User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:31 pm

par13del wrote:
I say leave the cargo alone, the a/c cannot be all things to all persons especially when the target market at present is being served by a/c above or below.
In my opinion, this a/c claim to fame has to be efficiency as a people mover.


But then airlines will continue using 787s and A330s on short haul routes. It's clear that Boeing wants to present the 797 as an alternative for A330s on short sectors.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Last year I proposed a bigger extendable LD3-45, to improve cargo capacity for 2-3-2 aircraft.
The usual "not from here" members immediately jumped in to dismiss.

Show us the checks from the patent revenue then you have some grounds to brag.


If it's a bad idea, there no reason to brag and nobody will go there violating any IP. If it is usefull, something can be worked out.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
aviationfan12
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
Be nice to know why the holds are considered "small". Is it because the frame is short and/or dimensioned for LD-45 ULDs? Could this push Boeing to use the LD-2 from the 767?


The LD-2 was only able to be used in Early 767 and one of the big design requirements of the 787 was to use the more common LD-3. If the NMA uses containers, they will probably be the LD-3's and not the LD-2's.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:52 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
par13del wrote:
I say leave the cargo alone, the a/c cannot be all things to all persons especially when the target market at present is being served by a/c above or below.
In my opinion, this a/c claim to fame has to be efficiency as a people mover.


But then airlines will continue using 787s and A330s on short haul routes. It's clear that Boeing wants to present the 797 as an alternative for A330s on short sectors.


Where cargo is a main concern then yes. Cargo has stopped the region for ordering a boatload of A321s either.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:55 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.
...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"

As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large US network carriers indicated belly cargo isn't a high priority.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."


http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.


Definitely huge trade-off's to be made...like in the 1980's when the 767 could not use standard LD-3 containers...later making the A330 preferable. The width of the fuselage -- 7 or 8 across in Y-class is a huge make or break decision. If it is 8-across, then NMA starts to take away 787 sales which I don't think B wants. I just flew a 789 round-trip NRT to BKK -- about 3K nm...a typical NMA route.

However I don't think the increased cargo for Asian carriers from five to ten tons is a big deal -- increase MTOW by five tons, would not be a major effect on empty weight....The US carriers would just use that extra capacity to decrease seat pitch and stuff in a few more rows of passengers instead of cargo.

In the end, I think a NMA is a people mover more than a cargo carrier. If you want 250 passengers and lots of cargo on routes less than 5K nm...get yourself a 787 or A330neo. NMA can't compromise on weight to be successful, it has to be light-weight -- the smaller diameter fuselage, probably 7-across twin-isle for fast boarding and off-load (if not a narrow body)...cargo is second fiddle. Cheaper to build the lighter aircraft with smaller engines too.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:02 am

Huh, I guess that short haul cargo rates in APAC must not be in the dumpster then, I suppose Boeing can always stretch a smaller base to a longer plane with higher MZFW and same-ish MTOW (787-9 to 10) and sacrifice range for cargo space and payload.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:28 am

QuarkFly wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.
...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"

As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large US network carriers indicated belly cargo isn't a high priority.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."


http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.


Definitely huge trade-off's to be made...like in the 1980's when the 767 could not use standard LD-3 containers...later making the A330 preferable. The width of the fuselage -- 7 or 8 across in Y-class is a huge make or break decision. If it is 8-across, then NMA starts to take away 787 sales which I don't think B wants. I just flew a 789 round-trip NRT to BKK -- about 3K nm...a typical NMA route.

However I don't think the increased cargo for Asian carriers from five to ten tons is a big deal -- increase MTOW by five tons, would not be a major effect on empty weight....The US carriers would just use that extra capacity to decrease seat pitch and stuff in a few more rows of passengers instead of cargo.

In the end, I think a NMA is a people mover more than a cargo carrier. If you want 250 passengers and lots of cargo on routes less than 5K nm...get yourself a 787 or A330neo. NMA can't compromise on weight to be successful, it has to be light-weight -- the smaller diameter fuselage, probably 7-across twin-isle for fast boarding and off-load (if not a narrow body)...cargo is second fiddle. Cheaper to build the lighter aircraft with smaller engines too.


The reason you see A330s everywhere in Asia is cargo. I have flown SQ SIN-TPE and in both directions it was like flying a cargo plane with some pax added. Full pax flight, loads of cargo and a takeoff which felt like an intercontinental flight. I am pretty sure cargo in both directions was way more than 10 tons. Airlines which don't have a big cargo business fly narrow bodies. Airlines with a big cargo business (SQ, CX) fly A330 or bigger on their main routes at least once a day and then add narrow body off-peak (Cathay Dragon / Silkair).

That is why in Asia I can not see the case for the '797' in Asia. There are good solutions available in the form of 787 and A330NEO if you need cargo and if you don't need cargo the A321NEOLR will do most of the jobs.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 742 743 744 752 753 762 772 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:57 am

AngMoh wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.
...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"



http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.


Definitely huge trade-off's to be made...like in the 1980's when the 767 could not use standard LD-3 containers...later making the A330 preferable. The width of the fuselage -- 7 or 8 across in Y-class is a huge make or break decision. If it is 8-across, then NMA starts to take away 787 sales which I don't think B wants. I just flew a 789 round-trip NRT to BKK -- about 3K nm...a typical NMA route.

