Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:33 am

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The 787 is a really bad example for a launch aircraft as the "technology push" and manufacturing tech push lead to large delays and massive costs that still hurt the program. If Boeing learned from them mistakes it can be a success but it is also a huge risk that needs to be addressed. I do not know if Boeing can handle another delayed program. The 787 was delayed, the 777X is delayed, the 737 was on time? but rushed and is now grounded. The 787 was grounded. Boeing needs to get this one right and the more "experiments" are in it the higher the chance that the program will be an overall failure even if the product is actually good. And if it is delayed and too close to the new generation NSA then this could ripple into the actual NSA for Boeing and delay that as well.

I think delays / groundings / tech failures are unfortunately the new norm. In recent times we had PW GTF's bearing failures leading to it being grounded in at least one jurisdiction and a large amount of economic disruption, RR's T1000 corroded blade failures leading to restrictions and inspections that made it very difficult to operate the type and many frames grounded due to lack of spares, GE9x with "durability issues" grounding the 77X for at least half a year, etc. If we want to go after FAA, keep in mind that RR's failings happened on EASA's watch.


This is a world wide phenomenon in almost every industry. Products go to the market way to fast and the customer is also the alpha or beta tester, with software the prime example. But to change this regulatory bodies like the EASA and the FAA and other would have to set much stricter rules for certification and the outcry of the industry would be heard on Mars. No one cries and wines as good as a company that gets regulated stricter.

On the other side even tho all them companies know that A) their product will merely passed the certification and is nowhere near a stage of long time durability and B) their workforce is squeezed to the limit, time to market is cut shorter and shorter to please shareholders.

At the end we have either groundings or long delays, either with EIS or with the deliveries.

I totally agree with the rest of you post (and therefore spare everyone of the quote) and it is just a sad thing to see how corporate culture and "quality" has changed over the last 20-30 years. Airbus and Boeing cash in on amazing products developed in the 80's and 90's but I have a feeling that this lemons are now squeezed and every further squeeze will result in the lemon being torn apart. The 737 is now the second sign of that. Let us all hope that was also the only one and a change in thinking will occur. With the 787 we luckily missed rock bottom and the fires luckily did not cause any loss of life but that warning sign was ignored. If the 737 sign is now also ignored then we as the flying public are in for a wild ride. So A and B have to sort their shit out and deliver good products again, because I do not think that this is a Boeing problem alone, it is an industry problem as you can see with the engines or the A400M.
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:57 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Personally I think that the business case for the 797 is as close to dead / gamble as it can be, at least as far as we know the specs to be. The A321ceo can already carry 200+ passengers relatively comfortably and very affordably 2-6 hours away, with minimal risk of anything really. Flights are easy to sell out, narrowbody boarding time and -comfort, narrowbody gates and turnaround times, and on-board comfort which is extremely close to widebodys (in eco at least). I've had the pleasure of flying four 6-hour flights on an 321ceo over the past year, and I'm actually really liking this bird. Now the 321NEO will offer everything as the CEO, just lower fuel consumption, and even up to 7-hour flights, the XLR even 8-hour flights. The cabin is wide enough for comfort, and really the boarding is not a massive circus requiring 1,5-2 hours.

It shows that airlines want more and more narrowbodies or as-small-as-possible-bodies to cover ever longer distances, with lower and lower seatmilecosts. There's no turning back from this trend, no matter what the fuel costs, cheaper is always better. Also the travelling public appreciates more point-to-point travels from smaller airports - nobody enjoys travelling through the megahubs like LHR, JFK, or DXB. It's much nicer to head to your local airport just shortly before boarding, check your bag without a queue, pass the tiny security checkpoint occupied by the yawning security officers, and before you even know it, you're in the air. You didn't sweat, nobody pushed you in a queue, nobody raged at you, you didn't need 30 minutes of walking with a GPS to find your gate at the terminal, and you didn't waste 2 hours of your life waiting somewhere feeling like cattle.

What does any of this have to do with the 797? The fact that smaller & more capable = better. The A321 is so well established in it's "playpen", that only via direct competition the 797 could beat it. More or less the same specs, just a few % better in everything, and try to sell it for roughly the same price. The ROI is hard to make, not worth the risk I presume.

In order to make the 797 a success, they need to pimp it to 321XLR-esque, but in a playpen of its own, waaay above the 321XLR. Meaning it needs to have 30-35 tons max payload, and a max range of 6000-6500 nma, seating configuration options nearly unlimited. That's where it will sell like hotcakes, airlines will be literally queing up for it. It can take 220+ people 3-11 hours away with very profitable economics.

There's just one problem - it would hit the 787 very hard where it hurts the most. At the same time it would hit also the A330. There are major risks with this approach, no doubt, but there's even a bigger risk: What if Airbus does it first? A323-XXXLR-LMAO-ROFL+++. Then they would have a lineup of 140pax - 6 hours, 200pax - 8 hours, and 220pax - 11 hours. All with unparallel operating costs and route flexibility to anything else on the market. Sounds charming huh? And let's not forget that Airbus for sure knows the limitations of the 330NEO, and the fact that they really have not much to offer between the 321 and the 350. Below the 321 they have plenty, and above the 350 there's no demand. They have time, resources, money and enthusiasm. Gee, kind of hard to guess where they will hit next.


Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.


Workers unions, pilots unions, all sorts of groups of people with certain benefits, will always oppose any change that they feel might negatively impact their benefits. Those groups are able to delay things, but in the end never prevent progress. It's a matter of negotiations, it could be also win-win. If the pilots get paid based on the seat-miles that they fly, or even just total miles rather than the plane type, I'm sure they could reach an agreement. Or something in between. Not to mention there are parts of the world where there are no such problems at all. Anyway, stopping progress in airplane development due to pilots being unhappy would be silly and shortsighted, in my opinion at least. Today's pilots are just a blip in the timeline of aviation history, which will keep on going long after today's pilots are gone.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:13 am

Carlos01 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Personally I think that the business case for the 797 is as close to dead / gamble as it can be, at least as far as we know the specs to be. The A321ceo can already carry 200+ passengers relatively comfortably and very affordably 2-6 hours away, with minimal risk of anything really. Flights are easy to sell out, narrowbody boarding time and -comfort, narrowbody gates and turnaround times, and on-board comfort which is extremely close to widebodys (in eco at least). I've had the pleasure of flying four 6-hour flights on an 321ceo over the past year, and I'm actually really liking this bird. Now the 321NEO will offer everything as the CEO, just lower fuel consumption, and even up to 7-hour flights, the XLR even 8-hour flights. The cabin is wide enough for comfort, and really the boarding is not a massive circus requiring 1,5-2 hours.

It shows that airlines want more and more narrowbodies or as-small-as-possible-bodies to cover ever longer distances, with lower and lower seatmilecosts. There's no turning back from this trend, no matter what the fuel costs, cheaper is always better. Also the travelling public appreciates more point-to-point travels from smaller airports - nobody enjoys travelling through the megahubs like LHR, JFK, or DXB. It's much nicer to head to your local airport just shortly before boarding, check your bag without a queue, pass the tiny security checkpoint occupied by the yawning security officers, and before you even know it, you're in the air. You didn't sweat, nobody pushed you in a queue, nobody raged at you, you didn't need 30 minutes of walking with a GPS to find your gate at the terminal, and you didn't waste 2 hours of your life waiting somewhere feeling like cattle.

