ANA = 50 firm, 25 options
JAL = 30 firm, 15 options

170 would be a very nice widebody launch order. But I wouldn't be surprised to see even a few more orders from Indian or Southeast Asian carriers. And I also expect that once there is a new administration in 2021 (or, less likely, the current president extricates his head from his nether regions about tariffs) there will be 100 orders from China. This plane will be a very nice narrowbody upgrade for a number of intra-China markets.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I can't really see Delta ordering the 797. Airbus has won 75% of their orders within the past decade. And with potentially 300 A321's in the fleet I just don't see it making sense. Remember that Richard Anderson said that Delta wanted the 787-10. Well, it's now available but Delta never ordered it. I think they just use Boeing to get a better price from Airbus. I think eventually DL will be 100% Airbus with just the 739 remaining for the longer term. The 738's and 777's aren't getting any younger and the 757/767 is on borrowed time.

But I agree that United will most definitely order the 797.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'll be happy to be proven wrong but I can't really see Delta ordering the 797. Airbus has won 75% of their orders within the past decade.

Airbus doesn't currently have a product for sale or in the pipeline that will be able to replace the 75S, 753, and some of the 763 fleets. The A330neo is too much airplane and the A321 doesn't quite have the payload range. (The A321neo will serve as a fine replacement for the 75D/H fleets.)

If and only if Airbus were to introduce a A321+/A322 with a larger and updated wing, all bets would be off. But rumors have suggested for some time now that Airbus won't do so, and that their response to NMA in the short term would be a further MTOW boost to the existing A321neo. The 797 as currently anticipated just fits DL's needs far better.

JAAlbert wrote:

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

Jon Ostrower @jonostrower

SCOOP: Best and final engine offers from Pratt, Rolls & CFM due before Christmas, engine selection in February, authority to offer in March and launch of Boeing’s 797 for the Paris Air Show in June. http://bit.ly/2xs6bnm (via @theaircurrent)

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Wonder how good Jon's sources are -- they're usually pretty good.

Wait a moment here! I thought the market was muddled, Boeing could not define the aircraft to any airline's satisfaction, and Boeing was urged to focus on the 787 0r 737-10. Now we hear engines are being selected and authority to launch coming in 2019. I guess Boeing folks didn't read the Leeham article

For some the market will still be muddled after 2000 797 deliveries... So get over it. Boeing already did an initial engine bid; and this just tweaks that bid to final specification numbers.

Boeing had done far more preliminary design and planning on the 797 than any other aircraft in history. They probably have almost a year's lead on the normal timeline.

I don't have any guess on 6-7- 8 seats. I do have a guess that it will be an aircraft that Airbus cannot match with anything less than a new aircraft. A derivative of existing Airbus aircraft will obviously not be competitive except for small segement on the bottom and possibly the top of the 797 market range. I also predict that Airbus will decide that the market is not worth their developing a all new aircraft for this market too; and that Boeing will just own a market segment (like Airbus owns the VLA passenger segment with the A380).

Have a great day,

JayinKitsap wrote:

My guess would be a cattle class 8ab but 7ab with the majors. It does wonders with a business class in 2-2-2 or 2-1-2, and a nice 1st in a 1-2-1.

For J I could see a 3-3 one-aisle layout with direct aisle access for all by increasing the pitch a bit. That's as space-efficient as a 2-aisle 6ab 787 at ~85in pitch.

Re 7ab vs. 8ab, I'm hoping this airliner moves us into an economic space where it makes sense to sell extra space to Y pax as a core business strategy. We already see this somewhat with Y+ on US3, which makes up ~40% of their Y offering.
If we're talking ~$.04 CASM for 8ab*31in on a 3000nm flight, then 7ab*37in on the same flight should have CASM of ~$.055. That works out to ~$100 additional trip cost per seat. That's less than the premium the US3 see for their Y+ on longhaul flights, for a much better space delta.

