Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21816
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:52 am

NWAROOSTER wrote:
If it was not for Southwest Boeing would have begun designing a new narrow body aircraft at least ten years ago.


I think that WN is certainly an important factor here, but let's not get carried away. Suppose that the 787 had flown on schedule in 2008 or 2009 and went off without any major problems. In 2010 Boeing might well have said: "OK, we're going to work on a 737 replacement."

WN will probably be responsible for ~5-10% of the 737MAX order book, which is no small thing, but in the alternate universe outlined above, WN would still need narrowbodies. Now, this might have caused them to start courting Airbus, but Boeing would have probably won out. Boeing would have made the flight deck of the new aircraft a Boeing flight deck and that's what 737 pilots are used to. Boeing would have probably won WN's order and Airbus would be scrambling to figure out how to bring the A320NEO up to scratch.

The fact is that clean-sheet designs are notoriously expensive, especially because those designs can span decades. Look at the 777, now going into its third iteration 25 years after it was launched. So you want to load as much bleeding edge technology as you can into a new design because it needs to last. The A320's FBW systems are still relevant today, for example.

But Boeing made a very short-sighted decision with MCAS. They were way too obsessed with making the 737MAX almost exactly like the 737NG for pilots. The system itself was poorly-designed and now Boeing is paying a very steep price.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:02 am

DocLightning wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
If it was not for Southwest Boeing would have begun designing a new narrow body aircraft at least ten years ago.


I think that WN is certainly an important factor here, but let's not get carried away. Suppose that the 787 had flown on schedule in 2008 or 2009 and went off without any major problems. In 2010 Boeing might well have said: "OK, we're going to work on a 737 replacement."

WN will probably be responsible for ~5-10% of the 737MAX order book, which is no small thing, but in the alternate universe outlined above, WN would still need narrowbodies. Now, this might have caused them to start courting Airbus, but Boeing would have probably won out. Boeing would have made the flight deck of the new aircraft a Boeing flight deck and that's what 737 pilots are used to. Boeing would have probably won WN's order and Airbus would be scrambling to figure out how to bring the A320NEO up to scratch.

The fact is that clean-sheet designs are notoriously expensive, especially because those designs can span decades. Look at the 777, now going into its third iteration 25 years after it was launched. So you want to load as much bleeding edge technology as you can into a new design because it needs to last. The A320's FBW systems are still relevant today, for example.

But Boeing made a very short-sighted decision with MCAS. They were way too obsessed with making the 737MAX almost exactly like the 737NG for pilots. The system itself was poorly-designed and now Boeing is paying a very steep price.


That's because not much has changed after '88.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
beeweel15
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 12:59 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:05 am

Cant Boeing restart the B757 line. Plain and simple.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:08 am

beeweel15 wrote:
Cant Boeing restart the B757 line. Plain and simple.


:shakehead:

1) Tooling was destroyed

2) Too heavy

3) 1982 airplane
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
JHwk
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:56 am

Any idea how much it would cost on a per-plane basis for an airline like Southwest to switch from the 737 to (say) the 320? I would assume it is about a 4-year transition timeline with inefficiencies that improve after the first year, bu it is hard to imagine the cost being over $2 million on the operations side and another $3 million on the capital side in selling planes early and exiting leases.

I can see it being a significant hurdle that would need a lot of work to justify on the sales pitch end, but eventually it is goin to happen to Southwest where they need to make a change (or just add a type).
 
ELBOB
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:22 am

planecane wrote:
If Boeing only sells 5000 MAXs and spent $2 billion to develop it, that's $400,000 per plane. If they spent $10 billion on a clean sheet and sold 7000 of them, it's over $1.4 million per plane. To get ROI, the airlines would have to be willing to spend over $1 million more per plane.


The list price of a 737 MAX 8 is $121.6 million. $1 million more is barely noticable.

A320Neo list is $110.6 million
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:25 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Kilopond wrote:
The beancounters and the management had ordered the engineers to milk the old cow as long as possible. Most likely under the pressure of certain shareholders. Applying just minimal investments for maximal SHORT-TERM profits is a widely spread approach.


Not true at all. Boeing wanted a new narrowbody in 2011 but AA and WN said no. They were forced into the Max for fear of losing two big customers to Airbus. They were able to salvage half of the AA order by building the Max.