What does any of this have to do with the 797? The fact that smaller & more capable = better. The A321 is so well established in it's "playpen", that only via direct competition the 797 could beat it. More or less the same specs, just a few % better in everything, and try to sell it for roughly the same price. The ROI is hard to make, not worth the risk I presume.

In order to make the 797 a success, they need to pimp it to 321XLR-esque, but in a playpen of its own, waaay above the 321XLR. Meaning it needs to have 30-35 tons max payload, and a max range of 6000-6500 nma, seating configuration options nearly unlimited. That's where it will sell like hotcakes, airlines will be literally queing up for it. It can take 220+ people 3-11 hours away with very profitable economics.

There's just one problem - it would hit the 787 very hard where it hurts the most. At the same time it would hit also the A330. There are major risks with this approach, no doubt, but there's even a bigger risk: What if Airbus does it first? A323-XXXLR-LMAO-ROFL+++. Then they would have a lineup of 140pax - 6 hours, 200pax - 8 hours, and 220pax - 11 hours. All with unparallel operating costs and route flexibility to anything else on the market. Sounds charming huh? And let's not forget that Airbus for sure knows the limitations of the 330NEO, and the fact that they really have not much to offer between the 321 and the 350. Below the 321 they have plenty, and above the 350 there's no demand. They have time, resources, money and enthusiasm. Gee, kind of hard to guess where they will hit next.


Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.


Workers unions, pilots unions, all sorts of groups of people with certain benefits, will always oppose any change that they feel might negatively impact their benefits. Those groups are able to delay things, but in the end never prevent progress. It's a matter of negotiations, it could be also win-win. If the pilots get paid based on the seat-miles that they fly, or even just total miles rather than the plane type, I'm sure they could reach an agreement. Or something in between. Not to mention there are parts of the world where there are no such problems at all. Anyway, stopping progress in airplane development due to pilots being unhappy would be silly and shortsighted, in my opinion at least. Today's pilots are just a blip in the timeline of aviation history, which will keep on going long after today's pilots are gone.


I wouldn't be surprised to see an A321 type pay rate with an override to keep it in line with what current 7ER (757 & 767) pilots make. Spirit already does this with their A321's and it seems as though the pilot group is very happy with as it is a win win for both the company and labor.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:29 am

Carlos01 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Personally I think that the business case for the 797 is as close to dead / gamble as it can be, at least as far as we know the specs to be. The A321ceo can already carry 200+ passengers relatively comfortably and very affordably 2-6 hours away, with minimal risk of anything really. Flights are easy to sell out, narrowbody boarding time and -comfort, narrowbody gates and turnaround times, and on-board comfort which is extremely close to widebodys (in eco at least). I've had the pleasure of flying four 6-hour flights on an 321ceo over the past year, and I'm actually really liking this bird. Now the 321NEO will offer everything as the CEO, just lower fuel consumption, and even up to 7-hour flights, the XLR even 8-hour flights. The cabin is wide enough for comfort, and really the boarding is not a massive circus requiring 1,5-2 hours.

It shows that airlines want more and more narrowbodies or as-small-as-possible-bodies to cover ever longer distances, with lower and lower seatmilecosts. There's no turning back from this trend, no matter what the fuel costs, cheaper is always better. Also the travelling public appreciates more point-to-point travels from smaller airports - nobody enjoys travelling through the megahubs like LHR, JFK, or DXB. It's much nicer to head to your local airport just shortly before boarding, check your bag without a queue, pass the tiny security checkpoint occupied by the yawning security officers, and before you even know it, you're in the air. You didn't sweat, nobody pushed you in a queue, nobody raged at you, you didn't need 30 minutes of walking with a GPS to find your gate at the terminal, and you didn't waste 2 hours of your life waiting somewhere feeling like cattle.

What does any of this have to do with the 797? The fact that smaller & more capable = better. The A321 is so well established in it's "playpen", that only via direct competition the 797 could beat it. More or less the same specs, just a few % better in everything, and try to sell it for roughly the same price. The ROI is hard to make, not worth the risk I presume.

In order to make the 797 a success, they need to pimp it to 321XLR-esque, but in a playpen of its own, waaay above the 321XLR. Meaning it needs to have 30-35 tons max payload, and a max range of 6000-6500 nma, seating configuration options nearly unlimited. That's where it will sell like hotcakes, airlines will be literally queing up for it. It can take 220+ people 3-11 hours away with very profitable economics.

There's just one problem - it would hit the 787 very hard where it hurts the most. At the same time it would hit also the A330. There are major risks with this approach, no doubt, but there's even a bigger risk: What if Airbus does it first? A323-XXXLR-LMAO-ROFL+++. Then they would have a lineup of 140pax - 6 hours, 200pax - 8 hours, and 220pax - 11 hours. All with unparallel operating costs and route flexibility to anything else on the market. Sounds charming huh? And let's not forget that Airbus for sure knows the limitations of the 330NEO, and the fact that they really have not much to offer between the 321 and the 350. Below the 321 they have plenty, and above the 350 there's no demand. They have time, resources, money and enthusiasm. Gee, kind of hard to guess where they will hit next.


Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.


Workers unions, pilots unions, all sorts of groups of people with certain benefits, will always oppose any change that they feel might negatively impact their benefits. Those groups are able to delay things, but in the end never prevent progress. It's a matter of negotiations, it could be also win-win. If the pilots get paid based on the seat-miles that they fly, or even just total miles rather than the plane type, I'm sure they could reach an agreement. Or something in between. Not to mention there are parts of the world where there are no such problems at all. Anyway, stopping progress in airplane development due to pilots being unhappy would be silly and shortsighted, in my opinion at least. Today's pilots are just a blip in the timeline of aviation history, which will keep on going long after today's pilots are gone.


Replacing the most comfortable widebody in coach (2-3-2 seating can't be beat) with satin's superstretch chariot isn't progress. Whoever came up with Oasis to describe the 321 at AA is still laughing.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:36 am

SierraPacific wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see an A321 type pay rate with an override to keep it in line with what current 7ER (757 & 767) pilots make. Spirit already does this with their A321's and it seems as though the pilot group is very happy with as it is a win win for both the company and labor.


I'm looking at their pay scale right now and the pay is the same for all 319/320/321. Spirit never operated the 757/767 or anything bigger than a 321 for that matter. Please explain how they could have a 321 override to appease the pilots for an aircraft that was never in their fleet? And such a thing would be completely uneconomical. Imagine an A319 operating MCO-FLL going tech and getting subbed with a 321. All of the sudden the pilots would be paid more? I don't think so.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:08 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Personally I think that the business case for the 797 is as close to dead / gamble as it can be, at least as far as we know the specs to be. The A321ceo can already carry 200+ passengers relatively comfortably and very affordably 2-6 hours away, with minimal risk of anything really. Flights are easy to sell out, narrowbody boarding time and -comfort, narrowbody gates and turnaround times, and on-board comfort which is extremely close to widebodys (in eco at least). I've had the pleasure of flying four 6-hour flights on an 321ceo over the past year, and I'm actually really liking this bird. Now the 321NEO will offer everything as the CEO, just lower fuel consumption, and even up to 7-hour flights, the XLR even 8-hour flights. The cabin is wide enough for comfort, and really the boarding is not a massive circus requiring 1,5-2 hours.

