• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:16 pm

It'd be far cheaper for Boeing to do a refresh (weight saving, manufacturing simplification etc) of the 787-8 than launch a new program.

Look at it this way - how many NMA orders would have been (a) A321XLR or (b) 788 if the NMA didn't exist? If airlines need the capacity, then they've little alternative option but to buy the 788. Especially if the 788 were given a makeover.

[I think we can all agree that the A338 is not really competitive in the marketplace.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look what I found gathering cobwebs.

RJMAZ wrote:
A fully optimised 787-3 or a lightweight shorter ranged 787 is the perfect MOM.

Boeings cheap and rushed attempt at the original 787-3 was only slightly optimised and based off the overweight 787-8. Boeing's first attempt at a composite fuselage was extremely conservative and overbuilt.

The 787-9 produced only a few years later was a vast improvement production wise. Today Boeing would be extremely confident at making a lightweight 787 version.
Last edited by Amiga500 on Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
dik909
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:56 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:25 pm

danman132x wrote:
Not looking forward to traveling from ATL to FRA or AMS narrow body, which would fit these new planes perfectly


Just curious: why not ? Wouldn't your seat area be basically the same ??

I could be wrong, but perhaps your comment touches on an unspoken assumption among most commercial passengers which is that bigger airplanes are somehow safer.


Aceskywalker wrote:
To be quite honest, I don't see a business case for Boeing to spend billions on developing the NMA - not when they have multiple fires to put out with the MAX crisis, 777X delay, and eroding trust in the 787 family.

Boeing must clean house and admit defeat to Airbus for the next decade or a little less, and go clean sheet design for a new narrowbody.


10/10, yes.
 
slider
Posts: 7337
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 12:35 pm

I've always advocated something like the 787-3 as well--employ the foldable wingtips to make airport access easier. But to RJMAZ's old point, Boeing may be able to deliver lighter copies of something like that now. Either that or reset the 757 program; who knew that in 2019 we'd all still be realizing that a 757 would still be a perfect fit for the market today. Make it composite, re-engine it, whatever. There's your solution.

Boeing has been caught flatfooted ever since the 787 was announced. Each passing day that ticks by sees them losing whatever competitive advantage they had to rivals.

Questionable leadership, bureaucracy, glacial pacing of how they operate. Not a good combination. And I've always admired them and loved the aircraft. The legacy of the MAX crashed may be more far-reaching than we even think at this moment, because it's got BCAG in total paralysis to move forward on anything.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:08 pm

crimsonchin wrote:
Now that Boeing has roped Airbus into launching the XLR and tying their resources into building that plane, they can hit Airbus on the counter by launching the NMA and Airbus won't be able to respond, effectively having that mighty 5000 plane market to themselves, genius.


This is a joke right? The amount of money AB will spend on XLR is peanuts.
 
juliuswong
Moderator
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:58 pm

Hello Boeing... Anyone home? Just a matter of time DL places an order too.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:58 pm

Revelation wrote:


This chart shows there is indeed a gap in the market, but it does not show the whole story. Our planet does not need this chart all covered with aircraft of different capability. The transcon market in North America is a big marker for aircraft capability. Up to 2700 mi, there are lots of markets that support nonstop service. Beyond that distance, service thins out. It is just not North America, population is distributed in chunks around the globe.

The -XLR will grow the number of city pairs that can support service. If targeted at 8-10 hour flights, the NMA will not.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
Sokes
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:13 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
The wing of an A321 is not good enough for 101t MTOW over many hours flight. Suppose it is: there still is a gap between a 101t A321XLR and a 233t A330.
Suppose Aither is right about fragmentation: How many NMAs would be required to replace even 30% of 8+ hours flights?


While the answer probably is "a lot", Airbus will also make a hell lot more frames per month and economy of scale still is the thing to drive unit production cost way down.

I do not know about manufacturing, but youtube videos about assembly lines do not seem to be suitable for an output of 2-4 items/ day.
Are there items on an A320 which are needed in mass production quantity which can't be used on other planes?

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line :
"The Venetian Arsenal, dating to about 1104, operated similar to a production line. Ships moved down a canal and were fitted by the various shops they passed. At the peak of its efficiency in the early 16th century, the Arsenal employed some 16,000 people who could apparently produce nearly one ship each day, and could fit out, arm, and provision a newly built galley with standardized parts on an assembly-line basis. Although the Arsenal lasted until the early Industrial Revolution, production line methods did not become common even then.
...
The moving assembly line was developed for the Ford Model T and began operation on October 7, 1913, at the Highland Park Ford Plant,[14][15] and continued to evolve after that, using time and motion study.[10] The assembly line, driven by conveyor belts, reduced production time for a Model T to just 93 minutes[11] by
dividing the process into 45 steps.[16]
...
As a result of these developments in method, Ford's cars came off the line in three-minute intervals, or six feet per minute.[19] This was much faster than previous methods, increasing production by eight to one (requiring 12.5 man-hours before, 1 hour 33 minutes after), while using less manpower.[3] It was so successful, paint became a bottleneck. Only japan black would dry fast enough, forcing the company to drop the variety of colors available before 1914, until fast-drying Duco lacquer was developed in 1926.[3] "

As there are huge quantities of 6 abreast narrow bodies, but only two basic models (which sell) you seem to be right.
However I wonder how much this is due to spare part management and pilot training and how much due to manufacturing efficiency.
The A318 could not profit from "economy of scales". But where is the upper end of "economy of scale" of A320 or A321: six, seven or eight hours flight time?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6840
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
It's back to smartarse school for you! :)

I was a bit florid in my language so I deserve such a rejoinder.

I like your strategy a lot and as always backed up with insight and detail.

I'd find it extremely interesting if they did make such a pivot, but still, it doesn't seem likely.

Boeing doesn't seem to be very willing to take on risk ever since the 787 became such a financial and PR debacle and have been emphasizing that NMA is not a technology push.

What you're asking for is definitely a technology push, one that is on a scale Boeing doesn't seem prepared to take on, not to mention the engine vendors.

Yet we had at least one report from PAS that is raising questions about Muilenburg's future as Boeing CEO.

It would be pretty darn interesting for some internal candidate to "shiv" Muilenburg by finding a conduit to the BoD to pitch the pivot to NSA strategy.

High stakes poker, but as the saying goes, fortune favors the brave!

Or, it could happen if the "black swan" scenario plays out i.e. majority of customers refuse to board 737s which would force Boeing to provide a replacement, but (a) History shows that's very unlikely and (b) if that happens then lots of major airlines would all take major hits along with Boeing so there will be a lot of players engaged to avoid such a scenario.

Proof of this is yesterday's statements from ET's CEO about its relationship with Boeing being on the mend, it's the kind of thing one says when one has no other path forward.

Amiga500 wrote:
Its the 787 that will suffer, not the narrowbodies. Boeing launch NMA and what happens the 787 backlog? It is significantly less robust than the MAX backlog.

IMO you are making something out of nothing.

Less robust than 737/A320, of course, everything in the industry is, but more robust than A330, A350, etc.

Look at the recent KE 30 787 order, see any 788s? Nope.

Having no product other than 788 or 737-10 to offer in the MOM space isn't viable.

The collateral damage is negligible if it means having something to pressure A321XLR, A330 and A350 and provide an avenue to a 2030s NSA.

N14AZ wrote:
What happened to the comment that Airbus had opened the box of Pandorra by launching the XLR? Or was it another thread?

They've been telegraphing this move for the last 6-12 months if not more, so it's been factored in a long time ago.

A321 is a great product and XLR is a great advancement that will get pretty much everyone willing to wait for it to convert their orders, but it still leaves a void in the middle of the market in the 767-ish size plus mid market range segment that Boeing can address with NMA.

I still feel what I said earlier is true, NMA's potential is to be what 787 is to A330, and there is room in the market for both.


Sorry about the "smartarse" bit by the way - definitely tongue in cheek. :oops:

The reality is that as a (very) senior ME (Manufacturing Engineer) I get seduced by the idea of leveraging that producibility across 60-70 per month instead of 12-15, as well as (what I consider to be) the phenomenal strength of commonality between the NSA narrowbody and NMA.
I still think that quite a few don't get how significant this is.

