Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4257
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:09 pm

xdlx wrote:
Wish someone said lets clone the 752/3 in carbon fiber and call it a MAX.


Even if it was possible (spoiler: it isn't), your carbon fibre 757 with new engines would never be competitive with the A321. It is just too overbuilt, and the miniscule savings from a lighter material would never make up the difference.
The only thing worth reusing on the 757 is the fuselage. You would have to develop all-new and much smaller wings.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:37 pm

keesje wrote:
I think Boeing has opportunity for a new big NSA/NMA single aisle that is less clear for Airbus.

- A NSA/NMA able to use high BPR engine (>80 inch)
- A NSA/NMA able to use standard AKH cargo containers (satisfying EMEA/ ASIA customers)
- A NSA/NMA able to start off with Leap / PW GTF engines (reducing risk & investment)
- A NSA/NMA able providing growth to comfortably fly 250 people single class 4200NM
- A NSA/NMA topping existing NB in comfort, noise and flexibility
- A NSA/NMA beating the 30 yr A320 design in weight, materials and MRO

EIS wouldn't before 2025, hardly hurting the 737MAX but prevent A321 achieving total dominance later next decade.

Image


Airbus marketing wants us to believe that the 737 is an outdated design. They also want us to believe there is no market for the NMA. Your points echo what Airbus marketing wants us to believe since it will help them sell more A321neos now. However just because this is the view Airbus wants us to have doesnt mean it is a good business plan
 
acjbbj
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:41 pm

xdlx wrote:
Wish someone said lets clone the 752/3 in carbon fiber and call it a MAX.


Ever know how McDonnell-Douglas went from Hero to Zero? Refusing to come out with something new. That's why Boeing can't just roll out a "757 Max 2" or "757 Max 3" because it's time for something new. Also, it's worth mentioning that the 757's tooling is probably long gone by now, either destroyed or thrown away.
Douglas Aircraft Company
Born: 22 July 1921 (Santa Monica, CA)
Died: 23 May 2006 (Long Beach, CA), age 84 years 10 months 1 day
You will be missed.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13839
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:03 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Boeing has opportunity for a new big NSA/NMA single aisle that is less clear for Airbus.
)
- A NSA/NMA able to use high BPR engine (>80 inch)
- A NSA/NMA able to use standard AKH cargo containers (satisfying EMEA/ ASIA customers)
- A NSA/NMA able to start off with Leap / PW GTF engines (reducing risk & investment)
- A NSA/NMA able providing growth to comfortably fly 250 people single class 4200NM
- A NSA/NMA topping existing NB in comfort, noise and flexibility
- A NSA/NMA beating the 30 yr A320 design in weight, materials and MRO

EIS wouldn't before 2025, hardly hurting the 737MAX but prevent A321 achieving total dominance later next decade.

Image


Airbus marketing wants us to believe that the 737 is an outdated design. They also want us to believe there is no market for the NMA. Your points echo what Airbus marketing wants us to believe since it will help them sell more A321neos now. However just because this is the view Airbus wants us to have doesnt mean it is a good business plan


Apparently Boeing marketing is doubting if there is a market for the NMA, which seems less easy to handle / digest for some..

What do you feel is a good business plan? ( to get you bit out of your re-active Boeing defense situation :wink2: )
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:10 pm

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think Boeing has opportunity for a new big NSA/NMA single aisle that is less clear for Airbus.
)
- A NSA/NMA able to use high BPR engine (>80 inch)
- A NSA/NMA able to use standard AKH cargo containers (satisfying EMEA/ ASIA customers)
- A NSA/NMA able to start off with Leap / PW GTF engines (reducing risk & investment)
- A NSA/NMA able providing growth to comfortably fly 250 people single class 4200NM
- A NSA/NMA topping existing NB in comfort, noise and flexibility
- A NSA/NMA beating the 30 yr A320 design in weight, materials and MRO

EIS wouldn't before 2025, hardly hurting the 737MAX but prevent A321 achieving total dominance later next decade.

Image


Airbus marketing wants us to believe that the 737 is an outdated design. They also want us to believe there is no market for the NMA. Your points echo what Airbus marketing wants us to believe since it will help them sell more A321neos now. However just because this is the view Airbus wants us to have doesnt mean it is a good business plan


Apparently Boeing marketing is doubting if there is a market for the NMA, which seems less easy to handle / digest for some..

What do you feel is a good business plan? ( to get you bit out of your re-active Boeing defense situation :wink2: )


I think the NMA business case will close next year. I think a lot of work is going on behind the scenes to define the airplane. I also think the are working carefully on a design that can be built in a cost effective way and that they will get all the way through supplier selection for key components before launch. I think the design and plan for production is going to be much more mature at launch than it was for either the 787 or A350.

I think Boeing is trying to have very accurate information on price and schedule before they are willing to launch. They don’t want to repeat what Airbus did with the A350 when they prematurely launched the A350 and had to renegotiate all the initial sales contracts.

I think they are willing to lose some sales this year instead of prematurely launching. They don’t want to sell airplanes too cheap or have planes be late and have to make concessions or reparations and end up with significant deferred cost.

I am guessing as to what is actually going on, but what 2175301 posted seems quite reasonable to me:

2175301 wrote:
My information is that the 797 will be a go. 3 keys being worked out:

1) Boeing is investing a lot of up front money into design and production process so that they have a much more accurate idea of the final cost of manufacture (at less than half the risk value of before).

2) Boeing and the suppliers are working out their issues on how to make adequate profit. I don't know the final; but I suspect in some cases Boeing will pay for at least partial intellectual rights up front. In other cases the supplier will retain the rework/parts with perhaps a % going back to Boeing. It's a new reality of squeezed margins in today's business environment; and they will work it out (and Airbus will face the exact same issues for their next aircraft or major modification).

3) Engine availability issues are being worked out (which is affected by item 2 above). An interesting possibility: What if Boeing sinks $X Billion into engine development, and then the engine can be used by other aircraft makers... how much of a % does Boeing get of those sales. This reduces the risk to the engine maker - and adds future income to Boeing.

All these issues are solvable... and will be. Boeing and the Suppliers are working to ensure that initial investment and risk sharing is proportionate to future profit; and both sides are being very careful as both sides have been burned in the last decade or so. The old rules no longer work (and they did not work well for the last several new aircraft programs - regardless of Aircraft Manufacturer).