However I don't think the increased cargo for Asian carriers from five to ten tons is a big deal -- increase MTOW by five tons, would not be a major effect on empty weight....The US carriers would just use that extra capacity to decrease seat pitch and stuff in a few more rows of passengers instead of cargo.

In the end, I think a NMA is a people mover more than a cargo carrier. If you want 250 passengers and lots of cargo on routes less than 5K nm...get yourself a 787 or A330neo. NMA can't compromise on weight to be successful, it has to be light-weight -- the smaller diameter fuselage, probably 7-across twin-isle for fast boarding and off-load (if not a narrow body)...cargo is second fiddle. Cheaper to build the lighter aircraft with smaller engines too.


The reason you see A330s everywhere in Asia is cargo. I have flown SQ SIN-TPE and in both directions it was like flying a cargo plane with some pax added. Full pax flight, loads of cargo and a takeoff which felt like an intercontinental flight. I am pretty sure cargo in both directions was way more than 10 tons. Airlines which don't have a big cargo business fly narrow bodies. Airlines with a big cargo business (SQ, CX) fly A330 or bigger on their main routes at least once a day and then add narrow body off-peak (Cathay Dragon / Silkair).

That is why in Asia I can not see the case for the '797' in Asia. There are good solutions available in the form of 787 and A330NEO if you need cargo and if you don't need cargo the A321NEOLR will do most of the jobs.


And the reason you see som many A321s is at present other than 737-10 have been the only options available.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:24 am

william wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Lessor Avolon points out another business decision Boeing will have to make:

Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.

The planemaker faces a "cargo conundrum," for the jetliner dubbed the 797 by industry observers, said Domhnal Slattery, founder and chief executive officer of Avolon Holdings Ltd., the world's third-largest aircraft leasing firm.

...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"


As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large US network carriers indicated belly cargo isn't a high priority.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."


http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.


My prediction, Boeing sticks to its original concept. If cargo hold space is so precious to the "customer" Airbus will make an awesome deal on some A330NEOs. Then again, the 797 will have better per seat costs than the A330NEO. Decisions, decisions, decisions.


There is also the 787 as an option if maximum cargo volume is needed. The 787-9 carries 3 more LD3s than an A330-900 and the 787-10 carries 7 more containers. You are right: Decisions, decisions, decisions
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:34 am

I've said this many times..

LD3 containers will NOT fit in a tight 8 abreast circular fuselage.

The fuselage if circular will need to be a roomy 8 abreast or a very tight 9ab abreast to fit LD3 containers. The A330 cross section is the absolute smallest you can go to fit LD3 containers. An A330 sized cross section would see 9 abreast used by many carriers on short routes. It would also be within 3-4% of the 787 cross section.

If LD3's are needed Boeing will use the 787 cross section which would make more sense. They would then make an optimised, lightweight, short ranged 787 version. Potentially even a second shrink for a medium ranged version.

Narrower LD2 containers are the only option to fit a tight 8 abreast circular cross section. So this would be the most likely option for a clean sheet design.

In terms of the NMA here are my estimates:
60% - It will be a lightweight optimised 787-3
20% - clean sheet circular tight 8ab LD2 containers
10% - clean sheet oval tight 8ab LD3-45 containers
5% - 767MAX 8ab for short haul 7ab medium haul
5% - clean sheet 7ab or 6ab design.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:00 am

The 787 platform is probably too large and heavy so instead if the plane must have LD3 capability I would expect Boeing to look more at something like the A300 and A310 - a common fuselage and wing design with the "A300" serving high-density passenger and cargo routes under 3000nm for the Asian carriers and the shortened "A310" offering the 5000nm range the US3 and EU LCCs desire with lower passenger and cargo loads.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I've said this many times..

LD3 containers will NOT fit in a tight 8 abreast circular fuselage.

The fuselage if circular will need to be a roomy 8 abreast or a very tight 9ab abreast to fit LD3 containers. The A330 cross section is the absolute smallest you can go to fit LD3 containers. An A330 sized cross section would see 9 abreast used by many carriers on short routes. It would also be within 3-4% of the 787 cross section.

If LD3's are needed Boeing will use the 787 cross section which would make more sense. They would then make an optimised, lightweight, short ranged 787 version. Potentially even a second shrink for a medium ranged version.

Narrower LD2 containers are the only option to fit a tight 8 abreast circular cross section. So this would be the most likely option for a clean sheet design.

In terms of the NMA here are my estimates:
60% - It will be a lightweight optimised 787-3
20% - clean sheet circular tight 8ab LD2 containers
10% - clean sheet oval tight 8ab LD3-45 containers
5% - 767MAX 8ab for short haul 7ab medium haul
5% - clean sheet 7ab or 6ab design.


Or just buy a 787 if you need move LD3s. Mission creep will ruin the 797 mission of being an efficient people hauler.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14458
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:14 am

seabosdca wrote:
That does suggest, though, that QF expects a cabin of similar area to that of the 767-300ER, possibly a bit less allowing for narrower seats/aisles. That's significantly bigger than earlier NMA rumors led us to expect.

Not at all. It’s bigger than some people were willing to entertain. But it’s exactly what many of us have been saying all along. And it was never refuted by Boeing in any way.

