Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
tphuang
Posts: 5043
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 8:03 pm

Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Revelation wrote:

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

alright, my last word on this. Unless you think it's a good thing to happen why would it matter if someone has an agenda posted an article against its prospect? You seem very emotionally invested in this.
 
evomutant
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:47 am

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

Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Revelation wrote:

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


I have no dog in this infantile A v B nonsense, but if you have really missed the endless comments across threads advocating the 797 as the perfect thing for XYZ airways, or that the 797 will chnage the game etc etc you are not reading properly.

You are absolutely right that Boeing themselves have always been very clear that the NMA is not a done deal, and may never be. But those who view planemakers at football teams to be cheered and booed seem to often miss that nuance.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

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

Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:01 pm

evomutant wrote:
You are absolutely right that Boeing themselves have always been very clear that the NMA is not a done deal, and may never be. But those who view planemakers at football teams to be cheered and booed seem to often miss that nuance.


"Fanboyism" is just a property/defect that has served it's evolutionary purpose in the distant past but is now mainly a nuisance. I'm afraid this "football team cheering" as you call it, will be be with us for quite some time, because unfortunately, evolution is quite slow. Until people understand and constrain their own behaviour not much will change.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23891
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 9:21 pm

tphuang wrote:
alright, my last word on this. Unless you think it's a good thing to happen why would it matter if someone has an agenda posted an article against its prospect? You seem very emotionally invested in this.

Thinking it's a good think if it happens and not caring if it doesn't is a perfectly consistent position.
I think it'd be a good thing if my niece marries her boyfriend, but I don't care if she does or she doesn't.
Disliking an agenda regardless of the point of the agenda is also perfectly consistent.
Have a happy Labor Day!
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
 
VS11
Posts: 1653
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 9:32 pm

DL747400 wrote:
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.


Ok. Sure. DL too, so 3 airlines. So that's what 200 planes at most? I still don't see the potential of this market for an entirely new plane. Maybe if they could make a shorter/lighter and cheaper 787 and let existing 787 orders be converted for it, it could work.
 
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 10:47 pm

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


I disagree. Over 25% of 757s and 767s built are now flying or are being converted to freighters. I see the NMA absolutely replacing them. That represents a rapidly growing market over 500 planes.

Airlines like United fly airplanes over 25-28 years. Plenty of 757s and 767s will be at that age.

NMAs also likely will be for growth in slot constrained China and replace A321s when airlines need more capacity

They likely will also replace A330s in regional configurations
 
2175301
Posts: 1763
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 11:10 pm

VS11 wrote:
Ok. Sure. DL too, so 3 airlines. So that's what 200 planes at most? I still don't see the potential of this market for an entirely new plane. Maybe if they could make a shorter/lighter and cheaper 787 and let existing 787 orders be converted for it, it could work.



Hmmm... If you have been following the 797 story: Boeing is estimating 4000 aircraft in this market for the program life, The Engine Makers apparently think its closer to 2000.

Either way, that's a much larger market than you are seeing. In general, I've been following Airbus's and Boeing's 20 year forecast now for about 15 years I think. Boeing has been the better predictor of the two, in my opinion; and based on their record I am willing to suspect that they are within 33% of the actual 20 year market for an aircraft this size.

It used to be that an aircraft with a 1000 frame market was a slam dunk to be produced. Margins are now thinner due to competition and other factors... so that is no longer the case.

Have a great day,
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

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

Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:16 pm

Predicting what the fleet needs of an airline will be in 17 years seems extremely difficult to me. (7 years to 2025 + 10 years for program mid-life). BA, LH, JAL, WN, EK, they all have plenty of potential to change their business plans let alone their fleets by then.
 
VS11
Posts: 1653
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 11:45 pm

2175301 wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Ok. Sure. DL too, so 3 airlines. So that's what 200 planes at most? I still don't see the potential of this market for an entirely new plane. Maybe if they could make a shorter/lighter and cheaper 787 and let existing 787 orders be converted for it, it could work.



Hmmm... If you have been following the 797 story: Boeing is estimating 4000 aircraft in this market for the program life, The Engine Makers apparently think its closer to 2000.

Either way, that's a much larger market than you are seeing. In general, I've been following Airbus's and Boeing's 20 year forecast now for about 15 years I think. Boeing has been the better predictor of the two, in my opinion; and based on their record I am willing to suspect that they are within 33% of the actual 20 year market for an aircraft this size.

It used to be that an aircraft with a 1000 frame market was a slam dunk to be produced. Margins are now thinner due to competition and other factors... so that is no longer the case.

Have a great day,


The 200 was just for the 3 airlines publicly interested in the possible plane, not overall for the program life. Timing is a huge issue. With thousands of new airplanes deployed in the next 20 years, not many airlines would be on the market for new airplanes. I understand that many existing orders could be converted for the new airplane but I doubt that it will be such a compelling plane, mainly because airlines have already found natural substitutes for 95% of both 757/767 missions. I just think Boeing is going to bail on this one just as they bailed on a clean sheet single-aisle airplane and went for a 737 update.

The best explanation for me why this airplane has not happened yet is the following piece by Steve Schwarzman, founder of Blackstone Alternative Asset Management:

"I've learned that all investments have risk," Schwarzman told Business Insider. "One of the rules I've learned is that struggling to try and think your way into making an investment is usually the best way to not have a great outcome.

"The best investments are the easiest ones to approve. Ironically, when a bunch of very smart people are sitting around a table for hours trying to figure out whether they should do something, that tends to not necessarily lead to the best results.

"The investments where people walk in and the sense is, 'Well, this looks absolutely terrific, let's do it,' those investments are almost always quite successful."