For me, the ability for an airline being able to convert 10 of 50 A321NEO's (say) into XLR's without having to assimilate a new type with new risk in small numbers is hugely powerful.
Aside from the fact that the XLR's RCT will always occupy the space previously occupied by 2 x ACT's, the XLR is STILL just another A321

Rgds
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:21 pm

XLR is not going to tie up all that many resources. And per other prognosticators I suspect the 797 will have a tight 8 abreast capability, which will easily evolve into abreast upgrades of: 7 and 6 and then .....
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:27 pm

It's not the assembly line, the supply chain behind it is the limiting factor. Airbus cannot deliver the A32X fast enough.

Thats one reason (beside some others) why IAG is going to order the 737 MAX as they will get additional new airplanes much faster.
 
danman132x
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:25 pm

dik909 wrote:
danman132x wrote:
Not looking forward to traveling from ATL to FRA or AMS narrow body, which would fit these new planes perfectly


Just curious: why not ? Wouldn't your seat area be basically the same ??

I could be wrong, but perhaps your comment touches on an unspoken assumption among most commercial passengers which is that bigger airplanes are somehow safer.
.


No sir, honestly just like the comfort of wide bodies better. I'm 6'5" tall and always find the smaller planes more cramped. If they have the same pitch as the a330s/767s I'm sure it won't be as bad, but the biggest issue is 3x3 seats. I get window seats all the time and that's 2 people to crawl over, vs the usual 1 in an a330 or 767. I try to avoid 777s also for this same reason.
Once in a while when extra funds permit I'll get a comfort + but that's not always possible.

By the looks of it, especially now with AA ordering the XLR for Europe and South America, we'll be seeing a lot more if it. Maybe they'll keep the heavier metal on the main routes though. Hoping Delta doesn't change their course of action.

Personally just love the feel of wide bodies. If it comes down to it and there's no other choice, I will fly in the narrow body.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:05 pm

flee wrote:
Revelation wrote:
flee wrote:
20% per seat improvement over 787 would not be easy as the 787 is already pretty efficient. Such a huge jump will have to mostly come from the engines.

No it doesn't mostly have to come from the engines when you are also shedding 8-9% passenger count and 47-70% range for NMA vs 787.

Keep in mind the fuel you burn for the last mile has to be lifted by the fuel you burn for the first mile, so adding range is not just simple addition, it costs more fuel per mile flown to carry the last mile's fuel.

The different mission the NMA is designed for will allow for a lot of things to be optimized so it's not just an engine thing.

Difficult to compare small twin aisle wide body with the 787. On the one hand, the fuselage cross section will be of smaller diameter, making it more aerodynamic. On the other, having two aisles in a 2-3-2 configuration may not be as efficient. It may need a 787 width seat and 2-4-2 seating to make it work.

Still there are lots of variables to consider. It is not a given that it can beat the 787 on economics.


20% against the 787-8 Dreamliner I do not know but feasible.

A NMA-797X Strech (-7 or - 8?) will be more efficient than a Shrink 787-8 .

Imagine smaller wing box wings,
bulkhead and lighter, and smaller structures with even more advanced materials.

All these elements make it possible to affirm it.

8-abreast would be for one or two hour missions.
The NMA would be in the 767's class so a 7-Abreast configuration
 
Jetport
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:35 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Jetport wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

So critical that the airlines asked Airbus to remove the L2 door from the A321 as they didn't use it for loading....


Airlines would have LOVED to use the L2 door for loading. But the L2 was too close to the engine and it wouldn't work. In retrospect the location of the L2 door was one of the few serious design flaws on the A321.


My point being - if the L2 door would have been so advantageous - instead of having it deleted, they'd have had it moved.

BTW - I've flown on Lufthansa flights that were both embarked and debarked through L2 so don't know what the issue was....?


The danger of jetway contact with the engine is too high for most airlines to use the L2 door on the A321. In the US, airlines almost always use the L2 door on 757's. Either Lufthansa likes living dangerously or they have very good jetway operators.
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:45 pm

Revelation wrote:


sabby wrote:
Let me ask you this, what do you think should be the specs of the NMA and where would you see it beat all existing and announced upcoming aircraft in RFPs on capex and opex ? Who outside the US3 would buy it and for what kind of routes ? I am genuinely curious. Believe it or not, as a fan, I'd actually love another clean sheet wide body smaller than 787/A330 but capable of long range, just don't see it happening quite yet.

Let me think about it some more.

Till then, we can contemplate the following:

Image

Ref: https://seekingalpha.com/article/418577 ... 75-billion

Or we can contemplate https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... rg-459055/ which says:

Tinseth notes that Boeing foresees long-term demand for about 4,000-5,000 aircraft in the "mid-market" category. "Those airplanes would come from three places – upgauging from single-aisle market, downgauging from widebody market, and if you optimise it for that market you'll stimulate some demand as well."


The smaller NMA, I agree there's a market and potential for growth for more route openings. It can also be densely configured for shorter routes. The longer 2 class 270 pax would only take away 787-9 sales. Airbus do not care about A339 taking some sales away from A359 because it cost them just 2B in R&D running on mature production line and it helps reign 787 dominance a bit and force lower pricing. The larger NMA wouldn't take anything away from Airbus as their presence in that market sector is tiny, Boeing would only harm themselves.

And by the way, would advise you not to take anything from seeking alpha seriously, we have a lot better and wiser aviation experts on this forum than that site. Let me know if you think of some operators and routes for NMA where there'd be significant benefits as opposed to available aircraft. I can only think of some thinner TATL and a few EU-Asia routes.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
astuteman wrote:
It's back to smartarse school for you! :)

I was a bit florid in my language so I deserve such a rejoinder.

I like your strategy a lot and as always backed up with insight and detail.

I'd find it extremely interesting if they did make such a pivot, but still, it doesn't seem likely.

Boeing doesn't seem to be very willing to take on risk ever since the 787 became such a financial and PR debacle and have been emphasizing that NMA is not a technology push.

What you're asking for is definitely a technology push, one that is on a scale Boeing doesn't seem prepared to take on, not to mention the engine vendors.

Yet we had at least one report from PAS that is raising questions about Muilenburg's future as Boeing CEO.

It would be pretty darn interesting for some internal candidate to "shiv" Muilenburg by finding a conduit to the BoD to pitch the pivot to NSA strategy.

High stakes poker, but as the saying goes, fortune favors the brave!

Or, it could happen if the "black swan" scenario plays out i.e. majority of customers refuse to board 737s which would force Boeing to provide a replacement, but (a) History shows that's very unlikely and (b) if that happens then lots of major airlines would all take major hits along with Boeing so there will be a lot of players engaged to avoid such a scenario.

Proof of this is yesterday's statements from ET's CEO about its relationship with Boeing being on the mend, it's the kind of thing one says when one has no other path forward.

Amiga500 wrote:
Its the 787 that will suffer, not the narrowbodies. Boeing launch NMA and what happens the 787 backlog? It is significantly less robust than the MAX backlog.

IMO you are making something out of nothing.

Less robust than 737/A320, of course, everything in the industry is, but more robust than A330, A350, etc.

Look at the recent KE 30 787 order, see any 788s? Nope.

Having no product other than 788 or 737-10 to offer in the MOM space isn't viable.

The collateral damage is negligible if it means having something to pressure A321XLR, A330 and A350 and provide an avenue to a 2030s NSA.

N14AZ wrote:
What happened to the comment that Airbus had opened the box of Pandorra by launching the XLR? Or was it another thread?

They've been telegraphing this move for the last 6-12 months if not more, so it's been factored in a long time ago.

A321 is a great product and XLR is a great advancement that will get pretty much everyone willing to wait for it to convert their orders, but it still leaves a void in the middle of the market in the 767-ish size plus mid market range segment that Boeing can address with NMA.

I still feel what I said earlier is true, NMA's potential is to be what 787 is to A330, and there is room in the market for both.


