• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:28 pm

I see a 15-20t gap between same seat capacity A321-A322 version and the discussed NMA' configurations. And I have not seen anything that motivates me from lowering that gap. No materials, structures or space use step changes. SUV's are not for efficiency.

Image

If an NMA is only efficient on medium flights, it won't be on the bulk of the shorter, e.g. transcon, China, Europe, flights.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:28 pm

morrisond wrote:

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.


No matter how the NMA gets explained, it looks squeezed in a market corner.

I read it doesn't compete with the A321XLR. It doesn't compete with the 787. Now, if it is the capacity of a 752 and a 753, it does make sense to make it a narrow body. A generous 6-abreast cross-section will be a lot more efficient than a 7-abreast one. And it can be reused in the NSA. While as a passenger I love 7-abreast cross-sections, they are inefficient use of space. Plus attractive cross sections from a comfort point-of-view have never gotten aircraft sold. Just look at the 8-abreast vs. 9-abreast 787.

The container size issue is relevant. Especially when it appears that, as-designed-now, the NMA will have limited market potential. Boeing can design a great cargo hold and container shape that fits perfectly. It will work terribly in other wide-bodies creating a cargo logistics headache. And if it fits the NSA, it won't be that efficient for the NMA.

I don't know how many arguments in a.net are being made by people that work for Boeing. If it doesn't have one already, Boeing needs to put together a team of "NMA disruptors", a group whose mission is to kill the project by investigating better alternatives. If such a team fails, then by all means, make the NMA.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:38 pm

GRJGeorge wrote:
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).


I wonder if CPT-GRU or JNB-GIG if LA were to ever order it.
@DadCelo
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:44 pm

A lot of people seem to be missing the point of the NMA, this as much about the market itself as Boeing's own exercise to improve their production methods and technologies for an eventual NSA (737 replacement). Assuming that both the NMA and NSA will be using composite fuselages - this is no mans land at the moment, not at high production rates NB market - they will need all the practice and experience that the NMA will provide for the future production landscape.

If it eventually turns out to be a great success, good for Boeing. In the most likely scenario, they will still build the plane with the "silver" of the market being chipped off by the XLR, not ideal but they will live with it. And in the worst case scenario, where the plane isn't launched, all the effort put into the studies will be improved and implemented for the NSA.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:56 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.


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:


Who even brought up profits?
@DadCelo
 
Sokes
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:31 pm

incitatus wrote:
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.




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 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.
...
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
...
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.

According to Incitatus there are
3000-3999nm: 1331 widebodies + 176 narrowbodies flights/ day
4000-4999nm: 1206 widebodies + 1 narrowbody flights/ day

As I assume Boeing won't design a new plane for only a thousand or so sold, the music must be mainly below 3000nm. So it's more about capacity than range.
While I doubt there will be a NSA, what morrisond writes about B797 are among the most convincing assumptions I came across so far.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:57 pm

airbazar wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Look - even in 2014 they were "close" to launching:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... stana-says

Middle of the market nearly 20 years ago:
https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/a ... cover.html


They've done their studies and found out that there is no market for a clean sheet MoM, or NSA, or whatever marketing name they'll come up with next. All their talk has been nothing but trying to trick Airbus into launching their own clean sheet, which as they know would be a commercial failure.


I have it from 2 independent sources (and was reported in the NMA thread) that the only reason that the Boeing Board was not presented with the NMA program for approval to offer in the April/May time-frame was the 737Max issue. Otherwise that Boeing is ready to move forward and offer the NMA for sale; with program launch to follow once adequate preliminary orders are in place. I am sure it would have made a big splash at the Paris Airshow. But, with the 737Max issue... the timing was not right. My information is that Boeing still plans to offer it this year, with program start next year (2020).

Boeing has done that before with other aircraft programs (offer, and then program launch with adequate orders). It protects them for spending a huge amount of money if there really are not the orders out there. I suspect there are - otherwise the Boeing NMA team would not be ready to move forward.

Have a great day,
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:02 pm

2175301 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Look - even in 2014 they were "close" to launching:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... stana-says

Middle of the market nearly 20 years ago:
https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/a ... cover.html


They've done their studies and found out that there is no market for a clean sheet MoM, or NSA, or whatever marketing name they'll come up with next. All their talk has been nothing but trying to trick Airbus into launching their own clean sheet, which as they know would be a commercial failure.


I have it from 2 independent sources (and was reported in the NMA thread) that the only reason that the Boeing Board was not presented with the NMA program for approval to offer in the April/May time-frame was the 737Max issue. Otherwise that Boeing is ready to move forward and offer the NMA for sale; with program launch to follow once adequate preliminary orders are in place. I am sure it would have made a big splash at the Paris Airshow. But, with the 737Max issue... the timing was not right. My information is that Boeing still plans to offer it this year, with program start next year (2020).

Boeing has done that before with other aircraft programs (offer, and then program launch with adequate orders). It protects them for spending a huge amount of money if there really are not the orders out there. I suspect there are - otherwise the Boeing NMA team would not be ready to move forward.

Have a great day,


Good, let them offer it.

I am sure the airlines would love a competitor to a321xlr. There is a reason even b6 urged Boeing to launch nma. Airbus must be making a killing right now with every order given the lack of alternatives.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:00 pm

I have seen nothing but hope and visions to make believe a twin aisle could come close to NB OEW / efficiency for the same seat capacity. No breakthroughs in sight IMO.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:22 pm

The biggest business threat to the NMA will be the next step after the 321XLR: the 322XLR.

I think it's highly likely we'll see a ~240pax 5000+nm 321XLR derivative with optimised wings and new generation engines similar to the 797, around the same 2026/2027 timeframe. It will take the lower half of the NMA head-on with a plane that has economies of scale behind it that'll be hard to beat for a niche plane with a ground-up design.

Keeping their current plan of NMA first, then NSA, sounds suicidal to me. Airbus has this particular roadmap cornered.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:22 pm

Absynth wrote:
The biggest business threat to the NMA will be the next step after the 321XLR: the 322XLR.