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-ste ... ss-2015-11
Last edited by VS11 on Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:00 am

keesje wrote:
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

Simplistic thinking that would only work if an airline operated only 757 or 767's.

Airline networks are complex with routes upgauging and downgauging, frequency changing and old aircraft continually moving around as new aircraft arrive.

Regarding the 767 Delta and American already have A330's in the fleet. Airlines commonly put old widebodies onto shorter routes as efficient better CASM widebodies enter the fleet. The 25 year old 767's could then be replaced by 20 year old A330's. 5 years later the old A330's get replaced by the 797. This is driven by 787's entering the fleet getting placed on longer routes first freeing up A330's to become available for temporary 767 replacements.

Regarding the 757 the US3 already have new 737max and A321NEO's entering their fleet. These will go onto the longer routes first freeing up middle aged narrowbodies to allow retirement of the oldest aircraft this includes 757. The 797 will then go onto these longer routes when it arrives freeing up the new 737max A321NEO to push downward in the fleet.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:01 am

keesje wrote:
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

Simplistic thinking that would only work if an airline operated only 757 or 767's.

Airline networks are complex with routes upgauging and downgauging, frequency changing and old aircraft continually moving around as new aircraft arrive.

Regarding the 767 Delta and American already have A330's in the fleet. Airlines commonly put old widebodies onto shorter routes as efficient better CASM widebodies enter the fleet. The 25 year old 767's could then be replaced by 20 year old A330's. 5 years later the old A330's get replaced by the 797. This is driven by 787's entering the fleet getting placed on longer routes first freeing up A330's to become available for temporary 767 replacements.

Regarding the 757 the US3 already have new 737max and A321NEO's entering their fleet. These will go onto the longer routes first freeing up middle aged narrowbodies to allow retirement of the oldest aircraft this includes 757. The 797 will then go onto these longer routes when it arrives freeing up the new 737max A321NEO to push downward in the fleet.
 
TranscendZac
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:53 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
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?

This is a point many are missing. Why would the NMA be a smoke screen to conceal a 737 replacement when Boeing has nearly 5,000 orders? For a 5 decade old junker, the 737 seems to be doing ok.
Zac
 
2175301
Posts: 1763
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:06 am

VS11 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Ok. Sure. DL too, so 3 airlines. So that's what 200 planes at most? I still don't see the potential of this market for an entirely new plane. Maybe if they could make a shorter/lighter and cheaper 787 and let existing 787 orders be converted for it, it could work.



Hmmm... If you have been following the 797 story: Boeing is estimating 4000 aircraft in this market for the program life, The Engine Makers apparently think its closer to 2000.

Either way, that's a much larger market than you are seeing. In general, I've been following Airbus's and Boeing's 20 year forecast now for about 15 years I think. Boeing has been the better predictor of the two, in my opinion; and based on their record I am willing to suspect that they are within 33% of the actual 20 year market for an aircraft this size.

It used to be that an aircraft with a 1000 frame market was a slam dunk to be produced. Margins are now thinner due to competition and other factors... so that is no longer the case.

Have a great day,


The 200 was just for the 3 airlines publicly interested in the possible plane, not overall for the program life. Timing is a huge issue. With thousands of new airplanes deployed in the next 20 years, not many airlines would be on the market for new airplanes. I understand that many existing orders could be converted for the new airplane but I doubt that it will be such a compelling plane, mainly because airlines have already found natural substitutes for 95% of both 757/767 missions. I just think Boeing is going to bail on this one just as they bailed on a clean sheet single-aisle airplane and went for a 737 update.

The best explanation for me why this airplane has not happened yet is the following piece by Steve Schwarzman, founder of Blackstone Alternative Asset Management:

"I've learned that all investments have risk," Schwarzman told Business Insider. "One of the rules I've learned is that struggling to try and think your way into making an investment is usually the best way to not have a great outcome.

"The best investments are the easiest ones to approve. Ironically, when a bunch of very smart people are sitting around a table for hours trying to figure out whether they should do something, that tends to not necessarily lead to the best results.

"The investments where people walk in and the sense is, 'Well, this looks absolutely terrific, let's do it,' those investments are almost always quite successful."

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-ste ... ss-2015-11



Well, if that is the new rule going forward there will NEVER be another new aircraft - by any aircraft company. The margins are just too tight these days. If Company "X" comes out with an obvious 10% rate of return project, Comany "N" will counter with a 7% rate of return project and Company X's rate of return dies... and maybe becomes a loss. However, that is not the rule that works in a highly competitive and mature markets. There its being very sure of cost and the market. In the general world of investments there are many unique ideas that cannot be countered that obviously make sense. Aircraft is no longer in that kind of investment climate.

Boeing is taking there time to ensure they get it right. Note that Airbus will have to do the same for their next project unless they want to risk loosing big. The rates of returns on the most recent aircraft projects in the last decade or two have not been good.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13199
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:23 am

49Paralell wrote:
If Airbus does not develop the A350 URL in a manner that properly makes sense to the long-haul market, I predict that once the A338neo proves itself for TAP and AirAsia in operational costs, it will eat the A350.

...can't find anything about this that actually makes sense.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
VS11
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:12 am

2175301 wrote:
VS11 wrote:
2175301 wrote:


Hmmm... If you have been following the 797 story: Boeing is estimating 4000 aircraft in this market for the program life, The Engine Makers apparently think its closer to 2000.

Either way, that's a much larger market than you are seeing. In general, I've been following Airbus's and Boeing's 20 year forecast now for about 15 years I think. Boeing has been the better predictor of the two, in my opinion; and based on their record I am willing to suspect that they are within 33% of the actual 20 year market for an aircraft this size.

