morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:36 pm

RJMAZ wrote:

Now this is the problem. 58m long and a 4.2m high fuselage would be skinnier than the 757-300.

Going to 2-4-2 and hitting the 228 and 267 two class values would require 43m and 48m lengths with the future 797-8 then being 53m long. With 4.5m fuselage height gives a nice 11.7 side aspect fineness ratio for the 797-8.

The obvious concern with 2-4-2 is the 797-6 would be too stubby at 4.5m height and 43m length gives a fineness ratio of 9.55. That is actually skinnier than an A320 which is has ratio of 9.08!

So even with 8ab the shortest 797-6 will be skinnier than an A320.


RJAMZ - even if your numbers are right (and they might be we are all just guessing) - how do you get to an 4.5M Fuselage Height with 8W and only 4.2 M on 7W?

Are you assuming a different size container in the belly? If not why would Boeing be so inefficient to add that unneeded fuselage height on 8W?

The 7W will probably need to be a little thicker than 4.2M anyways - that is only 2" more than an A320 - even if they stick to an LD3-45 (I assume it will be a new container to take advantage of the extra belly width plus maybe a few inches higher) that seems like it would be hard to hit that number (4.2M) with the crown height they need in the Middle to account for the overhead bins over the middle seats. It will probably need to be at least 4.3M and maybe up to your 4.5M.

In any case - assuming you are right (and I would still suggest you start with a 737-10 at about 195 2 class to get to an 797-6 at most the same length of about 44M then 48M for the -7 and 52M for the -8) on all your assumptions you still aren't allowing for the possibility that Carbon's inherent stiffness advantages could easily allow for longer fuselages.

BTW - if you are right and 8W is the way they go - that means even shorter than my 7W assumptions - you probably wouldn't pick up much in the front as it would still be 2x2x2 in the front Domestic Business - but it would make 1x1x1 sleepers or possibly 1x2x1 easier - and the extra seat width in the back probably means 3-4 rows less - call it 3M less - so an 8W 797 would be something like 41m, 45m and 49m in -6,-7,-8 sizes.

All seems possible. But remember they are shooting for Single Aisle Efficiency in an Dual Aisle - they will need to be as efficient as possible in there fuselage design (as low and and narrow and short as possible) to keep weight down if they are going to compete in this space with a possible rewing/stretch A322.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:01 am

morrisond wrote:
[RJAMZ - even if your numbers are right (and they might be we are all just guessing) - how do you get to an 4.5M Fuselage Height with 8W and only 4.2 M on 7W?

Are you assuming a different size container in the belly? If not why would Boeing be so inefficient to add that unneeded fuselage height on 8W?

The 7ab with the 4.2m height would fit the LD3-45 nicely. Remember the wider fuselage means the curve of the lower half has a bigger radius allowing the container to sit slightly lower in the fuselage.

Cabin width for the 7ab would be 4.5m for the 7ab with a 4.8m exterior width. 22cm or 10inchs less than the 767. Basically bringing the 18inch 767 seats down to 17inch seats and knocking an inch of each aisle. So a 4.2m high fuselage that is 4.8m wide is a 12.5% reduction in height.

Cabin width for the 8ab would be 5.0m with 5.3m exterior. 28cm wider than the 767 and 28cm narrower than the A330. This allows standard 17inch Boeing seats with aisles an inch or two narrower than the A330. With the 4.5m height fuselage it is a 17% reduction in height. The 8ab can get a bigger percentage reduction because it would most likely use the same LD3-45 container height. The container might be custom and slightly wider, but it would not surprise me if they used LD3-45's and just used the space on the sides of the container to add extra floor supports. The reduced height design even with a double bubble will cause the floor to bend.

The Boeing rendering actually makes more sense if the design was just a normal circular fuselage. This would explain the stubby look of the picture. A 7ab circular fuselage with a 4.8m diameter would need a custom container. A 8ab circular fuselage with the 5.3m diameter fuselage believe it or not is a perfect fit for the 767's LD2 containers.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~1300subbox/767-797.jpg

If i had to estimate the chance of what the 797 cross section would be I would say:
50% 8ab educed height
30% 8ab circular
10% 7ab circular
5% 7ab reduced height
5% 787 9ab cross section
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:37 am

It seems that the business case is getting smaller for the 797. The source is CNN so it is a bit sensational. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/13/business/boeing-737-max-797-plans/index.html

"They're now not going to be in position to make an announcement until 2020 at the earliest," said Grant. "That gives Airbus a huge head start."
If Boeing does go forward with its plans for the new plane, it still hopes to have it in the air by 2025. But Muilenburg said that Boeing will first have to decide whether if it makes sense to spend $15 billion to develop the plane.


It really seems to come down if Boeing will be able and also can justify spending 15B in the wake of the Max crisis. The bill for fixing the Max and developing the 797 could come to 30B+ what might not make investors happy, especially when the 787 is still in the red (deferred production costs) and the 777X delayed. This will weight on the cash flow as well.

On top of this Airbus is squeezing the MOM with the A321XLR and also puts heavy pressure on the 777X with the speculated A350-1000ULR. Hard times for the Boeing Management, especially as their chairs are not the safest.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:56 am

RJMAZ wrote:

If i had to estimate the chance of what the 797 cross section would be I would say:
50% 8ab educed height
30% 8ab circular
10% 7ab circular
5% 7ab reduced height
5% 787 9ab cross section


I think the chances of 797 cross section 6ab circular is growing. To save weight, cost, ease supply chain and give airlines the option to convert MAX orders. Boeing needs a strong business case, can't afford a questionable one. The situation changed a lot in 2019. https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/7/6/BA_chart%20(11).1565102905348.jpeg

Image

"We're going to make sure the business case make sense for us and our customers.

If it does, we'll go, if not we've got other investments we can make."


Interesting, what other investments could we think of? ..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3478
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:33 am

keesje wrote:
"We're going to make sure the business case makes sense for us and our customers.