Interesting comment about NMA's potential compared to A320 line being what 787 is to A330, can you explain and then where do you place A350?
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 487
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:44 pm

slider wrote:
I've always advocated something like the 787-3 as well--employ the foldable wingtips to make airport access easier. But to RJMAZ's old point, Boeing may be able to deliver lighter copies of something like that now. Either that or reset the 757 program; who knew that in 2019 we'd all still be realizing that a 757 would still be a perfect fit for the market today. Make it composite, re-engine it, whatever. There's your solution.

Boeing has been caught flatfooted ever since the 787 was announced. Each passing day that ticks by sees them losing whatever competitive advantage they had to rivals.

Questionable leadership, bureaucracy, glacial pacing of how they operate. Not a good combination. And I've always admired them and loved the aircraft. The legacy of the MAX crashed may be more far-reaching than we even think at this moment, because it's got BCAG in total paralysis to move forward on anything.


Do you really think so? And yet this IAG order for 200 MAX's, the large number of 787 sales? Boeing must be doing something right? Isn't the 787 at least as efficient as the A350? Airbus has had some questionable directions (A380, ahem!) too, hasn't it?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:24 pm

marcelh wrote:
With the introduction of the A321XLR Boeing knows exactly what the gap is they can fill with the NMA. More interesting is what they will do with the NSA in terms of capacity and range and how this will (or won’t) eat into NMA territory.

Remind us again what they knew about the gap after the A321-200, A321-NEO, A321-LR and now A321-XLR?

What Boeing cannot deny is that each improved iteration of the A321 shrinks the segment they are targeting by reducing potential buyers.
AA for example may have used the 797 for all the missions that the A321-NEO and now XLR will be doing, so even if they do still buy the 797, the number of missions will be reduced as well as the potential number of frames.
So in a nutshell, the longer they wait to launch the 797 the smaller the target point get's which further complicates the design, this may even be the reason why a narrow body is now off the table.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:39 pm

N14AZ wrote:
What happened to the comment that Airbus had opened the box of Pandorra by launching the XLR? Or was it another thread?


It's my comment
I said, Airbus had opened the Pandora's box in favor of Boeing, and not the opposite :biggrin:
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:26 pm

sabby wrote:

The smaller NMA, I agree there's a market and potential for growth for more route openings. It can also be densely configured for shorter routes. The longer 2 class 270 pax would only take away 787-9 sales. Airbus do not care about A339 taking some sales away from A359 because it cost them just 2B in R&D running on mature production line and it helps reign 787 dominance a bit and force lower pricing. The larger NMA wouldn't take anything away from Airbus as their presence in that market sector is tiny, Boeing would only harm themselves.
(...)


I actually see the longer aircraft with better potential. There is a substantial number of flights that are sub-3000mi and use widebodies nowadays. Many of them use A330s and 777s. There will be more growth in China, India and Indonesia so the usage of widebodies on shorter flights is bound to increase. The very reverse of the -XLR, a shorthaul widebody, has good potential market.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:05 am

incitatus wrote:
I actually see the longer aircraft with better potential. There is a substantial number of flights that are sub-3000mi and use widebodies nowadays. Many of them use A330s and 777s. There will be more growth in China, India and Indonesia so the usage of widebodies on shorter flights is bound to increase. The very reverse of the -XLR, a shorthaul widebody, has good potential market.

I am curious to see which version is the best seller. The long range new route opener or the efficient regional widebody.

I expect Boeing will also gauge the market and introduce a third model if the sales go to one direction.

Going larger they could add a simple stretch to bring it up to 787-8 cabin area but range is reduced to say 3500nm. This would easily beat the A321 per seat economics and might have big demand in Asia.

Going smaller they could remove a few frames and with the weight saved add an aux fuel tank. It would create a 6000+nm aircraft that could maybe reach 6500nm with a low density cabin. It could allow secondary cities in Asia to connect with secondary cities in Europe and North America. It is hard to predict how far the surge in point to point routes will go.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:51 am

astuteman wrote:
...
I don't see in my scenario NSA having all new gen engines - maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 generation over the LEAP or GTF.
The performance delta may be less than that between the NG and the MAX (meaning the transition should be even easier)

The four reasons for doing the NSA are strategic ones...
1. Boeing end up with an all new narrowbody which brings all the advantages to the customer that the 787 did to the widebody world - more efficient than the NEO's, lighter, more producible, more advanced architecture
2. They develop a narrobody that can be "futureproofed" against next gen engines of a bigger diameter when they come, by having the appropriate landing gear arcitecture
2. Producibility. This is the big one for me. I love anything to do with producibility - it has been my career for 3 decades and I have been ding it strategically for 2 of those. Imagine the economy of production that is envisaged for NMA being applied to a narrowbody. Boeing could achieve a production cost, AND a production volume, that Airbus can NEVER match with the A320 series. Talk about profitability!! And applied to a product moving in 60-70 per month, not 12 - 15
3. By carefully crafting the architecture, NSA could be designed with the requirements to grow into a real NMA built into it (e.g. wings capable of taking folding tips in the future, landing gear bays and design capable of accommodating stronger landing gear, fuselage designed to be stretched, capability to grow fuel capacity if required factored in, wider than A320 fuselage (MC21 style) etc). They would end up with an NMA (ok, it's a narrowbody) that has all the commonality benefits that the A321XLR enjoys, with none of its drawbacks. And they would cover the space you describe for NMA at 1/10 the cost of a new plane.
nothing is lost. no-one else is going to put a new plane in that space.

Rgds


Producibility is such a big factor. We've both spent careers building prototypes, and quite amazed how much easier the 2nd article is. Imagine having a digital design so shims, fit up, reaming, drilling, etc aren't needed every minute on the line, the joins coming together without force. So much will be automated to hold the accuracy.

Boeing would be crazy to not design the NMA / NSA together. Same (or as close as possible) - Cockpit, control circuit design, actuators, PAKS, deicing, power circuits, switches, controllers, etc. Landing gear - initial 2 models with only difference is capacity, breakers same except for capacity, APU's, etc. Every part must be certified so commonality whenever the weight penalty doesn't hurt. A specific wing for each of the NMA / NSA, a specific hull and tail for each.

I see the NMA as the prototype for the NSA, the NMA would be on line 1 of the new factory, then lines 2, 3, and 4 come on line with the NSA. Each plant would probably have 2 lines. It seems with composites a line can do possibly 10 per month, over time this should rise.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:58 am

Amiga500 wrote:
It'd be far cheaper for Boeing to do a refresh (weight saving, manufacturing simplification etc) of the 787-8 than launch a new program.

As you found from my old posts i have always thought a lightweight 787 would reduce the MOM gap. It might not have filled the middle of the gap in terms of cabin area but it would instead have reduced per seat cost by limiting range and reducing weight.

As the 787-8 already had many unique parts I thought adding a shorter model and refreshing the 787-8 size with a lighter wing and smaller sized engines.

787-7 50m length small wing/engines 175T 5700nm
787-8 56m length small wing/engines 175T 4500nm
787-9 62m 254T unchanged 7635nm
787-10 68m 254T unchanged 6430nm

The 787-7 and 787-8 have 90% commonality.
The 787-9 and 787-10 have 90% commonality.

All four models share cockpits, pilot ratings and systems.

These two lightweight 787's would have so many changes that they might cost half as much to develop as a cleansheet. A tight 8ab cleansheet design would probably be worth the extra money as the nose and tail tapers would be reduced giving a decent efficiency boost. A cleansheet design allows it to be slightly smaller and in the middle of the MOM gap.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
It'd be far cheaper for Boeing to do a refresh (weight saving, manufacturing simplification etc) of the 787-8 than launch a new program.

As you found from my old posts i have always thought a lightweight 787 would reduce the MOM gap. It might not have filled the middle of the gap in terms of cabin area but it would instead have reduced per seat cost by limiting range and reducing weight.

As the 787-8 already had many unique parts I thought adding a shorter model and refreshing the 787-8 size with a lighter wing and smaller sized engines.