It used to be that an aircraft with a 1000 frame market was a slam dunk to be produced. Margins are now thinner due to competition and other factors... so that is no longer the case.

Have a great day,


The 200 was just for the 3 airlines publicly interested in the possible plane, not overall for the program life. Timing is a huge issue. With thousands of new airplanes deployed in the next 20 years, not many airlines would be on the market for new airplanes. I understand that many existing orders could be converted for the new airplane but I doubt that it will be such a compelling plane, mainly because airlines have already found natural substitutes for 95% of both 757/767 missions. I just think Boeing is going to bail on this one just as they bailed on a clean sheet single-aisle airplane and went for a 737 update.

The best explanation for me why this airplane has not happened yet is the following piece by Steve Schwarzman, founder of Blackstone Alternative Asset Management:

"I've learned that all investments have risk," Schwarzman told Business Insider. "One of the rules I've learned is that struggling to try and think your way into making an investment is usually the best way to not have a great outcome.

"The best investments are the easiest ones to approve. Ironically, when a bunch of very smart people are sitting around a table for hours trying to figure out whether they should do something, that tends to not necessarily lead to the best results.

"The investments where people walk in and the sense is, 'Well, this looks absolutely terrific, let's do it,' those investments are almost always quite successful."

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-ste ... ss-2015-11



Well, if that is the new rule going forward there will NEVER be another new aircraft - by any aircraft company. The margins are just too tight these days. If Company "X" comes out with an obvious 10% rate of return project, Comany "N" will counter with a 7% rate of return project and Company X's rate of return dies... and maybe becomes a loss. However, that is not the rule that works in a highly competitive and mature markets. There its being very sure of cost and the market. In the general world of investments there are many unique ideas that cannot be countered that obviously make sense. Aircraft is no longer in that kind of investment climate.

Boeing is taking there time to ensure they get it right. Note that Airbus will have to do the same for their next project unless they want to risk loosing big. The rates of returns on the most recent aircraft projects in the last decade or two have not been good.

Have a great day,


Well, the narrow body market is significantly larger than the middle market, and yet when Boeing considered a new plane or an update they chose the update so yes the bar for a new plane investment is very very high - which is the reason why we have not seen many new planes in a while. Even the one that did make it to market - A220/CS100 - almost didn't survive.
 
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:43 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?



Because it will take Boeing 5 to 7 years to put the new narrow body on market and in production....so they can begin replenishing the thousands of 737´s that will be retired.... hence the HUGE market of 10 000 aircraft. and also in 6 years new engine tech and better Carbonfibre fuselage and wings will make it 10% better than anything flying today...

We have been discussing the 757 for a decade now and why its DEAD.... the NMA or whatever is the Sonic Cruiser of the 2020´s...there is no business case for it...

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:19 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The NMA will most likely not be a 757/767 replacement.


I disagree. Over 25% of 757s and 767s built are now flying or are being converted to freighters. I see the NMA absolutely replacing them. That represents a rapidly growing market over 500 planes.

Airlines like United fly airplanes over 25-28 years. Plenty of 757s and 767s will be at that age.

NMAs also likely will be for growth in slot constrained China and replace A321s when airlines need more capacity

They likely will also replace A330s in regional configurations


You keep saying this, but it would need a miracle plane to replace A321s and A330 in regional configuration with one plane. The A321 max out at 240 seats, the A330s used in regional configuration are all 300s so they max out at 360-400 seats depending on seating configuration.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:15 am

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.


Tesla ignored long established knowledge. VW's "Halle 54" is from ~~1983.
<google translate> https://zeithistorische-forschungen.de/1-2014/id%3D4996 <>
Boeing may well do the same. ( They did on the 787 )
Murphy is an optimist
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:38 am

VS11 wrote:
Well, the narrow body market is significantly larger than the middle market, and yet when Boeing considered a new plane or an update they chose the update so yes the bar for a new plane investment is very very high - which is the reason why we have not seen many new planes in a while. Even the one that did make it to market - A220/CS100 - almost didn't survive.

I dont believe that.

I'm sure if we plotted aircraft by size it would look like a pyramid. There would be tens of thousand aircraft under 10 seat at the botton. Then a few thousand 150-250 seat bracket and a thousand in the 250-400 seat bracket and a few hundred over 400 seat.

As the aircraft get bigger the market size drops.

Based on this pyramid if there is a market for a 1000 aircraft 240seat 4000nm range aircraft and a market for a 500 320 seat 6000nm range aircraft then there is definitely a market for aircraft half way between with 270 seat 5000nm.

Because there is not currently an aircraft in that size is a different story. 6ab being too long, 7ab having a second aisle for only one seat or 8ab being too stubby.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:44 am

I'm sure if we plotted aircraft by size it would look like a pyramid....

Transport is per available seats.
Thus you have to additionally scope in seats per item.
This further contracts per item demand in the VLA++ domain.
( solution plot available seats per size slot .. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:48 am

The above is the key to all of this 'MOM stuff'.The gap is obviously there,Boeing and major customers would like it to happen.The key is closing the commercial case and that in this case means costs.Gains via Automation is the obvious paper solution.Whether it turn out that way (as above) is another matter entirely.But that's where they will square the circle or not.
But it's not as if Boeing don't have all the relevant experience.After the 787 and 777x programme they must have surely.Whether it be composite manufacture or metal structures.
Most likely the product (both models) are frozen now (probably a while ago).They are probably going through each point of manufacture with a fine tooth Combe.Other than the fundamental ovoid nature of the fuse (which is the key to 'narrow bodied economics with a widebody structure' ) one imagines there will be no 'blue sky' elements that they have not tried before.'Known knowns' will be the watchwords.