If it does, we'll go, if not we've got other investments we can make."[/size]

Interesting, what other investments could we think of? ..


Dusting off the plans for another new joint wb/nb program instead of a standalone wb program which could not solely cure the ailments of their entire product offering. Doing so would solve the prolonged MAX image issue, be far less costly than two separate (yet inevitable) consecutive programs, assure airlines of not only effective commonality throughout the entire mainline spectrum sooner rather than later (nsa-nma-787-777x), but a much newer overall product series than its main competitor whose product, at best, is hedged to 2 newer types (A220-A350), two 30-year old wings with new engines (A320NEO-A330NEO), and less overall commonality for the foreseeable future while the A220 is still a thing.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
JonesNL
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:15 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
Interesting, what other investments could we think of? ..


Dusting off the plans for another new joint wb/nb program instead of a standalone wb program which could not solely cure the ailments of their entire product offering. Doing so would solve the prolonged MAX image issue, be far less costly than two separate (yet inevitable) consecutive programs, assure airlines of not only effective commonality throughout the entire mainline spectrum sooner rather than later (nsa-nma-787-777x), but a much newer overall product series than its main competitor whose product, at best, is hedged to 2 newer types (A220-A350), two 30-year old wings with new engines (A320NEO-A330NEO), and less overall commonality for the foreseeable future while the A220 is still a thing.[/quote]

Well NMA and NSA will cost Boeing at least 30B while Airbus got the A220 for free and the A350 cost 12B. The cost of the MAX issue will only increase the advantage of Airbus regarding available cash for investments. With a small investment the A220-500/700 can be created by Airbus to replace the A320 line. And with another small investment the A350 can have an shrink to phase the A330 out and extend to compete against the 777x-10. Only the A321 needs a clean sheet design as the A220 can't be extended that much. In such case the line up of Airbus looks quite promising and lean:
A220-100
A220-300
A220-500 (XLR)
A220-700 (XLR)
A321 (XLR)
A350-800 (ULR)
A350-900 (ULR)
A350-1000 (ULR)
A350-2000 (ULR)

But lets see, maybe Boeing can do some Apollo like engineering magic to create the perfect design cheap and fast which would corner Airbus offerings.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:07 pm

I’m sure Boeing is reviewing their portfolio after buying the commercial side of Embraer and with the grounding. It makes no sense for Boeing to engineer something to directly replace the still high in demand 737. For me it makes sense that they make a bigger Embraer at the bottom as well as the 797 from the top. That would close in on the 737 from top and bottom. Maybe a 5 abreast Embraer together with the (hopefully) 797 would be a good long term solution for the eventual replacement of the 737?
Last edited by Oykie on Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:15 pm

keesje wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:

If i had to estimate the chance of what the 797 cross section would be I would say:
50% 8ab educed height
30% 8ab circular
10% 7ab circular
5% 7ab reduced height
5% 787 9ab cross section


I think the chances of 797 cross section 6ab circular is growing. To save weight, cost, ease supply chain and give airlines the option to convert MAX orders. Boeing needs a strong business case, can't afford a questionable one. The situation changed a lot in 2019. https://fm-static.cnbc.com/awsmedia/chart/2019/7/6/BA_chart%20(11).1565102905348.jpeg

Image

"We're going to make sure the business case make sense for us and our customers.

If it does, we'll go, if not we've got other investments we can make."


Interesting, what other investments could we think of? ..



The surprise of a plan B.
But it is clear that the NMA is a plan they do not want to give up...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:59 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
But it is clear that the NMA is a plan they do not want to give up...

It seems QF is still looking forward to what they think of as “the perfect aircraft” for Australian domestic operations.

In comments from August 9th, QF's CEO said:

Mr Joyce described Boeing’s proposed New Midsize Airplane (NMA) as “the perfect aircraft” for Australian domestic operations. He said the twin aisle aircraft holds the ability to operate Melbourne-Sydney with a turnaround time of 30-35 minutes and slot in to the carrier’s current schedule to provide “massive growth”.

Ref: https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-sees-r ... lan-joyce/

Seems potential operators of the aircraft find a lot of value in the twin aisle reducing turnaround times and maximizing slot usage.
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
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
But it is clear that the NMA is a plan they do not want to give up...

It seems QF is still looking forward to what they think of as “the perfect aircraft” for Australian domestic operations.

In comments from August 9th, QF's CEO said:

Mr Joyce described Boeing’s proposed New Midsize Airplane (NMA) as “the perfect aircraft” for Australian domestic operations. He said the twin aisle aircraft holds the ability to operate Melbourne-Sydney with a turnaround time of 30-35 minutes and slot in to the carrier’s current schedule to provide “massive growth”.

Ref: https://blueswandaily.com/qantas-sees-r ... lan-joyce/

Seems potential operators of the aircraft find a lot of value in the twin aisle reducing turnaround times and maximizing slot usage.


If the NMA is performing Sidney-Melbourne missions just under an hour then let's be sure that it will upset the market by completing or replacing a lot of Narrowbody routes.

I bet the potential sales
is at least 4,500 units over 20 years. (2021-2040)

Add the unprecedented profit that the assembly line should generate, which should calm the Boeing bean counters ...

:hyper: :stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:42 am

The biggest falsehood is when peoppe say there is no market for a small widebody. That is because there is no cleansheet small widebody to show market demand.

The widebody size sweetspot is getting smaller each year. It is probably already at 787-8 and A330-800 as the perfect widebody size but both designs are not optimised. In 10 years the 797 might be in the middle of the sweet spot and outselling the 787.
 
TObound
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:00 am

I've always been curious how twin aisles improve turn time when most airports will use a single door. If it can achieve narrowbody economics on short-haul like Sydney-Melbourne that's huge.
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 1:48 am

TObound wrote:
I've always been curious how twin aisles improve turn time when most airports will use a single door. If it can achieve narrowbody economics on short-haul like Sydney-Melbourne that's huge.