I think it's highly likely we'll see a ~240pax 5000+nm 321XLR derivative with optimised wings and new generation engines similar to the 797, around the same 2026/2027 timeframe. It will take the lower half of the NMA head-on with a plane that has economies of scale behind it that'll be hard to beat for a niche plane with a ground-up design.

Keeping their current plan of NMA first, then NSA, sounds suicidal to me. Airbus has this particular roadmap cornered.


I see an A322 based on the XLR, same MTOW, trading capacity for range. A 3700NM+ range would still be extremely usefull for a 250 seat (single class) aircraft.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:17 pm

There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:47 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.

Why do you think airlines want more capacity? It's been shown that airlines like to have less capacity but higher frequencies. That allows them to capture more of the higher yielding customers without having to sell a lot of cheap seats. That's why 787 sells well and a380 does not. 747 was appealing because it had great range at the time.

If an aircraft has more capacity, it better have lower casm because rasm really drops when airlines have to sell a bunch of cheap seat to fill them up.

A321xlr according to leeham news have casm similar to a330neo and 787-8. Nma better have much lower casm than 787-8 if it wants provide better margins for airlines than a321xlr.

Imo, nma needs to have better casm, not just factoring in fuel cost but also cost of ownership, cost of operating new fleet type, higher pay rate for pilots. And it must have longer range that will allow it to perform missions that a321 cannot do.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17690
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:07 am

tphuang wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.

Why do you think airlines want more capacity? It's been shown that airlines like to have less capacity but higher frequencies. That allows them to capture more of the higher yielding customers without having to sell a lot of cheap seats. That's why 787 sells well and a380 does not. 747 was appealing because it had great range at the time.

If an aircraft has more capacity, it better have lower casm because rasm really drops when airlines have to sell a bunch of cheap seat to fill them up.

A321xlr according to leeham news have casm similar to a330neo and 787-8. Nma better have much lower casm than 787-8 if it wants provide better margins for airlines than a321xlr.

Imo, nma needs to have better casm, not just factoring in fuel cost but also cost of ownership, cost of operating new fleet type, higher pay rate for pilots. And it must have longer range that will allow it to perform missions that a321 cannot do.

First, will the average fleet size increase? Probably, but that is being done by E1-190 to E2-195 (Azul & KLM, RJ to A220 (DL), E1-190 to A220-300 (JetBlue), A319 to A320CEO (U2), and A320 to A321 (JetBlue).

Widebodies are shrinking as noted. In effect, everything is converging on the A321 size! :faint:

Slotted airports just have to be bypassed. LHR has numerous narrowbody flights that can be upgauged and allocate more slots to widebodies.

As noted, the NMA must carry a passenger for less than the A321xLR, less than prior 788 (Leeham is prior to receiving the lighter 789 tail and moving to the now lighter 789 structure as will the AA 788s). I also believe 788 sales pricing has dropped a lot, keeping it in the market.

So yes, the NMA must cost less TATL than the current 788, all costs included. It is a tough business case.

That said, I see the A321xLR growing many markets. I see thousands being sold.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
2175301
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:06 am

keesje wrote:
I have seen nothing but hope and visions to make believe a twin aisle could come close to NB OEW / efficiency for the same seat capacity. No breakthroughs in sight IMO.


In the "Airbus must cut A350 cost" thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425217 ) it is mentioned that Boeing seems to be able to assemble a 787 for about 20 million less than Airbus can currently assemble an A350.

The difference is mainly in production systems. Boeing has taken a step change in how an aircraft is produced with the 787. Admittedly, they took a huge financial bloody nose to learn how to do it... but they did; and now it it paying off.

Boeing has claimed all along that the NMA would not be much, if any, push on actual technology utilized; but, a major change in the production system used to produce the aircraft - which will be significantly cheaper than the old method.

Now imagine if Boeing is able to assemble a small wide body for 20-30 (or more) million less than what Airbus currently can do with their existing aircraft series... That seems puts it in the price range of a narrow body; which is my interpretation of all that Boeing has been offering: A wide-body jet at narrow body prices.

Is that not a breakthrough?... a breakthrough that is significant.

A key concept though is that to maximize this benefit that an aircraft must be designed from scratch to minimize assembly and fabrication cost. You can retrofit parts of the process onto an existing design. It will never be as cost effective as starting with a clean sheet.

If Boeing pulls this off - they might even be able to sell the NMA cheaper than Airbus can produce and sell an 321XLR at a reasonable profit - and kills its speculated future in this thread and limit it to just a few hundred. I have it from a "friend" who works at Boeing on the NMA project that they had an original goal to produce the NMA cheaper than anything that Airbus can produce with their existing generation aircraft which might infringe upon the NMA market slot. He has never said if they have achieved that (and is mum and deflective the few times I have asked). But, my information is that was an internal Boeing project goal.

Time will tell.... and they have to launch it first and get orders so that we have an idea what it is selling for. But, please do not tell me that you have not recognized that Boeing has changed how aircraft are produced with the 787 which provides a cost advantage over the older design and production methods (hence the 787-A350 estimated 20 million cost of production difference).

Seems to me that acquisition cost for a given capacity is part of the casm calculation.

Have a great day,
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:53 am

keesje wrote:
I see an A322 based on the XLR, same MTOW, trading capacity for range. A 3700NM+ range would still be extremely usefull for a 250 seat (single class) aircraft.


why would it sacrifice range when it has wings better suited for its size and more efficient engines? I think there will be both a regular 322 and an extended long range.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:32 am

tphuang wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.

Why do you think airlines want more capacity? It's been shown that airlines like to have less capacity but higher frequencies. That allows them to capture more of the higher yielding customers without having to sell a lot of cheap seats. That's why 787 sells well and a380 does not. 747 was appealing because it had great range at the time.

If an aircraft has more capacity, it better have lower casm because rasm really drops when airlines have to sell a bunch of cheap seat to fill them up.

A321xlr according to leeham news have casm similar to a330neo and 787-8. Nma better have much lower casm than 787-8 if it wants provide better margins for airlines than a321xlr.