It’s a 757/767 replacement for medium range missions. That means 220-275 in dense 2-class and 200-240 in premium 2.5 class configurations. But narrower than a 767 because it only needs to be wide enough for 7 17.5” seats rather than 18.5” seats.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14458
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:27 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787 platform is probably too large and heavy so instead if the plane must have LD3 capability I would expect Boeing to look more at something like the A300 and A310 - a common fuselage and wing design with the "A300" serving high-density passenger and cargo routes under 3000nm for the Asian carriers and the shortened "A310" offering the 5000nm range the US3 and EU LCCs desire with lower passenger and cargo loads.

The 767 has LD3 ability. It just can’t take 2 across. But a single LD-3 has greater volume than an LD3-45.

Continuing with 2xLD2 or 1xLD3 capability like the 767 will work better than a stubby aircraft like the A310 or the compromise of the LD3-45.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:32 am

Stitch wrote:
The 787 platform is probably too large and heavy so instead if the plane must have LD3 capability I would expect Boeing to look more at something like the A300 and A310 - a common fuselage and wing design with the "A300" serving high-density passenger and cargo routes under 3000nm for the Asian carriers and the shortened "A310" offering the 5000nm range the US3 and EU LCCs desire with lower passenger and cargo loads.

I completely disagree.

The 787 max fuselage width is only 2% wider than the A330. 5.64m vs 5.76m. The floor can then be slightly lower on the 787 while fitting LD3's so at shoulder height the 787 is 4% wider. This allows the 787 fits 9AB with most airlines while the A330 fits 9AB only with LCC's.

Boeing would not make a clean sheet design only 2-3% narrower in diameter than the 787 and then forcing itself to run 8ab. 8ab is 11% less passengers than the 787's 9ab. That makes no sense. The drag per passenger and weight per passenger would be worse than the 787. Going with the 787 cross section would be the way to go. Even if it was they made a version 6m shorter than the 787-8 it would not be as stubby as the A310.

The 787-8 despite having a larger fuselage volume is actually lighter than the A330-800. So the 787-8 fuselage tube is light. It would be suitable for the NMA providing the wings, landing gear and engines are all smaller and lighter.

An 8AB cleansheet circular Boeing would want a fuselage halfway between the A330's normal 8ab 5.64m and the 767's wide 7ab 5.03m. That means 5.3m exterior diameter and 5m interior diameter would be perfect as shown in this picture below. So the fuselage wetted area per passenger would be very good.

Image

You can see the LD2's are a perfect fit. LD3's would have no chance of fitting. LD3's being much wider would not be able to sit as low down so the floor would have to roughly where the seat bottoms are located. The problem with this is at shoulder level the cabin would now be curving in more and the cabin width would be the same as the 767.

Using the 787 systems, fuselage tube, cockpit and tail would probably halve the development cost of a cleansheet 8ab design. That is hundreds of extra aircraft that must be sold to pay for the more expensive cleansheet development. I doubt a cleansheet 8ab design could
 
User avatar
UAL747422
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:44 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:36 pm

If the Asian airline market is looking for more cargo space, couldn't Boeing make a Combi version? I mean if you want that much cargo PLUS passengers, you may not end up having as many passengers because that extra cargo has got to go somewhere.
I just love the 747, as you already may have noticed.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 8524
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:25 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Last year I proposed a bigger extendable LD3-45, to improve cargo capacity for 2-3-2 aircraft.
The usual "not from here" members immediately jumped in to dismiss.

Show us the checks from the patent revenue then you have some grounds to brag.


If it's a bad idea, there no reason to brag and nobody will go there violating any IP. If it is usefull, something can be worked out.

That requires recognition on the part of the bragger if the idea is actually good or bad. If it is actually a good idea, and you put no effort to actually engineer and patent anything, nothing has to be worked out with the bragger if someone “steals” their idea.

The solution to the cargo issue is clear though. Boeing makes a humpback (think of the 767-X) but instead of two pax decks in the back there is one, elevated above the forward deck split level home style. Allowing taller cargo underneath it, while shorter cargo is up in forward hold. Problem solve. Boeing and I will work out the IP issues. Just think, maybe they can add some forward looking windows at the start of the hump.
Last edited by Polot on Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:44 pm

Particularly the 330 and 787-10 are suitable for mid range passenger plus herky cargo loads. The MOM does not have to be a Swiss Knife.

Ooops - may have spoken with lack of accuracy. That MOM could be one heck of a cargo plane MF-OF
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25642
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:48 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 787-8 despite having a larger fuselage volume is actually lighter than the A330-800. So the 787-8 fuselage tube is light. It would be suitable for the NMA providing the wings, landing gear and engines are all smaller and lighter.


The original plan was the 787-3 to be 10,000kg lighter than the 787-8, but we know that shrinking the wingspan by eight meters deeply compromised the aero efficiency of the 787-3 which is why it was cancelled because the 787-8 was more efficient on effectively any stage length longer than 250nm. So it stands to reason Boeing would have to design an all new wing optimized for the missions the NMA would fly and mate it to the 787 airframe. Except NMA seems to be designed to fly two separate missions - one of around 2500nm and another of 5000nm. So does Boeing design two new wings? Or a compromised one that can do both, but is not as good as a dedicated wing? The latter would probably be enough considering it would be up against the larger wings of the 787 and A330, but where does Boeing focus the balance? I would guess the shorter distance since the market is likely much larger.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:31 pm

Stitch wrote:
The original plan was the 787-3 to be 10,000kg lighter than the 787-8, but we know that shrinking the wingspan by eight meters deeply compromised the aero efficiency of the 787-3 which is why it was cancelled because the 787-8 was more efficient on effectively any stage length longer than 250nm. So it stands to reason Boeing would have to design an all new wing optimized for the missions the NMA would fly and mate it to the 787 airframe. Except NMA seems to be designed to fly two separate missions - one of around 2500nm and another of 5000nm. So does Boeing design two new wings? Or a compromised one that can do both, but is not as good as a dedicated wing? The latter would probably be enough considering it would be up against the larger wings of the 787 and A330, but where does Boeing focus the balance? I would guess the shorter distance since the market is likely much larger.