It speeds up deplaning because on a single aisle gaps develop when people are slow getting out of their seat or getting their stuff out of the bin. With one aisle there isn't a continuous flow through the doorway.

For boarding it's similar. People clogging one aisle hold up the whole plane.

Neither will be twice as fast but a twin aisle will board and deplane faster than a single aisle of the same capacity with the same door location.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:

  The widebody size sweetspot is getting smaller each year. It is probably already at 787-8 and A330-800 as the perfect widebody size but both designs are not optimised.


Bingo! You defeated the devil with this question! The lukewarm sales of the A330-200's / -800's / 787-8 's do not indicate that there is no "sweetspot". The only thing I see is a similar size but morphed differently. Fuselage, wings, engines smaller and lighter, but a fuselage longer.

On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...

 
planecane wrote:

  Neither will be twice as fast but a twin aisle will board and deplane faster than a single aisle of the same capacity with the same door location.


While adding seats. That's the advantage of widebody and a small-widebody here ...

I flew two hours in A330-200 early in the year, and I would never trade that experience against the A320 in my return flight

Boeing sees right but the problem is that his image of beans counter spoils everything ...

:bouncy: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13045
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:55 am

Checklist787 wrote:
On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...


Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:01 pm

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...


Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..



According to them sources probably do not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#Orders_and_deliveries
http://www.pdxlight.com/neomax.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries

It is important to note that the MAX has around 1600 unknown orders (not disclosed which version). But the Max -8 has 2704 and the 320Neo has 3902 orders. From the 1600 unknown 1200 would have to be MAX -8 to outsell the A320 Neo. 75% of the Max orders are -8. If we apply this to the 1600 unknown orders the Max -8 and the 320neo are on par with around 3900 orders each. So no outselling in this versions. Other versions of the Max (-9 -10) can not compete against the A321neo at all.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:36 am

FluidFlow wrote:
keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...


Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..



According to them sources probably do not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#Orders_and_deliveries
http://www.pdxlight.com/neomax.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries

It is important to note that the MAX has around 1600 unknown orders (not disclosed which version). But the Max -8 has 2704 and the 320Neo has 3902 orders. From the 1600 unknown 1200 would have to be MAX -8 to outsell the A320 Neo. 75% of the Max orders are -8. If we apply this to the 1600 unknown orders the Max -8 and the 320neo are on par with around 3900 orders each. So no outselling in this versions. Other versions of the Max (-9 -10) can not compete against the A321neo at all.


If you read me well you will understand (despite my misallocation of sales between the Neo's and Max's) that all versions above the A320neo / 737-7MAX ie 737-8Max / -9 / -10 / A321neo's are more sold than the A320neo (150 seater)

So that validates what I said in my comment above...


FluidFlow wrote:

[b]Other versions of the Max (-9 -10) can not compete against the A321neo at all.[/b]


Max-10 can not compete against the A321neo?
I don't agree with that

The Max-10 is a young chick. You compare the incomparable. Orange to Apple?

Please reconsider your hasty judgment...
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:31 am

Checklist787 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
keesje wrote:

Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..



According to them sources probably do not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#Orders_and_deliveries
http://www.pdxlight.com/neomax.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries

It is important to note that the MAX has around 1600 unknown orders (not disclosed which version). But the Max -8 has 2704 and the 320Neo has 3902 orders. From the 1600 unknown 1200 would have to be MAX -8 to outsell the A320 Neo. 75% of the Max orders are -8. If we apply this to the 1600 unknown orders the Max -8 and the 320neo are on par with around 3900 orders each. So no outselling in this versions. Other versions of the Max (-9 -10) can not compete against the A321neo at all.


If you read me well you will understand (despite my misallocation of sales between the Neo's and Max's) that all versions above the A320neo / 737-7MAX ie 737-8Max / -9 / -10 / A321neo's are more sold than the A320neo (150 seater)

So that validates what I said in my comment above...


FluidFlow wrote:

[b]Other versions of the Max (-9 -10) can not compete against the A321neo at all.[/b]


Max-10 can not compete against the A321neo?
I don't agree with that

The Max-10 is a young chick. You compare the incomparable. Orange to Apple?

Please reconsider your hasty judgment...


I would not put the Max-8 in a group above the 320neo. It is clear that the -7 is the equivalent of the 319 and the -8 the one of the 320. Obviously the -8 has a bit more seats than the 320 but the 320 is by far bigger than the -7. So the 320 is a direct competitor vs the -8 and they also sell exactly the same. On the other hand the -9/-10 and the 321 are in the 200 seat group but the -9 is a bit of an oddball and I predict it will sell really bad when the -10 is finally there.

But I stand by my argument that the -9/-10 can not compete vs the A321 in regards to sales. There are probably around 1000 (ca 800 confirmed) -9/-10 orders vs 2700 A321 orders. I also acknowledge your point that the -10 is a "younger" frame but if it would be so good there would be way more orders or already named conversions from the -8. On top of that if Boeing launches the NMA it will cannibalize some of the -10 market and thats why I predict that the A321neo will continue to outsell the -9 + -10 by 3:1.

Chances are that the A321neo will sell 1:1 vs the NMA+-10+-9 just because it is such a good frame even after all them years. If the 321neo gets a new wing and another engine upgrade in 2030 it will sell 5000+ frames. The NG was a massive success with the new wing and engine and I predict the same for the A321neo. Boeing will have to invest massive amounts and bring a brilliant aircraft to the market to compete against the A321neo. The only reason the -10 sells and was developed is to make sure Airbus can not ask for high prices.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:27 am

FluidFlow wrote:
I would not put the Max-8 in a group above the 320neo. It is clear that the -7 is the equivalent of the 319 and the -8 the one of the 320.