Have a great day,


Keesje, Obviously you and I have very different views. I have seen you post dozens of photos of what you think Boeing should be working on.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:25 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Is the A321 great? Perhaps or perhaps not, but it really sells. First the A321 outsells the 737-900/900ER by 3.2 to one. Than the A321neo outsells the 737-9 and 737-10 combined. The situation is so bad that Boeing is not giving any longer the sales for single model numbers, but is trying to hide the numbers of the bad selling models behind the numbers of the well selling 737-8. The A321neo has sold 1969 frames, what is the number for 737-9 and -10 combined 600, 700? Again about 3 to 1 for the A321neo. Both together, A321 and A321neo are getting near to 4000 frames.
And now comes the hammer, Airbus fans impinge on the future world beating A321 destroyer, the 797 or MOM or NMA. Eagerly awaited by Boeing fans to be launched at Paris, did not happen, to be launched at Farnborough, did not be happen, but now really really to be launched very soon, perhaps next year.

Since you directed yourself at me, I'll tell you that I'm a very happy aviation fanboy.

I don't really care about the narrow body relative sales numbers you use to pump yourself up. I know Boeing has as many orders as it can fill for a decade or so going forward. I see how healthy they are financially and how high their stock price is. I know if they wanted a bigger share of the narrow body market they could choose to invest in more production facilities like Airbus did with XFW #4 but they choose not to. I think they're content with what they have. I think there's danger of over producing. And I'm very happy that Airbus is financially secure and making great aircraft. I can't wait for my future trip to TLS to view A320 #1 and all the other things they have in the museum there.

I don't care if NMA becomes another paper frame forever, just like I didn't care when Sonic Cruiser turned out to never materialize. It's been far far far from a done deal every step of the way, in case you haven't noticed. I'm fascinated to see what ideas they are trying out, and what things they suggest are important going forward. I'm sure they are learning things that will be useful with or without a NMA.

I'm also fascinated to see what Airbus is doing with the A321 going forward. You may have noticed my posts in the threads about where to add additional fuel. It'd be really fascinating to see if they end up reviving the double bogie as Jon O mentioned.

I'm puzzled why Airbus fans like you and the K-man enjoy making posts suggesting that others are suffering. I guess it goes along with the victimization complex you keep propping up. Oh well, whatever gets you through the day...


Well said.

To add to the response, I don’t see the NMA as an A321 destroyer. The A321neo represents less than 20% of current narrowbody orders and Boeing already has a competing product. I think the A321neo will continue to sell well and the NMA will slot above it. How many of the longer range A321LR versions have been ordered? Less than 100 as far as I know. That alone is not a big enough market. I see the NMA positioning closer to the A330 market and filling the gap currently flown by 767s. Most of the A330 being delivered now are going to China and being used for short to medium haul. There is a big opportunity for a lighter more efficient 270 seat 2-class plane. It may also become the domestic freighter of choice for SF/DHL/FedEx/UPS as well.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5074
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:06 am

I'm not sure why Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen. And why Airbus Fanboys need to keep saying it won't happen or that it will be a failure if it happens.

For all I know, NMA could be distraction and Boeing is hard at work with NSA and completely surprise Airbus with something that will overwhelming the A320 series and A321NEO. It's not cut and dry launching NMA is a good thing for Boeing and bad thing for Airbus. That's why they haven't made a decision yet.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:16 am

tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen. And why Airbus Fanboys need to keep saying it won't happen or that it will be a failure if it happens.

For all I know, NMA could be distraction and Boeing is hard at work with NSA and completely surprise Airbus with something that will overwhelming the A320 series and A321NEO. It's not cut and dry launching NMA is a good thing for Boeing and bad thing for Airbus. That's why they haven't made a decision yet.


I think that is a fair statement.

I think the NMA will happen, but I could be wrong. I think Airbus is worried about it undercutting the A330neo market in China. The domestic market in a China is key to keeping A330neo production rates at sustainable levels to compete with the 787 on price. Without the Chinese orders, the A330neo may not have a business case.

I also think Airbus wants to conversation to be about how the NMA competes with the A321 so they can continue to promote how great the A321 is despite the NMA being notably bigger. I think the A321neo will continue to sell well.
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:27 am

tphuang wrote:
For all I know, NMA could be distraction and Boeing is hard at work with NSA and completely surprise Airbus with something that will overwhelming the A320 series and A321NEO. It's not cut and dry launching NMA is a good thing for Boeing and bad thing for Airbus. That's why they haven't made a decision yet.

I'm not so sure that this could be plausible. In civil aviation, where products last decades and where launching a mistimed/ poor product line could potentially put a company out of business, I'm not sure either Boeing or Airbus would want to surprise the other with a new product line.

Neither would want to surprise the customers either, simply because both aircraft design on the OEM side and fleet planning on the customer side are done with years of market research and planning. If Boeing (or Airbus) was working on a secret program like that, I don't see it doing so without having the airline customers in the loop. And if airline customers were in the loop, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore. Even if no one managed to leak out info (and we know lots of CEOs negotiate through the press), we would see a slowing down of orders for the current family of aircraft - the 737MAX and the A320neo. We saw this just before the A320neo was launched. But we don't see this now. Therefore, I don't think it's plausible that Boeing (or Airbus) is doing any sort of detailed design stuff, beyond concept sketches and low-fidelity designs, for an A320/ 737 replacement yet.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:32 am

I think that Boeing should focus on making a next generation single aisle aircraft in a modular fashion so it can use the 100 to 200 pax capacity and wings to accommodate such TOW and capacity.

This middle of market won't happen because its a niche aircraft than even if they sell 2000 copies the investment will be <HUGE! and they may never recover the $$$$.

Better to make the best Single aisle and wait a decade to begin replenishing the never ending SA Market.

We may like new aircraft but they have to make business sense. Also the 787 is now making a lot of $$$$ why shoot yo in the foot with your own product...the 757-300 is dead for a reason!

Regards
TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
VS11
Posts: 1656
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:11 am

seahawk wrote:

The big question for me still is: What would customers buy if there is no 797?


When exactly? Because with the orders in recent years, most airlines will not be needing new planes for the next 10-15 years. As we learnt today, AA will be flying 767s for the next 3 years and then use 787 so they are off the list. United and Qantas are the only two airlines on record to need a smaller widebody. It just seems the market for this unicorn airplane is fairly small to earn a decent return after development and manufacturing.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:49 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I also think Airbus wants to conversation to be about how the NMA competes with the A321 so they can continue to promote how great the A321 is despite the NMA being notably bigger. I think the A321neo will continue to sell well.