10,000kg lighter was not the original plan of the 787-3. It was originally designed to be 15,000+kg lighter when JAL ordered it. The clipped wing was actually sized appropriately to that original lighter weight.

When Boeing suffered delays they changed the 787-3 proposal to share more parts with the 787-8 to speed up development. So fewer parts were lightened, optimised for the 787-3 and it's empty weight went up by over 5000kg.

Now we can calculate the fuel burn of the 787-8 if it were to put on 5000kg of weight by looking at the payload range chart. We would simply assume 5000kg payload to give the same answer as a 5000kg empty weight increase. It increases the fuel burn by quite a few percentage points. So the 787-3 would do the same and completely change the range crossover point where the 787-3 became more efficient.

Even a 2% reduction in fuel burn would put the crossover point above 1000nm and a 3% reduction the crossover point would definitely be above 2000nm.

So that extra 5000kg had a massive negative impact, it overloaded the smaller wing and made the 787-3 pointless. Obviously a 787-3 made now would hit the design goals of the original 787-3. If anything service experience could help more when it comes to loosing weight. The 787-3 is proof that you can't half ass a regional lower MTO variant.

Now if a new 787-3 got newer lower thrust but higher bypass engines with relatively small 3-5% fuel burn that would be huge. The 787-3 would burn less fuel on any route it could fly compared to the 787-8. Contrary to what people say here the next generation engines are nearly ready and have been in development for the last 5 years.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:17 am

I bet the 787 fuselage is too heavy and what you are proposing seems akin to wat the 777x is. Financially makes a lot sense but maybe not what the market wants. The reason for the pax focused 797 lighter oval fuselage rumors.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:08 am

william wrote:
... not what the market wants. The reason for the pax focused 797 lighter oval fuselage rumors.


That's the point. If the CEO of Avalon, a lessor with 900 odd aircraft under management, is to believed, the "lighter oval fuselage" is less attractive to potential customers in Asia.
Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."
For Boeing, "This raises a very interesting strategic question: where is the biggest market for this airplane over a 25 year period? Unquestionably, it's Asia," Slattery said.

Of course, he could be wrong. But it's illustrative of the difficulty in defining this aircraft. If you end up with a modern day A300/A332, do you end up cannibalising 787 sales (as well as hurting the A330, of course)? Does Boeing care too much, happy to focus on the larger 787 variant? Could they save a fortune and do a refresh of the 767? Or are they confident in their vision? Interesting times . . .
Down with that sort of thing!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:20 am

william wrote:
I bet the 787 fuselage is too heavy and what you are proposing seems akin to wat the 777x is. Financially makes a lot sense but maybe not what the market wants. The reason for the pax focused 797 lighter oval fuselage rumors.

Financially making sense is the main driver.

Boeing won't do a vanity project like the A380.

I'll just throw up some (hopefully) realistic numbers.

787-3 - 300 passenger - 9ab - 4500nm
787-2 - 260 passenger - 9ab - 5500nm

797-9 - 270 passenger - 8ab - 4500nm
797-8 - 230 passenger - 8ab - 5500nm

Let's assume two 787 versions cost $5 billion total.
Let's assume two 797 clean sheets cost $15 billion.

Let's assume the 797 versions are cheaper to produce due to new manufacturing technology and have 5% better fuel burn per passenger.

Now you must estimate how many more 797's will be sold due to the increased performance and lower price.

You also must estimate how many more 797's need to be sold to pay for the extra $10 billion in development cost.

We could estimate 500 lightweight 787-2/3's sold.
We could estimate 1000 cleansheet 797-8/9's sold.

That means the new 787 family members needs $10 million per frame to pay for its development. Where as the 797 family needs $15 million to pay for its development. This reduces the price gap between the two.

Going even further the new 787 versions would reduce the price of all shared systems on the 787-9/10. This is another bonus and increases the profit margin.

You can skew the numbers to make either option the winner in the long run. I have no doubt Boeing has looked at both options and has crunched the numbers.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1407
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:24 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Another poster has made a fairly compelling case that 8 abreast with a modern fuselage optimized for passengers could be aerodynamically and weight wise equal to a narrow body plane on a per passenger basis. And that a 7 abreast cannot. It is of course speculation.


No way will this be 7 abreast. It has to be 8.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1407
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:27 am

RJMAZ wrote:
william wrote:
I bet the 787 fuselage is too heavy and what you are proposing seems akin to wat the 777x is. Financially makes a lot sense but maybe not what the market wants. The reason for the pax focused 797 lighter oval fuselage rumors.

Financially making sense is the main driver.

Boeing won't do a vanity project like the A380.