It shows that airlines want more and more narrowbodies or as-small-as-possible-bodies to cover ever longer distances, with lower and lower seatmilecosts. There's no turning back from this trend, no matter what the fuel costs, cheaper is always better. Also the travelling public appreciates more point-to-point travels from smaller airports - nobody enjoys travelling through the megahubs like LHR, JFK, or DXB. It's much nicer to head to your local airport just shortly before boarding, check your bag without a queue, pass the tiny security checkpoint occupied by the yawning security officers, and before you even know it, you're in the air. You didn't sweat, nobody pushed you in a queue, nobody raged at you, you didn't need 30 minutes of walking with a GPS to find your gate at the terminal, and you didn't waste 2 hours of your life waiting somewhere feeling like cattle.

What does any of this have to do with the 797? The fact that smaller & more capable = better. The A321 is so well established in it's "playpen", that only via direct competition the 797 could beat it. More or less the same specs, just a few % better in everything, and try to sell it for roughly the same price. The ROI is hard to make, not worth the risk I presume.

In order to make the 797 a success, they need to pimp it to 321XLR-esque, but in a playpen of its own, waaay above the 321XLR. Meaning it needs to have 30-35 tons max payload, and a max range of 6000-6500 nma, seating configuration options nearly unlimited. That's where it will sell like hotcakes, airlines will be literally queing up for it. It can take 220+ people 3-11 hours away with very profitable economics.

There's just one problem - it would hit the 787 very hard where it hurts the most. At the same time it would hit also the A330. There are major risks with this approach, no doubt, but there's even a bigger risk: What if Airbus does it first? A323-XXXLR-LMAO-ROFL+++. Then they would have a lineup of 140pax - 6 hours, 200pax - 8 hours, and 220pax - 11 hours. All with unparallel operating costs and route flexibility to anything else on the market. Sounds charming huh? And let's not forget that Airbus for sure knows the limitations of the 330NEO, and the fact that they really have not much to offer between the 321 and the 350. Below the 321 they have plenty, and above the 350 there's no demand. They have time, resources, money and enthusiasm. Gee, kind of hard to guess where they will hit next.


Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.

So you are suggesting Delta has to buy the 797 because the 757/767 pilots have to fly that plane or bigger? I didn’t know that the pilots are doing the fleet planning?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:01 am

marcelh wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
Personally I think that the business case for the 797 is as close to dead / gamble as it can be, at least as far as we know the specs to be. The A321ceo can already carry 200+ passengers relatively comfortably and very affordably 2-6 hours away, with minimal risk of anything really. Flights are easy to sell out, narrowbody boarding time and -comfort, narrowbody gates and turnaround times, and on-board comfort which is extremely close to widebodys (in eco at least). I've had the pleasure of flying four 6-hour flights on an 321ceo over the past year, and I'm actually really liking this bird. Now the 321NEO will offer everything as the CEO, just lower fuel consumption, and even up to 7-hour flights, the XLR even 8-hour flights. The cabin is wide enough for comfort, and really the boarding is not a massive circus requiring 1,5-2 hours.

It shows that airlines want more and more narrowbodies or as-small-as-possible-bodies to cover ever longer distances, with lower and lower seatmilecosts. There's no turning back from this trend, no matter what the fuel costs, cheaper is always better. Also the travelling public appreciates more point-to-point travels from smaller airports - nobody enjoys travelling through the megahubs like LHR, JFK, or DXB. It's much nicer to head to your local airport just shortly before boarding, check your bag without a queue, pass the tiny security checkpoint occupied by the yawning security officers, and before you even know it, you're in the air. You didn't sweat, nobody pushed you in a queue, nobody raged at you, you didn't need 30 minutes of walking with a GPS to find your gate at the terminal, and you didn't waste 2 hours of your life waiting somewhere feeling like cattle.

What does any of this have to do with the 797? The fact that smaller & more capable = better. The A321 is so well established in it's "playpen", that only via direct competition the 797 could beat it. More or less the same specs, just a few % better in everything, and try to sell it for roughly the same price. The ROI is hard to make, not worth the risk I presume.

In order to make the 797 a success, they need to pimp it to 321XLR-esque, but in a playpen of its own, waaay above the 321XLR. Meaning it needs to have 30-35 tons max payload, and a max range of 6000-6500 nma, seating configuration options nearly unlimited. That's where it will sell like hotcakes, airlines will be literally queing up for it. It can take 220+ people 3-11 hours away with very profitable economics.

There's just one problem - it would hit the 787 very hard where it hurts the most. At the same time it would hit also the A330. There are major risks with this approach, no doubt, but there's even a bigger risk: What if Airbus does it first? A323-XXXLR-LMAO-ROFL+++. Then they would have a lineup of 140pax - 6 hours, 200pax - 8 hours, and 220pax - 11 hours. All with unparallel operating costs and route flexibility to anything else on the market. Sounds charming huh? And let's not forget that Airbus for sure knows the limitations of the 330NEO, and the fact that they really have not much to offer between the 321 and the 350. Below the 321 they have plenty, and above the 350 there's no demand. They have time, resources, money and enthusiasm. Gee, kind of hard to guess where they will hit next.


Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.

So you are suggesting Delta has to buy the 797 because the 757/767 pilots have to fly that plane or bigger? I didn’t know that the pilots are doing the fleet planning?

Pilots can derail fleet planning. They are actually one of the reasons why Delta operated only 8 777s for so long (deliveries got deferred due to fight with pilots over 777 pay, then 9/11 happened).
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4246
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:28 pm

The first 797 will likely cover those shorter hops with 200-250(?) passengers fairly well, how short has not been well discussed on this site. I am guessing easily down to 1500 miles. Below that the larger MAXs will compete, maybe be superior to the 321. When people talk about the second iteration moving into 787 territory we are looking at something in the mid 2030s or later. At that point hybrid planes could be taking over short hops.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:59 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
The first 797 will likely cover those shorter hops with 200-250(?) passengers fairly well, how short has not been well discussed on this site. I am guessing easily down to 1500 miles. Below that the larger MAXs will compete, maybe be superior to the 321. When people talk about the second iteration moving into 787 territory we are looking at something in the mid 2030s or later. At that point hybrid planes could be taking over short hops.

The fact that QF's CEO is excited about 797 for domestic SYD-MEL-BNE triangle routes while also having A321 in the group's portfolio should be a clue that 797 should have a good future as a milk run people bomber.

DL is also excited for 797 for what I would think is a lot of ATL based milk runs, even though they are a big A321 and 739 operator.
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
seahawk
Posts: 9645
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:51 pm

Remind me again, which plane would be used on those routes if there is no 797?
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:42 pm

seahawk wrote:
Remind me again, which plane would be used on those routes if there is no 797?

If there is no 797 they would most probably buy 787's, or maybe A321XLR, but you shoudn't leave empty market gaps in the belief of you have the best non-optimal solution, because you are feeding the competence.

Right now it seems Airbus won't make the next step because they would be indeed fighting against their latest launch of the lower end of that gap.

So (in my very amateur position) I would think the best case for Boeing would be to position themselves just over the A321 XLR spot and try to cover the gap from there to the 767ER in the best possible way.
That's the situation that I see the most uncomfortable for Airbus,
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:11 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Carlos01 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Yeah, tell all of the 757/767 pilots that you are replacing their planes with a cheaper pay rate A321 and see how well that goes. The pilots will not roll over on the widebody fleet count. You'll see the second burning of Atlanta if Delta tried that.