Nobody is denying that there is a market for the NMA, but the debate is on how big the market is and how to define the aircraft when you have conflicting requirements from potential customers. Of course, the A321 isn't going to cut it at the top end of the spectrum, but at the lower end, Airbus does have the capability to fill that void with an existing type that is just another variant of their bread and butter narrow-body. There's nothing out of the ordinary about Airbus wanting to defend this space from the NMA. If you thought that the NMA doesn't compete in this space, then its business case looks even more iffy.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:54 am

TheRedBaron wrote:
I think that Boeing should focus on making a next generation single aisle aircraft in a modular fashion so it can use the 100 to 200 pax capacity and wings to accommodate such TOW and capacity.

This middle of market won't happen because its a niche aircraft than even if they sell 2000 copies the investment will be <HUGE! and they may never recover the $$$$.

Better to make the best Single aisle and wait a decade to begin replenishing the never ending SA Market.

We may like new aircraft but they have to make business sense. Also the 787 is now making a lot of $$$$ why shoot yo in the foot with your own product...the 757-300 is dead for a reason!

Regards
TRB


Why would they focus on a new narrowbody when the 737 is sold out for 6+ years with around 5000MAX commitments/orders?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:32 am

VSMUT wrote:
xdlx wrote:
Wish someone said lets clone the 752/3 in carbon fiber and call it a MAX.


Even if it was possible (spoiler: it isn't), your carbon fibre 757 with new engines would never be competitive with the A321. It is just too overbuilt, and the miniscule savings from a lighter material would never make up the difference.
The only thing worth reusing on the 757 is the fuselage. You would have to develop all-new and much smaller wings.

Competitive in what measurement?

Measurement 1:
A carbon fibre 757 if it retained similar dimensions, weights and wing area would have close to 6000nm range. So on a 5000nm route it would be the other way around the A321LR would not be competitive as it could only fly that far while empty.

Measurement 2:
The carbon 757 would easily carry more than double the payload weight of the A321LR on a 4000nm flight. That is double the payload for maybe 20-25% extra fuel burn. Thats significantly less fuel burn per kg. So the A321LR would not be competitive against the carbon 757 in this form.

Measurement 3:
The 757-300 length would probably carry 20% more passengers. So in a slot restricted airport in peak hour it could get 20% more passenger revenue compared to the A321.

Measurement 4:
At the other end of the market competing with larger widebodies on a 5000nm route the carbon 757 would be competitive against the 787-8 and A330NEO. It could carry 50-60% of the passengers with 50-60% of the fuel burn. Airlines could then operate 12 carbon 757's instead of 8 787's and open more thin destinations and increase frequency which is the prefered trend for the bulk of the market.

Though a small carbon widebody which is what Boeing is aiming for would probably be less competitive conpared to a carbon 757 in terms of measurement 1 and 2 but more competitive in terms of measurment 3 and 4.

Neither carbon narrowbody or widebody option would be competitive against the current A321NEO on small and short routes. But that is currently the 737's market.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:13 am

If a plane can take 270 people across the Atlantic for 10000 gallons or less, there will be a large market. Especially if it has a reasonable business class section with lie-flat seating. This is why airlines are expressing interest.

An A320NEO starts with 7000 gal of fuel. To cross the Atlantic, 3 ACTs are needed. Each holding 788 gallons. 2364 extra gallons. 9364 total gallons. For 200 pax. Not much different from the 11500 gallons of a 757. For shorter trips where the extra fuel isn't needed, the A320NEO does well. But after 3 ACTs, most of the advantage evaporates. Because the A320 wing is small for TATL ranges.

It starts with the engines, but the wings make the difference.. A 797 with the right wings will change the game.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:17 am

I should also say that this market should be addressed by a 787 derivative for cost reasons. New smaller but not shorter wing; enlarged A320NEO engines. Call it a day. Same for Airbus; put a smaller but not shorter composite wing on an A332 and enlarged A320NEO engines. It won't be quite optimum, but they should be able to do it for $1 billion plus the cost of the engine changes.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:19 am

I think that Primera, WOW, DY, and other low cost TATL operators are going to fragment the TATL market so much that the big airlines will be forced to make a decision. Go big or downsize.

The remaining market will be transcontinental, Europe and the U.S.
If Boeing launch a MOM for that market, Airbus only needs to give the A321 a stretch and a MTOW increase to match it. They don't even need to build a new wing.

I think that Boeing should stay conservative and do what it has always done for half a century: improve the B737.
Improvements that can make the B737 more competitive: higher MTOW, a bigger wing and landing gear, a new cockpit with the same layout but more like a B787 cockpit, a new rounder radome, a whole new avionics architecture, container capability with its own new container format.
The same way that it went from the Classics to the NG, and then to the Max-10, there is no reason to limit the B737.

There isn't enough new technology to build a NSA right now. Even the latest cleansheet A220 barely beats the NEO and the MAX in economic terms.
To build a NSA you need a step-change in technology and you need to own the technology.
It has to be something radically different.

Someone talked about the B767.
I think that the B767 has potential if adapted properly.
It should be reengined but not with RR GEnx but by a scaled up version of either the CFM Leap or the PW1000G. The fuel burn has to be midway between a A321 and a B788, ie 3.5 tons an hour if possible.
8 abreast can be made more comfortable with sidewall panel tweakings. They can take weight out by updating avionics and cabin furnishings.
The wings and radome can also get some aerodynamic improvements.
Why bother to launch a whole new airplane when it will end up very close in specs to the B767?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4257
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
xdlx wrote:
Wish someone said lets clone the 752/3 in carbon fiber and call it a MAX.


Even if it was possible (spoiler: it isn't), your carbon fibre 757 with new engines would never be competitive with the A321. It is just too overbuilt, and the miniscule savings from a lighter material would never make up the difference.
The only thing worth reusing on the 757 is the fuselage. You would have to develop all-new and much smaller wings.

Competitive in what measurement?


Economically.