None of them are direct competitors then as they are very evenly spaced

A319 33.84m
+1.72m 2 rows
737-7 35.56m
+2.01m over 2 rows
A320 37.57m
+1.9m 2 rows
737-8 39.47m
+2.69m 3 rows
737-9 42.16m
+1.64m 2 rows
737-10 43.8m
+0.71m 1 row
A321 44.51m

Same deal with the A350, 777 and 787 they are all spaced evenly.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:38 am

The big problem for Boeing is to keep the 797 from eating 787 sales. The "do nothing" scenario will be the most challenging to beat for the MoM. In the end the question has to be asked: What would airlines buy if there is no 797? At least the remaining 767s should be prime targets for 787 sales, the same goes for existing A330CEOs and any airline wishing to add something new and bigger than a 737-1000/A321.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:29 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I would not put the Max-8 in a group above the 320neo. It is clear that the -7 is the equivalent of the 319 and the -8 the one of the 320.

None of them are direct competitors then as they are very evenly spaced

A319 33.84m
+1.72m 2 rows
737-7 35.56m
+2.01m over 2 rows
A320 37.57m
+1.9m 2 rows
737-8 39.47m
+2.69m 3 rows
737-9 42.16m
+1.64m 2 rows
737-10 43.8m
+0.71m 1 row
A321 44.51m

Same deal with the A350, 777 and 787 they are all spaced evenly.


I know that, but there is still the -7 vs 319, -8 vs 320 and -10 vs 321 "battle". I have not seen an airline evaluating the -7 vs 320 for a <150 seat or a -8 vs 321 for a 180 seat aircraft. At the end the -8 and 320 are direct competitors and also sell like it in a duopoly. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1709
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:34 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The biggest falsehood is when peoppe say there is no market for a small widebody. That is because there is no cleansheet small widebody to show market demand.

There is also no clean sheet 757 sized single aisle aircraft around to show market demand.

RJMAZ wrote:
In 10 years the 797 might be in the middle of the sweet spot and outselling the 787.

The 797 absolutely better outsells the 787. There is no point in building it otherwise. Offering a widebody for narrowbody economics means, that the pricetag needs to be low, and so will be the profit per frame.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:17 am

Right now, airlines are taking it easy because oil is below USD 60 per barrel. A few years ago, when oil was closer to USD 150, many airline managements were frantically looking for more fuel efficient aircraft. If oil prices rise again, we should expect more old and inefficient planes to be retired and replaced by new ones that are fuel efficient. It is quite difficult for OEMs to forecast that. There is not much point in building aircraft "ahead of its time".
 
astuteman
Posts: 6862
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:38 am

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...


Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..


A32X NEO - 6 630 orders
A319 NEO - c. 30 orders
A320NEO - c. 3 900 orders
A321NEO - c. 2 700 orders


B737MAX - c. 4 900 orders
MAX7 - c. 50 orders
MAX9/10 - c 600 orders (according to recent reports)
MAX8 - c. 4 250 orders.

with recent conversions of A320 to A321, the MAX8 does very slightly outsell the A320

Note that these figures show that only 28% of new gen narrowbody orders are for A321/MAX9/MAX10 sized aircraft.
Which is not yet dissimilar to the ratio for the previous generation families
The sweet spot is still A320NEO/MAX8 and c. 180 seats
Which are the directly comparable representatives of each family, whatever anyone else might say.

Average seat numbers are growing (slowly) but this seems to manifest itself more in tighter cabin configurations rather than larger aircraft.

Rgds
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:07 am

astuteman wrote:
keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
On the other side the 737-8 outsells the A320neo but the A321neo outsells the 737-8 is a clear proof that the focus is in a 200-seater in recent years and will be for decades to come...


Does the 737-8 outsell the A320NEO? I don't have the numbers..


A32X NEO - 6 630 orders
A319 NEO - c. 30 orders
A320NEO - c. 3 900 orders
A321NEO - c. 2 700 orders


B737MAX - c. 4 900 orders
MAX7 - c. 50 orders
MAX9/10 - c 600 orders (according to recent reports)
MAX8 - c. 4 250 orders.

with recent conversions of A320 to A321, the MAX8 does very slightly outsell the A320

Note that these figures show that only 28% of new gen narrowbody orders are for A321/MAX9/MAX10 sized aircraft.
Which is not yet dissimilar to the ratio for the previous generation families
The sweet spot is still A320NEO/MAX8 and c. 180 seats
Which are the directly comparable representatives of each family, whatever anyone else might say.

Average seat numbers are growing (slowly) but this seems to manifest itself more in tighter cabin configurations rather than larger aircraft.

Rgds



Interesting, so the unknown orders from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries) are actually all Max-8. That shows how good this aircraft actually would be if Boeing would have done their job. Now with the second iteration I think it will be a success for airlines, if it will be for Boeing will be seen over time (especially financially). On the other hand it also shows how "terrible" the -9 version is and we will see if the -10 can in anyway threaten the A321 especially now that the XLR is announced.
 
olle
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:24 am

flee wrote:
Right now, airlines are taking it easy because oil is below USD 60 per barrel. A few years ago, when oil was closer to USD 150, many airline managements were frantically looking for more fuel efficient aircraft. If oil prices rise again, we should expect more old and inefficient planes to be retired and replaced by new ones that are fuel efficient. It is quite difficult for OEMs to forecast that. There is not much point in building aircraft "ahead of its time".



My few cents I would put on that oild prices will go down in 10 years time when transport sector and electric generation sectors has moved on and electrification begins.

In the transport sector of course you will always have countriues and sectors that have complicated to change but if 10% of the transport sector change the supply change will need to adjust with lower production. This will mean lower prices while the adjustments happens.
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:31 am

seahawk wrote:
The big problem for Boeing is to keep the 797 from eating 787 sales. The "do nothing" scenario will be the most challenging to beat for the MoM. In the end the question has to be asked: What would airlines buy if there is no 797? At least the remaining 767s should be prime targets for 787 sales, the same goes for existing A330CEOs and any airline wishing to add something new and bigger than a 737-1000/A321.