Workers unions, pilots unions, all sorts of groups of people with certain benefits, will always oppose any change that they feel might negatively impact their benefits. Those groups are able to delay things, but in the end never prevent progress. It's a matter of negotiations, it could be also win-win. If the pilots get paid based on the seat-miles that they fly, or even just total miles rather than the plane type, I'm sure they could reach an agreement. Or something in between. Not to mention there are parts of the world where there are no such problems at all. Anyway, stopping progress in airplane development due to pilots being unhappy would be silly and shortsighted, in my opinion at least. Today's pilots are just a blip in the timeline of aviation history, which will keep on going long after today's pilots are gone.


Replacing the most comfortable widebody in coach (2-3-2 seating can't be beat) with satin's superstretch chariot isn't progress. Whoever came up with Oasis to describe the 321 at AA is still laughing.


as always, you shouldn't state opinions as facts. in your opinion, the 767 is more comfortable than the oasis planes. in my opinion, i'd much rather fly an oasis jet.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:14 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see an A321 type pay rate with an override to keep it in line with what current 7ER (757 & 767) pilots make. Spirit already does this with their A321's and it seems as though the pilot group is very happy with as it is a win win for both the company and labor.


I'm looking at their pay scale right now and the pay is the same for all 319/320/321. Spirit never operated the 757/767 or anything bigger than a 321 for that matter. Please explain how they could have a 321 override to appease the pilots for an aircraft that was never in their fleet? And such a thing would be completely uneconomical. Imagine an A319 operating MCO-FLL going tech and getting subbed with a 321. All of the sudden the pilots would be paid more? I don't think so.


In the pay notes on APC, you will see that fights flown with the A321 have a 2% pay override so the A321 does pay more than every other plane in the fleet at Spirit. The rate goes from 242 to 249 an hour for a 12 year captain. I would be shocked if this is not what companies do if an A321 stretch that has the ability to easily go transatlantic comes about in the next decade.

If I remember correctly from my neighbor that was a Spirit pilot, it came about because the Spirit a321's fit over 220 people in them so classing them with an A319 that fits sub 170 would be a rip off.
 
Schmave
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:12 pm

Ed Bastian says Delta still wants up to 200 797s if Boeing decides to go ahead with the program:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

So if Boeing can get their act together with the 737 MAX and get the 777X going maybe we'll see some big orders from Delta at launch.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:19 pm

Schmave wrote:
Ed Bastian says Delta still wants up to 200 797s if Boeing decides to go ahead with the program:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

So if Boeing can get their act together with the 737 MAX and get the 777X going maybe we'll see some big orders from Delta at launch.
Lots of ifs and maybes. I believe this nma project is still very much undecided within Boeing. Plus excellent orders booked by the A321LR and A321XLR has diminished the nma prospects.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
2175301
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:47 pm

My source indicates that the 797 is still on track; although offer to market is now likely late 1st Quarter early 2nd Quarter 2020 due to the 737Max issue. They were ready to offer to market this past summer, and delayed due to the 737Max issues.

Have a great day,
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:51 pm

Schmave wrote:
Ed Bastian says Delta still wants up to 200 797s if Boeing decides to go ahead with the program:


That's quite an optimistic read. Here's Bastian's quote from Bloomberg:

“I do anticipate they will do it. I hope they will do it,” Delta CEO Ed Bastian said in an interview Wednesday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. “We have a significant need between the retirements of the 757 and 767 fleets. That’s almost 200 aircraft over the next decade.”

That they may replace 'almost 200 aircraft over the next decade' doesn't mean they want 200 797s. These details matter in contract negotiations. DL will replace 40 or more 757 and 767 before the first 797 is delivered - if ever.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:26 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
“I do anticipate they will do it. I hope they will do it,” Delta CEO Ed Bastian said in an interview Wednesday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. “We have a significant need between the retirements of the 757 and 767 fleets. That’s almost 200 aircraft over the next decade.”


Airbus lists the following A321neo orders by USA airlines on their spreadsheet, but they do not specifically highlight LR and XLR variants
100 Delta
120 American
85 JetBlue
34 Frontier Airlines
16 Hawaiian

I believe Hawaiian is going to lease 2 extra A321neos. But to the best of my knowledge the only airlines that have upgraded some of their orders to LR and now XLR variants are American, JetBlue and Frontier (please correct me if I am wrong).

One mile at a time breaks down JetBlue's 85 orders:
JetBlue has 59 A321neos on order, with deliveries to begin this year
JetBlue has 13 A321LRs on order, with delivery to begin in 2021
JetBlue has 13 A321XLRs on order, with delivery to begin in 2023

One mile at a time breaks down American's 120 orders as 70 A321neo, and 50 A321XLR.

One mile at a time breaks down Frontier's 34 orders as 16 A321neo, and 18 A321XLR.

Can we infer that Ed Bastian does not consider the A321LR a potential replacement for some of Delta's 111 B757-200s and 16 B757-300s? Or are they still debating?
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4789
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:48 am

SierraPacific wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see an A321 type pay rate with an override to keep it in line with what current 7ER (757 & 767) pilots make. Spirit already does this with their A321's and it seems as though the pilot group is very happy with as it is a win win for both the company and labor.


I'm looking at their pay scale right now and the pay is the same for all 319/320/321. Spirit never operated the 757/767 or anything bigger than a 321 for that matter. Please explain how they could have a 321 override to appease the pilots for an aircraft that was never in their fleet? And such a thing would be completely uneconomical. Imagine an A319 operating MCO-FLL going tech and getting subbed with a 321. All of the sudden the pilots would be paid more? I don't think so.


In the pay notes on APC, you will see that fights flown with the A321 have a 2% pay override so the A321 does pay more than every other plane in the fleet at Spirit. The rate goes from 242 to 249 an hour for a 12 year captain. I would be shocked if this is not what companies do if an A321 stretch that has the ability to easily go transatlantic comes about in the next decade.

If I remember correctly from my neighbor that was a Spirit pilot, it came about because the Spirit a321's fit over 220 people in them so classing them with an A319 that fits sub 170 would be a rip off.


"Rip off"? Is the GM line worker attaching the wheels to the Cadillac Escalade being "ripped off" because he gets paid the same as the worker attaching the wheels on the Chevy Suburban?
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
sibibom
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:53 am

SpiceJet is threatening 100 A321Neo/LR/XLR order soon if Boeing doesn't move.

source : https://www.ndtv.com/business/spicejet- ... ls-2106885
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:11 am

I still wonder where the NMA be placed in the market. Will it target B757 replacements or 767 replacements? In my opinion if it could fit both it would already be in production, but right now it seems this cannot be done. So go for the 757 and fight the 321? Really hard bringing a new line up and compete against a line pumping up 65+ a month (in 2026). Airbus then can just reduce the price and then it will be hard for the 797 to ever make a profit. Target the 767? Then you leave the 757 market to Airbus and they can just cash in.

What cockpit design? New one for future commonality with the NSA? Use commonality with the 787? If you target LCCs then you go with the first as they have no 787s but on the other side legacy carriers probably prefer commonality with the 787 as they mostly operate A+B NB fleets. It must be really tough to actually find a place for the 797. If you compromise too much you make a sub par aircraft but if you do not compromise you lose out half the market. On top of that, will a new engine really be ready? And will it be good enough to compete with the next engine generation from 2030 onward?
 