Thank you for this episode of common sense and accurate recollection of events of the time. The vilification of accountants on this board is sickening. They are blamed for every misfortune that happens to befall Boeing, including certification of aircraft. The Boeing plan to replace the 737 with a cleansheet design was disrupted by events of the time (including the AA A320 order). It had nothing to do with beancounters.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:32 am

majano wrote:
The Boeing plan to replace the 737 with a cleansheet design was disrupted by events of the time (including the AA A320 order). It had nothing to do with beancounters.


So who made the decision to develop an interim 737 variant? The executives, based on the financial projections prepared by the beancounters. Who reckoned that another 737 hack would only cost $2.5 billion all-in.

And if Boeing had simply said 'wait for the cleansheet', what would have happened? Airbus doesn't have the capacity to take on another 5,000 orders.
Last edited by ELBOB on Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:36 am

ELBOB wrote:
majano wrote:
The Boeing plan to replace the 737 with a cleansheet design was disrupted by events of the time (including the AA A320 order). It had nothing to do with beancounters.


And if Boeing had simply said 'wait for the cleansheet', what would have happened? Airbus doesn't have the capacity to take on another 5,000 orders.


If WN had handed Airbus a deposit you had better believe they would have moved heaven and hell to get them some A320neo's fast.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:42 am

TTailedTiger wrote:

If WN had handed Airbus a deposit you had better believe they would have moved heaven and hell to get them some A320neo's fast.


How? It's simply not physically possible without building another final assembly line, staffing it, establishing logistics... All for a couple of hundred sales out of thousands.

And so what, anyway? Plenty of other airlines would have waited for the Boeing cleansheet. Plenty have nice new 737NGs and no need for a Max or Neo for another 20 years.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:51 am

ELBOB wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

If WN had handed Airbus a deposit you had better believe they would have moved heaven and hell to get them some A320neo's fast.


How? It's simply not physically possible without building another final assembly line, staffing it, establishing logistics... All for a couple of hundred sales out of thousands.

And so what, anyway? Plenty of other airlines would have waited for the Boeing cleansheet. Plenty have nice new 737NGs and no need for a Max or Neo for another 20 years.


Airlines push back and cancel orders all the time and that opens up production slots. If WN placed an order for the A320neo tomorrow then Airbus would find them some close in delivery slots. It wouldn't be an issue.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:00 am

Boeing had the new narrowbody in development farther down than today's NMA. It was nearing authority to offer decision. EIS was planned for 2018.

Then, American issued RFP for replacement of 300 old aircraft, Airbus was winning it, Boeing panicked and rushed 737 reengine to meet 2016 EIS. The rest is history.

Southwest would have bought the new Boeing narrowbody. I'm sure the backlog would approach 8000 orders for it at this point in time.

737 MAX will live in history as flawed and rushed design, forced by beancounters, stockholders and panicking Boeing management - whether you like it or not.
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5616
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:44 am

The basic problem for both Boeing and Airbus is essentially they each have a tiger by the tail. They are both selling more NB aircraft than they can deliver, and ramping up production as fast as they can. And the revenues that they get from selling them are vital for their continued operation. Designing a replacement will be a massively expensive project that will yield only modest improvements in efficiency, since most efficiency gains come from the engines. Then comes the problem of ramping up production of the new model to meet the demand, while tapering off production of the old. This whole scenario is so much easier with widebodies because of their lower production rate. The 787, for example, was intended to replace the 767, but orders for 767s had slowed to a trickle. And Boeing could survive that. But it is hard to imagine a scenario where Boeing could survive 737 orders slowing to a trickle AND Boeing having the resources to design and build a replacement. That is the logistics side of it; and then there is the business case. Realistically, if they think they can do it for $10 billion, it’s going to take $20 billion, and they know it. Presumably part of the design goal will be (has to be) lower cost to manufacture. But that $20 billion has to be recovered, and recovered over a few thousand sales, not millions. How much more will airlines be willing to pay for how much gain in operating costs? And how much lost production will be involved in the transition? Those are the unanswered questions that are holding up both Boeing and Airbus in launching replacements. Assuming that Boeing’s NMA is in fact a stalking horse for a new NB, that will give them a leg up on the race for a replacement. And if they jump, Airbus will be forced to follow, just as Boeing was forced to follow when Airbus launched the NEO.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
majano
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:45 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:38 am

ELBOB wrote:
majano wrote:
The Boeing plan to replace the 737 with a cleansheet design was disrupted by events of the time (including the AA A320 order). It had nothing to do with beancounters.