The 757 is overbuilt and overweight. The slight weight savings from lighter materials are a drop in the ocean with regard to how outmatched the 757 is. For the same mission, the 757s wing is 50% bigger than the A321s. That means 50% more weight to drag around. The fuselage of the 757 is 6% longer, but it doesn't carry any more passengers. With a small cargo compartment, it lacks the cargo capacity. It has an OEW that is over 16% greater than the A321N. The 757 is so overweight that it has to use much bigger engines.


RJMAZ wrote:
A carbon fibre 757 if it retained similar dimensions, weights and wing area would have close to 6000nm range. So on a 5000nm route it would be the other way around the A321LR would not be competitive as it could only fly that far while empty.


Thats 2000 nm more range, do you have anything to back that up, or are you just pulling random numbers out of your hat?
Second, 1000 nm more range over the A321 means a significantly heavier airframe too, putting it (yet again) at an economic disadvantage.
Third, there is no indication that the airlines are asking for that much range. They are quite content with what the A321LR is offering.


RJMAZ wrote:
The carbon 757 would easily carry more than double the payload weight of the A321LR on a 4000nm flight. That is double the payload for maybe 20-25% extra fuel burn. Thats significantly less fuel burn per kg. So the A321LR would not be competitive against the carbon 757 in this form.


Lol, thats highly optimistic. Again, weight savings from CFRP are minor. There is no way you would achieve double the payload of an A321LR.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:19 am

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Is the A321 great? Perhaps or perhaps not, but it really sells. First the A321 outsells the 737-900/900ER by 3.2 to one. Than the A321neo outsells the 737-9 and 737-10 combined. The situation is so bad that Boeing is not giving any longer the sales for single model numbers, but is trying to hide the numbers of the bad selling models behind the numbers of the well selling 737-8. The A321neo has sold 1969 frames, what is the number for 737-9 and -10 combined 600, 700? Again about 3 to 1 for the A321neo. Both together, A321 and A321neo are getting near to 4000 frames.
And now comes the hammer, Airbus fans impinge on the future world beating A321 destroyer, the 797 or MOM or NMA. Eagerly awaited by Boeing fans to be launched at Paris, did not happen, to be launched at Farnborough, did not be happen, but now really really to be launched very soon, perhaps next year.

Since you directed yourself at me, I'll tell you that I'm a very happy aviation fanboy.

I don't really care about the narrow body relative sales numbers you use to pump yourself up. I know Boeing has as many orders as it can fill for a decade or so going forward. I see how healthy they are financially and how high their stock price is. I know if they wanted a bigger share of the narrow body market they could choose to invest in more production facilities like Airbus did with XFW #4 but they choose not to. I think they're content with what they have. I think there's danger of over producing. And I'm very happy that Airbus is financially secure and making great aircraft. I can't wait for my future trip to TLS to view A320 #1 and all the other things they have in the museum there.

I don't care if NMA becomes another paper frame forever, just like I didn't care when Sonic Cruiser turned out to never materialize. It's been far far far from a done deal every step of the way, in case you haven't noticed. I'm fascinated to see what ideas they are trying out, and what things they suggest are important going forward. I'm sure they are learning things that will be useful with or without a NMA.

I'm also fascinated to see what Airbus is doing with the A321 going forward. You may have noticed my posts in the threads about where to add additional fuel. It'd be really fascinating to see if they end up reviving the double bogie as Jon O mentioned.

I'm puzzled why Airbus fans like you and the K-man enjoy making posts suggesting that others are suffering. I guess it goes along with the victimization complex you keep propping up. Oh well, whatever gets you through the day...


I did answer to a post of Newbiepilot, a context you removed, perhaps because it did not fit your narrative. I really understand the numbers game. If in a certain market Airbus sells better than Boeing it is of course uninteresting to talk about sales numbers, it just does not change the fact, that in a few years there will be 3800 A321 out there. Newbiepilot started out with a sales number, slightly inflating the sales of the 737 max and than complained about the A321 and Airbus fan boys talking about it.

The MOM, perhaps Boeing will launch it next year, into a market that is steadily shrinking to a big part because of the enormous sales of the A321 and Boeings answer to it, the 737-10 is also nibbling there. I believe the MOM will quietly go away, because there is no business case and the number 797 will be used for something else.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:22 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
Why would they focus on a new narrowbody when the 737 is sold out for 6+ years with around 5000MAX commitments/orders?

how solid are those actually? They appear to have been sold under bargain conditions (.. including low barriers to cancel?).
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:45 am

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Why would they focus on a new narrowbody when the 737 is sold out for 6+ years with around 5000MAX commitments/orders?

how solid are those actually? They appear to have been sold under bargain conditions (.. including low barriers to cancel?).



We say sold out for 6+ years as a barrier - but if Boeing were to announce a 737 replacement we are talking 6+ years until entry into service and then initially only at low volumes. It would take at least 10+ years to replace the 737 at the same volumes.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:48 am

VSMUT wrote:
Economically.

The 757 is overbuilt and overweight. The slight weight savings from lighter materials are a drop in the ocean with regard to how outmatched the 757 is. For the same mission, the 757s wing is 50% bigger than the A321s. That means 50% more weight to drag around. The fuselage of the 757 is 6% longer, but it doesn't carry any more passengers. With a small cargo compartment, it lacks the cargo capacity. It has an OEW that is over 16% greater than the A321N. The 757 is so overweight that it has to use much bigger engines.

Nonsense. That same argument would mean the 787-10 is much better economically than the A350-1000. Both aircraft have the same cabin size/area but the Airbus weighs significantly more with a bigger wing and more powerful engines.

VSMUT wrote:
Thats 2000 nm more range, do you have anything to back that up, or are you just pulling random numbers out of your hat?

Nearing 6000nm but probably around 5500nm.

Half of the increass would be from new engines. Pretty standard.

A quarter of the gain would come from increased fuel. If the empty weight is reduced by even 5% would allow for more than an hour of extra fuel before hitting the existing maximum takeoff weight.

The remaining quarter would come from aerodynamic improvements such as winglets, flap joins, wing root interface, new nose etc.

VSMUT wrote:
Second, 1000 nm more range over the A321 means a significantly heavier airframe too, putting it (yet again) at an economic disadvantage.Third, there is no indication that the airlines are asking for that much range. They are quite content with what the A321LR is offering.

Again the A350-1000 vs 787-10. Is the heavier frame at a disadvantage? They both have equal orders. We havent had a narrowbody with 5500+nm range available for sale to determine if airlines want that much range.