I don't think this is a big issue. The 787 is going to grow in capability. With the 777, it was only 9 years from the 777-200 to the 777-300ER. I would suspect that the 787 is only 5 years or less from the launch of a re-engine along with improvements to the -10 and possibly a stretch to the -11.

The potential NMA/797 would only eat into the 787-8 sales which are becoming less as a percentage of 787 total sales anyway.

They also aren't going to want to compete head to head with the A321. Making the investment that it will take for a clean sheet and having Airbus respond with a small investment A322 is not a good business model. They need to make sure that it will take a large investment from Airbus to compete.

Essentially, I think the NMA/797 will be positioned to maybe take a few sales from the A321XLR but take a lot of sales from the A330NEO. For airlines that operate the 737MAX and only need more capacity, the MAX10 is fine. It makes a lot more sense to hold some sales in that size with the MAX10, let the A321NEO dominate where more capability is needed and sell the NMA as a true medium range widebody than to try and target the A321 which would also leave the 737 as basically a single variant family.

The 737 replacement is still several years from launch. I'm sure it will share a lot with the NMA but they won't launch a 737 replacement unless they can deliver 15%-20% better efficiency than the 737MAX. I don't think the engines to accomplish that will exist until the late 2020's at the earliest.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:40 am

planecane wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The big problem for Boeing is to keep the 797 from eating 787 sales. The "do nothing" scenario will be the most challenging to beat for the MoM. In the end the question has to be asked: What would airlines buy if there is no 797? At least the remaining 767s should be prime targets for 787 sales, the same goes for existing A330CEOs and any airline wishing to add something new and bigger than a 737-1000/A321.


I don't think this is a big issue. The 787 is going to grow in capability. With the 777, it was only 9 years from the 777-200 to the 777-300ER. I would suspect that the 787 is only 5 years or less from the launch of a re-engine along with improvements to the -10 and possibly a stretch to the -11.

The potential NMA/797 would only eat into the 787-8 sales which are becoming less as a percentage of 787 total sales anyway.

They also aren't going to want to compete head to head with the A321. Making the investment that it will take for a clean sheet and having Airbus respond with a small investment A322 is not a good business model. They need to make sure that it will take a large investment from Airbus to compete.

Essentially, I think the NMA/797 will be positioned to maybe take a few sales from the A321XLR but take a lot of sales from the A330NEO. For airlines that operate the 737MAX and only need more capacity, the MAX10 is fine. It makes a lot more sense to hold some sales in that size with the MAX10, let the A321NEO dominate where more capability is needed and sell the NMA as a true medium range widebody than to try and target the A321 which would also leave the 737 as basically a single variant family.

The 737 replacement is still several years from launch. I'm sure it will share a lot with the NMA but they won't launch a 737 replacement unless they can deliver 15%-20% better efficiency than the 737MAX. I don't think the engines to accomplish that will exist until the late 2020's at the earliest.


Your post makes a lot sense and I agree on all points. There are still a lot of 767 out there as well. And even if an A321 could perform some of the current 767 missions there is no way the pilots will allow a widebody in their fleet to be replaced with a narrowbody. For every 767 retired they will want a new widebody in its place.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:43 am

planecane wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The big problem for Boeing is to keep the 797 from eating 787 sales. The "do nothing" scenario will be the most challenging to beat for the MoM. In the end the question has to be asked: What would airlines buy if there is no 797? At least the remaining 767s should be prime targets for 787 sales, the same goes for existing A330CEOs and any airline wishing to add something new and bigger than a 737-1000/A321.


I don't think this is a big issue. The 787 is going to grow in capability. With the 777, it was only 9 years from the 777-200 to the 777-300ER. I would suspect that the 787 is only 5 years or less from the launch of a re-engine along with improvements to the -10 and possibly a stretch to the -11.

The potential NMA/797 would only eat into the 787-8 sales which are becoming less as a percentage of 787 total sales anyway.

They also aren't going to want to compete head to head with the A321. Making the investment that it will take for a clean sheet and having Airbus respond with a small investment A322 is not a good business model. They need to make sure that it will take a large investment from Airbus to compete.

Essentially, I think the NMA/797 will be positioned to maybe take a few sales from the A321XLR but take a lot of sales from the A330NEO. For airlines that operate the 737MAX and only need more capacity, the MAX10 is fine. It makes a lot more sense to hold some sales in that size with the MAX10, let the A321NEO dominate where more capability is needed and sell the NMA as a true medium range widebody than to try and target the A321 which would also leave the 737 as basically a single variant family.

The 737 replacement is still several years from launch. I'm sure it will share a lot with the NMA but they won't launch a 737 replacement unless they can deliver 15%-20% better efficiency than the 737MAX. I don't think the engines to accomplish that will exist until the late 2020's at the earliest.


So for the 797 to work, they would need to do the 797, re-engine the 787 and in that way make it more capable and take it closer to the 777X or the A350. What is the advantage in this? Re-engine the 787, pushes Airbus to re-engine the A350, which will hurt the 777-9 badly. You agree that the 797 will barely hurt A321 sales and the A330NEO is not selling like hot cakes either. Would it no be more efficient to do nothing. The 787 should win 70% of the market that wants something bigger than an A321 by merit and it would keep the production lines humming.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:10 am

seahawk wrote:
planecane wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The big problem for Boeing is to keep the 797 from eating 787 sales. The "do nothing" scenario will be the most challenging to beat for the MoM. In the end the question has to be asked: What would airlines buy if there is no 797? At least the remaining 767s should be prime targets for 787 sales, the same goes for existing A330CEOs and any airline wishing to add something new and bigger than a 737-1000/A321.


I don't think this is a big issue. The 787 is going to grow in capability. With the 777, it was only 9 years from the 777-200 to the 777-300ER. I would suspect that the 787 is only 5 years or less from the launch of a re-engine along with improvements to the -10 and possibly a stretch to the -11.

The potential NMA/797 would only eat into the 787-8 sales which are becoming less as a percentage of 787 total sales anyway.