787-7 50m length small wing/engines 175T 5700nm
787-8 56m length small wing/engines 175T 4500nm
787-9 62m 254T unchanged 7635nm
787-10 68m 254T unchanged 6430nm

The 787-7 and 787-8 have 90% commonality.
The 787-9 and 787-10 have 90% commonality.

All four models share cockpits, pilot ratings and systems.

These two lightweight 787's would have so many changes that they might cost half as much to develop as a cleansheet. A tight 8ab cleansheet design would probably be worth the extra money as the nose and tail tapers would be reduced giving a decent efficiency boost. A cleansheet design allows it to be slightly smaller and in the middle of the MOM gap.


The previous Boeing CEO had already mentioned in a Flightglobal article in 2014 an option (notional) "787-7".

Four years have passed since and now we know that Boeing has the firm intention that NMA would be a 767's class...
 
sabby
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:05 am

incitatus wrote:
sabby wrote:

The smaller NMA, I agree there's a market and potential for growth for more route openings. It can also be densely configured for shorter routes. The longer 2 class 270 pax would only take away 787-9 sales. Airbus do not care about A339 taking some sales away from A359 because it cost them just 2B in R&D running on mature production line and it helps reign 787 dominance a bit and force lower pricing. The larger NMA wouldn't take anything away from Airbus as their presence in that market sector is tiny, Boeing would only harm themselves.
(...)


I actually see the longer aircraft with better potential. There is a substantial number of flights that are sub-3000mi and use widebodies nowadays. Many of them use A330s and 777s. There will be more growth in China, India and Indonesia so the usage of widebodies on shorter flights is bound to increase. The very reverse of the -XLR, a shorthaul widebody, has good potential market.

The 787-10 (as evident by SQ) and A339 will replace those intra-Asia A330s and 777s. Airlines also use wide body aircraft in those routes to utilize down times of the long haul frames. Why do you think they will use a much smaller 797 ? China is building High Speed Rail to mitigate slot issues and growth. Domestic flights in India are operated by A320 and 738, long way from wide body and I don't see that much growth in Indonesia.
 
Sokes
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:19 am

astuteman wrote:
The reality is that as a (very) senior ME (Manufacturing Engineer) I get seduced by the idea of leveraging that producibility across 60-70 per month instead of 12-15, as well as (what I consider to be) the phenomenal strength of commonality between the NSA narrowbody and NMA.
I still think that quite a few don't get how significant this is.

The B737MAX9 has 3550nm range. More range the NMA would cover. I was a fan of the C-Series. I was wrong. I doubt Boeing needs a NSA. If I'm wrong again, I agree with the commonality part.
Challenge for a NSA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unZeusTrDX4

But why is it significant to produce 70 instead of 12 planes a month?
I read in the early stages of solar panel assembly factories would keep three lines parallel. If line one had trouble at stage one and line two at stage three the panels could be shifted from line two to line one after stage one. Therefore the output of only one line was affected.
However A320 are assembled at three different continents. Even the assembly tools have to be bought separate for each continent.

Capital cost: Suppose development/ tools/ certification lead to long term interest cost of 500 million $/ year. If 150 planes/ year are manufactured, it's 3.3 million $/ plane. Another 5 million $/ plane or so for depreciation.
Same is true for engine maker's development cost, we have to add quite a bit more.
Yes, for capital costs it makes a huge difference if five times the planes are manufactured.

You are in manufacturing, I'm an enthusiast. You must be right. But beside capital cost I can't imagine why.
Can you please give some examples why manufacturing 70 planes/ month instead of 12/ month brings the unit cost down.
Anybody knows the cost of assembly in percentage of total cost?
Or is the cost saving with the suppliers? More like 10% or more like 30% percent difference?
Anybody knows how much suppliers have to spend for development/ tooling for a new plane type?

I think I answered my own question. Planes are mostly capital costs. Bulbs, carpets and whatever else is mass produced make only a very small percentage of total costs. All parts which are made in small numbers are costly because of development, tools, certification. In short: capital costs.
And capital costs are divided by the number of pieces sold. Is this assumption correct? Is this what you meant?
That also explains why an aircraft manufacturer can produce 6 planes/ year. The capital costs were already spent. Better to sell a few pieces at a loss than to write down all costs.

Competing with the A321XLR:
There is a limitation in this capital cost argument: Airlines don't pay the same. If an airline needs a certain type badly, I believe they are charged more.
Similary I believe an airline which may as well choose the A321XLR would be charged less for a NMA.
So capital costs are not equally distributed.
I don't understand how leasing companies fit in this argument.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:45 am

Checklist787 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
787-7 50m length small wing/engines 175T 5700nm
787-8 56m length small wing/engines 175T 4500nm
787-9 62m 254T unchanged 7635nm
787-10 68m 254T unchanged 6430nm


The previous Boeing CEO had already mentioned in a Flightglobal article in 2014 an option (notional) "787-7".

Four years have passed since and now we know that Boeing has the firm intention that NMA would be a 767's class...

The 787-7 if it was 50m long following the 6m difference inbetween models it would actually have the same seating area as the 767-300ER. The numbers I gave above with 175T MTOW and 5700nm range makes it a perfect one to one replacement.

We previously had the NMA-6 and NMA-7 names given by Boeing. This pointed to the 787-6 and 787-7 models as the numbers sat below the 787-8.
 
GRJGeorge
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:49 am

Can the A321XLR open up any viable options out of South Africa that can't be done by current narrow-body aircraft, where widebodies might be too big. Considering departing JNB hot and high. Will it reach Middle-East markets (BEY/TLV/MCT), India (BOM), North Africa (CMN,TUN,ALG) or even southern Europe (MLA, FCO, ATH).
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:50 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
787-7 50m length small wing/engines 175T 5700nm
787-8 56m length small wing/engines 175T 4500nm
787-9 62m 254T unchanged 7635nm
787-10 68m 254T unchanged 6430nm


The previous Boeing CEO had already mentioned in a Flightglobal article in 2014 an option (notional) "787-7".

Four years have passed since and now we know that Boeing has the firm intention that NMA would be a 767's class...

The 787-7 if it was 50m long following the 6m difference inbetween models it would actually have the same seating area as the 767-300ER. The numbers I gave above with 175T MTOW and 5700nm range makes it a perfect one to one replacement.

We previously had the NMA-6 and NMA-7 names given by Boeing. This pointed to the 787-6 and 787-7 models as the numbers sat below the 787-8.


I agree, but it remains only of the theory.

It is easier to chase the weight of a smaller cargo belly than a larger one. Moreover having a "compact aircraft" makes restrict the volume of cargo in length.

A good example is that the 787-9/A359 carries 36 LD3's containers like the A380 for example but different sizes airplanes.
An 787-7 will be too small for carrying more LD3-45W conteners

Then for strategic reasons, Boeing will ensure that a 767ish will prevent a competitor from coming underneath, as he did with the 787 Dreamliner. They were certain that Airbus could only come above the 787 Dreamliner during the gestation of the 7E7 Dreamliner in 2003.

The 787 Dreamliner is also a part of the MOM corner but above despite being "obese" to carrying 240 to 330 seats through the -8 / -9 and the 787-10.

Remember that the 7E7 of 2003 looked like a 767 and had to carry 200 to 250 passengers only then it got bigger without leaving room for a long haul down below. With the NMA / 797X it resumes where they left the 7E7 in 2003 before changing their plan from 200-250 seats in 3 classes (220-270 in two classes announced today).

With a 767ish / 7E7 from 2003 Boeing is sure nothing should come underneath with a Cross Section without Overhead rests of the 777's / 787's and A350's after

I've already explained why the A350MK1 has got a bigger extra body compared to A330s and A340-500 / -600's intended to replace. Keep in mind that Boeing takes up an old but well-founded idea through this 2003 7E7 based on the 767. We know that "MOM" concept is very old at Boeing, it's the manufacturer's culture with the 707's-727's -757's-767's-7E7-NMA but also 7J7 in the 80's and 7N7 and 7X7 in the 70's before implementing 757/767 program at the end of this decade.