Imo, nma needs to have better casm, not just factoring in fuel cost but also cost of ownership, cost of operating new fleet type, higher pay rate for pilots. And it must have longer range that will allow it to perform missions that a321 cannot do.


There are many routes where frequency has reached saturation, AS has 25 flights a day to the LA area, an upgage of 4 flights to the NMA would mean more capacity with 23. Still over a 1 per hour frequency from 5 AM to midnight, with extras put at the peak times.

We have constantly heard the mantra how we need to do bigger but fewer planes, the whole A380 thing that didn't work so well. But in the NB's the -700 size used to sell well, now it is almost dead with the -8 taking over and the -10 coming on line. In the A320 series, we just saw the A321 pick up nearly all the orders at PAS. The NB's are growing.

What if find amusing is the NMA fits closest to the design mission of the A300. It worked well enough that Airbus leaped past both Lockheed and McDonald to be one of the two major manufacturers. In the sugar high rush to design every WB plane with 8K range the shorter, more efficient range models have been forgotten. Since the 777 launch the 77L & 77W, 77X, the 787 series, the 748, the A345 & 346, the A330neo, the A380, and the 359 and 35X. The 78X might be the only departure, but not by a lot of range.

The NMA would be the smallest WB and it would be easy to beat the CASM of either the 787 or A330 with it. Yes if the A321 can do a specific range and payload it may be lower, but the A321 is trading payload for range which hurts CASM hard.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6863
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:35 am

2175301 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I have seen nothing but hope and visions to make believe a twin aisle could come close to NB OEW / efficiency for the same seat capacity. No breakthroughs in sight IMO.


In the "Airbus must cut A350 cost" thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425217 ) it is mentioned that Boeing seems to be able to assemble a 787 for about 20 million less than Airbus can currently assemble an A350.

The difference is mainly in production systems. Boeing has taken a step change in how an aircraft is produced with the 787. Admittedly, they took a huge financial bloody nose to learn how to do it... but they did; and now it it paying off.

Boeing has claimed all along that the NMA would not be much, if any, push on actual technology utilized; but, a major change in the production system used to produce the aircraft - which will be significantly cheaper than the old method.

Now imagine if Boeing is able to assemble a small wide body for 20-30 (or more) million less than what Airbus currently can do with their existing aircraft series... That seems puts it in the price range of a narrow body; which is my interpretation of all that Boeing has been offering: A wide-body jet at narrow body prices.

Is that not a breakthrough?... a breakthrough that is significant.

A key concept though is that to maximize this benefit that an aircraft must be designed from scratch to minimize assembly and fabrication cost. You can retrofit parts of the process onto an existing design. It will never be as cost effective as starting with a clean sheet.

If Boeing pulls this off - they might even be able to sell the NMA cheaper than Airbus can produce and sell an 321XLR at a reasonable profit - and kills its speculated future in this thread and limit it to just a few hundred. I have it from a "friend" who works at Boeing on the NMA project that they had an original goal to produce the NMA cheaper than anything that Airbus can produce with their existing generation aircraft which might infringe upon the NMA market slot. He has never said if they have achieved that (and is mum and deflective the few times I have asked). But, my information is that was an internal Boeing project goal.

Time will tell.... and they have to launch it first and get orders so that we have an idea what it is selling for. But, please do not tell me that you have not recognized that Boeing has changed how aircraft are produced with the 787 which provides a cost advantage over the older design and production methods (hence the 787-A350 estimated 20 million cost of production difference).

Seems to me that acquisition cost for a given capacity is part of the casm calculation.

Have a great day,


There's a lot of reaches in there if I may say so.
Firstly, at least $10m of that (alleged, but lets go with it) $20m is down to the difference in the size of the plane - an A359 is about 10% bigger than a 789.
Boeing could not produce an A350-900 for $90m just because they can produce a 787-9 for $90
Secondly, it is pretty widely accepted that doubling volume of output reduces unit price by 10%
(handily the unit prices cluster around $100m so let's keep the calculation simple - 1% = $1m)
The 787 is being produced at c 150% of the rate of the A350, which would account for about a 5%, or $5m improvement in unit cost.

So the portion of that $20m delta that is attributable to "production methods" alone is about $5m.
No more than that.
That is the extent of Airbus's production method efficiency target (and it is no small task by the way)
And beyond that, any improvements available to the 787 are also available to the A350 and A330, whether it be 3D printing or supply chain pressure, or whatever.

I note that when the context becomes NMA, $20m difference suddenly becomes $20m-$30m difference for a class of planes that will be a fair bit smaller than a 787-9 or A350. Strange baseline creep if you ask me.

The trouble for NMA is:-
NMA will be bigger than the A321XLR and therefore inherently more expensive - if we're taling about a 70t OEW/140t MTOW plane, it will be about 40% more expensive on a like-for-like basis (assuming no production method changes).
But the kicker is that the A321XLR will come off a line cycling at nearer 70 per month by the time NMA goes into service - certainly by the time MA ramps up to the 14 per month JayinKitsap refers to.
I.e. the A321XLR will benefit from FIVE TIMES the volume production. Being generous, that is a 25%-30% production cost delta that the NMA will have to make up.

Whatever your friend proclaims, I don't care how they produce it, it is not possible for Boeing to produce NMA for the same cost as an A321XLR. Period.
I don't think they will even be able to produce it for the same cost per seat, simply because of the volume argument.
However, I'll reserve judgement on that, with the following caveat - even achieving cost per seat parity with the A321XLR will disadvantage the NMA simply because it will be bigger and more expensive to run.
If there is anything this century has shown us it is that "all other things being equal a smaller plane with the same CASM will have the advantage".
Zvezda would be proud of me :)

That's not the same as saying there's no business case.
There may be room for NMA, especially in all-Boeing fleets, on missions that the XLR just won't do, by undercutting the 787 and A330.