I'm sure Boeing and its customers see the new plane as enabling more potential for innovation and product differentiation than simple 6/7/8ab debates here.

seabosdca wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

I'll set down my marker here, so I can be embarrassed by it later. This is my guess for NMA launch (both carriers and numbers):

UA = 40 firm, 40 options
DL = 50 firm, 50 options
ANA = 50 firm, 25 options
JAL = 30 firm, 15 options

170 would be a very nice widebody launch order. But I wouldn't be surprised to see even a few more orders from Indian or Southeast Asian carriers. And I also expect that once there is a new administration in 2021 (or, less likely, the current president extricates his head from his nether regions about tariffs) there will be 100 orders from China. This plane will be a very nice narrowbody upgrade for a number of intra-China markets.

While I agree that the trade war makes China questionable, IF Boeing works up the 797 to have 5t more MSP (no more MTOW so the range at max payload drops to around 3300 nm), maybe FedEx and UPS pony up for 50 each? And it would still be a great Asia regional even without China . . wonder which Asian (non Japan) carrier might sign on at the beginning

ikolkyo wrote:

I honestly don’t see how CFM has chance against PW and RR with a scaled up LEAP. I think it’s between RR and PW surprisingly.

I wish that were the case. Why do you state that? With a CMC high turbine, the LEAP will scale up well.

Pratt has just not gotten the PW1100G durable nor produced enough to give Boeing cause to put it in the lead.

RR is having issues, but less.

I see two engines on the 797 and CFM being almost certain.


I also see fairly large launch orders. The middle of the market is hungry for a better airframe.

Lightsaber

ikolkyo wrote:

I honestly don’t see how CFM has chance against PW and RR with a scaled up LEAP. I think it’s between RR and PW surprisingly.

The LEAP is the most mature engine. And if they want a 2025 EiS for the plane, the engine needs to be ready by 2023.

I see the Leap derivative as a given. Theq uestion will be: If or who else. If they go for a second engine source, then I see RR ahead of Pratt. Pratt has just caused to many basic problems recently. The only Chance for Pratt is to give more in towards Boeings demands.

Flyglobal

If the above timeline turns out to be true (or in the "ballpark"), I believe that within about 2 years from now, as the order book swells at (or near) record pace, most will be looking with hindsight about the notion that the market gap between the existing largest narrowbodies/smallest widebodies being too small for this aircraft family to succeed and seeing that it was unreasonable to expect that a clean-sheet could not shoehorn (with tremendous leverage) its way into a gap created by what is/will be effectively decades-old technology.

Right now, we judge the market position of the 797 program against what is. Very soon, we will be judging the market position of what is against the 797 program.

Revelation wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

Interesting won't begin to tell the tale the next 12 months if all this come true.....

Revelation wrote:

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/1041768368007655424 says:

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

Today has been a day of surprises -- first the NFL Patriots acquire Josh Gordon, now this!

Well lets hope they finally get this rolling! I feel another drug like rush coming up

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Oh, then we have to believe it !

An enitirely new way of producing aircraft, game changing technology, snapping togerther fininished sections with clockwise precision, like in automotive, this is going to be fantastic and very competitive.

Development, supply chain & asssembly in 5 years and fully certified within a year, awesome!

The 747-100 took just 34 months so the legend goes. Shame no-one mentioned this to PW.

uta999 wrote:

The 747-100 took just 34 months so the legend goes. Shame no-one mentioned this to PW.

True, but the 747-100 also had the glider issue too. I love the story where Boeing took a PW exec up in the 747-100 and showed how easy it was to trash an engine, and then asked him if he wanted them to do another. Pratt, you're so hard to love!

lightsaber wrote:

I see two engines on the 797 and CFM being almost certain.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

TropicalSky wrote:

Interesting won't begin to tell the tale the next 12 months if all this come true.....

Today has been a day of surprises -- first the NFL Patriots acquire Josh Gordon, now this!

Well lets hope they finally get this rolling! I feel another drug like rush coming up

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Oh, then we have to believe it !

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?

keesje wrote:

An enitirely new way of producing aircraft, game changing technology, snapping togerther fininished sections with clockwise precision, like in automotive, this is going to be fantastic and very competitive.

Development, supply chain & asssembly in 5 years and fully certified within a year, awesome!