So who made the decision to develop an interim 737 variant? The executives, based on the financial projections prepared by the beancounters. Who reckoned that another 737 hack would only cost $2.5 billion all-in.

And if Boeing had simply said 'wait for the cleansheet', what would have happened? Airbus doesn't have the capacity to take on another 5,000 orders.

The logic of this post is flawed. As much as financial projections were part of the MAX decision, they would have been part of the cleansheet decision as well. It was up to the executives (and the BOD perhaps) to make the decision after taking all factors into account. You make it sound like there is "Boeing" and there are "beancounters", separate and distinct beings. Reality is that the beancounters are part and parcel of Boeing, as is engineering, sales, marketing etc.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:11 am

planecane wrote:
If Boeing only sells 5000 MAXs and spent $2 billion to develop it, that's $400,000 per plane. If they spent $10 billion on a clean sheet and sold 7000 of them, it's over $1.4 million per plane. To get ROI, the airlines would have to be willing to spend over $1 million more per plane.


I am pretty sure break-even point of 7000 planes wouldn't satisfy Boeing. Besides, you have to take into account the interest on the development cost (which is mostly spent before even the first delivery to the customer).
 
Elementalism
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:22 pm

The incremental changes have grown the aircraft to nearly the size of the 757 with the Max 10. The original 737 carried 108 pax in max configuration at a range of 1600nm. The -10 can carry 230 in max config at 3300nm . I would argue they haven't done a true clean sheet because they haven't had the need to as the 737 literally grew with the market. I think they have got all they could out of the 737 with the Max. And without the 757 around they will move ahead with a clean sheet.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:27 pm

swaluvfa wrote:
Did Boeing ever consider an overhaul of the 757-200? Was it possible to lighten it, add newer avionics, newer engines, more fuel efficient, etc. while keeping its performance measures?


My understanding is shrinking an aircraft rarely works. However a 757 NG and eventual MAX would had been an interesting proposition with how the market has shaken out over the past 30 years. I contend the 757 was 10 years too early. If it arrived in 1989 I am confident we would had seen a NG or MAX. Production would had lasted into the early teens and the value of that frame would really start to take off. It was born into a recently deregulated market that was smaller than today. Today there is legitimate needs for a mid ranged 200 pax narrowbody. It is why Airbus keeps coming up with some new incarnation of the A321 trying to squeeze out all they can from that frame. What are we on the A321 XBXB2 extra extra long range model?
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
Can you imagine the math that goes through the head of a senior Boeing exec when considering that (me: for an 8% more efficient 737?) $10B project that will almost certainly be >$20B by the time it is done?

Off topic a little:Wow, in comparison the $6.5B CSeries program could then be considered a bargain ... :duck:
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
AleksW
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:48 pm

What do you guys mean there's no business case? A320 / 737 class of aircraft is the most popular and widely used type. But I guess for bean counters it's better to invent a telescopic landing gear.
 
AleksW
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:49 pm

bring back 757 MAX SUPER LR as a mid term solution and start clean sheet ASAP.
Last edited by AleksW on Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:49 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Can you imagine the math that goes through the head of a senior Boeing exec when considering that $10B (me: for an 8% more efficient 737?) project that will almost certainly be >$20B by the time it is done?
Off topic a little: Wow, the $6.5B CSeries program could then be considered a bargain in comparison... :duck:


The programs are designed for vastly different production rates. The new narrowbody production has to reach at least 60 frames a month. CSeries probably designed for around 10 frames a month.
 
User avatar
Embajador3
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:28 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:55 pm

I am no engenier or expert on the matter, but here are my 2 cents as cabin crew/flight attendant on the B717, B737 + 737NG + 737Max & A320.

Boeing does not provide great comfort onboard. The cabins of the 717 and the 737 are just too narrow, and working on these airplanes is far from "an amazing" experience, from our point of view.