Today the manufacturer has become more severe with the business case because of the previous debacle of 10 years ago when the first 787's went into production.

The real goal is to give yourself time with the Airbus Open Pandora Box (and see how far the A321NeoXLR can be pushed) and to make the NMA / 797X better than the 787 Dreamliner when he will enter into production.

So Boeing counts and recounts the beans...

Regards
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:47 am

par13del wrote:
What Boeing cannot deny is that each improved iteration of the A321 shrinks the segment they are targeting by reducing potential buyers.

I would qualify that statement a bit.

Did each 757 sale narrow the market for 767?

To a small degree, yes, but in general, no, IMO.

I think A321x is the 757 to NMA's 767.

At PAS Randy T described A321 as holding a "sliver" of the market NMA is targeting.

I think this indicates the NMA really isn't aiming for the same market as A321.

par13del wrote:
AA for example may have used the 797 for all the missions that the A321-NEO and now XLR will be doing, so even if they do still buy the 797, the number of missions will be reduced as well as the potential number of frames.
So in a nutshell, the longer they wait to launch the 797 the smaller the target point get's which further complicates the design, this may even be the reason why a narrow body is now off the table.

I think the narrow body has never been on the table because it would provide insufficient product differentiation from the A321.
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
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
par13del wrote:
What Boeing cannot deny is that each improved iteration of the A321 shrinks the segment they are targeting by reducing potential buyers.

I would qualify that statement a bit.

Did each 757 sale narrow the market for 767?

To a small degree, yes, but in general, no, IMO.

I think A321x is the 757 to NMA's 767.


Each improved iteration of the A321 is pushing the NMA closer to the 787.

Boeing's biggest problem is undermining the 787. Spending $40 USD billion on two programs that are significantly competing with themselves (while your competitor has spent maybe an 1/8th of that on its - albeit lower performing - solutions) is not a good way to make money.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:26 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Each improved iteration of the A321 is pushing the NMA closer to the 787.

That's akin to saying each new iteration of 757 brought it closer to 767: no big deal, and in this case, the '757' is made by a competitor so there's an incentive to push them out of the market.

Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing's biggest problem is undermining the 787. Spending $40 USD billion on two programs that are significantly competing with themselves (while your competitor has spent maybe an 1/8th of that on its - albeit lower performing - solutions) is not a good way to make money.

Clearly they don't see it the same way you do, or they never would have spent resources on NMA.

Clearly they see a market separate from 787 that you refuse to see, even though I did the math for you earlier in this thread.
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
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
Clearly they don't see it the same way you do, or they never would have spent resources on NMA.


Still to be launched.

Revelation wrote:
Clearly they see a market separate from 787 that you refuse to see, even though I did the math for you earlier in this thread.


You fired up a chart you found from elsewhere... and didn't really pause to consider how well the various little dots on it sold relative to other little dots.

For instance, how well did the 767-300ER sell compared to the baseline 767-300?
 
Olddog
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:35 pm

On the other hand, what randy T says needs to be taken with a truckload of salt :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:03 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Clearly they don't see it the same way you do, or they never would have spent resources on NMA.


Still to be launched.

True, but as I said, resources are being spent.

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Clearly they see a market separate from 787 that you refuse to see, even though I did the math for you earlier in this thread.


You fired up a chart you found from elsewhere... and didn't really pause to consider how well the various little dots on it sold relative to other little dots.

Nope, I'm talking about the math I did showing how NMA is not in the same market as 787 is, which is one of your weaker talking points.

Amiga500 wrote:
For instance, how well did the 767-300ER sell compared to the baseline 767-300?

So you're saying we should use the aviation market, technology base and competitive landscape of the 1970s/1980s to decide where to position products in the 2020s?
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
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
(...)

I think A321x is the 757 to NMA's 767.

At PAS Randy T described A321 as holding a "sliver" of the market NMA is targeting.

I think this indicates the NMA really isn't aiming for the same market as A321.
(...)
I think the narrow body has never been on the table because it would provide insufficient product differentiation from the A321.


But consider that the 757 had shorter range than the XLR. If the Airbus product was a 757-envelope aircraft, we would not be having this conversation. Once one brings the narrowbody product up in range, the 767-like product get squeezed between it, and the product above, the 787.

I am a big Boeing fan, but in this case I feel Boeing has gone into herd-mentality mode. There is no need for a new program if a fraction of the money can be spent on a 787-light.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
slider
Posts: 7337
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:18 pm

spinotter wrote:
slider wrote:
I've always advocated something like the 787-3 as well--employ the foldable wingtips to make airport access easier. But to RJMAZ's old point, Boeing may be able to deliver lighter copies of something like that now. Either that or reset the 757 program; who knew that in 2019 we'd all still be realizing that a 757 would still be a perfect fit for the market today. Make it composite, re-engine it, whatever. There's your solution.

Boeing has been caught flatfooted ever since the 787 was announced. Each passing day that ticks by sees them losing whatever competitive advantage they had to rivals.

Questionable leadership, bureaucracy, glacial pacing of how they operate. Not a good combination. And I've always admired them and loved the aircraft. The legacy of the MAX crashed may be more far-reaching than we even think at this moment, because it's got BCAG in total paralysis to move forward on anything.


Do you really think so? And yet this IAG order for 200 MAX's, the large number of 787 sales? Boeing must be doing something right? Isn't the 787 at least as efficient as the A350? Airbus has had some questionable directions (A380, ahem!) too, hasn't it?


Oh the 787 is a homerun, no doubt. Great aircraft. MAX sales are still predicated on fleet commonality with the 737 I'd think. But what else does Boeing honestly have outside the 777? Airbus has had tons of missteps also, but Boeing's lack of vision is what troubles me.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nope, I'm talking about the math I did showing how NMA is not in the same market as 787 is, which is one of your weaker talking points.


The couple of bullet points?

Not really much maths there demonstrating the tangible benefits of an NMA vs 787 in terms of DOC vs fleet flexibility.


Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
For instance, how well did the 767-300ER sell compared to the baseline 767-300?

So you're saying we should use the aviation market, technology base and competitive landscape of the 1970s/1980s to decide where to position products in the 2020s?


"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

We also seen it far more recently with the performance increases of the A333. At the start, the A332 was the hot seller, then as MTOW increases allowed the A333 to get above a range threshold that the airlines must have deemed important - and then it fairly quickly became the hot seller with the A332 now relegated to bit part player.

That didn't happen in the 1980s.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm

incitatus wrote:
But consider that the 757 had shorter range than the XLR. If the Airbus product was a 757-envelope aircraft, we would not be having this conversation. Once one brings the narrowbody product up in range, the 767-like product get squeezed between it, and the product above, the 787.

Right, but again, markets have shifted over time and will continue to do so.

757 had 737-Classic and 727 below it at the time, so it would have been considered to have much more range just like NMA is considered to be long range compared to 737-10.

The 767 Mk1 didn't have much range relative to ER because it was optimized for the engine tech at time of introduction. It grew range as engines improved, and because of this, is still in production today.

We should see 787-10 add range as a new set of PIPs or a NEO happens and this will make more room for NMA to grow from underneath whilst the 787-8 becomes more and more irrelevant.

incitatus wrote:
I am a big Boeing fan, but in this case I feel Boeing has gone into herd-mentality mode. There is no need for a new program if a fraction of the money can be spent on a 787-light.

Just a week ago the Boeing CEO said:

We don’t see the NMA as a big technology push airplane. It’s much more about the future production system, and will the business case close based on that system? There’s a dual purpose here: not only the potential for a future product but also how, in parallel, we create a design and production transformation for the future.

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/paris-airshow- ... automation

Your perspective of milking the 787 tech to make money in the short term is quite different than DM's "creating a design and production transformation for the future" perspective.

I must say it's a bit different to hear an aviation fan favoring such a short term goal, but that's your prerogative.