Let's see, we criticize taking a long time before program launch to advance further before committing, then we criticize the program itself for being too short?

I think I see a pattern here.

GE Aviation chief David Joyce, 2 MONTHS AGO: "We're still wrestling with what the size of the market is," Joyce said in a media briefing. "People feel great when you launch, but shareholders don't feel great until you're successful."

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/washington-post/business/as-boeing-s-797-nears-ge-wrestling-with-what-to-do-on-engines-1.23369622

Still I agree that in the light of everything absense of GE on the NMA is highly unlikely..

Probably they'll put a billion on the table & say they need exclusivity.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Today has been a day of surprises -- first the NFL Patriots acquire Josh Gordon, now this!

I feel another drug like rush coming up

Bad choice of words. Signed, A Browns fan.

keesje wrote:

GE Aviation chief David Joyce, 2 MONTHS AGO: "We're still wrestling with what the size of the market is," Joyce said in a media briefing. "People feel great when you launch, but shareholders don't feel great until you're successful."

https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/washington-post/business/as-boeing-s-797-nears-ge-wrestling-with-what-to-do-on-engines-1.23369622

Later in the same article:

One potential customer for the plane, Avolon Holdings, is convinced Boeing will opt for two engine suppliers despite the risk that the market may not be large enough for both to see much return on the investment.

"If I was a betting man, I'd think Boeing will go with a dual source," Domhnal Slattery, CEO of Avolon, a Dublin-based aircraft leasing firm, said in an interview. "They want to give maximum optionality to their airline clients. They want to create maximum tension on pricing. And they want to mitigate technology risk."

Seems there's a range of opinions out there.

It ends with:

Joyce said GE turned down an opportunity to join Boeing in a joint venture to develop auxiliary power units that help start jet engines and provide electricity while planes are on the ground because it preferred to allocate capital elsewhere.

Safran opted to join Boeing in the venture, which will challenge United Technologies and Honeywell International Inc., the leading manufacturers in the APU market.

It seems clear that GE's going to be even more careful than usual when it comes to making investments.

It'd be interesting if NMA ended up with PW and RR but no CFM.

Keeswlednir wrote:

Nothing to see here. Airbus can mod the A321neo at a tenth of the cost for 90% of the missions!

There may be more than a kernel of truth in there. Unless a lot of the 797 translates into a 737 replacement, I don't see how it can make the business case.

Bricktop wrote:

Keeswlednir wrote:

Nothing to see here. Airbus can mod the A321neo at a tenth of the cost for 90% of the missions!

There may be more than a kernel of truth in there. Unless a lot of the 797 translates into a 737 replacement, I don't see how it can make the business case.

The A321 is a 185 passenger plane in 2 class configuration. Airbus can make mods to get it closer to 220 seats and with more range, but I doubt it is possible for the A321 to legitimately compete in the 270 passenger 2 class configuration. That is closer to the A330-800.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Today has been a day of surprises -- first the NFL Patriots acquire Josh Gordon, now this!

Well lets hope they finally get this rolling! I feel another drug like rush coming up

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Oh, then we have to believe it !

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?

keesje wrote:

An enitirely new way of producing aircraft, game changing technology, snapping togerther fininished sections with clockwise precision, like in automotive, this is going to be fantastic and very competitive.

Development, supply chain & asssembly in 5 years and fully certified within a year, awesome!

Let's see, we criticize taking a long time before program launch to advance further before committing, then we criticize the program itself for being too short?

I think I see a pattern here.

I see a patttern in Keesjes comments. He criticizies the NMA for not being launched quick enough and then criticizes the development time for being too quick. What I see happening is Boeing is doing more of the engineering work before launch than they did before. This should avoid a relaunch (like the A350) since specifications are more refined and also get better pricing and schedule accuracy (avoiding some of the 787 problems). Keesje doesn’t appear to see it that way and is criticizing both decisions.

To throw some random numbers out, if the 787 and A350 design were only 10% complete before launch, the NMA looks like it will be more like 20% design complete at launch.

ikolkyo wrote:

I honestly don’t see how CFM has chance against PW and RR with a scaled up LEAP. I think it’s between RR and PW surprisingly.