It is true however that if they do decide to launch then it must suggest a long envisaged future for the MAX family.But then again why not? They now have a system churning out over 50 pcm It an incredibly economic manner.Why change it,there is no threat on the horizon.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1464
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:42 am

2175301 wrote:
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.

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."

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.


In respect to engines, engine makers are enthusiastic about air frame OEM's contributing to development costs. The area of disagreement is the valuation of existing intellectual property, and how and when that would be recognised. There is no such thing as a completely 'clean sheet' anything.

In respect to new aircraft developments, the Boeing board are doing the opposite to what you have heard, raising the bar in respect to projected financial returns on new aircraft families and models. The challenge for Boeing (and Airbus), is customers have quite diverse requirements and expectations (for instance, it may be 2 or even 3 families), which fragments the market, and makes it even more difficult to make the numbers stack up.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2682
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:50 am

The odd thing is, a 'NMA' would fit the Airbus product line better than that of Boeing. Think of it. The C-series can be extended to a -500, effectively replacing anything smaller than an A320. With growing aircraft sizes, Airbus could skip the 150-170 seat market - which is a fairly small sacrifice given the following - and introduce a 'NMA family' in the 170-270 seat market, replacing the A320, 321 and any proposed 322. Next up would be the A350, meaning Airbus will have to swallow a large heard of camels and ditch the A330, and that line-up doesn't look too shabby.

Boeing, on the other hand, has an upper limit of the 788, a huge back-log of an 'outdated' model which will, eventually need replacement, and no next-generation ready-made offering in the 100-150 seat market. As such they need a NSA and would then need to fit a NMA to plug the gap between it and the 788. They are trying to go Brazilian, and provided that succeeds they'll be covered in the 90-120 seat market. That effectively mean they'll have to build, from scratch, a 'NSA family' in a 120-200 seat bracket as well as the NMA - in more or less the same time frame - and find a way to squeeze it all into a 120-250 seat market, making the NMA a 200-250 seat offering, which is not a very large market at all. Now you can tweak the respective sizes of the NSA and NMA all you want, point being that 120-250 seats may not be a large-enough market when you have to do 2 brand new families to fill it, particularly when your competitor only has to do 1.

It's not an impossible task, but one which I fear 'the market' will have a hard time allowing Boeing to do. After all, they live by the next quarterly, which is inherently incompatible with the nature of the business they're in. They could ditch the 788, and create a 180-270 seat NMA to fit the gap, which carries it's own complications and may still not, in conjunction with a NSA, be a large enough market.

With all that in mind I don't think Boeing are any closer or further from launching anything, than they were 2 years ago. My opinion is, that it all hinges on the 737. But any hope of a replacement is currently far off the table courtesy of SWA and a lot of engineering ingenuity attempting to keep the frame viable. Which they've been very successful at, but in the long run it may well come back to bite them.
Signature. You just read one.
 
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:25 pm

smartplane wrote:
2175301 wrote:
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.

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."

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.


In respect to engines, engine makers are enthusiastic about air frame OEM's contributing to development costs. The area of disagreement is the valuation of existing intellectual property, and how and when that would be recognised. There is no such thing as a completely 'clean sheet' anything.

In respect to new aircraft developments, the Boeing board are doing the opposite to what you have heard, raising the bar in respect to projected financial returns on new aircraft families and models. The challenge for Boeing (and Airbus), is customers have quite diverse requirements and expectations (for instance, it may be 2 or even 3 families), which fragments the market, and makes it even more difficult to make the numbers stack up.


Boeing has not been willing to pay the engine OEM in the last 3 projects, instead it expects them to make a contribution towards the development costs of the airframe There is no indication this has changed. .
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:02 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The NMA will most likely not be a 757/767 replacement.


I disagree. Over 25% of 757s and 767s built are now flying or are being converted to freighters. I see the NMA absolutely replacing them. That represents a rapidly growing market over 500 planes.

Airlines like United fly airplanes over 25-28 years. Plenty of 757s and 767s will be at that age.

NMAs also likely will be for growth in slot constrained China and replace A321s when airlines need more capacity

They likely will also replace A330s in regional configurations


I respect your opinion, but it is not what is happening. Hardly any passenger 757/767 left after 2024. Renewed high fuel and maintenance costs leads to rapid retirement of those fleets. Outside the US most have been phased already over the last 5-10 years.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/aa-confirms-767-retirement/
https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=73055
https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Delta%20Air%20Lines-stored-b767.htm

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23891
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:15 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
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

Simplistic thinking that would only work if an airline operated only 757 or 767's.

Airline networks are complex with routes upgauging and downgauging, frequency changing and old aircraft continually moving around as new aircraft arrive.

Regarding the 767 Delta and American already have A330's in the fleet. Airlines commonly put old widebodies onto shorter routes as efficient better CASM widebodies enter the fleet. The 25 year old 767's could then be replaced by 20 year old A330's. 5 years later the old A330's get replaced by the 797. This is driven by 787's entering the fleet getting placed on longer routes first freeing up A330's to become available for temporary 767 replacements.

Regarding the 757 the US3 already have new 737max and A321NEO's entering their fleet. These will go onto the longer routes first freeing up middle aged narrowbodies to allow retirement of the oldest aircraft this includes 757. The 797 will then go onto these longer routes when it arrives freeing up the new 737max A321NEO to push downward in the fleet.

Very good points.

DL and AA have expressed their interest in NMA (DL even offering to be launch customer) fully knowing the ages of their current aircraft.

It's strange people are so fixated on the strict replacement model, as if past is prologue.