Even if the business case doesn't close, it will be a useful exercise on the road to the inevitable NSA.
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
 
marcelh
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
At PAS Randy T described A321 as holding a "sliver" of the market NMA is targeting


If you look at the whole range of the NMA, it may be just a “sliver”. But why shouldn’t the NMA also be able to replace the B757 or in new routes a “757-ish” plane could do the job? In real life we often See that more capable planes are “misused” in smaller routes, just because to optimize the use of the plane. With the introduction of the A321XLR, a NMA isn’t the only option for those flights.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:06 pm

I think People are still thinking the NMA is a lot bigger than it actually will be. I think it will be a 7W Ovalish (Half a big Circle on top of 1/3 of a bigger circle) cross section where the Nose/Cross Section is reused on NSA - something like an 160-165W" x 185-190"H Cross section.

I remember a quote from a Boeing Executive stating the NMA-Medium would be About A321 - Plus 30-40 seats (10-15%) and not necessarily Dual class - so take an A321 of 230-240 and you get to 260-270 for the NMA-M versus 359 for the 788 in Single Class equivalent density.

In Dual Class you would then have a Boeing line up of something like this MAX-10 at about 160-170 seats (A321 170-180), NMA-S about 190-200, NMA-M about 220-230 and 788 about 260-335 - putting the NMA right in the middle of the market of Boeing's offerings.

Thomson packs 288 into an 2 class 788 and Scoot 335 in a 2 class configuration. The NMA will be no where near the floor sizes needed to accommodate that capacity.

It will be a lot smaller/lighter than an 788 which helps explain why it will be a lot more efficient at ranges under 5,000NM.


I would guess the smallest NMA (call it A321 Capacity +5-10%) wouldn't be much more than 120-125T MTOW but with 15-20% more range than A321XLR

NMA medium (A321 plus 40-50 seats +20%) about the same weight 120-125T as NMA-S and about the same range as A321XLR.

Then later a larger NMA-ER (A321 + 60-70 seats, call it 300-320 Single class) in the 135-145T MTOW range and hence the need for the 50K engines with a range similar to NMA - Small. Way lighter than a 228T 788.



They then take the work done on the NMA and manufacturing experience to build NSA with a different Wingbox/Wing/ Gear/Tail optimized for shorter range/short haul flights. You also have longer to optimize structures and reduce weight.

They essentially are done as one long program with the ER versions done first.

You then have a line-up something like the following:

797-7 (NSA-7), 797-8 (NSA-8), 797-8ER(NMA-8), 797-9(NSA-9), 797-9ER (NMA-9), 797-10 (NSA-10), 797-10ER (NMA-10)

Seat Capacities (Single Class in 2x3x2 Configuration)

797-7 -200 a little bigger than 738/A320 to maximize use of 4 flight crew
797-8(ER) -240-250 about A321LR/XLR Capacity plus 5%
797-9(ER) - 260/270 ish
797-10(ER) - 290/300 ish

In summary - I think NMA is basically the NSA in disguise - just that they will do the ER versions first to figure out manufacturing first and have more time to minimize weight for NSA which will be critical.

Boeing will be fine - the A321 XLR might win in the short run - but I suspect things will look a lot different in a year or two once NMA is launched and it becomes apparent (If I am right on NSA) on what is coming next.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:09 pm

incitatus wrote:
There is great demand for an aircraft such as the -XLR. The most evident one is Transatlantic, where the 757 is still used and a replacement is overdue. But there is also Europe to the Middle East and Africa, intra-Asia, and North-South America. There are other thin and small markets out there and what they lack in size they make up for with rich fares. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that service on thinner routes that are 8-to-10 hour flights becomes a competitive requirement.

In my mind, Boeing is making its biggest strategic mistake in decades. Within 3-4 years, what appears at first to be a niche product may garner 1000 orders. The proposed NMA from Boeing is not a similar competitor. Wide-bodies by nature have heavier frames and more drag. A stubby wide-body to compete with the -XLR would have to make up for the increased operation cost with cargo, and in many thinner routes that is not going to be a factor. The 8-to-10-hour flights that can support a wide-body are well covered by 787s, as the economics are good and they create a good blend with longer routes to keep fleet and pilots used to the right limits. I see the NMA as a dead end - a cheaper, de-rated 787-8 would hit about the same market point. If Boeing tried that and got no bites, it is damning for the NMA business case.

I know there are other threads on the -XLR, but I am interested in the market potential and Boeing's response.


I have been saying this for a couple years. The fact Airbus keeps making new extended ranged A321s means there is a market for a MoM. What did Airbus secure, 268 orders at PAS19 for the A321 XLR? That is just the initial order list. Dragging their feet for another decade is going to cost them billions. The reversal of market demand on the closed down 757 line is a shame imo. 10 years too early to market imo with that design. If it comes out in 1989 it could be on its max version right now.

I don't believe a de-rated 787 would fill this role well. Planes do better growing than shrinking. The de-rated 787 is too big an aircraft for this role.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:34 pm

Elementalism wrote:
I have been saying this for a couple years. The fact Airbus keeps making new extended ranged A321s means there is a market for a MoM. What did Airbus secure, 268 orders at PAS19 for the A321 XLR? That is just the initial order list. Dragging their feet for another decade is going to cost them billions. The reversal of market demand on the closed down 757 line is a shame imo. 10 years too early to market imo with that design. If it comes out in 1989 it could be on its max version right now.

I don't believe a de-rated 787 would fill this role well. Planes do better growing than shrinking. The de-rated 787 is too big an aircraft for this role.

The new thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425217 is instructive.

It's not just about finding market demand, it's also about making sure you can make good money servicing that demand.

Airbus's CEO is admitting that Boeing is more cost effective than Airbus.

Clearly a big part of NMA is to try to improve on that advantage going forward.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:19 am

morrisond wrote:
I think People are still thinking the NMA is a lot bigger than it actually will be. I think it will be a 7W Ovalish (Half a big Circle on top of 1/3 of a bigger circle) cross section where the Nose/Cross Section is reused on NSA - something like an 160-165W" x 185-190"H Cross section.

I remember a quote from a Boeing Executive stating the NMA-Medium would be About A321 - Plus 30-40 seats (10-15%) and not necessarily Dual class - so take an A321 of 230-240 and you get to 260-270 for the NMA-M versus 359 for the 788 in Single Class equivalent density.

In Dual Class you would then have a Boeing line up of something like this MAX-10 at about 160-170 seats (A321 170-180), NMA-S about 190-200, NMA-M about 220-230 and 788 about 260-335 - putting the NMA right in the middle of the market of Boeing's offerings.

Thomson packs 288 into an 2 class 788 and Scoot 335 in a 2 class configuration. The NMA will be no where near the floor sizes needed to accommodate that capacity.

It will be a lot smaller/lighter than an 788 which helps explain why it will be a lot more efficient at ranges under 5,000NM.


I would guess the smallest NMA (call it A321 Capacity +5-10%) wouldn't be much more than 120-125T MTOW but with 15-20% more range than A321XLR

NMA medium (A321 plus 40-50 seats +20%) about the same weight 120-125T as NMA-S and about the same range as A321XLR.

Then later a larger NMA-ER (A321 + 60-70 seats, call it 300-320 Single class) in the 135-145T MTOW range and hence the need for the 50K engines with a range similar to NMA - Small. Way lighter than a 228T 788.



They then take the work done on the NMA and manufacturing experience to build NSA with a different Wingbox/Wing/ Gear/Tail optimized for shorter range/short haul flights. You also have longer to optimize structures and reduce weight.

They essentially are done as one long program with the ER versions done first.

You then have a line-up something like the following:

797-7 (NSA-7), 797-8 (NSA-8), 797-8ER(NMA-8), 797-9(NSA-9), 797-9ER (NMA-9), 797-10 (NSA-10), 797-10ER (NMA-10)

Seat Capacities (Single Class in 2x3x2 Configuration)

797-7 -200 a little bigger than 738/A320 to maximize use of 4 flight crew
797-8(ER) -240-250 about A321LR/XLR Capacity plus 5%
797-9(ER) - 260/270 ish
797-10(ER) - 290/300 ish

In summary - I think NMA is basically the NSA in disguise - just that they will do the ER versions first to figure out manufacturing first and have more time to minimize weight for NSA which will be critical.