CFM is a given and I think Pratt will be the second option. Both of these engines will form the basis for NSA's engine in a decade and unfortunately that is going to leave RR on the sidelines as no way Boeing (or Airbus, for that matter) are going to risk a new engine design on their current narrowbody family replacements that they expect to sell in the five figures over the first decade and deliver close to four figures a year,

2175301 wrote:

I do have a guess that it will be an aircraft that Airbus cannot match with anything less than a new aircraft. A derivative of existing Airbus aircraft will obviously not be competitive except for small segement on the bottom and possibly the top of the 797 market range.

Like 737NG couldn't? Airbus designing a mild stretch "A322" and a new CFRP wing and people will wonder why haul that second aisle that will literally drag your economics down that you get with the "797".

I would guess a lot more than 20% at launch. I also predict if will be a tight 7W and they will reuse the Cross section for NSA (albeit with different WING/Wingbox/Gear) - although I don't know if they will announce both at launch. They may choose too because of program accounting to spread costs over a lot more frames than just NMA.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

Well lets hope they finally get this rolling! I feel another drug like rush coming up




Oh, then we have to believe it !

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?

keesje wrote:

An enitirely new way of producing aircraft, game changing technology, snapping togerther fininished sections with clockwise precision, like in automotive, this is going to be fantastic and very competitive.

Development, supply chain & asssembly in 5 years and fully certified within a year, awesome!

Let's see, we criticize taking a long time before program launch to advance further before committing, then we criticize the program itself for being too short?

I think I see a pattern here.

I see a patttern in Keesjes comments. He criticizies the NMA for not being launched quick enough and then criticizes the development time for being too quick. What I see happening is Boeing is doing more of the engineering work before launch than they did before. This should avoid a relaunch (like the A350) since specifications are more refined and also get better pricing and schedule accuracy (avoiding some of the 787 problems). Keesje doesn’t appear to see it that way and is criticizing both decisions.

To throw some random numbers out, if the 787 and A350 design were only 10% complete before launch, the NMA looks like it will be more like 20% design complete at launch.

I see a pattern of smart people taking a short holiday from realism, if they like the promised result too much.

This program will take 7-8 years. Everybody with an even moderately flattish learning curve should know in my opinion.

The 2025 promise is part of closing the business case, getting everybody in (investors, governments, customers) and pass the point of no return.

Revelation wrote:

This time line would make for an interesting next 12 months here on a.net!

BCA CEO said they could announce in '19 and still keep '25 EIS.

Sounds very familiar to Boeing from 2004:
"WE NEED ONLY 4 YEARS FROM LAUNCH TO EIS FOR OUR NEW PLANE, THE AWESOME DREAMLINER!!!"

Some people will never learn.... LoL...

seabosdca wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

The only thing that matters is ...are there customers willing to pay real $$ for enough aircraft to start the program? I still have my doubts. Who especially, are the launch customers?

I'll set down my marker here, so I can be embarrassed by it later. This is my guess for NMA launch (both carriers and numbers):

UA = 40 firm, 40 options
DL = 50 firm, 50 options
ANA = 50 firm, 25 options
JAL = 30 firm, 15 options

170 would be a very nice widebody launch order. But I wouldn't be surprised to see even a few more orders from Indian or Southeast Asian carriers. And I also expect that once there is a new administration in 2021 (or, less likely, the current president extricates his head from his nether regions about tariffs) there will be 100 orders from China. This plane will be a very nice narrowbody upgrade for a number of intra-China markets.

i could also see american buying 20/20

Revelation wrote:

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?

Because the knowledgeable corporate officers did misjudge in a big way the time needed for a development the last time?

I do not believe in 2 engine options.

If the 2025 EiS is to be achieved, GE/CFM is in the best position to deliver this with a scaled up LEAP.
But if a second geared turbo fan engine is allowed in, maybe with a later EiS, the long term outlook for the GE offering is not good.

If the market is divided between 2 engines and both need to make 2025, both will look at doing as little as possible to finish the project, but Boeing does need a serious effort from the engine maker to achieve the performance targets.