The A320, however, has a wider cabin and a lot of small features that make our life easier (just as doors that can be easily opened/closed, wider cabin, a very easy to use FAP with many controls there, arming disarming slides does not require us to kneel down every time. The process is easy and simple... etc).

If I had to choose one airplane where to work, I would go for the A320 anytime, over the 717 and 737.

Kind regards
Flying Together
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19762
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:07 pm

Finn350 wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Can you imagine the math that goes through the head of a senior Boeing exec when considering that $10B (me: for an 8% more efficient 737?) project that will almost certainly be >$20B by the time it is done?
Off topic a little: Wow, the $6.5B CSeries program could then be considered a bargain in comparison... :duck:


The programs are designed for vastly different production rates. The new narrowbody production has to reach at least 60 frames a month. CSeries probably designed for around 10 frames a month.

The c-series was done very efficiently. But it is also built for a lower production rate. That alone, due to more automated tools (another $1.5 billion, including engineering), plus the quantity of tooling. Plus the payback to reduce manufacturing costs which adds development time and cost.

Boeing also has higher wages than Bombardier.
Boeing also must ramp production faster which costs money to expedite and out bid other machine tool buyers.

This is the equivalent of Ford trying to replace every light truck, SUV, and van at once. They didn't and couldn't.

It scares the hell out of both Airbus and Boeing to completely replace their narrowbodies. Both have grown to be greater endevours than most nation's gnp. I'm serious. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I believe the total 737 or A320 efforts, including maintenance, is more billions of Dollar/Euro/Yen/Peso/Rupee/Yuan/Pound/Lira/Frank/Ruble per year than the country at the median GNP.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:22 pm

Max Q wrote:
Actually this was all precipitated by the massive blunder that was closing the 757 line

Slowing production of that aircraft to a crawl while developing a NG version would have saved billions in future costs and eliminated the dilemma of the 797 and what configuration it should have


Arrrrgh, not this again.

A few reminders:

1) Boeing didn't just close the 757 line, it converted it to 737NG production. The opportunity cost of not doing that would have been massive.
2) The 757's economic issues aren't limited to engines. It's heavy and maintenance-intensive compared to current aircraft. A 757 MAX would not have been competitive on seat mile costs with the A321neo.
3) There are fewer than 100 757s in the world being used for routes that are longer than a 737 MAX can fly.
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:25 pm

Max Q wrote:
Actually this was all precipitated by the massive blunder that was closing the 757 line


Slowing production of that aircraft to a crawl while developing a NG version would have saved billions in future costs and eliminated the dilemma of the 797 and what configuration it should have


Long, thin routes are all the rage these days and a 5000NM range 757NG would have been extremely popular, customers would have come back in droves



The billions saved by persisting with the superb 757 as they did with the 767 would have given Boeing the financial breathing space to develop a clean sheet replacement for the 737


Which would now be owning the small narrowbody market


The 737NG should have been the end of the line for that type


Please not the 757 argument again. Boeing’s worst selling jet airline model is not relevant to this discussion about the mainstream of the industry. The 757 line was shut down because it couldn’t be sold. Think of it as the A380 of the narowbody sector.

Geoff
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 2941
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:45 pm

Why should Boeing bother with a new narrow-body of its own if it could just get Embraer to build it for Boeing?
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
User avatar
rikkus67
Posts: 1341
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2000 11:34 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:29 pm

wrongwayup wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
A cleansheet narrowbody program would cost at least $10 billion, and technological advances would bring only few percent savings in better efficiency. In other words, there has not been a business case for a new cleansheet narrowbody. When engine technology has advanced enough, the time will be right, and the current 737 crisis probably also helps to launch the new cleansheet design.


Translation - NB technology peaked in with the A320 in 1988.


Ahem... A220 would like a word


AHEM...CSERIES would like a word. ;-) Poor thing was stamped on, but at least not out of the picture (Canadian aviation history did not fully repeat itself), despite its new clothes...
AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:37 pm

rikkus67 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

Translation - NB technology peaked in with the A320 in 1988.


Ahem... A220 would like a word


AHEM...CSERIES would like a word. ;-) Poor thing was stamped on, but at least not out of the picture (Canadian aviation history did not fully repeat itself), despite its new clothes...