Andy33
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:34 am

FluidFlow wrote:
I still wonder where the NMA be placed in the market. Will it target B757 replacements or 767 replacements? In my opinion if it could fit both it would already be in production, but right now it seems this cannot be done. So go for the 757 and fight the 321? Really hard bringing a new line up and compete against a line pumping up 65+ a month (in 2026). Airbus then can just reduce the price and then it will be hard for the 797 to ever make a profit. Target the 767? Then you leave the 757 market to Airbus and they can just cash in.


It seems to be the firm conviction of so many posters that this plane has to specifically replace either 757s or 767s. The problem for me is that the continuing delay in launching it means that month by month the 757 and/or 767 replacement market is dwindling away. Outside the USA, how many 757s are in passenger service right now? Now 767s are in demand as freighters, both new-build and conversions, but again, outside the USA, how many passenger 767s are there left? Rather more, I'm sure, because production continued into this decade.

Of the 757s and 767s left carrying passengers, many are approaching what their operators consider the end of their lives. Other operators with major inhouse capability or later-delivered planes may coax enough years out of them to reach the time when significant numbers of 797s, whatever and whenever that turns out to be, begin to be delivered.

So the quantities of 757/767 straight replacements probably aren't going to be enough to justify production of a 797 on their own. That doesn't mean that Boeing won't be able to market the plane successfully and profitably, but it will need to appeal to airlines that have never flown 757s and 767s (which after all is an awful lot of airlines) as well as those clinging on to the remaining fleets. In the meantime sales of A321s, A330s, 788s and MAX10s (when they finally appear in the skies) will have taken some of the sales potential out of play for years to come. Not every airline can simply redeploy planes they have just paid for onto other work (which may not even exist, or may have no need of changing the aircraft already used).
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:36 am

Also the MAX-10 needs some sales as well to justify the R&D and the certification efforts and if a potential 797 eats sales away (by conversions) this is also not ideal. It is one tricky pony because the whole process from scratch to market for the 797 will cost $20B+. Thats a lot of money at stake for an aircraft that probably competes against large NB derivatives that cost approx 50-60m to buy and can be discounted even more if needed.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:50 pm

Pyrex wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm looking at their pay scale right now and the pay is the same for all 319/320/321. Spirit never operated the 757/767 or anything bigger than a 321 for that matter. Please explain how they could have a 321 override to appease the pilots for an aircraft that was never in their fleet? And such a thing would be completely uneconomical. Imagine an A319 operating MCO-FLL going tech and getting subbed with a 321. All of the sudden the pilots would be paid more? I don't think so.


In the pay notes on APC, you will see that fights flown with the A321 have a 2% pay override so the A321 does pay more than every other plane in the fleet at Spirit. The rate goes from 242 to 249 an hour for a 12 year captain. I would be shocked if this is not what companies do if an A321 stretch that has the ability to easily go transatlantic comes about in the next decade.

If I remember correctly from my neighbor that was a Spirit pilot, it came about because the Spirit a321's fit over 220 people in them so classing them with an A319 that fits sub 170 would be a rip off.


"Rip off"? Is the GM line worker attaching the wheels to the Cadillac Escalade being "ripped off" because he gets paid the same as the worker attaching the wheels on the Chevy Suburban?


You literally just did the ultimate apples to orange comparison. The A321 in Spirit config carries way more than a Delta 757 so it is only fair that the pilots get paid more to carry more people like how a 747 captain makes more than a 757 captain.

Paying by how many seats are on the aircraft is how every airline has negotiated contracts with pilots since aviation unions started so I would look up how pilot contracts work at airlines with multiple fleet types to get an idea on it.

But yes it is a rip off if the A321 did not have an 2% pay override attached to it.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2524
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 7:57 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

In the pay notes on APC, you will see that fights flown with the A321 have a 2% pay override so the A321 does pay more than every other plane in the fleet at Spirit. The rate goes from 242 to 249 an hour for a 12 year captain. I would be shocked if this is not what companies do if an A321 stretch that has the ability to easily go transatlantic comes about in the next decade.

If I remember correctly from my neighbor that was a Spirit pilot, it came about because the Spirit a321's fit over 220 people in them so classing them with an A319 that fits sub 170 would be a rip off.


"Rip off"? Is the GM line worker attaching the wheels to the Cadillac Escalade being "ripped off" because he gets paid the same as the worker attaching the wheels on the Chevy Suburban?


You literally just did the ultimate apples to orange comparison. The A321 in Spirit config carries way more than a Delta 757 so it is only fair that the pilots get paid more to carry more people like how a 747 captain makes more than a 757 captain.

Paying by how many seats are on the aircraft is how every airline has negotiated contracts with pilots since aviation unions started so I would look up how pilot contracts work at airlines with multiple fleet types to get an idea on it.

But yes it is a rip off if the A321 did not have an 2% pay override attached to it.


How so? Pay should be based on seniority and nothing else. If the most senior captain wants to fly the smallest narrowbody on domestic trips then why should he earn less pay? I prefer the FedEx and UPS payscales. They make more sense. At UPS a 757 pilot gets paid the same as a 747 pot. The difference is based on seniority, as it should be.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:03 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Pyrex wrote:

"Rip off"? Is the GM line worker attaching the wheels to the Cadillac Escalade being "ripped off" because he gets paid the same as the worker attaching the wheels on the Chevy Suburban?


You literally just did the ultimate apples to orange comparison. The A321 in Spirit config carries way more than a Delta 757 so it is only fair that the pilots get paid more to carry more people like how a 747 captain makes more than a 757 captain.

Paying by how many seats are on the aircraft is how every airline has negotiated contracts with pilots since aviation unions started so I would look up how pilot contracts work at airlines with multiple fleet types to get an idea on it.

But yes it is a rip off if the A321 did not have an 2% pay override attached to it.


How so? Pay should be based on seniority and nothing else. If the most senior captain wants to fly the smallest narrowbody on domestic trips then why should he earn less pay? I prefer the FedEx and UPS payscales. They make more sense. At UPS a 757 pilot gets paid the same as a 747 pot. The difference is based on seniority, as it should be.


I totally agree that the cargo payscales are better since they are all even so you can fly anything you want at the same pay scale. I was just saying in the context of how the pax carriers pay based on the number of seats, an A321 (220 seats in ULCC config IIRC) pushes the boundary of what an A320 rate should be since it should be the 757 pay rate for that many seats.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:30 pm

oschkosch wrote:
Schmave wrote:
Ed Bastian says Delta still wants up to 200 797s if Boeing decides to go ahead with the program:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

So if Boeing can get their act together with the 737 MAX and get the 777X going maybe we'll see some big orders from Delta at launch.
Lots of ifs and maybes. I believe this nma project is still very much undecided within Boeing. Plus excellent orders booked by the A321LR and A321XLR has diminished the nma prospects.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk



“Obviously Airbus is at the table and they are offering us product today, but we want to wait and see what Boeing can create,” Bastian said. “We’ll need to make some decisions relative to the Airbus fleet sooner, but we’re not going to make a big decision until we know for sure what Boeing is going to do.”

That's a big "if" in favor of the 797. Bastian acknowledges that Airbus has something today, but he is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create".
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4789
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:14 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

You literally just did the ultimate apples to orange comparison. The A321 in Spirit config carries way more than a Delta 757 so it is only fair that the pilots get paid more to carry more people like how a 747 captain makes more than a 757 captain.