The time schedule is challenging. Launch in 2019 and EiS for the plane in 2025 means that in early 2024 the engine must be ready for test flights on the 797. That leaves about 4-4,5 years for the engine development. Faster than Ge9X by about 25%.

mjoelnir wrote:

[Because the knowledgeable corporate officers did misjudge in a big way the time needed for a development the last time?

Almost all of them are gone - replaced with people who were the ones who had to drag the 787 program out of the mess their forebears made and most certainly have no desire to go through it a second time.

There will always be those "unknown unknowns", but the due diligence on the 797 program certainly looks more diligent than it was on the 787.

mjoelnir wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?

Because the knowledgeable corporate officers did misjudge in a big way the time needed for a development the last time?

Sure that's a valid concern, yet we also know Airbus also misjudged A380 planning and execution but then followed up with the very successful A350 which leveraged a lot of the technology and lessons learned from A380. I think we could see a similar leveraging of technology and lessons learned from 787 and 777x happen with NMA. I don't think we'll see the wide opened spigot we saw with A380 or 787 where they were breaking new ground on the core technology and the manufacturing side at the same time. From what we're told the NMA will be conservative on the technology side and aggressive on the manufacturing side. We'll see what happens.

I'm pretty interested in knowing what the corporate leaders are saying, even if there's a degree of optimism factored in to what they are saying. They are the ones making commitments on behalf of the company and setting the internal budgets and priorities. I'm less interested in what a journo who makes money from sensationalism has to say, although I do take note of it. The particular Leeham article to me had no substance and was easy bait to sucker in people who were already skeptics and IMHO was poor journalism.

seahawk wrote:

I do not believe in 2 engine options.

If the 2025 EiS is to be achieved, GE/CFM is in the best position to deliver this with a scaled up LEAP.
But if a second geared turbo fan engine is allowed in, maybe with a later EiS, the long term outlook for the GE offering is not good.

If the market is divided between 2 engines and both need to make 2025, both will look at doing as little as possible to finish the project, but Boeing does need a serious effort from the engine maker to achieve the performance targets.

The time schedule is challenging. Launch in 2019 and EiS for the plane in 2025 means that in early 2024 the engine must be ready for test flights on the 797. That leaves about 4-4,5 years for the engine development. Faster than Ge9X by about 25%.

I agree with this. I also see a real possibility that Boeing will help fund the engine development - and gain either exclusive rights or other user mark-ups (payback) to the resulting engine and derivatives in that engine size range. No one else will fund an engine in that size range for the foreseeable future.

Have a great day,

Yes, if a single engine is sourced with Boeing funding a part of the development would create an exclusive like the GE90 and the Trents on the 350 are. That has some advantages to Boeing as it basically locks the center of the MOM's market to just the 797 and pushes the 330 to the sidelines more. Yes the MOM may be just a 10/mo plane but except for the NB's only the 787 have rates higher than this.

I recall at both the 777-300ER and 787 beginning, many thought it was crazy to even assume 1,000 orders in the life of the model. Back in 2005, only the 747, 737, and A320 had exceeded 1,000 frames in a model's lifetime. The 767 and 777 broke the 1000 point around 2007 in orders and far later with deliveries. So it seems strange that an engine OEM would scoff at 2,000 to 4,000 frames.

I think many people feel the PW GTF has the most future potential. PW touted the possibillities to increased thrust & BPR of the engine early on. Maybe a 84 inch, 45k lbs is doable.. Boeing doesn't like the risk but doesn't want to miss the boat either..



The problem is Pratt is part of the 600lbs gorilla UTC, that has it's own ideas regarding aftermarket.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I know. Why would we give credence to a knowledgeable corporate officer instead of a journo looking for clicks?


Let's see, we criticize taking a long time before program launch to advance further before committing, then we criticize the program itself for being too short?

I think I see a pattern here.

I see a patttern in Keesjes comments. He criticizies the NMA for not being launched quick enough and then criticizes the development time for being too quick. What I see happening is Boeing is doing more of the engineering work before launch than they did before. This should avoid a relaunch (like the A350) since specifications are more refined and also get better pricing and schedule accuracy (avoiding some of the 787 problems). Keesje doesn’t appear to see it that way and is criticizing both decisions.