However NMA won't touch the XLR, simply because the same characteristic that causes the XLR's limitations is its single biggest strength.
It is just another A321NEO and can easily be used as such. There is virtually no downside to owning it in a mixed A321 fleet or A32X family fleet.
And there are a LOT of airlines out there with A32XNEO fleets :yes:

Rgds
Last edited by astuteman on Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6863
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:59 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
tphuang wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.

Why do you think airlines want more capacity? It's been shown that airlines like to have less capacity but higher frequencies. That allows them to capture more of the higher yielding customers without having to sell a lot of cheap seats. That's why 787 sells well and a380 does not. 747 was appealing because it had great range at the time.

If an aircraft has more capacity, it better have lower casm because rasm really drops when airlines have to sell a bunch of cheap seat to fill them up.

A321xlr according to leeham news have casm similar to a330neo and 787-8. Nma better have much lower casm than 787-8 if it wants provide better margins for airlines than a321xlr.

Imo, nma needs to have better casm, not just factoring in fuel cost but also cost of ownership, cost of operating new fleet type, higher pay rate for pilots. And it must have longer range that will allow it to perform missions that a321 cannot do.


There are many routes where frequency has reached saturation, AS has 25 flights a day to the LA area, an upgage of 4 flights to the NMA would mean more capacity with 23. Still over a 1 per hour frequency from 5 AM to midnight, with extras put at the peak times.

We have constantly heard the mantra how we need to do bigger but fewer planes, the whole A380 thing that didn't work so well. But in the NB's the -700 size used to sell well, now it is almost dead with the -8 taking over and the -10 coming on line. In the A320 series, we just saw the A321 pick up nearly all the orders at PAS. The NB's are growing.

What if find amusing is the NMA fits closest to the design mission of the A300. It worked well enough that Airbus leaped past both Lockheed and McDonald to be one of the two major manufacturers. In the sugar high rush to design every WB plane with 8K range the shorter, more efficient range models have been forgotten. Since the 777 launch the 77L & 77W, 77X, the 787 series, the 748, the A345 & 346, the A330neo, the A380, and the 359 and 35X. The 78X might be the only departure, but not by a lot of range.

The NMA would be the smallest WB and it would be easy to beat the CASM of either the 787 or A330 with it. Yes if the A321 can do a specific range and payload it may be lower, but the A321 is trading payload for range which hurts CASM hard.


A couple of issues with these arguments too.
Firstly, 4 out of 25 is a pretty small portion to base a business case on - the incumbent narrowbody will still be making 21 of the 25 trips.
Secondly, as far as Airbus fleets go, it's entirely plausible that Airbus could do as Keejse says and launch an A322 on the back of the A321XLR - that's not a big stretch :)
Which means that the 4 larger planes will still be narrowbodys
You are right that narrowbody size is increasing, but it is actually a painfully slow process if you look at the data contained in the Airbus and Boeing forecasts.
Fragmentation is still a "thing" and won't go away

As for the A300, it didn't cause Airbus to leap beyond Lockheed and Mcdonnel/Douglas - that was the A320 that did that.
A300 (and A310) production ceased a long time ago, and the reason it did is that the market didn't want it.
Same with the 767. (The 787 was going to be 767 sized, but that was rejected by the market in favour of today's plane)

As for forgetting short range planes in the "sugar rush to design every widebody with 8k range", you really think the manufacturers said "Sod the market - we just want to make long-range widebodys"?
The market spoke.
And Narrowbodys took the space once occupied by the shorter range widebodys, or made it economically infeasible to operate them.
widebodys have been pushed into a long range market - they have had to in order to differentiate/protect themselves from the narrowbodys.

I love how people thing the MOM gap is an accident. It isn't. The market created it. And the reasons that created it are still there.
And that is why the NMA business case will be so hard.
Funny thing. The middle of the market gap is all about how the market behaves.

Rgds
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:10 am

2175301 wrote:
Boeing has claimed all along that the NMA would not be much, if any, push on actual technology utilized; but, a major change in the production system used to produce the aircraft - which will be significantly cheaper than the old method.


Don't take anything any company says as gospel. To believe NMA would not be a significant improvement in technology apart from production methods would be very naive.

In a competive world you can't leave an attainable competitive advantage on the table. Your competitor will just be able to wait a few years, implement the same production improvements AND technology advances and whipe you out.

Any NMA or NSA will see significant advances in both aircraft design as well as production method.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:05 pm

Absynth wrote:
keesje wrote:
I see an A322 based on the XLR, same MTOW, trading capacity for range. A 3700NM+ range would still be extremely usefull for a 250 seat (single class) aircraft.


why would it sacrifice range when it has wings better suited for its size and more efficient engines? I think there will be both a regular 322 and an extended long range.


It seems Airbus strategy to keep maximum commonality with the current A321 fleets. It apparently is a big selling point (low risks for buyers). So they upgraded flaps, software, they might take a look at a slats, wingtips. But are very carefull not to create an orphan program. It is more important than an optimized bigger machine / wing.

I think Boeing might be slowly loosing one of it's most loyal 737 customers, Qantas. Because of the XLR. The NEO's are finally flowing over from Jetstar.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:25 pm

SYD to SIN, HKG, BKK, KUL, SGN, FUK, KIX, TYO, all seem within easy reach for the XLR.

More interestingly, perhaps, secondary destinations all over southeast Asia become within reach of MEL and SYD on a narrowbody airplane for the first time.

Interesting times.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:05 pm

Francoflier wrote:
SYD to SIN, HKG, BKK, KUL, SGN, FUK, KIX, TYO, all seem within easy reach for the XLR.

More interestingly, perhaps, secondary destinations all over southeast Asia become within reach of MEL and SYD on a narrowbody airplane for the first time.

Interesting times.


Also defensively. E.g. Guangzhou, China (CAN) to Sydney is flown by China Southern with big metal. Putting a daily low cost XLR on it, to keep onboard frequent flyers, negotiate with Southern, might be much more feasible / affordable than assign a daily A330 or 787. Same for e.g. SIN from all over Australia.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:08 pm

1. Why will NMA succeed where (a) 767-300 failed vs 767-300ER and (b) early A333 failed vs early A332?
2. Where will NMA take most of its sales from (a) 737-10//A321 or (b) 787-8? [assuming that the airlines will *have* to order aircraft of some description to perform the role anyway]

I don't see a compelling answer to (1) and I don't see an NMA design that avoids (2b).