Boeing will be fine - the A321 XLR might win in the short run - but I suspect things will look a lot different in a year or two once NMA is launched and it becomes apparent (If I am right on NSA) on what is coming next.



So far for a set seating capacity, making an aircraft a little longer resulted in a lighter aircraft than making it little wider.

e.g. :

A321, single aisle
- First flight: 1996
- 1 class seating : 216
- Length : 44.51 m
- OEW : 48.5 t

757-200, single aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 228Y
- Length : 47.3 m
- OEW : 58,4 t

757-300, single aisle
- First flight 1998
- 1 class seating : 280Y
- Length : 54.4 m
- OEW : 64,3 t

767-200, twin aisle
- First flight : 1981
- 1 class seating : 245Y
- Length : 48.51m
- OEW : 80,1 t

A310-300 twin aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 243-265Y
- Length : 46.66 m
- OEW : 79,2 t

on top:

:point: New materials and production technology didn't result in breakthroughs favoring wider fuselages to reduce weight.
:point: Aircraft empty weight has a strong correlation with building costs and direct operating costs.
:point: Narrow bodies fit AKH containers, wide bodies LD3's. Something in-between neither efficiently.
:point: NMA OEW ~ (757+762)/ 2 -10% weight saving = OEW ~ 70t, which probably still is a very ambitious assumption.
:point: With the XLR Airbus set a benchmark not to be ignored. Airlines like AA, IAG, QF don't ignore.

Focusing NMA on a wide 2-3-2, 70-80 t airframe, now, why would that be so brilliant?
I would not be suprized if Boeing changing their direction as we speak.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2137
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:37 am

Revelation wrote:
Airbus's CEO is admitting that Boeing is more cost effective than Airbus.


No. He said the 787 is cheaper to make than the A350 (and I take that to mean significantly cheaper to make). Don't read more into it than that.


Boeing have been under pressure with 737 vs A320 costs before and have had to act accordingly. Given things recently, I'd imagine that price pressure is only exacerbated - and most of it self-inflicted.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 0-percent/

In justifying the anticipated cuts to employees in last month’s internal webcast, Conner was unusually frank as he invoked a dire threat from Airbus.

He said that Airbus winning 63 percent of single-aisle sales last year with its A320 jets going against Boeing’s 737 jets was “alarming … because the 737 is the biggest contributor to the earnings of the Boeing Company.”

While the 737s had once been much better than the A320s, Airbus has narrowed the gap and the A321neo is now “a very competitive machine against the MAX 9,” Conner acknowledged



This is also interesting - I suppose showing how recurring costs have changed in the interim.
He cited another sales campaign last year, when longtime all-Boeing customer EVA Air of Taiwan bought 18 of the largest 787-10 Dreamliners, despite intense pricing pressure from the competing Airbus A350-900.

Boeing had to dig deep to close a large price gap, “not all the way but just enough so we were able to win,” Conner said.



edit: Oh and:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -for-2025/

Wojick said Boeing is looking at a plane seating 220 to 280 passengers with a range of 4,500 to 5,000 miles.


Which is not a million miles from where your two points on the graph were the other day - except probably a bit less range than your plots (?). Except since Wojick made that statement, the A320XLR has entered the market and can now carry ~200 passengers around 4,500 to 5,000 miles.(Note, article said miles, not nautical miles.)

4500 miles => 3900 nautical miles
5000 miles => 4350 nautical miles

Taking Sketch's post:
Image

I'd reckon the XLR would be good for ~220 passengers for ~4000 nm in real life. Its not superimposed, but there is gonna be overlap. If CASM is roughly similar, then usually at that point the aircraft with the lower trip costs wins [as we clearly seen with 777 vs 380]. Would the NMA fuselage be spacious enough to allow unique arrangements to improve yield enough to compensate? That's not a $15B USD bet I'd take.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10418
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:36 am

Sokes wrote:
But why is it significant to produce 70 instead of 12 planes a month?.


Blurry rule of thumb: twice the volume, 10% lower unit cost.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3289
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:20 pm

Here is how the the world consumes aircraft for 2800-5000mi flights today: Number of departures per day

Distance Miles - Wide - Narrow
2800-2999 - 222 - 103
3000-3199 - 178 - 67
3200-3399 - 251 - 62
3400-3599 - 289 - 23
3600-3799 - 300 - 24
3800-3999 - 313 - 7
4000-4199 - 287 - 1
4200-4399 - 240 - 0
4400-4599 - 212 - 0
4600-4799 - 208 - 0
4800-4999 - 259 - 0

There is a broad mix of widebodies used but A330 and 777 are the majority. When I convert this table to number of units, make a 15-year growth projection and assume the -XLR will encroach a bit on the widebody usage, I get that we will need 2000-2500 aircraft to fly these flights in 2034. That number is not the demand for aircraft with max range 5000 mi, but it is an upper limit - many of these routes will continue to be flown by aircraft that have much longer range, and have much great capacity like 77Ws. I can assume 50% of these aircraft will be Boeing, and 50% of the Boeing aircraft will be NMA. That puts its market potential at 500 to 650 units.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:49 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Airbus's CEO is admitting that Boeing is more cost effective than Airbus.


No. He said the 787 is cheaper to make than the A350 (and I take that to mean significantly cheaper to make). Don't read more into it than that.


Boeing have been under pressure with 737 vs A320 costs before and have had to act accordingly. Given things recently, I'd imagine that price pressure is only exacerbated - and most of it self-inflicted.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 0-percent/

In justifying the anticipated cuts to employees in last month’s internal webcast, Conner was unusually frank as he invoked a dire threat from Airbus.

He said that Airbus winning 63 percent of single-aisle sales last year with its A320 jets going against Boeing’s 737 jets was “alarming … because the 737 is the biggest contributor to the earnings of the Boeing Company.”

While the 737s had once been much better than the A320s, Airbus has narrowed the gap and the A321neo is now “a very competitive machine against the MAX 9,” Conner acknowledged



This is also interesting - I suppose showing how recurring costs have changed in the interim.
He cited another sales campaign last year, when longtime all-Boeing customer EVA Air of Taiwan bought 18 of the largest 787-10 Dreamliners, despite intense pricing pressure from the competing Airbus A350-900.

Boeing had to dig deep to close a large price gap, “not all the way but just enough so we were able to win,” Conner said.



edit: Oh and:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -for-2025/

Wojick said Boeing is looking at a plane seating 220 to 280 passengers with a range of 4,500 to 5,000 miles.


Which is not a million miles from where your two points on the graph were the other day - except probably a bit less range than your plots (?). Except since Wojick made that statement, the A320XLR has entered the market and can now carry ~200 passengers around 4,500 to 5,000 miles.(Note, article said miles, not nautical miles.)

4500 miles => 3900 nautical miles
5000 miles => 4350 nautical miles

Taking Sketch's post:
Image

I'd reckon the XLR would be good for ~220 passengers for ~4000 nm in real life. Its not superimposed, but there is gonna be overlap. If CASM is roughly similar, then usually at that point the aircraft with the lower trip costs wins [as we clearly seen with 777 vs 380]. Would the NMA fuselage be spacious enough to allow unique arrangements to improve yield enough to compensate? That's not a $15B USD bet I'd take.


No no, the Airbus Ceo did say that Boeing was more profitable than Airbus. But we already knew that before. This is not new. :roll:
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:08 pm

keesje wrote:
So far for a set seating capacity, making an aircraft a little longer resulted in a lighter aircraft than making it little wider.

e.g. :

A321, single aisle
- First flight: 1996
- 1 class seating : 216
- Length : 44.51 m
- OEW : 48.5 t

757-200, single aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 228Y
- Length : 47.3 m
- OEW : 58,4 t

757-300, single aisle
- First flight 1998
- 1 class seating : 280Y
- Length : 54.4 m
- OEW : 64,3 t

767-200, twin aisle
- First flight : 1981
- 1 class seating : 245Y
- Length : 48.51m
- OEW : 80,1 t

A310-300 twin aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 243-265Y
- Length : 46.66 m
- OEW : 79,2 t

on top:

:point: New materials and production technology didn't result in breakthroughs favoring wider fuselages to reduce weight.
:point: Aircraft empty weight has a strong correlation with building costs and direct operating costs.
:point: Narrow bodies fit AKH containers, wide bodies LD3's. Something in-between neither efficiently.
:point: NMA OEW ~ (757+762)/ 2 -10% weight saving = OEW ~ 70t, which probably still is a very ambitious assumption.
:point: With the XLR Airbus set a benchmark not to be ignored. Airlines like AA, IAG, QF don't ignore.