I'd argue that now the aircraft is much more likely to get the success it so well deserves.
 
Kilopond
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:40 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
[...]Boeing wanted a new narrowbody in 2011 but AA and WN said no.[...]


That opportunistic approach doesn‘t work. If Boeing would really have listened to airlines with their – sorry to say so – limited capabilities, neither the 737 nor the 777 would ever have been launched.
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:01 pm

2travel2know2 wrote:
Why should Boeing bother with a new narrow-body of its own if it could just get Embraer to build it for Boeing?


That's the interesting question. Does the E190-E2 have the bones to become a 150 seater?
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:15 pm

swaluvfa wrote:
Did Boeing ever consider an overhaul of the 757-200? Was it possible to lighten it, add newer avionics, newer engines, more fuel efficient, etc. while keeping its performance measures?


757 is a rather heavy airframe that is not advantaged by grandfathering and dachshund legs. a no go.
Murphy is an optimist
 
multimark
Posts: 469
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:24 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
beeweel15 wrote:
Cant Boeing restart the B757 line. Plain and simple.


:shakehead:

1) Tooling was destroyed

2) Too heavy

3) 1982 airplane


Why is it too heavy vs the 737 which was designed a decade and a half earlier? And surely the 757's ground clearance was much better suited to the LEAP engine, which is what has brought the MAX to grief.
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1165
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:42 pm

ELBOB wrote:

How? It's simply not physically possible without building another final assembly line, staffing it, establishing logistics... All for a couple of hundred sales out of thousands.


Which is precisely what Airbus eventually did. In Mobile, Alabama, USA.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:12 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Off topic a little:Wow, in comparison the $6.5B CSeries program could then be considered a bargain ... :duck:

Developing a plane is now becoming cheaper by the year.

Digital design software is becoming so powerful at a very rapid rate. We have only seen a glimpse of this digital design technique at Boeing with the T-X military trainer aircraft. The T-X is the only cleansheet design that was initiated within the last 3 years. Designs like F-35 all predate the maturity of this software.

I'll give an example with some hypothetical numbers. Developing the exact same aircraft starting in 2010, 2015 and 2020 might result in development costs of $8B, $6B and $4B respectively. The time development also has been reducing so it might be 6 years, 5 years and 4 years respectively from program initiation to entering service.

Aircraft complexity increased significantly around 2010 with full digital systems and lots of new materials. The design software was lagging behind and required exponential man hours to be thrown at the A380 and 787 projects. Since that point developing a similar aircraft will become cheaper as the design software catches up.

Some would say aircraft are no longer getting more complex. At most complexity is only increasing at a very small rate. The NMA will likely be a scaled down 787 with no new breakthroughs so development costs will be lower. Likewise in 10 years time a cleansheet NSA might have the same development cost of the 737MAX.

Members here who are throwing around $10 billion or $20 billion for an NSA development have no idea. Maybe that would have been the cost of a full carbon NSA if it started development 10 years ago. But starting today a cleansheet NSA would be $5billion at most.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:29 am

rikkus67 wrote:
wrongwayup wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

Translation - NB technology peaked in with the A320 in 1988.


Ahem... A220 would like a word


AHEM...CSERIES would like a word. ;-) Poor thing was stamped on, but at least not out of the picture (Canadian aviation history did not fully repeat itself), despite its new clothes...

Well, CSeries was just a marketing name; which is now retired and replaced with A220. They still carry the BD-500 designation on the TCDS, which is what matters to the authorities.
Happens all the time.
 
Yossarian22
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:44 am

Because they are greedy. People really need to go to prison for this.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:06 am

WIederling wrote:
swaluvfa wrote:
Did Boeing ever consider an overhaul of the 757-200? Was it possible to lighten it, add newer avionics, newer engines, more fuel efficient, etc. while keeping its performance measures?


757 is a rather heavy airframe that is not advantaged by grandfathering and dachshund legs. a no go.


I think the lack of dachshund legs would have helped :?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:37 am

1989worstyear wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
NWAROOSTER wrote:
If it was not for Southwest Boeing would have begun designing a new narrow body aircraft at least ten years ago.