VSMUT wrote:
Lol, thats highly optimistic. Again, weight savings from CFRP are minor. There is no way you would achieve double the payload of an A321LR.

Not optimistic at all. Payload usually drops off like a cliff once you near maximum range. Aircraft at max payload cant fly anywhere near their wikipedia listed range. They can also fly further than the wikipedia range if you reduce payload.

Take this slightly outdated payload range chart for example.

[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQchtsp5aG8IdBJZp1OTZYwvkq8f6kZGnfCHTPy6Eo120EUegUFf5ZO6M7YeA
[/img]

At 4000nm the A321LR can carry 18T. At 4500nm only 10T. A carbon neo of the 757-200 would add 1000nm quite comfortably. That would shift the payload range curve to the right by 1000nm. So it would be lifting 25T at 4500nm while the A321LR would struggle to lift 10T.

A real life example of this is the A350-900 can lift only 20% more payload than the 787-9 at 7500nm. But the A350-900 can lift double the payload of the 787-9 at 8500nm. Singapore airlines can fly to Los Angeles with the A359 but the 787-9 just canceled this route due to the reduced payload. This pushes the fuel burn per kg theough the roof.

In the case of the 787-10 vs A350-1000 the Airbus can lift THREE times the payload at 7500nm. So even if the 787-10 burns less fuel because it is lighter it still burns more fuel per kg.

The Boeing NMA will be a widebody.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:51 am

jagraham wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:

There were over 1000 767s built and the freigther version is still in production. The 767 proved that a small widebody is viable


Just that it was not small at the time and the market was totally different.

The 737 ended with the 737-400. Then you had the 757 and the 727 filling the next gap in size and range, followed by the 747 in the Boeing line-up.

That looks very different today. The 737 covers most of the market up to the 757 and the 787 and 777 cover everything from 767-300ER to 747 at the time the 767 was designed.

The big question for me still is: What would customers buy if there is no 797?


Without a 797, or an Airbus equivalent (which the A321LR is not), airlines will continue to buy 787s and A330NEOs..


And that is imho the biggest problem of the 797. The 787 should capture 60-70% of the market against the A330NEO, so the 797 would mostly cannibalize the 787.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:23 am

keesje wrote:
- Engine makers remain cool to the NMA.



This.

Engines drive everything. If the engine people don't see a plausible, viable case for the 797 today, there is little probability of launch in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in 3-5 years time there will be more clarity...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
AleksW
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:16 am

TheRedBaron wrote:
I think that Boeing should focus on making a next generation single aisle aircraft in a modular fashion so it can use the 100 to 200 pax capacity and wings to accommodate such TOW and capacity.


I agree. I see it as a carbon, narrow body airliner. A true step forward from the current B737-10 or A321LR. Similar in size, but not a twin-isle. Perhaps something similar to the Russian MS-21 with slightly wider fuselage, wide enough for the comfortable long haul 3+3 seating. Depending on configuration, you could easily walk past a trolley, or an airline could make wide and comfortable seats even in Y class. That new generation of narrow body jets would implement all these advancements in aerodynamics 787 and A350 have.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:28 am

Faro wrote:
keesje wrote:
- Engine makers remain cool to the NMA.



This.

Engines drive everything. If the engine people don't see a plausible, viable case for the 797 today, there is little probability of launch in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in 3-5 years time there will be more clarity...


Faro

They have a funny way of indicating it’s not plausible: by submitting detailed responses June 27th. Sole source or dual source is a real question, and the response allowed Boeing last month to discuss freighter variant needs with FedEx prior to moving forward with any production system industrial plans. Again this thread is all driven by some fake news I think, or a Scott Hamilton/keesje echo chamber of Boeing doom.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/boeing- ... plane.html

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1397595
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:53 am

Just because you submit a proposal does not say much.

The question is if they submitted the engine, that is nearly one generation better than PW1100 and LEAP while not costing more and ready for a 2025 EiS. Rumours I heard say, that 2 proposals do not want to guarantee the desired fuel burn performance, while 1 does not want to guarantee the unit price.All are said to be unhappy with the desired EiS and are not willing to sign huge penalty clauses.

Imho it is obvious which OEM could be behind each of those 3 rumours.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:06 pm

Faro wrote:
keesje wrote:
- Engine makers remain cool to the NMA.



This.

Engines drive everything. If the engine people don't see a plausible, viable case for the 797 today, there is little probability of launch in the foreseeable future. Perhaps in 3-5 years time there will be more clarity...


Faro


I tend to agree with this. And would add further that the engine makers are in disarray right now.

The airlines also seem tepid to the MOM right now imho
 
tealnz
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:30 pm

2175301 wrote:
My information is that the 797 will be a go.
...
All these issues are solvable... and will be. Boeing and the Suppliers are working to ensure that initial investment and risk sharing is proportionate to future profit; and both sides are being very careful as both sides have been burned in the last decade or so. The old rules no longer work (and they did not work well for the last several new aircraft programs - regardless of Aircraft Manufacturer).

That all sounds plausible.

2175301 wrote:
3) Engine availability issues are being worked out (which is affected by item 2 above). An interesting possibility: What if Boeing sinks $X Billion into engine development, and then the engine can be used by other aircraft makers... how much of a % does Boeing get of those sales. This reduces the risk to the engine maker - and adds future income to Boeing.

That could only result in engine exclusivity (on which Boeing and GE/CFM already have form). No way Airbus will pay a premium for an engine in which Boeing holds a development share.
 
tealnz
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:56 pm

jagraham wrote:
If a plane can take 270 people across the Atlantic for 10000 gallons or less, there will be a large market. Especially if it has a reasonable business class section with lie-flat seating. This is why airlines are expressing interest.

An A320NEO starts with 7000 gal of fuel. To cross the Atlantic, 3 ACTs are needed. Each holding 788 gallons. 2364 extra gallons. 9364 total gallons. For 200 pax. Not much different from the 11500 gallons of a 757. For shorter trips where the extra fuel isn't needed, the A320NEO does well. But after 3 ACTs, most of the advantage evaporates. Because the A320 wing is small for TATL ranges.

It starts with the engines, but the wings make the difference.. A 797 with the right wings will change the game.

In the months ahead it seems highly likely we'll see the announcement of an A321XLR with an integral belly tank carrying the equivalent of four ACTs worth of fuel. With an additional 500nm or more range. Meaning central Europe-US range. This will definitely change the game.