They also aren't going to want to compete head to head with the A321. Making the investment that it will take for a clean sheet and having Airbus respond with a small investment A322 is not a good business model. They need to make sure that it will take a large investment from Airbus to compete.

Essentially, I think the NMA/797 will be positioned to maybe take a few sales from the A321XLR but take a lot of sales from the A330NEO. For airlines that operate the 737MAX and only need more capacity, the MAX10 is fine. It makes a lot more sense to hold some sales in that size with the MAX10, let the A321NEO dominate where more capability is needed and sell the NMA as a true medium range widebody than to try and target the A321 which would also leave the 737 as basically a single variant family.

The 737 replacement is still several years from launch. I'm sure it will share a lot with the NMA but they won't launch a 737 replacement unless they can deliver 15%-20% better efficiency than the 737MAX. I don't think the engines to accomplish that will exist until the late 2020's at the earliest.


So for the 797 to work, they would need to do the 797, re-engine the 787 and in that way make it more capable and take it closer to the 777X or the A350. What is the advantage in this? Re-engine the 787, pushes Airbus to re-engine the A350, which will hurt the 777-9 badly. You agree that the 797 will barely hurt A321 sales and the A330NEO is not selling like hot cakes either. Would it no be more efficient to do nothing. The 787 should win 70% of the market that wants something bigger than an A321 by merit and it would keep the production lines humming.


There is also one more problem that makes the business case difficult. First I guess Boeing needs about 500-1000 aircraft "sold" to be sure to invest 15-20B$ for the 797. Chances are that half of them might be some conversion deals from the 737 and the 787. As this is in general no problem at the point right now it could be for Boeing.

If launched in 2020 when the 737 is just back in the air it is really bad publicity if airlines convert 737 to 797 and it might also make the MAX-10 an aircraft that will sell even worse vs the 321Neo except the MAX-10 is massively cheaper than the 797. This would mean that the 797 would be a lot more expensive than the A321. Otherwise the MAX-10 would have to be discounted and the last thing the 737 needs is bad publicity and low prices as this will turn the "cash cow" into a liability after the 10B$+ hit it takes from the grounding.

Second if carriers convert some 787 to 797 because the 787 on order is actually to big for certain TATL missions, and replacing the 767s is better done with the 797 the order book could shrink under a certain threshold that would lead to a cut in production from 2022+. This on the other side would hurt profitability as either the aircraft has to be discounted to keep production rate high or the rate is cut and suppliers will ask for higher prices. This will lead to reduced profits and with the high R&D costs and the deferred production costs could mean the overall 787 program will never reach a profit.

This would lead the two biggest "cash cows" for Boeing (737, 787) in a bad shape and with the delay of the 777X could end up with Boeing not having a passenger aircraft generating profit from 2020 to around 2025 as then the 777X and two to three years later the 797 will start to cash in (best case assumption as the lines need a good few years to be efficient and up, see 787 disaster). Spending 15-20B$ is a though decision in this business environment. Especially as a NSA is up as well at the end of the next decade. On top of this is an imminent global economic downturn and this will lead airlines to convert rather than outright place new orders.

A really tough decision. And as much as I love flying on the 767s and therefore would love to see a 797 in 7ab (god forbid a tight 8ab) I think it will probably not happen. And I fully blame Boeing for that. The whole MAX fiasco just weights too heavy and one or two more years of proper design on the 737 would have given us the 797 in 2019. Now we might not see it till 2030+ and then maybe as the NSA.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:31 pm

seahawk wrote:
So for the 797 to work, they would need to do the 797, re-engine the 787 and in that way make it more capable and take it closer to the 777X or the A350. What is the advantage in this? Re-engine the 787, pushes Airbus to re-engine the A350, which will hurt the 777-9 badly.

Consider the 777X dead by 2030 for the sake of the argument. It is a medium term solution.

Now if we look at history the A330-300 and 777-300ER were the two big sellers. The A330 offered 30t over 6000nm and the 777 offered 40t over 7000nm. This was what I call the widebody sweet spot.

The 777LR and A340-500 offered 40t over 8000nm and they didnt sell. They were simply too capable and carried too much weight for the number of passengers.

The current 787 sits right in the middle of this sweet spot. The current more capable A350 sits very close to the upper edge. This is why I beliece the A350-1000 is not selling like crazy it is on the very edge of the sweet spot. Now if we look at the 787NEO and A350NEO only the 787 stays within the sweetspot. The 787-10NEO will be able to replace the 777-300ER and it will become the top seller of the 787 family. It will be extremely competitive against the heavier A350. The 787-9 will be nearing the edge of the sweet spot and will provide a massive gap underneith it for the 797.

The 797 will be nearing the early A330's in term of payload range so they will enter the low end of the sweet spot.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:49 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
So for the 797 to work, they would need to do the 797, re-engine the 787 and in that way make it more capable and take it closer to the 777X or the A350. What is the advantage in this? Re-engine the 787, pushes Airbus to re-engine the A350, which will hurt the 777-9 badly.

Consider the 777X dead by 2030 for the sake of the argument. It is a medium term solution.

Now if we look at history the A330-300 and 777-300ER were the two big sellers. The A330 offered 30t over 6000nm and the 777 offered 40t over 7000nm. This was what I call the widebody sweet spot.

The 777LR and A340-500 offered 40t over 8000nm and they didnt sell. They were simply too capable and carried too much weight for the number of passengers.

The current 787 sits right in the middle of this sweet spot. The current more capable A350 sits very close to the upper edge. This is why I beliece the A350-1000 is not selling like crazy it is on the very edge of the sweet spot. Now if we look at the 787NEO and A350NEO only the 787 stays within the sweetspot. The 787-10NEO will be able to replace the 777-300ER and it will become the top seller of the 787 family. It will be extremely competitive against the heavier A350. The 787-9 will be nearing the edge of the sweet spot and will provide a massive gap underneith it for the 797.