Focusing NMA on a wide 2-3-2, 70-80 t airframe, now, why would that be so brilliant?
I would not be suprized if Boeing changing their direction as we speak.

Image


Your comparison ignores payload. Payload directly correlates to OEW. The wings, engines, and gear weigh a lot more than the fuselage structure. What payload will the NMA have?

A321, single aisle
- First flight: 1996
- 1 class seating : 216
- Length : 44.51 m
- OEW : 48.5 t
Payload 25t

757-200, single aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 228Y
- Length : 47.3 m
- OEW : 58,4 t
Payload 26t

757-300, single aisle
- First flight 1998
- 1 class seating : 280Y
- Length : 54.4 m
- OEW : 64,3 t
Payload 31t

767-200, twin aisle
- First flight : 1981
- 1 class seating : 245Y
- Length : 48.51m
- OEW : 80,1 t
Payload 36t (the 767-300ER, sharing the same engines & wing has 44t payload


A310-300 twin aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 243-265Y
- Length : 46.66 m
- OEW : 79,2 t
payload 37t (the A300, sharing the same engines &wing has 41t payload
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20609
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:26 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Airbus's CEO is admitting that Boeing is more cost effective than Airbus.

No. He said the 787 is cheaper to make than the A350 (and I take that to mean significantly cheaper to make). Don't read more into it than that.

No no, the Airbus Ceo did say that Boeing was more profitable than Airbus. But we already knew that before. This is not new. :roll:

The quote is:

Boeing has more cost effectiveness than us and we need to address that,” Faury said at the Paris Air Forum on Friday.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

The context is:

Airbus SE is reviewing its jetliner factories across Europe as the group looks to trim costs and simplify a convoluted industrial structure resulting from its formation via a merger of national players.

The study, led by new commercial-aircraft Chief Operating Officer Michael Schöllhorn, will examine plane-building activities in France, Germany, Spain and the U.K. with the aim of making them more efficient and identifying surplus operations, people with knowledge of the matter said.

As noted, this quote was from a week ago today i.e. just before the official opening of PAS.

The 2nd article ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe ) is more focused on A350, and has quotes from Schöllhorn.

It does not quote CEO Faury, and came out yesterday instead of a week ago.
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: 1140
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:51 pm

keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I think People are still thinking the NMA is a lot bigger than it actually will be. I think it will be a 7W Ovalish (Half a big Circle on top of 1/3 of a bigger circle) cross section where the Nose/Cross Section is reused on NSA - something like an 160-165W" x 185-190"H Cross section.

I remember a quote from a Boeing Executive stating the NMA-Medium would be About A321 - Plus 30-40 seats (10-15%) and not necessarily Dual class - so take an A321 of 230-240 and you get to 260-270 for the NMA-M versus 359 for the 788 in Single Class equivalent density.

In Dual Class you would then have a Boeing line up of something like this MAX-10 at about 160-170 seats (A321 170-180), NMA-S about 190-200, NMA-M about 220-230 and 788 about 260-335 - putting the NMA right in the middle of the market of Boeing's offerings.

Thomson packs 288 into an 2 class 788 and Scoot 335 in a 2 class configuration. The NMA will be no where near the floor sizes needed to accommodate that capacity.

It will be a lot smaller/lighter than an 788 which helps explain why it will be a lot more efficient at ranges under 5,000NM.


I would guess the smallest NMA (call it A321 Capacity +5-10%) wouldn't be much more than 120-125T MTOW but with 15-20% more range than A321XLR

NMA medium (A321 plus 40-50 seats +20%) about the same weight 120-125T as NMA-S and about the same range as A321XLR.

Then later a larger NMA-ER (A321 + 60-70 seats, call it 300-320 Single class) in the 135-145T MTOW range and hence the need for the 50K engines with a range similar to NMA - Small. Way lighter than a 228T 788.



They then take the work done on the NMA and manufacturing experience to build NSA with a different Wingbox/Wing/ Gear/Tail optimized for shorter range/short haul flights. You also have longer to optimize structures and reduce weight.

They essentially are done as one long program with the ER versions done first.

You then have a line-up something like the following:

797-7 (NSA-7), 797-8 (NSA-8), 797-8ER(NMA-8), 797-9(NSA-9), 797-9ER (NMA-9), 797-10 (NSA-10), 797-10ER (NMA-10)

Seat Capacities (Single Class in 2x3x2 Configuration)

797-7 -200 a little bigger than 738/A320 to maximize use of 4 flight crew
797-8(ER) -240-250 about A321LR/XLR Capacity plus 5%
797-9(ER) - 260/270 ish
797-10(ER) - 290/300 ish

In summary - I think NMA is basically the NSA in disguise - just that they will do the ER versions first to figure out manufacturing first and have more time to minimize weight for NSA which will be critical.

Boeing will be fine - the A321 XLR might win in the short run - but I suspect things will look a lot different in a year or two once NMA is launched and it becomes apparent (If I am right on NSA) on what is coming next.



So far for a set seating capacity, making an aircraft a little longer resulted in a lighter aircraft than making it little wider.

e.g. :

A321, single aisle
- First flight: 1996
- 1 class seating : 216
- Length : 44.51 m
- OEW : 48.5 t

757-200, single aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 228Y
- Length : 47.3 m
- OEW : 58,4 t

757-300, single aisle
- First flight 1998
- 1 class seating : 280Y
- Length : 54.4 m
- OEW : 64,3 t

767-200, twin aisle
- First flight : 1981
- 1 class seating : 245Y
- Length : 48.51m
- OEW : 80,1 t

A310-300 twin aisle
- First flight: 1982
- 1 class seating : 243-265Y
- Length : 46.66 m
- OEW : 79,2 t

on top:

:point: New materials and production technology didn't result in breakthroughs favoring wider fuselages to reduce weight.
:point: Aircraft empty weight has a strong correlation with building costs and direct operating costs.
:point: Narrow bodies fit AKH containers, wide bodies LD3's. Something in-between neither efficiently.
:point: NMA OEW ~ (757+762)/ 2 -10% weight saving = OEW ~ 70t, which probably still is a very ambitious assumption.
:point: With the XLR Airbus set a benchmark not to be ignored. Airlines like AA, IAG, QF don't ignore.

Focusing NMA on a wide 2-3-2, 70-80 t airframe, now, why would that be so brilliant?
I would not be suprized if Boeing changing their direction as we speak.

Image


I still think you are thinking too big. NMA-S could be about 752 Capacity and NMA-M 753 Capacity - albeit with longer range.

The A321 XLR won't be 48.5T OEW - The NEO is already over 50T and the XLR could be 51-52T with the new heavier gear and bigger fuel tank/plumbing.

The NMA could be more in the range of 58-65T OEW at shorter lengths than 757 (call it 42M NMA-S and 48M NMA-M) to get similar seating to 752/753. I'm assuming whatever sized wing you can fold to 36M to get into Class III gates - call it 42-44M extended. Made from Carbon and almost 40 years newer in design than A320. It should not be radically heavier.

The NMA based NSA with smaller wing/wingbox/gear/engines, tail could easily be under 50T OEW (it will need to be to be competitive with Singe Aisle's).

You keep pounding on about AKH containers - but a 7W NMA/NSA would have more than enough production volume to make a new container for which would have 50-60% more capacity per meter of length than an AKH - an AKH would still fit in the belly easily.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

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