Paying by how many seats are on the aircraft is how every airline has negotiated contracts with pilots since aviation unions started so I would look up how pilot contracts work at airlines with multiple fleet types to get an idea on it.

But yes it is a rip off if the A321 did not have an 2% pay override attached to it.


How so? Pay should be based on seniority and nothing else. If the most senior captain wants to fly the smallest narrowbody on domestic trips then why should he earn less pay? I prefer the FedEx and UPS payscales. They make more sense. At UPS a 757 pilot gets paid the same as a 747 pot. The difference is based on seniority, as it should be.


I totally agree that the cargo payscales are better since they are all even so you can fly anything you want at the same pay scale. I was just saying in the context of how the pax carriers pay based on the number of seats, an A321 (220 seats in ULCC config IIRC) pushes the boundary of what an A320 rate should be since it should be the 757 pay rate for that many seats.


So you should continue to do something stupid just because you have been doing it for a while and that is what you have gotten used to? I thought that only worked with drugs...
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:55 pm

Pyrex wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

How so? Pay should be based on seniority and nothing else. If the most senior captain wants to fly the smallest narrowbody on domestic trips then why should he earn less pay? I prefer the FedEx and UPS payscales. They make more sense. At UPS a 757 pilot gets paid the same as a 747 pot. The difference is based on seniority, as it should be.


I totally agree that the cargo payscales are better since they are all even so you can fly anything you want at the same pay scale. I was just saying in the context of how the pax carriers pay based on the number of seats, an A321 (220 seats in ULCC config IIRC) pushes the boundary of what an A320 rate should be since it should be the 757 pay rate for that many seats.


So you should continue to do something stupid just because you have been doing it for a while and that is what you have gotten used to? I thought that only worked with drugs...


What is so stupid about it? You are literally transporting more passengers (70 more) for the company with them just pocketing the difference on labor costs combined with the fact that seats per airplane/size of airplane are how passenger airlines have negotiated labor contracts since Pan Am was flying into Tehran.

It is the most trivial thing (Like at most 10k a year) that has you all bunched up and it doesn't affect anyone outside of the bean counters and the pilots.

Back on topic though, a pay override would be an easy way to introduce an NMA with different size configurations without opening the can of worms of contract negotiations.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 4:31 am

sibibom wrote:
SpiceJet is threatening 100 A321Neo/LR/XLR order soon if Boeing doesn't move.

source : https://www.ndtv.com/business/spicejet- ... ls-2106885


What a horrible situation for airlines including Delta and Spice Jet.

There is a real craze for the NMA / 797 but Boeing has become too quiet because he is too concerned about the debacle of the 737MAX.

Mr. Singh understands the situation and gives himself another year to see Boeing's decision!
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9308
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:04 am

morrisond wrote:
Is Boeing using the wrong seat pitches when they themselves quote the 737-10 2 class as 188-204? Or are they not allowed to redefine there own standards (if they have too to get those capacities)?


no idea.
But I have issues with capacity calculations designed to (over|mis)state capabilities
that find no real world application.
Boeing referencing a decades old seating map to show advantage over
the competition is not the only method to produce insincere spec information.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13958
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:38 am

jagraham wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Schmave wrote:
Ed Bastian says Delta still wants up to 200 797s if Boeing decides to go ahead with the program:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

So if Boeing can get their act together with the 737 MAX and get the 777X going maybe we'll see some big orders from Delta at launch.
Lots of ifs and maybes. I believe this nma project is still very much undecided within Boeing. Plus excellent orders booked by the A321LR and A321XLR has diminished the nma prospects.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk



“Obviously Airbus is at the table and they are offering us product today, but we want to wait and see what Boeing can create,” Bastian said. “We’ll need to make some decisions relative to the Airbus fleet sooner, but we’re not going to make a big decision until we know for sure what Boeing is going to do.”

That's a big "if" in favor of the 797. Bastian acknowledges that Airbus has something today, but he is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create".


He can wait because he has a significant NEO backlog / slot options that can be easily be converted with a limitted notice.

Realistically there won't be any 797 before 2027. Replacing a 30-35yr old 757 with a new A321XLR results in a steep cost reduction.
Bastian knows, Boeing knows, Airbus knows. The lather, looking at an incredible backlog, probably isn't in discount mood. Also all know.



As for the NMA, there have been rumblings among analysts that Boeing might eventually shelve the proposed plane, which targets a narrow market sliver between the largest single-aisle and smallest wide-body aircraft. Some think the Chicago-based manufacturer should instead focus on a new single-aisle family that would range in size from the 737 Max 8 to the 757.

Boeing still has a team of engineers “making good progress on risk reduction and the business case” for the NMA, CEO Dennis Muilenburg said last week. While the company isn’t going to rush to a decision, “we’re also going to continue investing in innovation. NMA is helping us create the production system of the future and that’s going to be valuable for the long run
.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

I agree with "some" Boeing better focus on a NB. I never seen convincing 2-3-2 calculations in terms of weight & efficiency close to what Airbus is selling / introducing today with the LR/XLR. Only Boeing says so. They better get real.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9308
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 9:10 am

keesje wrote:
I never seen convincing 2-3-2 calculations in terms of weight & efficiency close to what Airbus is selling / introducing today with the LR/XLR. Only Boeing says so. They better get real.


neither has Boeing beyond the 4color public side of things.

Afaics 797 and maybe even an NSA will stay a FUD stanchion.
Murphy is an optimist
 
jagraham
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:31 am

keesje wrote:
jagraham wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Lots of ifs and maybes. I believe this nma project is still very much undecided within Boeing. Plus excellent orders booked by the A321LR and A321XLR has diminished the nma prospects.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk



“Obviously Airbus is at the table and they are offering us product today, but we want to wait and see what Boeing can create,” Bastian said. “We’ll need to make some decisions relative to the Airbus fleet sooner, but we’re not going to make a big decision until we know for sure what Boeing is going to do.”

That's a big "if" in favor of the 797. Bastian acknowledges that Airbus has something today, but he is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create".


He can wait because he has a significant NEO backlog / slot options that can be easily be converted with a limitted notice.

Realistically there won't be any 797 before 2027. Replacing a 30-35yr old 757 with a new A321XLR results in a steep cost reduction.
Bastian knows, Boeing knows, Airbus knows. The lather, looking at an incredible backlog, probably isn't in discount mood. Also all know.
.


If there is any US customer Airbus will discount for, it's DL. Especially after jumpstarting the A220.

As for waiting on NMA / 797, Delta has also said that they want to move sooner rather than later because they don't want to redo the 767 interiors.
If DL brought Airbus today, that would not be an issue.
It also needs to be said that it is significant that DL is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create", considering that so many A.net posters have concluded the existing DL Airbus orders are sufficient to replace the 767s. If the existing orders were sufficient to replace the 767s, DL would not be waiting.
Finally, I expect DL to end up with some A321XLRs. But only as 757 overwater replacements. Time to put a stake in the idea that A321XLRs will replace 767s internationally at DL. A321s partially replaced 767 domestics, but those are all gone now.
 
planecane
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:38 am

keesje wrote:

As for the NMA, there have been rumblings among analysts that Boeing might eventually shelve the proposed plane, which targets a narrow market sliver between the largest single-aisle and smallest wide-body aircraft. Some think the Chicago-based manufacturer should instead focus on a new single-aisle family that would range in size from the 737 Max 8 to the 757.