I think that WN is certainly an important factor here, but let's not get carried away. Suppose that the 787 had flown on schedule in 2008 or 2009 and went off without any major problems. In 2010 Boeing might well have said: "OK, we're going to work on a 737 replacement."

WN will probably be responsible for ~5-10% of the 737MAX order book, which is no small thing, but in the alternate universe outlined above, WN would still need narrowbodies. Now, this might have caused them to start courting Airbus, but Boeing would have probably won out. Boeing would have made the flight deck of the new aircraft a Boeing flight deck and that's what 737 pilots are used to. Boeing would have probably won WN's order and Airbus would be scrambling to figure out how to bring the A320NEO up to scratch.

The fact is that clean-sheet designs are notoriously expensive, especially because those designs can span decades. Look at the 777, now going into its third iteration 25 years after it was launched. So you want to load as much bleeding edge technology as you can into a new design because it needs to last. The A320's FBW systems are still relevant today, for example.

But Boeing made a very short-sighted decision with MCAS. They were way too obsessed with making the 737MAX almost exactly like the 737NG for pilots. The system itself was poorly-designed and now Boeing is paying a very steep price.


That's because not much has changed after '88.



Composites is a whole generation ahead of fbw. Wonder why you don't ever mention that?
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
Aviation737
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:09 am

Because multiple airlines didn't want to wait for a new clean sheet design. Especially Southwest and American which threatened to switch to Airbus. Boeing didn't have a choice. They could either design an entirely clean sheet design and potentially lose their major customers to their rival or do a simple upgrade to their existing aircraft that will be just as good as their rival. The math says that the MAX was and is the best decision for Boeing to combat against the NEO
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:44 am

RJMAZ wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Off topic a little:Wow, in comparison the $6.5B CSeries program could then be considered a bargain ... :duck:

Developing a plane is now becoming cheaper by the year.

Digital design software is becoming so powerful at a very rapid rate. We have only seen a glimpse of this digital design technique at Boeing with the T-X military trainer aircraft. The T-X is the only cleansheet design that was initiated within the last 3 years. Designs like F-35 all predate the maturity of this software.

I'll give an example with some hypothetical numbers. Developing the exact same aircraft starting in 2010, 2015 and 2020 might result in development costs of $8B, $6B and $4B respectively. The time development also has been reducing so it might be 6 years, 5 years and 4 years respectively from program initiation to entering service.

Aircraft complexity increased significantly around 2010 with full digital systems and lots of new materials. The design software was lagging behind and required exponential man hours to be thrown at the A380 and 787 projects. Since that point developing a similar aircraft will become cheaper as the design software catches up.

Some would say aircraft are no longer getting more complex. At most complexity is only increasing at a very small rate. The NMA will likely be a scaled down 787 with no new breakthroughs so development costs will be lower. Likewise in 10 years time a cleansheet NSA might have the same development cost of the 737MAX.

Members here who are throwing around $10 billion or $20 billion for an NSA development have no idea. Maybe that would have been the cost of a full carbon NSA if it started development 10 years ago. But starting today a cleansheet NSA would be $5billion at most.


Spot on!

CFRP barrels of different shape or diameter now only require a different mandrel, the bots can deal with a wide range of sizes. A design freedom with cool possibilities.
 
Yossarian22
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:25 am

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:21 am

Aviation737 wrote:
Because multiple airlines didn't want to wait for a new clean sheet design. Especially Southwest and American which threatened to switch to Airbus. Boeing didn't have a choice. They could either design an entirely clean sheet design and potentially lose their major customers to their rival or do a simple upgrade to their existing aircraft that will be just as good as their rival. The math says that the MAX was and is the best decision for Boeing to combat against the NEO


So instead, they killed 300 people? They had a choice, they rushed to build a flawed plane, and plenty of innocent people died as a result.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:11 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
CFRP barrels of different shape or diameter now only require a different mandrel, the bots can deal with a wide range of sizes. A design freedom with cool possibilities.

I'm not arguing about CRFP design freedom & flexibility, but CRFP are not yet optimal for barrels in Narrow Bodies. Aluminium lithium is way cheaper, almost as light and much easier to repair.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:44 am

1989worstyear wrote:
I think the lack of dachshund legs would have helped :?