If the NMA doesn't (i) fly any further than A321XLR and doesn't (ii) significantly undercut it on CASM, then the narrowbodies will always win the majority of the orders based on lower trip cost exposure and on better yield. These two facts let the 777 pretty much destroy A380.

The answer to (i) pushes it toward 787 territory, but the answer to (ii) is less range so it can have better CASM.

Quite the contradiction in top level requirements.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:42 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
tphuang wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
There appears to be more than enough space between the NB and WB to fit in a NMA at rate 14. The A321 may do excellent at longer ranges that current, but the upper left of the pax / range chart is begging to be filled. If 2 NMA flights replace 3 738 flights that is 2 less pilots, 1 less set of landing fees, and one less slot used.

It is important for aviation to raise the average fleet size, one of the big sales points for the A380, saving slots at LHR. Switching all NB's to NMA's might open up 20% of the slots at an airport. But the NMA needs to fit into code C gates for best effect.

Why do you think airlines want more capacity? It's been shown that airlines like to have less capacity but higher frequencies. That allows them to capture more of the higher yielding customers without having to sell a lot of cheap seats. That's why 787 sells well and a380 does not. 747 was appealing because it had great range at the time.

If an aircraft has more capacity, it better have lower casm because rasm really drops when airlines have to sell a bunch of cheap seat to fill them up.

A321xlr according to leeham news have casm similar to a330neo and 787-8. Nma better have much lower casm than 787-8 if it wants provide better margins for airlines than a321xlr.

Imo, nma needs to have better casm, not just factoring in fuel cost but also cost of ownership, cost of operating new fleet type, higher pay rate for pilots. And it must have longer range that will allow it to perform missions that a321 cannot do.


There are many routes where frequency has reached saturation, AS has 25 flights a day to the LA area, an upgage of 4 flights to the NMA would mean more capacity with 23. Still over a 1 per hour frequency from 5 AM to midnight, with extras put at the peak times.

We have constantly heard the mantra how we need to do bigger but fewer planes, the whole A380 thing that didn't work so well. But in the NB's the -700 size used to sell well, now it is almost dead with the -8 taking over and the -10 coming on line. In the A320 series, we just saw the A321 pick up nearly all the orders at PAS. The NB's are growing.

What if find amusing is the NMA fits closest to the design mission of the A300. It worked well enough that Airbus leaped past both Lockheed and McDonald to be one of the two major manufacturers. In the sugar high rush to design every WB plane with 8K range the shorter, more efficient range models have been forgotten. Since the 777 launch the 77L & 77W, 77X, the 787 series, the 748, the A345 & 346, the A330neo, the A380, and the 359 and 35X. The 78X might be the only departure, but not by a lot of range.

The NMA would be the smallest WB and it would be easy to beat the CASM of either the 787 or A330 with it. Yes if the A321 can do a specific range and payload it may be lower, but the A321 is trading payload for range which hurts CASM hard.


I think you are conflating things here. airlines are upgauging from 737-700 to 800 and now to MAX10 because you are getting noticeably lower CASM that trumps the lower RASM. A380 didn't work out because it wasn't achieving lower CASM over 777X or A350.

Unless AS needs NMA's range, it would only bring in NMA if for the missions it flies, the added cost of paying owning NMA + having additional fleet type + higher pilot rates for a widebody does not raise the CASM to more than 90% of 737-MAX9. If you have to fill 179 seat vs 230 seats domestically. That additional 50 cheap seats to fill is going to drop the average fares a lot or you will leave it with much lower LF.

Airlines care about what planes would bring in the best margins. It doesn't care about what's the perfect size to replace an existing aircraft. I'm not sure how you got the theory that NMA would easily beat the CASM of 787? What's your proof to that? Normally, CASM of larger capacity aircraft of similar generation is lower. Given that Boeing has gotten 787 production cost down and the production cost of NMA is unknown, the cost of ownership for 787 might not be that much more. Remember, Boeing will continue to improve the cost savings on 787 over time and engine improvements will also do that.

I have no idea where you got A321XLR is trading payload for range.

For B6, it's not trading any payload for range. It can fly in the mint or even more premium config to pretty much anywhere in Europe it cares about. If it had NMA or 787, it would adapt a similarly premium configured layout.

For AA, it's the perfect 757 replacement, since they are reducing one fleet type, paying less for pilots, improving fleet interchangeability, can use any of the 320/737 gates and have much lower fuel usage.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 2998
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:27 pm

Res the 797 costing more: I think that airlines will look at cost per seat. We are looking at a 2019 plane designed to be cheap to build and economic to operate. And this versus a plane designed in the mid 1980s. Passengers will look at cost per flight versus comfort, there likely could be a $10-20 benefit. Easier and quicker to get on and off, and (my dream) overhead bins assigned to each seat.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20933
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:34 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
1. Why will NMA succeed where (a) 767-300 failed vs 767-300ER and (b) early A333 failed vs early A332?
2. Where will NMA take most of its sales from (a) 737-10//A321 or (b) 787-8? [assuming that the airlines will *have* to order aircraft of some description to perform the role anyway]

I don't see a compelling answer to (1) and I don't see an NMA design that avoids (2b).

If the NMA doesn't (i) fly any further than A321XLR and doesn't (ii) significantly undercut it on CASM, then the narrowbodies will always win the majority of the orders based on lower trip cost exposure and on better yield. These two facts let the 777 pretty much destroy A380.

The answer to (i) pushes it toward 787 territory, but the answer to (ii) is less range so it can have better CASM.

Quite the contradiction in top level requirements.