Boeing still has a team of engineers “making good progress on risk reduction and the business case” for the NMA, CEO Dennis Muilenburg said last week. While the company isn’t going to rush to a decision, “we’re also going to continue investing in innovation. NMA is helping us create the production system of the future and that’s going to be valuable for the long run
.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

I agree with "some" Boeing better focus on a NB. I never seen convincing 2-3-2 calculations in terms of weight & efficiency close to what Airbus is selling / introducing today with the LR/XLR. Only Boeing says so. They better get real.


For the 2-3-2 NMA to work, either Boeing has made some kind of technological breakthrough or it would have to be part of some kind of 757/767 type common development that shares development costs with the NSA. Unless they have made a technological breakthrough, the market sliver isn't big enough to support the $20 billion investment. It would make much more sense to me to invest in the NSA and a weight and range reduced 787 variant (possibly shrunk) to cover any demand for a regional widebody.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4789
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:32 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:

I totally agree that the cargo payscales are better since they are all even so you can fly anything you want at the same pay scale. I was just saying in the context of how the pax carriers pay based on the number of seats, an A321 (220 seats in ULCC config IIRC) pushes the boundary of what an A320 rate should be since it should be the 757 pay rate for that many seats.


So you should continue to do something stupid just because you have been doing it for a while and that is what you have gotten used to? I thought that only worked with drugs...


What is so stupid about it? You are literally transporting more passengers (70 more) for the company with them just pocketing the difference on labor costs combined with the fact that seats per airplane/size of airplane are how passenger airlines have negotiated labor contracts since Pan Am was flying into Tehran.

It is the most trivial thing (Like at most 10k a year) that has you all bunched up and it doesn't affect anyone outside of the bean counters and the pilots.

Back on topic though, a pay override would be an easy way to introduce an NMA with different size configurations without opening the can of worms of contract negotiations.


No, you are not doing more for the company, you are doing the exact same amount of work, which is take off, fly and land safely. That is why they get paid the same for a ferry flight then for one with an 100% load factor... A cook at McDonald's doesn't get paid more for a Big Mac meal than he does for items from the dollar menu.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:04 pm

planecane wrote:
For the 2-3-2 NMA to work, either Boeing has made some kind of technological breakthrough or it would have to be part of some kind of 757/767 type common development that shares development costs with the NSA. Unless they have made a technological breakthrough, the market sliver isn't big enough to support the $20 billion investment. It would make much more sense to me to invest in the NSA and a weight and range reduced 787 variant (possibly shrunk) to cover any demand for a regional widebody.

I think the fact that NMA is aimed at the market "sliver" says more about the tech than the market.

If Boeing felt the tech could be used to attack the narrow body market it probably would be, the fact that they are not attacking that market says it probably cannot, at this point in time.

A lot of the things that make sense on 787 such as CFRP barrrels and full sized EE bay needed for "more electric" architecture don't scale down in size very well.

It's also pretty clear that they think the market "sliver" will grow a lot more than most people who think of this as a 767-200 replacement.

Time will tell if we see NMA from Boeing or not, and if it does fit a growing market requirement or not.

Delta's statements about waiting for the product offering and wanting up to 200 is pretty darn encouraging, though.

It stops the "just take more A321s" crowd dead in its tracks.

It shows a major customer is differentiating NMA from A321 in a way many A321 supporters thought would not happen.

QF Group is another major customer who also is recognizing such differentiation, despite already having A321s in their fleet.
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
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:22 pm

Revelation wrote:

Delta's statements about waiting for the product offering and wanting up to 200 is pretty darn encouraging, though.

It stops the "just take more A321s" crowd dead in its tracks.

It shows a major customer is differentiating NMA from A321 in a way many A321 supporters thought would not happen.

QF Group is another major customer who also is recognizing such differentiation, despite already having A321s in their fleet.


I can remember the days when 200 aircraft was enough to launch a program by itself.

The A321 is a good airplane, but apparently our friends at Boeing have come up with something somewhere in the design of the NMA to make it worthwhile for both to be in the same fleet.
 
moa999
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:37 pm

Interesting article here, presumably pushing an Airbus angle
https://airlinegeeks.com/2019/09/24/air ... -aircraft/
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:38 pm

Pyrex wrote:
No, you are not doing more for the company, you are doing the exact same amount of work, which is take off, fly and land safely. That is why they get paid the same for a ferry flight then for one with an 100% load factor... A cook at McDonald's doesn't get paid more for a Big Mac meal than he does for items from the dollar menu.


It's OT for this 797 thread but you're trying to rationalize away a practice that exists/has existed at many U.S. carriers for decades. Broadly, more seats = higher pay rates. More years of service = higher pay rates, to a max of 12-14 years. This is the way it works at AA, DL, UA, and B6. Carriers with less fleet diversity may have a simpler rate structure. Alaska does not, for example, have separate pay rates for 737-700, -800s, and -900s.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:49 pm

Andy33 wrote:
It seems to be the firm conviction of so many posters that this plane has to specifically replace either 757s or 767s. The problem for me is that the continuing delay in launching it means that month by month the 757 and/or 767 replacement market is dwindling away. Outside the USA, how many 757s are in passenger service right now? Now 767s are in demand as freighters, both new-build and conversions, but again, outside the USA, how many passenger 767s are there left? Rather more, I'm sure, because production continued into this decade.


I don't even understand how this could be a question. Boeing is talking about selling anywhere from 3000 to 4000 of the B797, and the market is very small for replacements.

United
55 B757-200 23.5
21 B757-300 17.1

Delta
111 B757-200 22.6
16 B757-300 16.4

American
34 B757-200 19.7

# delivered - model - years ago first delivery ; final delivery
128 767-200 37.1 25.5
121 767-200ER 35.5 11.5
104 767-300 33.0 18.1
583 767-300ER 31.6 5.3
38 767-400ER 19.1 10.7
Last edited by PacoMartin on Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:52 pm

ILNFlyer wrote:
The A321 is a good airplane, but apparently our friends at Boeing have come up with something somewhere in the design of the NMA to make it worthwhile for both to be in the same fleet.

I'd go further and say a modern A321 is a great aircraft and leader in its class, yet there's still room for more products in the market, and as you say, room for both products to be in the same fleet.

The situation is similar for A350 vs 777x: A350 is leading the 77E replacement market yet many blue chip customers are finding room for A350, 787 and 777x in their fleets.

It's not "winner takes all" as some seem to suggest.
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
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4789
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:55 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Pyrex wrote:
No, you are not doing more for the company, you are doing the exact same amount of work, which is take off, fly and land safely. That is why they get paid the same for a ferry flight then for one with an 100% load factor... A cook at McDonald's doesn't get paid more for a Big Mac meal than he does for items from the dollar menu.


It's OT for this 797 thread but you're trying to rationalize away a practice that exists/has existed at many U.S. carriers for decades. Broadly, more seats = higher pay rates. More years of service = higher pay rates, to a max of 12-14 years. This is the way it works at AA, DL, UA, and B6. Carriers with less fleet diversity may have a simpler rate structure. Alaska does not, for example, have separate pay rates for 737-700, -800s, and -900s.