Airbus didn't do a vanity project like the A380.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:37 am

380 wonderful. Business case - definitely wasn't pretty.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1407
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:59 am

http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Asian airlines want more cargo carrying capacity. This is a key market for the 797. Other potential customers want something that can sacrifice cargo space for range. Boeing is going to have a hard time keeping everyone happy.
 
B764er
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:10 am

I agree with AirFiero: stick with what works, and apply the 787 technology to it. Let it be to the 787 what the 757 has been to the 767: a slightly smaller alternative. Can't go wrong with composites and GeNX engines. (Or RR, for that matter.) The 757 is a winner, so no need to look elsewhere for inspiration. They can do a 2-2-2 layout and put twin aisles.
It may be slightly wider but no true widebody.
Think modernized 757, and you got what boeing needs to build.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:59 am

As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large U.S. network carriers indicated belly cargo isn’t a high priority. That freed Boeing to consider a frame that analysts have described as “ovoid,” pinched on the sides to provide for a roomier passenger cabin and smaller cargo hold.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane’s ideal cross-section -- the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China’s Bohai Capital Holding Co. “This is the big issue,” he said. “I coined it today as the cargo conundrum.


If for Boeing belly cargo is not a high priority, they should just stick to that with the 797. They know best and have to do the investment. If there is a niche for more cargo, others can fill that in. The 737-9 and -10 are really turning heads everywhere without serious cargo, so..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7384
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:35 pm

keesje wrote:
As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large U.S. network carriers indicated belly cargo isn’t a high priority. That freed Boeing to consider a frame that analysts have described as “ovoid,” pinched on the sides to provide for a roomier passenger cabin and smaller cargo hold.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane’s ideal cross-section -- the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China’s Bohai Capital Holding Co. “This is the big issue,” he said. “I coined it today as the cargo conundrum.


If for Boeing belly cargo is not a high priority, they should just stick to that with the 797. They know best and have to do the investment. If there is a niche for more cargo, others can fill that in. The 737-9 and -10 are really turning heads everywhere without serious cargo, so..


Their seem to be 2 different requirements according to what customers they are asking. North American customers do not seem to care about belly cargo and Asian customers do. So if they follow the North American customers and have only small space for cargo, the market gets rather small. If you follow the Asian customers and go for serious cargo space, the frame does get less lean and it will be difficult to compete with narrow bodies.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7273
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:30 pm

It will the same with range.
If the US3 just want a continental jet for pax hauling, it will not appeal to Asian or European carriers that much and it will not be able to replace the 767-300ER for many operators. If you give it more range, it becomes less competitive to the single aisle solutions on short routes.

And cargo is also a topic for many other operators. For example Europe to Africa. For pax needs alone a A320/A321 is enough for many routes, but cargo demand is high. So a larger plane with no cargo capacity will not be of limited interest on such routes. But in the end Boeing engineering fill fix this problem and release something revolutionary.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:07 pm

The two over-riding requirements for this MOM is upwards of 300 passengers with the comfort of twin aisles for c2500-3500 miles and c225 passengers for c4000-5000 miles. After that cargo may be third concern. A well positioned MOM fulfilling those first two concerns will serve and create a huge number of routes. If done at a competitive price its niche will change the market.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7384
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:38 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The two over-riding requirements for this MOM is upwards of 300 passengers with the comfort of twin aisles for c2500-3500 miles and c225 passengers for c4000-5000 miles. After that cargo may be third concern. A well positioned MOM fulfilling those first two concerns will serve and create a huge number of routes. If done at a competitive price its niche will change the market.


That is the North American view. The Asian and I would assume Qantas thinking similar, view cargo capabilities as necessary.

If the whole market is 4,000 frames, the North American market a quarter of that, that would make it 1,000 frames fitting to the no belly cargo concept. The other 3,000 frames should have belly cargo capabilities.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2189
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:47 pm

I don't see anything North American about my post. I can see specific airlines, be they Asian or North American wanting cargo above passengers. A really good cargo or a really good passenger plane will create the market. And no, this is not a case of build it and they will come. Asia will have as much need for this plane as NA or Europe or Africa or the Sub Continent. Some airlines won't need it. About the time Boeing has 1500 orders Airbus will come up with a competitive product, slightly different and maybe a little (emphasize little) more cargo friendly.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:00 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I don't see anything North American about my post. I can see specific airlines, be they Asian or North American wanting cargo above passengers. A really good cargo or a really good passenger plane will create the market. And no, this is not a case of build it and they will come. Asia will have as much need for this plane as NA or Europe or Africa or the Sub Continent. Some airlines won't need it. About the time Boeing has 1500 orders Airbus will come up with a competitive product, slightly different and maybe a little (emphasize little) more cargo friendly.


As things are looking now, Airbus might have a another cheaper, lighter responds rather 2-3 years before Boeing has the 797 ready. And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today. The complication is, everybody knows / can predict.

It slow becoming visible In reality Airbus might have already won the first round of the battle, started with Boeings first MoM presentations, 5 years ago. The airlines are (again) not waiting. The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option. While Boeing is still doing powerpoints & dealing with airlines that do not agree with e.g. cargo capability.
.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-a321lr-populate-iag-transatlantic-fleet

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1539
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:23 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:
BRUSSELS - Boeing keeps Michael O'Leary up to date about the developments of the Boeing 797. This hasn't sparked an interest of the Ryanair CEO in the aircraft. On the contrary, Mr. O'Leay knows that this craft will not be efficient enough for Ryanair.