We even have people suggesting NMA is doomed because A300 didn't sell well.

Airline managers project needs against capabilities and look at what best addresses their needs.

These are the same people Boeing is interacting with when it comes to NMA.
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:53 pm

Airlines don’t always buy one for one replacements. Airlines use new planes to adjust their overall capacity. For example if China Southern wants to increase capacity and is struggling with slot availability they can do it by increasing average seatcount per plane. They can do that by swapping A319s/737-700s with A320s/737-800s and then upgauge A320 routes to A321s. The next jump from A321 to A330 is quite large, but they have done that. When you look at new planes and old planes an A330 was added and an A319 was taken from the fleet, but the A330 didn’t directly replace the A319.

Chinese airlines have been putting A330s in regional configurations, but the A330 is big heavy and expensive plane for domestic flights in China. The NMA opens up a the ability to be more flexible with capacity and could viably take an order that would have gone to a mix of A321s and A330s.

United is another good example. This year 787s, 737-9s, A319s and Embraer 175s have entered the fleet while CRJ200s and E145s are exiting. Routes across the fleet have been upgauged to the next bigger plane and capacity is being adjusted. United is increasing average capacity per plane. 787s displaced 767s, which displaced 757s in UAs Transatlantic network.

keesje wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
The NMA will most likely not be a 757/767 replacement.


I disagree. Over 25% of 757s and 767s built are now flying or are being converted to freighters. I see the NMA absolutely replacing them. That represents a rapidly growing market over 500 planes.

Airlines like United fly airplanes over 25-28 years. Plenty of 757s and 767s will be at that age.

NMAs also likely will be for growth in slot constrained China and replace A321s when airlines need more capacity

They likely will also replace A330s in regional configurations


I respect your opinion, but it is not what is happening. Hardly any passenger 757/767 left after 2024. Renewed high fuel and maintenance costs leads to rapid retirement of those fleets. Outside the US most have been phased already over the last 5-10 years.
]


Around 400 767s will be less than 25 years old in 2025. Over 90% of 767-300ERs/Fs that are less than 25 years old today are still in service. There will be 767s still flying in 2025.

What about all of these?








Last edited by Newbiepilot on Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:20 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
VS11
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:58 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Based on this pyramid if there is a market for a 1000 aircraft 240seat 4000nm range aircraft and a market for a 500 320 seat 6000nm range aircraft then there is definitely a market for aircraft half way between with 270 seat 5000nm.

Because there is not currently an aircraft in that size is a different story. 6ab being too long, 7ab having a second aisle for only one seat or 8ab being too stubby.


Just because there is a gap in the range/capacity spectrum does NOT mean there is a mandate for any aircraft manufacturer to go address it. The only mandate I see for Boeing right now is stop the march of the A321 NEO/LR/XLR. Is Boeing's response going to be a new airplane - the 797? I don't think so. Despite a.net folks fascination with a paper plane that is a widebody but has the economics of a narrowbody, it will take a decade for this airplane to come to market, assuming such plane can be built. The major strike against such an aircraft is that the marketplace has already spoken, the consumer is happy flying existing narrowbody planes over longer distances. Airlines are very happy with this as they can invest in very versatile planes that can be deployed over a wide range of missions.

Then, the next logical question is, does it make sense for Boeing to develop a new narrowbody that will address the NMA and also be the substitute for the 737 family? Again, a lot of a.net folks ruminate on this, but as many have pointed out, new narrowbody planes are not going to be needed until 2030 when planes from the current wave of orders start to fizzle.

As you correctly observed, there are more planes needed at the lower capacity spectrum. I expect Boeing to focus on that segment along with their new Brazilian partner. Creating a very efficient regional jet would certainly be a home run.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:59 pm

There is a capability gap where Boeing are aiming at.

But, the demand is too small, and getting smaller with every upgrade Airbus tout for the A321.

[To be clear; the A321 will never equal the capability of the proposed MoM, but it doesn't need to.]
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
What about all of these?


Production summary : Airbus A300: Planes built 567, Active 225 -> 40%
Production summary : Airbus A310: Planes built 255, Active 53 -> 21%

Production summary : Boeing 757: Planes built 1050, Active 699 -> 67%
Production summary : Boeing 767: Planes built 1119, Active 776 -> 69%

Production summary : Airbus A330, Planes built 1407, Active 1301 -> 92%
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:22 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
There is a capability gap where Boeing are aiming at.

But, the demand is too small, and getting smaller with every upgrade Airbus tout for the A321.

[To be clear; the A321 will never equal the capability of the proposed MoM, but it doesn't need to.]


I agree with you. The increasing capability of the A321 is shrinking the market from below, but the failure of the A330-800 get any orders is opening the market from above. 2 class seat counts of 220 and 270 means that the airplane is clearly bigger than the A321 and a little smaller than the A330-200.

The A330 is the most commonly used plane on PEK-HKG, but the larger NMA likely could destroy the A330 on CASM on 3 hour segments. If the purchase price would be sufficiently cheaper and CASM is better the A330s may be displaced.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:31 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
What about all of these?


Production summary : Airbus A300: Planes built 567, Active 225 -> 40%
Production summary : Airbus A310: Planes built 255, Active 53 -> 21%

Production summary : Boeing 757: Planes built 1050, Active 699 -> 67%
Production summary : Boeing 767: Planes built 1119, Active 776 -> 69%

Production summary : Airbus A330, Planes built 1407, Active 1301 -> 92%


The CF6-80A/JT9D generation of 767-200s and 767-300s is over except for a few freighters. The CF6-80C2/PW4000 generation of 767s alive and well. Sometimes people forget that the 767 was re-engined in the late 1980s since marketing departments didn’t make as big of a deal about engine upgrades back in that era.