But I still think we'll see an NMA from Boeing once they have the design, production and suppliers lined up to achieve a competitive cost. There's clearly a market for it.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:59 pm

RE: 77 and 79, now we are getting into the realm of fanciful internet rumors, rather than sourced information, so I'll bow out again. I don't find "I've heard rumors about this confidential hundreds of millions of dollar contract offer" nor do I think Boeing offered/solicited an option for themselves to finance the engine development. That's frankly a bit laughable at best, on both counts.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:25 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Why would they focus on a new narrowbody when the 737 is sold out for 6+ years with around 5000MAX commitments/orders?

how solid are those actually? They appear to have been sold under bargain conditions (.. including low barriers to cancel?).


I am not sure you mean by how solid they are. Cancellations happen and rates are pretty similar at Airbus and Boeing. Airbus has had 884 orders canceled in the last 5 years compared to 725 cancellations at Boeing.

Neither the A320neo family nor 737MAX are being sold under bargain conditions. Margins are quite high
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:25 pm

seahawk wrote:
And that is imho the biggest problem of the 797. The 787 should capture 60-70% of the market against the A330NEO, so the 797 would mostly cannibalize the 787.

I disagree.

The 797 will definitely create new sales. Or more accurately bring sales forward. Usually when new fuel efficient widebodies come into the fleet the old widebodies get moved to short/medium routes as the fuel efficiency doesnt matter much. The benefit of fuel efficient 787's works out more expensive compared to maintaining the older aircraft.

If the 797 is launched it will target and provide excellent efficiency on these short/medium routes. It will speed up the retirement of older A330's as the cost benefit of maintaining old A330's will turn in favour of new 797.

I would estimate you would create up to 500 additional new sales for the 797 due to early retirement before you start cannibalising a single 787/A330NEO order.

Despite what we may hear the 737-8 is extremely competitive against the A320 in the short haul role. It is only the upper end of the narrowbody market where the A321 is clearly superior. The 797 will cannibalise the upper end of the narrowbody so Boeing will capture more total sales by taking orders off Airbus. The 797 will effectively delay the replacement of the 737 by a decade as Boeing will have a product to fill the 737's weak spot. That means Boeing saves money by delaying NSA.

So you would have 1000+ orders before you've cannibalised a single 787 or 737 sale.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:42 pm

texl1649 wrote:
RE: 77 and 79, now we are getting into the realm of fanciful internet rumors, rather than sourced information, so I'll bow out again. I don't find "I've heard rumors about this confidential hundreds of millions of dollar contract offer" nor do I think Boeing offered/solicited an option for themselves to finance the engine development. That's frankly a bit laughable at best, on both counts.


It is not about contracts it is about the situation the engine OEMs are in at the moment. They all have put out new engines just recently or are still developing new engines. Everyone of them had some kind of issues with their newer engines that triggered penalty clauses in the contracts and had a serious impact on the revenue stream of the new engines, at the same time deliveries of the old engines are dropping.

Imho neither of them will be motivated to guarantee a low price, cutting edge technology engine with an EiS of 2025. Less if there is a competitor for the application. Much less if Boeing is trying to cut prices and generally come up with harsher contract penalties.

And most importantly neither of them is desperate. If there is no 797, PW has a good change of getting a nice share of the A320/A321/A321XLR market, same as GE/CFM who also has all the 737 sales bagged. GE can hope for some nice 787 deals and RR for 787 + A330NEO deals.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:43 pm

keesje wrote:
Apparently Boeing marketing is doubting if there is a market for the NMA, which seems less easy to handle / digest for some..

Nothing you or Hamilton have posted is saying there is no market for NMA.
What is being said is that getting a workable business case to address that market is difficult and is taking a long time.
That's the same thing that has been said since the first mention of NMA.
Boeing has told us that there will be no announcement this year.
CEO McAllister even stated they have till end 2019 to make a decision.
Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... is-to.html
Yet you and Scott find something noteworthy about what is already well understood?

tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen.

This isn't true.
The fact that it might not happen has been part of the story right from the start.
Anyone paying attention, fanboy or otherwise, understands this.
Anyone who doesn't IMHO is pushing an agenda.
For instance, some have web sites that need clicks.
Others are more difficult to understand.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Apparently Boeing marketing is doubting if there is a market for the NMA, which seems less easy to handle / digest for some..

Nothing you or Hamilton have posted is saying there is no market for NMA.
What is being said is that getting a workable business case to address that market is difficult and is taking a long time.
That's the same thing that has been said since the first mention of NMA.
Boeing has told us that there will be no announcement this year.
CEO McAllister even stated they have till end 2019 to make a decision.
Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... is-to.html
Yet you and Scott find something noteworthy about what is already well understood?
.


I think the business case comes down to: Can Boeing build and sell the NMA so it will sell for the price of a 737-11/A322 or will it sell for the price of a A330-700/787-7?

I think the market exists, but only if the airplane can be sold for the right price. Narrowbody prices are on a curve that an airplane X% bigger can be sold for Y% more money. I believe the NMA is trying to be on the same curve as the narrowbodies. Historically there has been a step change between narrowbodies and widebodies since the widebody price is quite a bit more per seat than a narrowbody. The NMA needs to be priced like a narrowbody for it to truly capture big orders. It needs to be priced like how Airbus would price am A322 or A323 or how a 737-11 would be sold for.

If production costs start to climb too much, the NMA will be competing against the much more capable 787 for sales on the widebody curve. The NMA won’t do as well if it is priced like am A330-700 or 787-7 would be. If the NMA is too expensive, airlines won’t be able to afford the NMA and will instead buy A321neos even though the CASM may be higher. There just isn’t enough profit margin for airlines to be interested in an NMA priced like a 787 shrink.

Boeing missed pretty badly with production costs on the 787. Fortunately there was enough demand for the 787 so Boeing was able to continue selling the airplane while it took years to get production costs down. I don’t think the NMA has as much headroom in case production costs exceed the targets.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4109
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:45 pm

" No way Airbus will pay a premium for an engine in which Boeing holds a development share."

If someone helps capitalize a new, moderately bigger, and more efficient engine why would Airbus not be happy to buy it, regardless of who capitalized it?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:48 pm

VS11 wrote:
United and Qantas are the only two airlines on record to need a smaller widebody.