To throw some random numbers out, if the 787 and A350 design were only 10% complete before launch, the NMA looks like it will be more like 20% design complete at launch.

I see a pattern of smart people taking a short holiday from realism, if they like the promised result too much.

This program will take 7-8 years. Everybody with an even moderately flattish learning curve should know in my opinion.

The 2025 promise is part of closing the business case, getting everybody in (investors, governments, customers) and pass the point of no return.

I agree, this program will take 7-8 years. They've been working on it for what.. 2 plus years now? Add 6 to 2025 and you get your 8 year timetable. Even people with a moderately flattish learning curve have to know that Boeing has been doing major work on the program to shorten the time between launch and first flight. IN MY OPINION.

I think they have been working on it for a lot longer than 2 years - especially if it's an evolution of the OVAL 7W concept that at one point 5-6 years ago was supposed to be the NSA.

AAlaxfan wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I see a patttern in Keesjes comments. He criticizies the NMA for not being launched quick enough and then criticizes the development time for being too quick. What I see happening is Boeing is doing more of the engineering work before launch than they did before. This should avoid a relaunch (like the A350) since specifications are more refined and also get better pricing and schedule accuracy (avoiding some of the 787 problems). Keesje doesn’t appear to see it that way and is criticizing both decisions.

To throw some random numbers out, if the 787 and A350 design were only 10% complete before launch, the NMA looks like it will be more like 20% design complete at launch.

I see a pattern of smart people taking a short holiday from realism, if they like the promised result too much.

This program will take 7-8 years. Everybody with an even moderately flattish learning curve should know in my opinion.

The 2025 promise is part of closing the business case, getting everybody in (investors, governments, customers) and pass the point of no return.

I agree, this program will take 7-8 years. They've been working on it for what.. 2 plus years now? Add 6 to 2025 and you get your 8 year timetable. Even people with a moderately flattish learning curve have to know that Boeing has been doing major work on the program to shorten the time between launch and first flight. IN MY OPINION.

I think it is apparent that the program office established last year started work on refining the design. It will be an 8 year program, but Boeing is doing more work prelaunch than they used to

The time frame is a bit longer than the optimistic numbers for the 787, which was supposed to be delivered 4 years after launch and the Trent 1000 made it from launch to certification in 3 years, but we know how this turned out in reality.

The big question is if an engine OEM is willing to sign similar contracts again, especially if it comes to missing fuel burn, reliability or EiS clauses. Considering the problems all 3 face at the moment, I doubt it - especially if there are 2 engine options.

Imho it is doable, the question is if OEMS are willing to shoulder the same risk again.

Newbiepilot wrote:

AAlaxfan wrote:

keesje wrote:

I see a pattern of smart people taking a short holiday from realism, if they like the promised result too much.

This program will take 7-8 years. Everybody with an even moderately flattish learning curve should know in my opinion.

The 2025 promise is part of closing the business case, getting everybody in (investors, governments, customers) and pass the point of no return.

I agree, this program will take 7-8 years. They've been working on it for what.. 2 plus years now? Add 6 to 2025 and you get your 8 year timetable. Even people with a moderately flattish learning curve have to know that Boeing has been doing major work on the program to shorten the time between launch and first flight. IN MY OPINION.

I think it is apparent that the program office established last year started work on refining the design. It will be an 8 year program, but Boeing is doing more work prelaunch than they used to

Maybe technology development is continious. Different material and production technologies programs going through their TRL's. Together with industry R&D is done to make new technology ready for production.

E.g. for the Dreamliner structural technologies were tested in 2000, for which production was developed in the late nineties and IP handed over to Boeing. It was used on the dreamliner, that was launched in 2003 and entered service in 2011.



Aircraft development periods grew over the last 50 years. From ~4 to ~ 8 years. But maybe you are right. Everything has changed, development efforts imploded. Boeing can have been preparing secretly, can cut 2-3 years and EIS in 2025. Hurray!