Depending on where fuel prices go, I would expect at lease 400 active 767s in 2025 especially among the freight operators. The 757 fleet will still be around in both freight and passenger operation as well.

The 757/767 replacement market is only part of what the NMA is going after. It is also seeking orders that would have gone to 737-10s, A321s, A330neos, and 787s.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:49 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
...the failure of the A330-800 get any orders is opening the market from above.


Or one could say that the market isn't big enough on that end. I'd say that the bulk of the market for the proposed NMA is more closer to the narrowbody side than the upper end of the void.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 2:53 pm

There are competing interests here; some airlines have the need for a high capacity short haul mover with appropriate performance and others are looking for an MOM aircraft with range; can't do both with one wing design with performance to meet all customer needs, obviously. I imagine this needs some time to sort out. IMHO the market is flooded with long range models and a high capacity short haul mover with real efficiency is missing.
Plane mad!
 
NZ321
Posts: 1211
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:02 pm

Gas guzzling 767s are okay at the moment but may not be in the near future with fuel edging up. For Boeing to rely on this seems a risky move to me. They could offer a package-freighter conversion on the 737-9, but we are still well short of the mark. While 77F remains too big. And freighters don't call the shots, frankly. At least, not historically. A true MOM would be sized around 220-250 seats. Short-medium haul. There is not a need to move into the territory of the 787 or the A330 neo IMHO. If you look at the population and business growth in Asia you get the point. Replacements for A330 classics. 767s. 772a.
Plane mad!
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:55 pm

VS11 wrote:
The major strike against such an aircraft is that the marketplace has already spoken, the consumer is happy flying existing narrowbody planes over longer distances.


Be careful not to put forth your personal opinion as fact. There are many, many consumers of air travel, especially business travelers, who will vehemently disagree with your assertion.

While your statement may apply to the bottom feeding consumers buying Basic Economy fares and have no brand loyalty, I would challenge you to ask any corporate travel manager/agent how often their clients specifically instruct them to book a widebody when one is available when they need to travel and and at competitive pricing. When it comes to long haul international travel, the mandate is often more specific: "Keep me off a narrow body."

You say that consumers are happy flying narrowbody planes over longer distances. Fine. But would these same passengers be equally or even more satisfied if they could get the same price and schedule on a widebody? My guess is: Yes, they would. Being able to get up and stretch your legs every few hours on long flight and having a smaller amount of extra room to do so is a plus. While I have no scientific evidence at my fingertips to support it , my believe is that if you did conduct said study without bias, the clear preference would to be the twin aisle over the single aisle.

The bottom line is human beings value space. Real and tangible personal space, of course. But also the perception of spaciousness they get by being able to look around and visualize a wider cabin, higher ceiling, etc. There is a measurably greater sense of comfort and well-being which exists when you are not packed into a single aisle cabin. Heck, this even exists when comparing a 737/757-series cross section to that of the A319/320/321-series. The slightly wider Airbus single aisle cabin and higher ceiling does drive customer preference.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:58 pm

Erebus wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
...the failure of the A330-800 get any orders is opening the market from above.


Or one could say that the market isn't big enough on that end. I'd say that the bulk of the market for the proposed NMA is more closer to the narrowbody side than the upper end of the void.


What you see is an efficiency gap and not a demand gap.

Markup for an A339 is negligible, range today is sufficient. ( the core reason why once popular frames
lack interest today. )
Airlines would gladly take a MoM type aircraft IF it has better economy than the NB craft below it.

Boeing can't offer that on intrinsic reasons but also for wanting to make a profit.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:14 pm

WIederling wrote:
Erebus wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
...the failure of the A330-800 get any orders is opening the market from above.


Or one could say that the market isn't big enough on that end. I'd say that the bulk of the market for the proposed NMA is more closer to the narrowbody side than the upper end of the void.


What you see is an efficiency gap and not a demand gap.

Markup for an A339 is negligible, range today is sufficient. ( the core reason why once popular frames
lack interest today. )
Airlines would gladly take a MoM type aircraft IF it has better economy than the NB craft below it.

Boeing can't offer that on intrinsic reasons but also for wanting to make a profit.


Why can’t Boeing offer that? They are definitely studying ways to produce it for far less than an A339. We have heard rumors of $50-70 Million. An A330neo probably sells for $90-120 Million.

If I were China Eastern looking for my next plane what do I want for my Number 1 trunk route of Shanghai to Beijing where I have hourly widebody service? Would I want to spend $100 Million on a 300 seat A330-900 or will I want to spend $65 Million on the 270 seat NMA that has double digit lower CASM? An airplane that is more optimized for 700 mile flights, which isn’t carrying around the structure and wing designed for 12 hour flights may Very attractive CASM and should be cheaper to build. The A330neo wing design will be over 30 years old and oversized for the mission. Those extra 30 seats on the A330 might not be worth $30 Million. We could see a repeat of the A320/737NG replacing 90% of the 757 missions with the NMA and A330.

The same question goes for JAL and their hourly Tokyo to Osaka service currently served with 767s and 777s.

I do t know if a Boeing can make it work, but here is opportunity
 
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:58 pm

You can not look at the problem without looking a design rules that have to be followed. A 240-300 seat 7 abreast aircraft is not a huge challenge to make competitive if you could do 4-3 seating, but the safety rules dictate that you have to do 2-3-2. That alone changes the feasibility of a design in that size by a lot, because you are disadvantaged by legal requirements.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:58 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Erebus wrote:

Or one could say that the market isn't big enough on that end. I'd say that the bulk of the market for the proposed NMA is more closer to the narrowbody side than the upper end of the void.