Not quite. DL also has significant needs in this area, primarily to replace their large 763ER fleet, but also for some domestic upgauging and short haul international growth. Their interest in NMA is real and have publicly stated on multiple occasions that they would like to be a 797 launch customer.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19746
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:56 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
Apparently Boeing marketing is doubting if there is a market for the NMA, which seems less easy to handle / digest for some..

Nothing you or Hamilton have posted is saying there is no market for NMA.
What is being said is that getting a workable business case to address that market is difficult and is taking a long time.
That's the same thing that has been said since the first mention of NMA.
Boeing has told us that there will be no announcement this year.
CEO McAllister even stated they have till end 2019 to make a decision.
Ref: https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... is-to.html
Yet you and Scott find something noteworthy about what is already well understood?
.


I think the business case comes down to: Can Boeing build and sell the NMA so it will sell for the price of a 737-11/A322 or will it sell for the price of a A330-700/787-7?

I think the market exists, but only if the airplane can be sold for the right price. Narrowbody prices are on a curve that an airplane X% bigger can be sold for Y% more money. I believe the NMA is trying to be on the same curve as the narrowbodies. Historically there has been a step change between narrowbodies and widebodies since the widebody price is quite a bit more per seat than a narrowbody. The NMA needs to be priced like a narrowbody for it to truly capture big orders. It needs to be priced like how Airbus would price am A322 or A323 or how a 737-11 would be sold for.

If production costs start to climb too much, the NMA will be competing against the much more capable 787 for sales on the widebody curve. The NMA won’t do as well if it is priced like am A330-700 or 787-7 would be. If the NMA is too expensive, airlines won’t be able to afford the NMA and will instead buy A321neos even though the CASM may be higher. There just isn’t enough profit margin for airlines to be interested in an NMA priced like a 787 shrink.

Boeing missed pretty badly with production costs on the 787. Fortunately there was enough demand for the 787 so Boeing was able to continue selling the airplane while it took years to get production costs down. I don’t think the NMA has as much headroom in case production costs exceed the targets.

Most excellent post and logic.

Widebodies do come with too much of a price premium for the market. I believe the delays are to better design for manufacturing.

I also believe Boeing's starting pricing was too low for what they asked for. This will have to be the most automated production ever.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:05 pm

lightsaber wrote:
This will have to be the most automated production ever.

True, but be careful of what you wish for. Tesla found that they went too far with the automation. If Boeing goes too far they might end up spending a lot more time and money than if they just used humans for certain tasks.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:08 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
" No way Airbus will pay a premium for an engine in which Boeing holds a development share."

If someone helps capitalize a new, moderately bigger, and more efficient engine why would Airbus not be happy to buy it, regardless of who capitalized it?

I expect it’s academic - someone noted up thread that there’s no evidence of this happening. But in such a scenario Boeing as a major investor would have no incentive to price the engine competitively for an Airbus airframe. And Airbus would have every incentive to select a more competitively priced alternative engine.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19746
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This will have to be the most automated production ever.

True, but be careful of what you wish for. Tesla found that they went too far with the automation. If Boeing goes too far they might end up spending a lot more time and money than if they just used humans for certain tasks.

Automation requires a slower ramp.

Economics of scale throwing bodies: cut costs 10% for every doubling of production.

Current:. 13% cost savings per doubling of production.

Easy improvements:.
Design for CFRP weave (wings?).

3D printing of larger assemblies (36 month+ lead time on muti million dollar tools).

Optimize assembly process (this takes 1 year of engineering and then buy the tools and lay out production).

The issue with Tesla is it takes a year to setup and debug an automated line and another approximately 2 years to optimize it. Automobiles are barely produced long enough to optimize the line.

I can be done. I'm now purchasing assemblies for 3% of the cost of 3 years ago. No, that isn't a typo and yes, I cherry picked my most extreme example. But one hyper kid design engineer paired with a salty stress engineer has already reduced our costs per aircraft by hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a reason I know the order delay on the machines. We don't have enough to keep up with one pair of engineers, much less a bunch of teams as Boeing would assign.

Right now the limit on reducing aircraft costs is a few tool vendors. They have raised their prices and increased production, but no one will pay the prices needed to exponentially increase tool production. If Boeing orders the tools in enough quantity, delivered over 3+ years, this log jam would be broken. Downside is automakers and others might find their wait time grows... Supply and demand is facinating.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:28 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This will have to be the most automated production ever.

True, but be careful of what you wish for. Tesla found that they went too far with the automation. If Boeing goes too far they might end up spending a lot more time and money than if they just used humans for certain tasks.

Automation requires a slower ramp.

Economics of scale throwing bodies: cut costs 10% for every doubling of production.

Current:. 13% cost savings per doubling of production.

Easy improvements:.
Design for CFRP weave (wings?).

3D printing of larger assemblies (36 month+ lead time on muti million dollar tools).

Optimize assembly process (this takes 1 year of engineering and then buy the tools and lay out production).

The issue with Tesla is it takes a year to setup and debug an automated line and another approximately 2 years to optimize it. Automobiles are barely produced long enough to optimize the line.

I can be done. I'm now purchasing assemblies for 3% of the cost of 3 years ago. No, that isn't a typo and yes, I cherry picked my most extreme example. But one hyper kid design engineer paired with a salty stress engineer has already reduced our costs per aircraft by hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a reason I know the order delay on the machines. We don't have enough to keep up with one pair of engineers, much less a bunch of teams as Boeing would assign.

Right now the limit on reducing aircraft costs is a few tool vendors. They have raised their prices and increased production, but no one will pay the prices needed to exponentially increase tool production. If Boeing orders the tools in enough quantity, delivered over 3+ years, this log jam would be broken. Downside is automakers and others might find their wait time grows... Supply and demand is facinating.

Lightsaber


However there is a problem compared to automotive OEMs. Most OEMs in the automotive industry keep their IP in house and can therefore easily use the same production technology for different customers Boeing however wants control of the IP and that means that a production line could not easily switch the customer it is working for. As an OEM you are looking at serious upfront costs, very small profit on the parts you make for Boeing therefore a high risk if the numbers are lower than expected, no direct access to the higher yielding spare parts market and worst of all no option to quickly use the technology or the production line for other customers as you won´t own the IP, which also means that Boeing can replace you more easily in a few years.