The 797 will be nearing the early A330's in term of payload range so they will enter the low end of the sweet spot.


What is in it for Boeing? They already have something that matches the A333 sweet spot with the 787, they are developing something that they believe could replace the 777-300ER, while their big problem (if they have any) is the A321.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:00 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
First I guess Boeing needs about 500-1000 aircraft "sold" to be sure to invest 15-20B$ for the 797.

Bad guess, IMO. 787 launched with 50 from ANA and shortly thereafter 50 from JAL, for a plane that definitely was a "technology push".

In this case NMA is mainly a manufacturing tech push, and the tech is largely understood from Black Diamond / T-X.

It is also a push to change supply chain relationships and generate more revenue via services.

All these things will be tough to abandon.

Chances are that half of them might be some conversion deals from the 737 and the 787. As this is in general no problem at the point right now it could be for Boeing.

From what I'm reading it seems big operators like DL (with no Boeing orders on the books), UA and QF are keeping places open in their fleet plans for 797.

I'm not seeing the mass conversion problem you are seeing.

One way for Boeing to get out of the current situation is to start improving their product technology level and manufacturing prowess.

Reuse of 787 tech on 797 is a big step in that direction.

It now comes down to the senior management's ability to chart a path to the future.

Responding to the MAX crisis by stopping work on their next major step forward seems to me to be a mistake.

It'll leave them wallowing in the current state of affair for much longer than they need to.

My bet is they wait till after the MAX is flying again and most of the blowback is understood then move forward with NMA, but I wouldn't bet too much.

The business case for NMA has always been a close call, and there are all kinds of reasons management could use to go turtle.
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:10 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Consider the 777X dead by 2030 for the sake of the argument. It is a medium term solution.

.


I think it will soldier on longer but at low volumes as the big freighter option in the market when the 747 finally dies.

Plus I think they eventually due an -10 that should be good for a few hundred as well. It should get the whole X program up to 600-700 sales between now and 2035 - call it 40 per year over the long term.

That gives 787 room to grow and 797 room to grow as well.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
First I guess Boeing needs about 500-1000 aircraft "sold" to be sure to invest 15-20B$ for the 797.

Bad guess, IMO. 787 launched with 50 from ANA and shortly thereafter 50 from JAL, for a plane that definitely was a "technology push".

In this case NMA is mainly a manufacturing tech push, and the tech is largely understood from Black Diamond / T-X.

It is also a push to change supply chain relationships and generate more revenue via services.

All these things will be tough to abandon.


I can see the supply chain relationships and generating revenue with services also as the biggest gain but suppliers have to "agree" and that could lead to delays or sub par quality if the new suppliers cannot live up to the promised standards as Boeing can expect from established ones that are not happy to give away the services part, that is generate revenue for them (and probably lead to discounted purchase prices for Boeing for parts).

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.

If it is only to learn for the NSA then ok but it could turn out to be a financially huge R&D disaster. A tough call. I would not want to sit in the Boeing office in 2020 because that call will be really hard and no matter what will be decided it could end up really bad or really good but the business case will have to be really solid. I say if the business case is not 100% positive it will not be done

Chances are that half of them might be some conversion deals from the 737 and the 787. As this is in general no problem at the point right now it could be for Boeing.

From what I'm reading it seems big operators like DL (with no Boeing orders on the books), UA and QF are keeping places open in their fleet plans for 797.

I'm not seeing the mass conversion problem you are seeing.

One way for Boeing to get out of the current situation is to start improving their product technology level and manufacturing prowess.

Reuse of 787 tech on 797 is a big step in that direction.

It now comes down to the senior management's ability to chart a path to the future.

Responding to the MAX crisis by stopping work on their next major step forward seems to me to be a mistake.

It'll leave them wallowing in the current state of affair for much longer than they need to.

My bet is they wait till after the MAX is flying again and most of the blowback is understood then move forward with NMA, but I wouldn't bet too much.

The business case for NMA has always been a close call, and there are all kinds of reasons management could use to go turtle.


Lets hope so but if the economy turns it will be easier for airlines to convert than buy both. If Europe goes into recession this fall/winter and on top of that Brexit turns out messy I expect also that the NMA will be hit, as well as all wide bodies and no airlines will invest more than necessary. Starting a new product in this environment with full order books will be hard to justify to the shareholders. They rather cash in in this moment than risk the company to spend too much on R&D projects.
And the 787 will even without conversions start to eat too much into the backlog. Try to sell an aircraft in a bad economy with another cheaper one that can also be used on many missions. And if Boeing gives a blow to the 787 it will be hard to restart that productivity past 2027 when a re-engine option might arise.
To keep that production up the aircraft will have to be discounted heavily. That might kill of the A330 but for what price? Cash flow hits rock bottom on the 787 line, the 737 still fighting an uphill battle, the 777X just up and running, how can Boeing justify to fit a "manufacturing tech push" into that business hostile environment.

Keeping the status quo is right now the best option even tho it is a sad option as an enthusiast. Same goes for Airbus and we will have to wait late into the 2020s to see the next big leap in aviation.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:56 pm

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.

The common thread I see is things we once thought we could take foregranted. Bearings should be well understood, as should coatings, and over dependence on a single sensor with a poor history of accuracy also should be well understood.

Whether or not this comes from management pressure or not IMO is debatable. We do see a tremendous shift of compensation has gone to senior managers and executives which seems to make them hungry for even more. We also see "conscientious objectors" in the trenches suffering career damage. Yet I'm not sure this is new to our era. Having to make unpopular decisions has always been part of an engineer's job description. Since we're talking about something that often is more R&D rather than engineering, neither side can be decisive about what is right and what is wrong. I would say that in my three decades of doing engineering that what I see is more heavy handed management actions and less push back by engineers, but that is just one point of view.

Personally I see a lot lower expectation with regard to ethical standards in the business world. As mentioned earlier I keep seeing products whose contents decrease while the packaging stays the same. We could be honest and just charge more for the same contents, but that's not how we roll these days.