In an interview with Luchtvaartnieuws.nl at the A4E Aviation Summit in Brussels, O'Leary says that the cost per seat mile are substantially higher than with the 737 MAX 200 he has on order.


In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

So the wideboy-with-narrowbody-economics does not hold water. The main selling point from day one is falling apart. What was obvious for some, must come at a surprise for many...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:05 pm

seahawk wrote:


I think cargo is going to lose out on any NMA aircraft despite the Asian carrier's preferences. A NMA simply can't use a 787-size fuselage and associated high cargo capacity and still have the low weight and smaller engine necessary for efficiency, even with a new wing. A snug 7-across twin-isle allows a 50 to 60 meter long aircraft to handle 220 to 300 passengers with reasonable boarding times. If B can shrink the under-floor section to handle just bulk bags and a few containers of cargo...that is likely the route to reasonable weight and aerodynamic efficiency.

The cargo market may change anyway. The Amazon effect -- I would like to know what is happening in Asia...are small packages moving to dedicated air freighers?...the same way Amazon is starting its own 767 N American air fleet? If that is the way Asia goes, then the NMA will not need to have the large cargo capacity. Will China move packages in-country on aircraft anyway? -- The Chinese rail network is being built for that

LCC carriers typically don't do much cargo -- so NMA would only appeal the LCC's without the cargo capacity...but with up to 300 passenger dense seating.

So NMA is a 250 passenger (give or take), 5K nm range (or less) aircraft -- B has to assume that a lot of carriers scale up from narrow-bodies to a NMA for connecting large and medium size cities within 6 hours. So four or five connections a day on A320/737 between city pairs becomes two or three flights a day on a NMA. Yes, the vaunted US carrier's choice of flight times starts to lose out -- to fewer, higher capacity flights...but the world has to move that way anyhow or start building a lot more runways.

Thus the NMA is also the product that starts to reduce narrow-body book-to-bill and backlogs. Also, it is not the A380 that reduces crowded skies...but an NMA reducing narrow-body frequencies. For cargo...eventually an NMA dedicated freighter to replace 767F's for Amazon and others :)
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:19 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
seahawk wrote:


I think cargo is going to lose out on any NMA aircraft despite the Asian carrier's preferences. A NMA simply can't use a 787-size fuselage and associated high cargo capacity and still have the low weight and smaller engine necessary for efficiency, even with a new wing. A snug 7-across twin-isle allows a 50 to 60 meter long aircraft to handle 220 to 300 passengers with reasonable boarding times. If B can shrink the under-floor section to handle just bulk bags and a few containers of cargo...that is likely the route to reasonable weight and aerodynamic efficiency.

The cargo market may change anyway. The Amazon effect -- I would like to know what is happening in Asia...are small packages moving to dedicated air freighers?...the same way Amazon is starting its own 767 N American air fleet? If that is the way Asia goes, then the NMA will not need to have the large cargo capacity. Will China move packages in-country on aircraft anyway? -- The Chinese rail network is being built for that

LCC carriers typically don't do much cargo -- so NMA would only appeal the LCC's without the cargo capacity...but with up to 300 passenger dense seating.

So NMA is a 250 passenger (give or take), 5K nm range (or less) aircraft -- B has to assume that a lot of carriers scale up from narrow-bodies to a NMA for connecting large and medium size cities within 6 hours. So four or five connections a day on A320/737 between city pairs becomes two or three flights a day on a NMA. Yes, the vaunted US carrier's choice of flight times starts to lose out -- to fewer, higher capacity flights...but the world has to move that way anyhow or start building a lot more runways.

Thus the NMA is also the product that starts to reduce narrow-body book-to-bill and backlogs. Also, it is not the A380 that reduces crowded skies...but an NMA reducing narrow-body frequencies. For cargo...eventually an NMA dedicated freighter to replace 767F's for Amazon and others :)


I agree, if an Asian LCC wants to sacrifice seat costs for more cargo capability there already two products on the market for them , the 787 or A330.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:28 pm

keesje wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
I don't see anything North American about my post. I can see specific airlines, be they Asian or North American wanting cargo above passengers. A really good cargo or a really good passenger plane will create the market. And no, this is not a case of build it and they will come. Asia will have as much need for this plane as NA or Europe or Africa or the Sub Continent. Some airlines won't need it. About the time Boeing has 1500 orders Airbus will come up with a competitive product, slightly different and maybe a little (emphasize little) more cargo friendly.


As things are looking now, Airbus might have a another cheaper, lighter responds rather 2-3 years before Boeing has the 797 ready. And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today. The complication is, everybody knows / can predict.

It slow becoming visible In reality Airbus might have already won the first round of the battle, started with Boeings first MoM presentations, 5 years ago. The airlines are (again) not waiting. The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option. While Boeing is still doing powerpoints & dealing with airlines that do not agree with e.g. cargo capability.
.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-a321lr-populate-iag-transatlantic-fleet

Image


It been reported by trade mags the airlines were not interested in a Boeing A321, but you keep try sell something the customer says they are not interested in. I still looking for quotes of airline officials clamoring for a stretched A321 with a new wing. Such a plane of course would sell by nature being a part of the A320 family.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 18619
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:31 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:
BRUSSELS - Boeing keeps Michael O'Leary up to date about the developments of the Boeing 797. This hasn't sparked an interest of the Ryanair CEO in the aircraft. On the contrary, Mr. O'Leay knows that this craft will not be efficient enough for Ryanair.