You seem to make a lot of facts not in evidence:
    o The air market is similar to the one from the days of the 767-300, early A333, etc
    o Sales come by taking them away from others and not from creating new opportunities
    o Boeing feels a need to protect 788

If your concerns are valid then Airbus shouldn't have bothered with A321 because the 757 market wasn't that big after all and Airbus needs to protect A338.
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: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:04 pm

astuteman wrote:
The trouble for NMA is:-
NMA will be bigger than the A321XLR and therefore inherently more expensive - if we're taling about a 70t OEW/140t MTOW plane, it will be about 40% more expensive on a like-for-like basis (assuming no production method changes).
But the kicker is that the A321XLR will come off a line cycling at nearer 70 per month by the time NMA goes into service - certainly by the time MA ramps up to the 14 per month JayinKitsap refers to.
I.e. the A321XLR will benefit from FIVE TIMES the volume production. Being generous, that is a 25%-30% production cost delta that the NMA will have to make up.

Rgds


You are assuming that the NMA is done as a standalone program from NSA.

If it's as I'm speculating on the previous page and NMA is basically just an ER Version of NSA with different Wing/Wingbox/Gear/Tail/ Engines then the production lines won't be designed for 14 per month.

It's conceivable that NMA and NSA could be built on the same lines - just like 77W/F and 777X are with two different wings.

Start with a greenfield in SC for NMA to prove out the new production process that could do say up to 50 per month and then as NSA comes on-line a few years after NMA - produce it on the NMA/NSA line in SC while 737 winds down in Renton before it transitions to NSA/NMA production as well at say up to 50 per month. You then have two flexible competing lines that can do any mix of NMA/NSA at up 100 per month - which is what you might need 10 years from now.

Doing NMA and NSA as a combined program (common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W), and systems architecture) provides economies of scale that will allow very aggressive pricing.

Assuming Boeing continues to use Program accounting having a combined starting block of 5-10,000 NMA/NSA frames - even with the cost of doing two wings/wingboxes/gear/tails - could make the economics on NMA (and to a lesser extent on NSA) a lot better than assumed.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:10 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Res the 797 costing more: I think that airlines will look at cost per seat. We are looking at a 2019 plane designed to be cheap to build and economic to operate. And this versus a plane designed in the mid 1980s. Passengers will look at cost per flight versus comfort, there likely could be a $10-20 benefit. Easier and quicker to get on and off, and (my dream) overhead bins assigned to each seat.

There is no evidence that passengers will pay more for a tight 7 across config vs 18 inch wide 6 across config. And overhead bins have gotten really nice in the latest A320/737 models. There is no reason they can't continue to improve.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13033
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:18 pm

Guess which large 757, 767 operator, NMA promotor and recent A321 operator will jump on the XLR train next.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=HNL,+HAM,+Lin,+RIO,+SCL,+Bud,+CMN,+EZE,+OSL,+OPO&R=3500nm%40ATL,4700nm%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=OPO&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*
3500NM & 4700NM ranges

4700NM ranges from JFK, SEA and MSP create equally interesting maps.
Last edited by keesje on Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:19 pm

tphuang wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Res the 797 costing more: I think that airlines will look at cost per seat. We are looking at a 2019 plane designed to be cheap to build and economic to operate. And this versus a plane designed in the mid 1980s. Passengers will look at cost per flight versus comfort, there likely could be a $10-20 benefit. Easier and quicker to get on and off, and (my dream) overhead bins assigned to each seat.

There is no evidence that passengers will pay more for a tight 7 across config vs 18 inch wide 6 across config. And overhead bins have gotten really nice in the latest A320/737 models. There is no reason they can't continue to improve.


You have to think of things like Premium seating - In a tight 7W (call it 185"W) you can get a nice 2x2x2 Transcontinental Business class product in vs 2x2 on single Aisle and 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 on Single Aisle.

Plus your containers will hold 50-60% more volume than AKH's.

The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:25 pm

morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Res the 797 costing more: I think that airlines will look at cost per seat. We are looking at a 2019 plane designed to be cheap to build and economic to operate. And this versus a plane designed in the mid 1980s. Passengers will look at cost per flight versus comfort, there likely could be a $10-20 benefit. Easier and quicker to get on and off, and (my dream) overhead bins assigned to each seat.

There is no evidence that passengers will pay more for a tight 7 across config vs 18 inch wide 6 across config. And overhead bins have gotten really nice in the latest A320/737 models. There is no reason they can't continue to improve.


You have to think of things like Premium seating - In a tight 7W (call it 185"W) you can get a nice 2x2x2 Transcontinental Business class product in vs 2x2 on single Aisle and 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 on Single Aisle.

Plus your containers will hold 50-60% more volume than AKH's.

The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.


I agree.

Boeing has always highlighted the Business and Premium seat to create more comfort and value added through the NMA
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.


The less dense the seat layout, the longer the range of XLR (and any long ranged Boeing narrowbody should they choose to build it).

Which means airlines can afford to put more narrowbodies on the route through the day - premium fliers pay for frequency - AFAIK they don't really tend to pay to be on specific aircraft (aside from A380 which did command a premium according to EK).


I'm not sure that is a logical route you want to go down when arguing in favour of the higher capacity option.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6863
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The trouble for NMA is:-
NMA will be bigger than the A321XLR and therefore inherently more expensive - if we're taling about a 70t OEW/140t MTOW plane, it will be about 40% more expensive on a like-for-like basis (assuming no production method changes).
But the kicker is that the A321XLR will come off a line cycling at nearer 70 per month by the time NMA goes into service - certainly by the time MA ramps up to the 14 per month JayinKitsap refers to.
I.e. the A321XLR will benefit from FIVE TIMES the volume production. Being generous, that is a 25%-30% production cost delta that the NMA will have to make up.

Rgds


You are assuming that the NMA is done as a standalone program from NSA.

If it's as I'm speculating on the previous page and NMA is basically just an ER Version of NSA with different Wing/Wingbox/Gear/Tail/ Engines then the production lines won't be designed for 14 per month.

It's conceivable that NMA and NSA could be built on the same lines - just like 77W/F and 777X are with two different wings.