Relative the existing 737 :
Longer legs would add quite a bit of extras beyond the structure and legs coming in at higher weight.
Bigger doors, more evacuation slides, ... higher engine thrust ( more weight, changed cert requirements) ...
Murphy is an optimist
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4119
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:42 pm

multimark wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
beeweel15 wrote:
Cant Boeing restart the B757 line. Plain and simple.


:shakehead:

1) Tooling was destroyed

2) Too heavy

3) 1982 airplane


Why is it too heavy vs the 737 which was designed a decade and a half earlier? And surely the 757's ground clearance was much better suited to the LEAP engine, which is what has brought the MAX to grief.


The 737/320 were built originally for about 125 people and short to short/medium range. As aerodynamics were tweaked, AND engines improved they kept adding a section here and there (Boeing a new wing), ever bigger engines. The planes were light weight to begin with. Subsequent developments have pushed the bones of those planes to their limits - almost as capable as the 707/720 but much better planes.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
StuckinCMHland
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:59 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:36 pm

Yossarian22 wrote:
Aviation737 wrote:
Because multiple airlines didn't want to wait for a new clean sheet design. Especially Southwest and American which threatened to switch to Airbus. Boeing didn't have a choice. They could either design an entirely clean sheet design and potentially lose their major customers to their rival or do a simple upgrade to their existing aircraft that will be just as good as their rival. The math says that the MAX was and is the best decision for Boeing to combat against the NEO


So instead, they killed 300 people? They had a choice, they rushed to build a flawed plane, and plenty of innocent people died as a result.


Are you seriously believing that? Even if you somehow believe an evil group of beancounters mandated the design, ordered corners to be cut, and is some kind of evil conglomerate looking only for short-term profit you can't seriously believe Boeing intentionally made a 'flawed' plane that would kill people. We're not talking about Stalin and the purges or Mao and the Cultural Revolution here, we are talking about a series of human beings making a mistake or mistakes. It seems from what you say you think Boeing is a totalitarian government instead of a business.

The investigation is not over yet, there are other people or organizations that could be at fault as well, not just Boeing, and the people who work at Boeing and specifically on the Max have to be sick and horrified over this. People's lives will be ruined over these accidents and innocent people and families will pay a big price for other people's errors. It doesn't make up for those who died, but enough with such over the top language and accusations. Before you write such things put yourself in their shoes for a minute.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23962
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:14 pm

StuckinCMHland wrote:
The investigation is not over yet, there are other people or organizations that could be at fault as well, not just Boeing, and the people who work at Boeing and specifically on the Max have to be sick and horrified over this. People's lives will be ruined over these accidents and innocent people and families will pay a big price for other people's errors. It doesn't make up for those who died, but enough with such over the top language and accusations. Before you write such things put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

:checkmark:

I wish calling out such people who on one hand want sympathy for those killed in the accidents yet at the same time say really unjustified if not evil things about the manufacturer and their employees would change their behavior, but I doubt it will.
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
 
9Patch
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:52 pm

The 737 replacement will be designed and built in Brazil.
 
9Patch
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:57 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:

Please not the 757 argument again. Boeing’s worst selling jet airline model is not relevant to this discussion about the mainstream of the industry. The 757 line was shut down because it couldn’t be sold. Think of it as the A380 of the narowbody sector.

Geoff


Not an apt comparison. The 757 had 1,049 orders and deliveries.
The A380 will have 251 when the line shuts down.
 
9Patch
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:02 pm

nry wrote:
2travel2know2 wrote:
Why should Boeing bother with a new narrow-body of its own if it could just get Embraer to build it for Boeing?


That's the interesting question. Does the E190-E2 have the bones to become a 150 seater?


No. They will have to go with a clean sheet design.
Perhaps that's why Boeing is so keen to acquire Embraer.
 
9Patch
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why Has Boeing Been So Reluctant To Build A New Narrowbody?

Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:10 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:

Spot on!

CFRP barrels of different shape or diameter now only require a different mandrel, the bots can deal with a wide range of sizes. A design freedom with cool possibilities.


But can you spin and autoclave 60 CRFP barrels per month?
I recall reading somewhere that CRFP that will cure without being baked in an autoclave is a possibility.

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