The political movement claiming there is over-regulation has caused a swing to point of insufficient regulation. To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke, giving corporations power and money is like giving teenage boys whiskey and car keys, there's only one way it ends up. In the US, corporations are now people, and their campaign contributions have make Congress their play toy. Again, there's only one way this ends up.

It will be interesting to see who ends up getting career damage at Boeing. We already had one VP of the 737 product take a graceful early exit. I can imagine others have been made to walk the plank. I think at some point the CEO will have to go. His face is too closely associated with the MAX crisis. Yet, he will be fine, his retirement package will let him and his children and his grand children never work another day of their life if they should so choose.
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
 
lifecomm
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:27 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
So for the 797 to work, they would need to do the 797, re-engine the 787 and in that way make it more capable and take it closer to the 777X or the A350. What is the advantage in this? Re-engine the 787, pushes Airbus to re-engine the A350, which will hurt the 777-9 badly.

Consider the 777X dead by 2030 for the sake of the argument. It is a medium term solution.

Now if we look at history the A330-300 and 777-300ER were the two big sellers. The A330 offered 30t over 6000nm and the 777 offered 40t over 7000nm. This was what I call the widebody sweet spot.

The 777LR and A340-500 offered 40t over 8000nm and they didnt sell. They were simply too capable and carried too much weight for the number of passengers.

The current 787 sits right in the middle of this sweet spot. The current more capable A350 sits very close to the upper edge. This is why I beliece the A350-1000 is not selling like crazy it is on the very edge of the sweet spot. Now if we look at the 787NEO and A350NEO only the 787 stays within the sweetspot. The 787-10NEO will be able to replace the 777-300ER and it will become the top seller of the 787 family. It will be extremely competitive against the heavier A350. The 787-9 will be nearing the edge of the sweet spot and will provide a massive gap underneith it for the 797.

The 797 will be nearing the early A330's in term of payload range so they will enter the low end of the sweet spot.

Wow, RJMAZ! I have been waiting for someone to start a topic on this very point. As I lurker (and definitely not an expert) I feel inadequate to speak on these issues and I encourage you to start one. Here's a suggested topic: Dreamliner: the new Y3

But, I think you're spot-on: the 777X will be short-lived and was only built to buy time and will only live on as a freighter in the very near future - post 2025? Boeing has made many mistakes over the last few years, but thing they did right was to size the 787 correctly. As I read the tea leaves, I think the 787-10 will soon be the largest Boeing aircraft (I am not sure they will develop six wheel main gears either). Therefore, I don't think a 787-11 is in the cards. But that's a just a guess - and the good thing for Boeing, they can go either way. The 797 becomes Y2 and the 737 ultimate replacement becomes - well Y1. Boeing has tons of data on the 787 which will allow them to successfully remove weight and coupled with more efficient engines, the range will be such as the larger, heavier planes will not be needed.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1397
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:06 pm

When the 797 is introduced, I see the 788 model sort of disappearing, but a 788LR as a true 789 shrink would be a very capable plane.

All of the latest tech engines have been having durability issues, it will take a decade to really get those issues settled. The 767 long ago got new engines, when the 763ER was introduced, none since. The A330 has only gotten 1 new engine, after a major step change in the tech. The 77X is a reengine, but over 15 years after the GE90-115 was introduced. It will be the late 2020's before the 787 and A350 engines get a new one. Will Ultrafan be ready for prime time in 2027? Will the RR customers be ready after all the Trent 1000 et al issues. Not sure.
X
 
User avatar
Carlos01
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:52 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:46 pm

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.
 
LawAndOrder
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:56 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:29 pm

Little faith do we have in Boeing. The 797 is happening there is a market for it. There is a reason the Delta’s of the worlds haven’t announced their 767/757 retirements despite having the opportunity to jump at the 321 NEO, LR or XLR.

With that being said I do expect them to get the XLR but in my opinion as options or conversions for additional lift (320/738) replacements when the time approaches.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17710
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:19 am

LawAndOrder wrote:
Little faith do we have in Boeing. The 797 is happening there is a market for it. There is a reason the Delta’s of the worlds haven’t announced their 767/757 retirements despite having the opportunity to jump at the 321 NEO, LR or XLR.

With that being said I do expect them to get the XLR but in my opinion as options or conversions for additional lift (320/738) replacements when the time approaches.

I believe there remains a 797 business case, but the A321xLR weakened it. I would never say any airline would wait too long.

Boeing is hurt as the MAX and 777x delays robbed them of revenue and engineering talent now working other issues.

Airbus will continue to attempt to weaken The business case. The need to lighten and reduce costs of 788s will have Boeing's own products weakening the business case.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
moa999
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:45 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will be nearing the early A330's in term of payload range so they will enter the low end of the sweet spot.


To me that's the issue. Boeing seems to keep trying to push the range capability of the 797 and bring it into the low 330/787 range and somehow expand the market.

To me that's a mistake.
The MOM in my mind should be a cheap efficient short haul aircraft to displace 737/320s on short routes at busy airports

Look at the busiest air routes by # of pax.. The top 25, and the majority of the top 100 are under 2500km, many under 1000km
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... air_routes

That in itself is a massive market, don't go chasing TATL and lose the efficiency at the shorter routes.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8521
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:51 am

LawAndOrder wrote:
Little faith do we have in Boeing. The 797 is happening there is a market for it. There is a reason the Delta’s of the worlds haven’t announced their 767/757 retirements despite having the opportunity to jump at the 321 NEO, LR or XLR.

With that being said I do expect them to get the XLR but in my opinion as options or conversions for additional lift (320/738) replacements when the time approaches.


The question is not if there is a market for it, the basic question is: What would airlines buy instead, if there is no 797? And if the answer is another Boeing product, the question is if the 797 is worth the effort.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing 797 Thread - 2019

Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:30 am

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.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 238
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: 148
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: 281
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: 1266
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: 1266
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: 649
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?

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