Start with a greenfield in SC for NMA to prove out the new production process that could do say up to 50 per month and then as NSA comes on-line a few years after NMA - produce it on the NMA/NSA line in SC while 737 winds down in Renton before it transitions to NSA/NMA production as well at say up to 50 per month. You then have two flexible competing lines that can do any mix of NMA/NSA at up 100 per month - which is what you might need 10 years from now.

Doing NMA and NSA as a combined program (common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W), and systems architecture) provides economies of scale that will allow very aggressive pricing.

Assuming Boeing continues to use Program accounting having a combined starting block of 5-10,000 NMA/NSA frames - even with the cost of doing two wings/wingboxes/gear/tails - could make the economics on NMA (and to a lesser extent on NSA) a lot better than assumed.


If you're assuming that NMA will be a larger version of a common narrowbody family, then I'm all in - indeed I have suggested that elsewhere (might have been up-thread), although I buck the trend by suggesting the NSA variant should come first and pave the way for that "narrowbody" NMA.
Doesn't matter too much.
I'd be really excited to see a Boeing NMA with a MC21'esque cross-section, capable of the 240-270 seat 4500nm-5000nm stated, but also suited to downscaling to the 737 replacement.
I just think families are better grown into capability rather than shrunk.

If you're suggesting that NMA is a widebody and NSA is a narrowbody, then I'm nothing like as far in.

Rgds
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:09 pm

Armadillo1 wrote:
mistake was made by choosing MAX instead of clean sheet.


^This x1000. I have always felt that the 797 should have been the clean-sheet replacement for the 737 (even if it would have been available a few years after the 320NEO), with the longest 797 model being the 757 replacement/321XLR competitor. On top of that, Airbus would then be selling the decades older airframe to customers, not Boeing.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
You seem to make a lot of facts not in evidence:
    o The air market is similar to the one from the days of the 767-300, early A333, etc


What has changed in the past oh, 15 years or so? It would need to be a substantial reversal in the airlines' thought train that seen the A332 orders dry up and A333 steam ahead when it got beyond around a ~5500nm max range threshold.

From airinsight:
Image


Around this time, Boeing already had a product on the drawing board to address this market. They cut it in scope (to be just clipped wings) then cut it altogether [787-3] - you can only assume it was a market demand led decision then. So what has changed? Or was it a bad decision then and they've taken 10 years to rectify it?


Revelation wrote:
    o Sales come by taking them away from others and not from creating new opportunities


What others? This is supposedly a market niche unaddressed by existing products. The best product available right now for the market Boeing want to address with NMA is either A321XLR or 787-8. Boeing claim the XLR is only addressing a sliver of the market - which by a process of elimination means the non-sliver is best addressed (right now) by the 787-8.


Revelation wrote:
[/list]
o Boeing feels a need to protect 788[/list]


They should. Its their last cleansheet design and a $20B program. Shareholders would not be happy at Boeing undermining it with a product that must be cheaper and will (at the very least initially, if not forever) generate a lower profit margin than selling a 787-8 right now.


Revelation wrote:
If your concerns are valid then Airbus shouldn't have bothered with A321 because the 757 market wasn't that big after all and Airbus needs to protect A338.


The A338 is not selling, the market has spoken and there is nothing to protect.

Profit margin on an A321XLR will be substantially more than that on any A338 anyway. The XLR development is costing Airbus peanuts. Now that he has gone, the money that would have went into a couple of John Leahy's bonus payments should cover it!
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:24 pm

morrisond wrote:
You are assuming that the NMA is done as a standalone program from NSA.

If it's as I'm speculating on the previous page and NMA is basically just an ER Version of NSA with different Wing/Wingbox/Gear/Tail/ Engines then the production lines won't be designed for 14 per month.

It's conceivable that NMA and NSA could be built on the same lines - just like 77W/F and 777X are with two different wings.

Start with a greenfield in SC for NMA to prove out the new production process that could do say up to 50 per month and then as NSA comes on-line a few years after NMA - produce it on the NMA/NSA line in SC while 737 winds down in Renton before it transitions to NSA/NMA production as well at say up to 50 per month. You then have two flexible competing lines that can do any mix of NMA/NSA at up 100 per month - which is what you might need 10 years from now.

Doing NMA and NSA as a combined program (common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W), and systems architecture) provides economies of scale that will allow very aggressive pricing.

Assuming Boeing continues to use Program accounting having a combined starting block of 5-10,000 NMA/NSA frames - even with the cost of doing two wings/wingboxes/gear/tails - could make the economics on NMA (and to a lesser extent on NSA) a lot better than assumed.


A 7AB double aisle fuselage also used for a 6AB single aisle? My god, comfort on the NMA and economy on NSA will be brutal. Your post doesn't make any sense beyond wishful thinking.

There's that same kind of wishful thinking going on with many people (looking at Revelation mostly but also many others) claiming there will be hardly any development costs, just shrink the 787 a bit and somehow learn from that same production process despite having about the same volume the 787 already has.

How that prepares you for a mass volume NSA is beyond me. Either you test the 787 production process on a mass production plane or you invest in new technologies smaller scale. It can't be both. People saying a low volume NMA that is based on the 787 will somehow function as a precursor to the NSA when it:
1. doesnt share anything significant with it
2. doesnt offer production volume advantages compared to the 787
3. fully based on 15yr old tech (787) to save on development cost
yet
4. will revolutionise production.

This is [have your cake and eat it]^2. La-la-land territory.
Last edited by Absynth on Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
YouGeeElWhy
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:38 pm

keesje wrote:
Guess which large 757, 767 operator, NMA promotor and recent A321 operator will jump on the XLR train next.

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=HNL,+HAM,+Lin,+RIO,+SCL,+Bud,+CMN,+EZE,+OSL,+OPO&R=3500nm%40ATL,4700nm%40ATL%0d%0a&MS=wls2&MC=OPO&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*
3500NM & 4700NM ranges

4700NM ranges from JFK, SEA and MSP create equally interesting maps.
I hope they use the XLR to fly to some more interesting places in Deep South America than EZE, SCL or RIO like REC, POA, FOR, SSA, COR, MDZ, BRC or PMC
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:40 pm

morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Res the 797 costing more: I think that airlines will look at cost per seat. We are looking at a 2019 plane designed to be cheap to build and economic to operate. And this versus a plane designed in the mid 1980s. Passengers will look at cost per flight versus comfort, there likely could be a $10-20 benefit. Easier and quicker to get on and off, and (my dream) overhead bins assigned to each seat.