This topic just reminds me of my favorite T-shirt, which unfortunately has shrunk in the wash over all these years (or at least that is the excuse I use for why it is now so tight...). It features a Demotivator, which are basically pictures made to look like those baloney corporate motivational posters, but with messages that are more honest. It features an image of a bullfighter, with big, hold letters underneath it saying "Tradition". Underneath that, in a smaller, more discreet font, is the sentence "Just because you have always done something doesn't mean it is not incredibly stupid".
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:01 pm

jagraham wrote:
It also needs to be said that it is significant that DL is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create", considering that so many A.net posters have concluded the existing DL Airbus orders are sufficient to replace the 767s. If the existing orders were sufficient to replace the 767s, DL would not be waiting.
Finally, I expect DL to end up with some A321XLRs. But only as 757 overwater replacements. Time to put a stake in the idea that A321XLRs will replace 767s internationally at DL. A321s partially replaced 767 domestics, but those are all gone now.


IMHO DL will wind up with more than 18 321XLRs to replace the 75S subfleet. The number of ETOPS domestic F 757s escapes me. (I think they'll eventually order more than the 35 339s, too.)

Boeing has put itself into a box with the NMA launch delays and the target ~2025 in-service date. Even if you wholly discount the idea that MAX troubles have delayed NMA (and I do not), there's always timing risk with launching a new frame (and new engine?) DL isn't stupid. DL will be retiring non-trivial numbers of 757 and 767-300s before 2025. If the NMA slides to 2028 it would be very, very ugly for DL. They'll want something in the delivery pipeline to mitigate that risk.

I'm thinking maybe an order for 50 321XLRs with options for another 100 and conversion rights to 321LRs. Maybe another 15 339s - unless DL orders 787s.

A legit 4,000nm plane (reserves, winter winds, typical DL seating density) has a lot of value in the DL route network of today and tomorrow. That gives a lot of flexibility TATL from BOS/JFK/DTW. It would give narrowbody capability from LAX/SLC/ATL to much of northern South America. ATL/DTW to 2nd-tier Hawaii.

Could Boeing be happy with DL as a launch customer for ONLY 100 NMAs and options for a further 100?
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:19 pm

Delta could always just keep most of the 757 flying low-cycle, longer routes than just ATL-Florida if it wants to maximize how long they’ll last before the NMA comes. Even that probably wouldn’t suffice.
 
cessna2
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:16 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:28 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
It also needs to be said that it is significant that DL is "wait(ing) and see what Boeing can create", considering that so many A.net posters have concluded the existing DL Airbus orders are sufficient to replace the 767s. If the existing orders were sufficient to replace the 767s, DL would not be waiting.
Finally, I expect DL to end up with some A321XLRs. But only as 757 overwater replacements. Time to put a stake in the idea that A321XLRs will replace 767s internationally at DL. A321s partially replaced 767 domestics, but those are all gone now.


IMHO DL will wind up with more than 18 321XLRs to replace the 75S subfleet. The number of ETOPS domestic F 757s escapes me. (I think they'll eventually order more than the 35 339s, too.)

Boeing has put itself into a box with the NMA launch delays and the target ~2025 in-service date. Even if you wholly discount the idea that MAX troubles have delayed NMA (and I do not), there's always timing risk with launching a new frame (and new engine?) DL isn't stupid. DL will be retiring non-trivial numbers of 757 and 767-300s before 2025. If the NMA slides to 2028 it would be very, very ugly for DL. They'll want something in the delivery pipeline to mitigate that risk.

I'm thinking maybe an order for 50 321XLRs with options for another 100 and conversion rights to 321LRs. Maybe another 15 339s - unless DL orders 787s.

A legit 4,000nm plane (reserves, winter winds, typical DL seating density) has a lot of value in the DL route network of today and tomorrow. That gives a lot of flexibility TATL from BOS/JFK/DTW. It would give narrowbody capability from LAX/SLC/ATL to much of northern South America. ATL/DTW to 2nd-tier Hawaii.

Could Boeing be happy with DL as a launch customer for ONLY 100 NMAs and options for a further 100?

They have 37 339's on order. The order book increased by 2 recently. I agree we'll see DL convert some of their 100 options of the NEO to the XLR. It would be very easy to do and Airbus will accommodate DL in any way possible.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:37 pm

I put a third column on this analysis

# delivered - model - first delivery - average delivery - most recent delivery (years)
128 767-200 37.1 35.1 25.5
121 767-200ER 35.5 28.8 11.5
104 767-300 33.0 27.9 18.1
583 767-300ER 31.6 22.1 5.3
38 767-400ER 19.1 18.1 10.7

So while the most recent delivery of 767-300ER was 5.3 years ago, on average they were delivered more than 22 years ago. So in 9 years there shouldn't be that many active ones left.

161 767-300F 24.0 9.1 0.1
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:08 pm

planecane wrote:
keesje wrote:

As for the NMA, there have been rumblings among analysts that Boeing might eventually shelve the proposed plane, which targets a narrow market sliver between the largest single-aisle and smallest wide-body aircraft. Some think the Chicago-based manufacturer should instead focus on a new single-aisle family that would range in size from the 737 Max 8 to the 757.

Boeing still has a team of engineers “making good progress on risk reduction and the business case” for the NMA, CEO Dennis Muilenburg said last week. While the company isn’t going to rush to a decision, “we’re also going to continue investing in innovation. NMA is helping us create the production system of the future and that’s going to be valuable for the long run
.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

I agree with "some" Boeing better focus on a NB. I never seen convincing 2-3-2 calculations in terms of weight & efficiency close to what Airbus is selling / introducing today with the LR/XLR. Only Boeing says so. They better get real.


For the 2-3-2 NMA to work, either Boeing has made some kind of technological breakthrough or it would have to be part of some kind of 757/767 type common development that shares development costs with the NSA. Unless they have made a technological breakthrough, the market sliver isn't big enough to support the $20 billion investment. It would make much more sense to me to invest in the NSA and a weight and range reduced 787 variant (possibly shrunk) to cover any demand for a regional widebody.


isn't that the goal for project black diamond? get the 797 going and use the lessons from that to build a rate 60 7107.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
[
It stops the "just take more A321s" crowd dead in its tracks.

It shows a major customer is differentiating NMA from A321 in a way many A321 supporters thought would not happen.



Sorry but actually no. For me, looking at it in an Airbus perspective (from my personal point of view!), it is an encouraging statement. DL has clearly stated the potential volume, Boeing has not even clarified what they intend to offer.
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13958
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:17 pm

musman9853 wrote:
planecane wrote:
keesje wrote:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-future

I agree with "some" Boeing better focus on a NB. I never seen convincing 2-3-2 calculations in terms of weight & efficiency close to what Airbus is selling / introducing today with the LR/XLR. Only Boeing says so. They better get real.


For the 2-3-2 NMA to work, either Boeing has made some kind of technological breakthrough or it would have to be part of some kind of 757/767 type common development that shares development costs with the NSA. Unless they have made a technological breakthrough, the market sliver isn't big enough to support the $20 billion investment. It would make much more sense to me to invest in the NSA and a weight and range reduced 787 variant (possibly shrunk) to cover any demand for a regional widebody.


isn't that the goal for project black diamond? get the 797 going and use the lessons from that to build a rate 60 7107.


You must be referring to the secret program "Mighty Eagle" where the worlds best engineers have resiliently been validating cutting edge production technology creating the game changing NMA that will clean house from 2025.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

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