What you see is an efficiency gap and not a demand gap.

Markup for an A339 is negligible, range today is sufficient. ( the core reason why once popular frames
lack interest today. )
Airlines would gladly take a MoM type aircraft IF it has better economy than the NB craft below it.

Boeing can't offer that on intrinsic reasons but also for wanting to make a profit.


Why can’t Boeing offer that? They are definitely studying ways to produce it for far less than an A339. We have heard rumors of $50-70 Million. An A330neo probably sells for $90-120 Million.


One they want to get stinking rich from selling MoM if not from selling the frame then from selling services later.
( Airline bosses can't be that dumb to not do the arithmetic right. A cheap to buy MoM must be expensive to operate.)
Two any better mousetrap solution is available for a bigger airframe.
That airframe then is advantaged via (up)scaling effects.
If you want to do a competitive MoM it must excel via a properties/capabilies match of the MoM space.

to repeat: the lower twin aisle market is rolling up due to the larger frames now meeting some minimum range requirement
and not due to no interest in that size segment. Today it is more profitable to take the larger frame.
Same for the NB space. increased range works as a landfill for the abyss.
Murphy is an optimist
 
smartplane
Posts: 1464
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
Boeing has not been willing to pay the engine OEM in the last 3 projects, instead it expects them to make a contribution towards the development costs of the airframe There is no indication this has changed. .

The financial position of all three engine OEM's has changed. Senior management / board composition is changing / has changed, and the ownership structures too are poised for a shake up.

A & B have been acquiring suppliers for some time, Boeing partly forced by 747 and 787 suppliers activating 'exit' provisions.

Boeing are tapping into lifetime revenue streams of the engine OEM's on a decaying percentage basis, making it more difficult (expensive) to raise market funding specifically for new engine developments, which is why the pace has eased (plus distractions of existing programs).

Do A & B have the appetite to acquire an engine OEM?

The current EK 787 / 777X / A380 sale will be a watershed. Neither GE or RR will dance to the EK tune, placing these three conditional orders at risk. Either Boeing will have to intervene (it comes at an opportune moment, as the GE group needs to dispose of, or at least sell down the aero engine business), or risk losing the 787 order, and even possibly the 777X.

If Boeing makes a move on GE, it's likely Airbus will counter by acquiring RR and possibly PW.

Who will blink first? Boeing, Airbus or EK?
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:29 pm

I just want to re-register my prediction for this field:
Boeing's current vision of ~2025 NMA with "LEAP 1.5" engines is for a marginal product with a marginal business case.
Only by waiting a few years longer for Ultrafan-gen engines to be mature can Boeing produce the obviously compelling product that a launch decision requires.
What's that product? A 4500-5000nm plane, ~30-50% bigger than A321, which is better than A321 on 1hr routes.
That's doable with 15% SFC delta over today's engines but not with ~6-7% delta.

Of course, a 2027-28 NMA runs into the ~2030 timeline for NSA. Maybe these two projects share a production system architecture and differently-scaled versions of the same engines.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:37 pm

smartplane wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Boeing has not been willing to pay the engine OEM in the last 3 projects, instead it expects them to make a contribution towards the development costs of the airframe There is no indication this has changed. .

The financial position of all three engine OEM's has changed. Senior management / board composition is changing / has changed, and the ownership structures too are poised for a shake up.

A & B have been acquiring suppliers for some time, Boeing partly forced by 747 and 787 suppliers activating 'exit' provisions.

Boeing are tapping into lifetime revenue streams of the engine OEM's on a decaying percentage basis, making it more difficult (expensive) to raise market funding specifically for new engine developments, which is why the pace has eased (plus distractions of existing programs).

Do A & B have the appetite to acquire an engine OEM?

The current EK 787 / 777X / A380 sale will be a watershed. Neither GE or RR will dance to the EK tune, placing these three conditional orders at risk. Either Boeing will have to intervene (it comes at an opportune moment, as the GE group needs to dispose of, or at least sell down the aero engine business), or risk losing the 787 order, and even possibly the 777X.

If Boeing makes a move on GE, it's likely Airbus will counter by acquiring RR and possibly PW.

Who will blink first? Boeing, Airbus or EK?



GE Group is “needs” to dispose or sell down aero engine business? News to me...any references on that?


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:12 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
WIederling wrote:

What you see is an efficiency gap and not a demand gap.

Markup for an A339 is negligible, range today is sufficient. ( the core reason why once popular frames
lack interest today. )
Airlines would gladly take a MoM type aircraft IF it has better economy than the NB craft below it.

Boeing can't offer that on intrinsic reasons but also for wanting to make a profit.


Why can’t Boeing offer that? They are definitely studying ways to produce it for far less than an A339. We have heard rumors of $50-70 Million. An A330neo probably sells for $90-120 Million.


One they want to get stinking rich from selling MoM if not from selling the frame then from selling services later.
( Airline bosses can't be that dumb to not do the arithmetic right. A cheap to buy MoM must be expensive to operate.)
Two any better mousetrap solution is available for a bigger airframe.
That airframe then is advantaged via (up)scaling effects.
If you want to do a competitive MoM it must excel via a properties/capabilies match of the MoM space.

to repeat: the lower twin aisle market is rolling up due to the larger frames now meeting some minimum range requirement
and not due to no interest in that size segment. Today it is more profitable to take the larger frame.
Same for the NB space. increased range works as a landfill for the abyss.


Is it because there is no interest in smaller narrowbodies or is it because tue 787-8 and A330-800 are too expensive to be profitably operated in the short to medium haul market? Are the current widebodies so expensive ($100 million or more) that unless they get the larger versions or use them on long flights with demand for lie flat premium seats, they cant earn enough revenue to offset lease/ownership costs? A widebody priced like a big narrowbody could change the market just like the 737NG and a320 did.