Imho it is very difficult to make a lasting business case based on production costs advantages over the two products with the highest production in the industry and therefore the best economics of scale. Especially as the old style metal frames can be a blessing, if you look at additive manufacturing.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:28 pm

I believe the engine manufacturers are lukewarm because of Boeing's terms.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:37 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
This will have to be the most automated production ever.

True, but be careful of what you wish for. Tesla found that they went too far with the automation. If Boeing goes too far they might end up spending a lot more time and money than if they just used humans for certain tasks.

Automation requires a slower ramp.

Economics of scale throwing bodies: cut costs 10% for every doubling of production.

Current:. 13% cost savings per doubling of production.

Easy improvements:.
Design for CFRP weave (wings?).

3D printing of larger assemblies (36 month+ lead time on muti million dollar tools).

Optimize assembly process (this takes 1 year of engineering and then buy the tools and lay out production).

The issue with Tesla is it takes a year to setup and debug an automated line and another approximately 2 years to optimize it. Automobiles are barely produced long enough to optimize the line.

I can be done. I'm now purchasing assemblies for 3% of the cost of 3 years ago. No, that isn't a typo and yes, I cherry picked my most extreme example. But one hyper kid design engineer paired with a salty stress engineer has already reduced our costs per aircraft by hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is a reason I know the order delay on the machines. We don't have enough to keep up with one pair of engineers, much less a bunch of teams as Boeing would assign.

Right now the limit on reducing aircraft costs is a few tool vendors. They have raised their prices and increased production, but no one will pay the prices needed to exponentially increase tool production. If Boeing orders the tools in enough quantity, delivered over 3+ years, this log jam would be broken. Downside is automakers and others might find their wait time grows... Supply and demand is facinating.

Lightsaber


Great post. Also, the supply chain squeeze of the last decade has over-consolidated the vendors. Third sources are hard to come by.

The tool vendor shortage also applies to several specialized material vendors. And about half of subassembly vendors below the first tier.

This shortage not only constrains production, it constrains innovation. Vendors have little incentive to get better when there is little competition. As Boeing is now finding out.

Don't even get me started on the engineering human resource issue. I will say I am happy to see someone has a job where management still lets them do their job.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 5:38 pm

Tesla has purchased 2 automation vendors. So far . .
 
tphuang
Posts: 5074
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen.

This isn't true.
The fact that it might not happen has been part of the story right from the start.
Anyone paying attention, fanboy or otherwise, understands this.
Anyone who doesn't IMHO is pushing an agenda.
For instance, some have web sites that need clicks.
Others are more difficult to understand.

The fact that several of you get so upset when an article comes out that you spend labour day Saturday arguing about it is all you that needs to be said. Same thing for the Airbus supporters who get so excited when an article come out against it. If you support Boeing and you think NMA is a bad idea, then article against its business case should not upset you at all. And same case, if you are a airbus supporter and you think NMA is a bad idea for Boeing that will push back NSA another 5 years, then you should wish that it happen.

The choice for Boeing is not NMA or nothing, it's NMA or another project. The engineers are not going to sit around idle.
 
2175301
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:45 pm

texl1649 wrote:
RE: 77 and 79, now we are getting into the realm of fanciful internet rumors, rather than sourced information, so I'll bow out again. I don't find "I've heard rumors about this confidential hundreds of millions of dollar contract offer" nor do I think Boeing offered/solicited an option for themselves to finance the engine development. That's frankly a bit laughable at best, on both counts.


You are correct that Boeing did not put out an option for them to fund the engines up front. The reality is that the engine makers response was rather "tepid" and they see a different overall market than Boeing does.

jagraham wrote:
I believe the engine manufacturers are lukewarm because of Boeing's terms.


So... anyone who understands negotiating can see that one of the obvious possible counters by Boeing is "what if we offered to help develop the engine."

My source only discusses things with me in very vague almost theoretical terms about general issues (which apply to almost any major project); and lets me fill in the blanks. I don't know that Boeing has actually made a hard proposal on this - that it is happening. I do know that Boeing has had verbal discussions with vendors on possible counter offers and how to solidify things for the future (which again is fairly standard when there is a mismatch between expectations). Offering as a counter to the submitted proposals to help fund engine development because Boeing believes in their projections would surely attract major interest and discussion on how it would work.

As far as the actual future of the MOM/797. I personally would not be upset if the business case did not work out as adequately profitable. However, that is not what I'm hearing from my source. I'm hearing that They believe at this stage that it will be - just not at the project profit margins of the past (and that no modern project will be profitable at the margins of the past), and everyone (Boeing and Suppliers) has to be careful as the old contracting models no longer work and they have to find new ones that will.


Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:20 pm

tphuang wrote:
Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen.

This isn't true.
The fact that it might not happen has been part of the story right from the start.
Anyone paying attention, fanboy or otherwise, understands this.
Anyone who doesn't IMHO is pushing an agenda.
For instance, some have web sites that need clicks.
Others are more difficult to understand.

The fact that several of you get so upset when an article comes out that you spend labour day Saturday arguing about it is all you that needs to be said. Same thing for the Airbus supporters who get so excited when an article come out against it. If you support Boeing and you think NMA is a bad idea, then article against its business case should not upset you at all. And same case, if you are a airbus supporter and you think NMA is a bad idea for Boeing that will push back NSA another 5 years, then you should wish that it happen.

Sorry, but you're just not making sense.
It's a fact that Boeing has said closing the NMA's business case has been a challenge right from the first mention of the program.
Nothing you wrote about the time of posting or supposed state of upset refutes that.
I see no evidence of "Boeing Fanboys are so insistent NMA will happen or needs to happen".
I see lots of evidence that posters of any/all alleged fandoms understand that NMA may never materialize.
Why would posting on a day off mean that someone insists something needs to happen when it's not in their control anyway?
I do see evidence of an agenda when people post articles that don't add any new info and when the state of the project is what we were told to expect
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13839
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: The Muddle of the Market aircraft (No, this isn’t a typo)

Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:31 pm

The NMA will most likely not be a 757/767 replacement.

Those will have been retired & replaced when the first NMA shows up at a gate, after 2025.

Next to reducing risk and ensuring a profitable project, that is also a result of working 6 yrs on this
NMA business case.

I think the 3 engine builders sent in their proposals with strong IP demands and exclusivity / aftermarket conditions.

If Boeing can't live with it, the engine OEM's will probably just prefer delivering their current portfolio for a decade and building strong aftermarket income.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

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