In an interview with Luchtvaartnieuws.nl at the A4E Aviation Summit in Brussels, O'Leary says that the cost per seat mile are substantially higher than with the 737 MAX 200 he has on order.


In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

So the wideboy-with-narrowbody-economics does not hold water. The main selling point from day one is falling apart. What was obvious for some, must come at a surprise for many...

The choices seem to be:

(a) Take what MOL says as gospel

(b) Wait to see if Boeing actually announces a product, and if so, see what geometry Boeing actually uses and what economics they actually commit to

Myself, I go with (b).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 8305
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:23 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
WIederling wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
Why does this myth still exist? Airbus did no such thing. The A350 program had a disastrous beginning which only looks good in comparison to the A380 and 787.

350 orders is disastrous?
trying to rewrite history you are!
overlooking the "drug like rush".

A350 XWB had its hickups but was executed well above industry averages.
From an execution point of view I would judge the 787 to be a much larger FUBAR thing than the A380.
The 787 had the advantage of sitting on a proven to be successful slot : A330 ( plus something to make it tacky. :-)
Its demand slot was not attackable.

I never said anything about orders. But if that is how we are going to judge, then I would assume you would say the 787 has been an unqualified success. Right? No?

The only one trying to rewrite history is you with your Trumpian level spin. Let's review, shall we.
-2005: A350 is launched
-2006: A350 is relaunched as A350 XWB with three variants . All existing orders (which I believe were around 200, if I remember correctly) must be renegotiated. EIS is set for 2013. This date is considered conservative enough that at some point Leahy says they should all be shot if they are not on target.

Since that time, the A350-900 suffered an over one year delay to EIS (no one was shot, to the best of my knowledge), the A350-1000 was redesigned and delayed over two years from the orginal EIS, and the A350-800 was cancelled. It is all going to work out fine for Airbus because they eventually made a really good airplane (which sits in a proven to be successful slot: 777, right?), but it was by no means a smooth process from launch to EIS.


What's even more entertaining, they then turn around and blame Boeing and the "trance" it put over airline execs worldwide which forced them to go through these various iterations.

I remember at the time feeling exactly the same way about the A350 saga as some folks today are feeling about the Boeing MOM et al saga, which was that it was all a delay tactic. Airbus was dealing with the A380 development and really wasn't interested in having to invest in an all-new program. Give them credit - they put a trance over a bunch of airlines of their own, garnering orders for what turned out to be a stillborn model. Kudos to them for taking the time to work it out and get it right. Ditto for Boeing and the MOM.

I think Boeing is actually in a tough spot relative to Airbus with their current and future line-up needs. I see Boeing needing to do two all-new clean-sheet programs , the "797" twin-aisle, if that's what it ends up being, and a larger narrow-body family. Airbus really only needs to do one all-new family to crossover the two new Boeing ones, as they will have a theoretical CS500/CS700(?) which will allow them to size their next offering perfectly between the CSeries and the A350 family. Boeing - even with the E195E2 on the bottom if that link ends up happening - will still need something similar to Airbus' CS500, let alone any theoretical CS700 derivative.

I hope they take whatever time they need to get it right, a.net bashing notwithstanding.
-Dave


”Yet somewhere in Iceland a great anger stirred in the soul of a troubled individual...” - Revelation
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11592
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:02 am

william wrote:

It been reported by trade mags the airlines were not interested in a Boeing A321, but you keep try sell something the customer says they are not interested in. I still looking for quotes of airline officials clamoring for a stretched A321 with a new wing. Such a plane of course would sell by nature being a part of the A320 family.


If have seen Boeing claiming the airlines want a big MoM, not the airlines them selves.

The only serious survey I saw, 85% of respondents want < 250 seats. Would that require an expensive twin aisle?
The narrow 757-300 can carry 280 seats. But, not what Boeing says, I know.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:55 am

keesje wrote:
And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today.

The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option.


Hmmmmmm. I'd like to see some facts around how those opinions could explain why the new NMA has not been launched. I'd love to see the definition of compatible workable option and also a source where Airbus has stated they have 3000 A321neo/lrs in the backlog.

If your comments are actually based on fact, i would be concerned for Boeing launching a new plane, but they sound more like opinion that is far from objective.

Here are sone statements from relatively objective sources

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. are among the operators that have signaled their interest in the 797, which is known within Boeing as the NMA -- for new middle-of-market aircraft.

“You’re going to see us participate in Boeing’s middle-of-the-market campaign,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian in a message to employees on the company’s internal website. “I hope that we’re going to be a launch customer on that program as well.”

https://www.google.com/amp/compositesma ... t-797/amp/

Joyce sees the Boeing 797 as an ideal candidate for transcontinental flights as well as some nearby Asian routes, making it a potential replacement for the Airbus A330s.

Speaking at today's briefing for the airline's half-yearly financial results, which saw Qantas turn in a bumper six months with a pre-tax profit of $976 million – a 15% boost over the same period last year – Joyce talked up the Boeing 797 as "a lighter aircraft than some of the widebody, twin-aisles that we have today."