Given the consolidation going on in some markets and slot constraints in others, a 270 seat widebody priced like a narrowbody could be very popular
 
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)

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:04 pm

Matt6461 wrote:
I just want to re-register my prediction for this field:
Boeing's current vision of ~2025 NMA with "LEAP 1.5" engines is for a marginal product with a marginal business case.
Only by waiting a few years longer for Ultrafan-gen engines to be mature can Boeing produce the obviously compelling product that a launch decision requires.
What's that product? A 4500-5000nm plane, ~30-50% bigger than A321, which is better than A321 on 1hr routes.
That's doable with 15% SFC delta over today's engines but not with ~6-7% delta.

Of course, a 2027-28 NMA runs into the ~2030 timeline for NSA. Maybe these two projects share a production system architecture and differently-scaled versions of the same engines.


Come out of fantasy land. 15% better than LEAP and GTF by 2027 is not going to happen. 6-7% better would be outstanding, a LEAP 1.5 will not even probably not even reach 5%.

Always remember that the percentage given by RR uses the first Trent 700 as a baseline.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:15 pm

seahawk wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
I just want to re-register my prediction for this field:
Boeing's current vision of ~2025 NMA with "LEAP 1.5" engines is for a marginal product with a marginal business case.
Only by waiting a few years longer for Ultrafan-gen engines to be mature can Boeing produce the obviously compelling product that a launch decision requires.
What's that product? A 4500-5000nm plane, ~30-50% bigger than A321, which is better than A321 on 1hr routes.
That's doable with 15% SFC delta over today's engines but not with ~6-7% delta.

Of course, a 2027-28 NMA runs into the ~2030 timeline for NSA. Maybe these two projects share a production system architecture and differently-scaled versions of the same engines.


Come out of fantasy land. 15% better than LEAP and GTF by 2027 is not going to happen. 6-7% better would be outstanding, a LEAP 1.5 will not even probably not even reach 5%.

Always remember that the percentage given by RR uses the first Trent 700 as a baseline.


Ultrafan is supposed to 75% of T700 sfc.
If UF has 85% of LEAP sfc, that implies -12% delta from T700 -> LEAP.
That seems feasible to me considering we're talking widebody vs nb engines.
NMA's engines should be closer to WB than NB optimization for SFC/mx/cost tradeoff.
 
BREECH
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:20 pm

keesje wrote:
© Leeham News: As time goes by, the Middle of the Market airplane appears to have become the Muddle of the Market.

Wasn't it Leeham news who started this whole MoM curfuffle. And wasn't it Leeham who, but a six-month ago, said it was a done deal and Boeing "has finalized" this and that, and that the MoM was definitely on its way? When will people realize that Leeham News is nothing but a Daily Mail for aviation fans? They throw one portion of spaghetti against the wall after another and see if it sticks. And if it does stick, they climb on top of their little office chairs and yell that they "were the first to predict" the stuck matter.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
BREECH
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:28 pm

WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
What about all of these?


Production summary : Airbus A300: Planes built 567, Active 225 -> 40%
Production summary : Airbus A310: Planes built 255, Active 53 -> 21%

Production summary : Boeing 757: Planes built 1050, Active 699 -> 67%
Production summary : Boeing 767: Planes built 1119, Active 776 -> 69%

Production summary : Airbus A330, Planes built 1407, Active 1301 -> 92%

Oh, that's very interesting! BUT! If you take two identical cars, one a taxi and one a private car for a suburban gramma, the taxi one will go to the scrap yard MUCH sooner because it's driven more. So how about we also compare the hours flown? Maybe Airbuses are used much more because they are cheaper to fly and thus go much sooner, while Boeings spend most of their time in a desert waiting for the next oil price dive or holiday season. I may be wrong, of course.
No friendship, love or respect unite people as much as shared hatred.
Sergey Dovlatov
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2155
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:02 pm

A decent approach for Boeing to do would be a 787-5 & 6: The -6 would be a proper redo of the 787-3 with a new wing fitting 767 footprint with folding wingtips designed for 3K to 4K missions, new landing gear, 787 architecture except a lot of parts brought in house or in JV's like the APU. -5 would be a shrink with a range that works well for cargo operations as well as the mid market for range.

The design would include consideration for new cargo or future cargo conversions, ie an easy way to reinforce the floor and add the cargo door. I recall that by around 2025 the 767 cannot be new ordered due to emissions / efficiency requirements. So a new freighter in the 767 size is needed.

It solves the engine situation where they are scrambling to get the new engines running right and delivering on time.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:38 pm

BREECH wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
What about all of these?


Production summary : Airbus A300: Planes built 567, Active 225 -> 40%
Production summary : Airbus A310: Planes built 255, Active 53 -> 21%

Production summary : Boeing 757: Planes built 1050, Active 699 -> 67%
Production summary : Boeing 767: Planes built 1119, Active 776 -> 69%

Production summary : Airbus A330, Planes built 1407, Active 1301 -> 92%

Oh, that's very interesting! BUT! If you take two identical cars, one a taxi and one a private car for a suburban gramma, the taxi one will go to the scrap yard MUCH sooner because it's driven more. So how about we also compare the hours flown? Maybe Airbuses are used much more because they are cheaper to fly and thus go much sooner, while Boeings spend most of their time in a desert waiting for the next oil price dive or holiday season. I may be wrong, of course.


Interesting fact : 47% of all 767s built were delivered before the first A330 ever entered service.
  • 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