“It has a range that’s designed to fly transcontinental and maybe into South-East Asia so it’s not over-spec'd for the domestic operation."



https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... boeing-797

Thomas Cook Group is a potential buyer of Boeing's tentative middle-of-the-market airliner, Chief Airlines Officer Christoph Debus said. Boeing has proposed to design and build a new mid-sized airplane, informally dubbed the 797. It would be larger than the 737 Max single-aisle family of jets but smaller than the widebody 787 Dreamliner. "It's definitely attractive for us," said Debus, who is also CEO of subsidiary Thomas Cook Airlines. "It's definitely on our radar and we are definitely interested in such an aircraft.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... d.amp.html

Obviously there are many interested airlines.
 
brian415
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 6:45 am

caverunner17 wrote:
They have replacements for the 757 and 767 already -- The 737 MAX 9 and 10 and the 787-8 and new build 767-300ERs that are available.

Why are they waiting? Because they don't feel the need to launch yet. They have plenty of orders for their current MAX aircraft and the technology to replace the 737 isn't quite there yet and worth the investment.

It's a financial decision and it make sense.

The 737 MAX 9 and 10 have RUBBISH field performance compared to 57s and 67s.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6544
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:18 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today.
.

Hmmmmmm. I'd like to see some facts around how those opinions could explain why the new NMA has not been launched. I'd love to see the definition of compatible workable option and also a source where Airbus has stated they have 3000 A321neo/lrs in the backlog.


you've questioned this before and got an acceptable answer.
to wit:
Airbus expects to deliver ~50% A321 in the very near future. ( 36% in 2017 )
backlog is better than 6000 frames today. Ergo: beyond fixed A321 orders there must be quite a bit of "family orders"
standing to be focused to the A321NEO(LR or not )
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7384
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:37 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today.

The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option.


Hmmmmmm. I'd like to see some facts around how those opinions could explain why the new NMA has not been launched. I'd love to see the definition of compatible workable option and also a source where Airbus has stated they have 3000 A321neo/lrs in the backlog.

If your comments are actually based on fact, i would be concerned for Boeing launching a new plane, but they sound more like opinion that is far from objective.

Here are sone statements from relatively objective sources

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. are among the operators that have signaled their interest in the 797, which is known within Boeing as the NMA -- for new middle-of-market aircraft.

“You’re going to see us participate in Boeing’s middle-of-the-market campaign,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian in a message to employees on the company’s internal website. “I hope that we’re going to be a launch customer on that program as well.”

https://www.google.com/amp/compositesma ... t-797/amp/

Joyce sees the Boeing 797 as an ideal candidate for transcontinental flights as well as some nearby Asian routes, making it a potential replacement for the Airbus A330s.

Speaking at today's briefing for the airline's half-yearly financial results, which saw Qantas turn in a bumper six months with a pre-tax profit of $976 million – a 15% boost over the same period last year – Joyce talked up the Boeing 797 as "a lighter aircraft than some of the widebody, twin-aisles that we have today."

“It has a range that’s designed to fly transcontinental and maybe into South-East Asia so it’s not over-spec'd for the domestic operation."



https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... boeing-797

Thomas Cook Group is a potential buyer of Boeing's tentative middle-of-the-market airliner, Chief Airlines Officer Christoph Debus said. Boeing has proposed to design and build a new mid-sized airplane, informally dubbed the 797. It would be larger than the 737 Max single-aisle family of jets but smaller than the widebody 787 Dreamliner. "It's definitely attractive for us," said Debus, who is also CEO of subsidiary Thomas Cook Airlines. "It's definitely on our radar and we are definitely interested in such an aircraft.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... d.amp.html

Obviously there are many interested airlines.


I assume the main reason is, that the wish list from airlines in different areas of the world are that divergent, that it is difficult to combine that in one frame. If than only one part of the market is chosen, the potential sales numbers shrink.

One example, according to Bloomberg, would be, that North American airlines want a light frame that does not bother about belly freight and the Asian airlines do want a frame able to carry belly freight.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet

Regarding the A321neo, current firm orders are 1,924 frames. I assume, with having possible conversions in mind and a few orders coming in this year, 3,000 A321neo ordered is not that far away.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7273
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:56 pm

Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.

- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity
 
mxaxai
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:52 pm

seahawk wrote:
Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.

- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity

Also: 757 replacement / A321 competitor / larger-than-737-plane, i. e. not more than 250 seats (single class), good on short haul <2500 nm but overall max range ~5000 nm. We could call this a TATL people mover.
 
parapente
Posts: 2652
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:56 pm

Re Seahawk -- Which I guess is why there has never been a 'one size fits all' aircraft in this 'middle market' sector.But...The moment you start breaking it up the business case drops away as Boeing are finding.Soooo they will come up with the best compromise.Since there is nothing in their MOM sector (as they have defined it) airlines will have compromise and take a 'nearly right' a/c.
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Why is Boeing waiting to officially launch the NMA or the "797?"

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:59 pm

Honestly, the smart thing to do would make the MOM or next clean sheet design to be the 737 replacement with a model list like the A320 series but bigger. Example:

797-700 170 seats
797-800 200 seats
797-900 230 seats
797-1000 250 seats

All with decent range of 3000-5000

So covers 737 and MOM and has fleet commonality with each other.

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