There is no evidence that passengers will pay more for a tight 7 across config vs 18 inch wide 6 across config. And overhead bins have gotten really nice in the latest A320/737 models. There is no reason they can't continue to improve.


You have to think of things like Premium seating - In a tight 7W (call it 185"W) you can get a nice 2x2x2 Transcontinental Business class product in vs 2x2 on single Aisle and 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 on Single Aisle.

Plus your containers will hold 50-60% more volume than AKH's.

The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.


Have you actually seen the latest 1x1 in single aisle? You can squeeze in one full lie flat with direct aisle access for what's equivalent to around 33 inch in pitch. Which means you can squeeze in j seat that's as good as you'd find in a tightly packed 77W for basically 3 Y seats. I've taken the 6 across J seating before on both CA and KL. I don't see how they are better than and can get higher premium than ones on a A321.

That analysis that were done in comparing CASM on A321XLR vs A330NEO and B787-800 were done using similar premium configs. And they came out to have similar CASM (A321XLR was 5 to 10% lower than A330-800) when factoring in both fuel cost and cash operating cost.

There is simply no evidence in transcon market, DL's widebody D1 seating gets premium to AA's A321T. And there is no evidence UA's 78X J seating on EWR-LAX gets higher prices than AA's A321T or B6's A321 on JFK-LAX. There is just no such evidence based on available data.

There are 2 advantages widebodies have over A321XLR.
1) cargo revenue
2) cabin pressurized for lower altitude on something like 787

for the first one, that cargo revenue would have to go a long way to offset the lower RASM from having twice the number of seats to sell
for the second one, there is no actual evidence that people would pay more for something like 77W vs 787 when cabin is more "comfortable". I personally notice the difference when flying overnight on 77W vs A350. However, airlines price those seats the same way.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:42 pm

I predict if Boeing brings NMA in 2020 and start delivering 2026/27, Airbus will launch the A320 replacement in 2023 with delivery in 2030. Just that the new Airbus narrowbody will be 320/321/322 sized instead of 319/320/321.

The lower end will be covered by 220-500.

Thats why Boeing has such a hard time justifying the NMA because it will give Airbus a headstart on the A320 replacement. On the other side a new NSA launched two early will kill the price for the MAX. Its a bad situation Boeing has moved itself in with the MAX instead of an NSA.
The 321 in all versions is probably the best aircraft airbus ever launched. Boeing even had to bring the MAX-10 to the table and it is just not a good product in comparison. The good thing for Boeing is that on the other side Airbus has big problems in the widebody segment
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:45 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If your concerns are valid then Airbus shouldn't have bothered with A321 because the 757 market wasn't that big after all and Airbus needs to protect A338.


The A338 is not selling, the market has spoken and there is nothing to protect.

Profit margin on an A321XLR will be substantially more than that on any A338 anyway. The XLR development is costing Airbus peanuts. Now that he has gone, the money that would have went into a couple of John Leahy's bonus payments should cover it!


exactly, who in their right mind would buy A338 to operate from east coast to continental europe when A321XLR can do it at much higher margin level.

Similarly, if A321XLR can do the same missions that B787-800 can do to Europe from east coast for the same cost, why would you use 787-800 for those missions? Those 50 A321XLR that AA bought are not just replacing 757 but all the A330-200, 767 and 787-800 TATL flying that AA does out of PHL and CLT.

The fact that AA has the least premium seating on its 787-800 tells me they simply don't need that kind of capacity on those flights.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20933
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:50 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
They should. Its their last cleansheet design and a $20B program. Shareholders would not be happy at Boeing undermining it with a product that must be cheaper and will (at the very least initially, if not forever) generate a lower profit margin than selling a 787-8 right now.

Again, facts not in evidence. Shareholders see 787 with huge non-788 backlog and nothing to fight against A321XLR and no path to NSA without NMA. 787 development cost is old news and sunk cost.
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: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:52 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The trouble for NMA is:-
NMA will be bigger than the A321XLR and therefore inherently more expensive - if we're taling about a 70t OEW/140t MTOW plane, it will be about 40% more expensive on a like-for-like basis (assuming no production method changes).
But the kicker is that the A321XLR will come off a line cycling at nearer 70 per month by the time NMA goes into service - certainly by the time MA ramps up to the 14 per month JayinKitsap refers to.
I.e. the A321XLR will benefit from FIVE TIMES the volume production. Being generous, that is a 25%-30% production cost delta that the NMA will have to make up.

Rgds


You are assuming that the NMA is done as a standalone program from NSA.

If it's as I'm speculating on the previous page and NMA is basically just an ER Version of NSA with different Wing/Wingbox/Gear/Tail/ Engines then the production lines won't be designed for 14 per month.

It's conceivable that NMA and NSA could be built on the same lines - just like 77W/F and 777X are with two different wings.

Start with a greenfield in SC for NMA to prove out the new production process that could do say up to 50 per month and then as NSA comes on-line a few years after NMA - produce it on the NMA/NSA line in SC while 737 winds down in Renton before it transitions to NSA/NMA production as well at say up to 50 per month. You then have two flexible competing lines that can do any mix of NMA/NSA at up 100 per month - which is what you might need 10 years from now.

Doing NMA and NSA as a combined program (common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W), and systems architecture) provides economies of scale that will allow very aggressive pricing.

Assuming Boeing continues to use Program accounting having a combined starting block of 5-10,000 NMA/NSA frames - even with the cost of doing two wings/wingboxes/gear/tails - could make the economics on NMA (and to a lesser extent on NSA) a lot better than assumed.


If you're assuming that NMA will be a larger version of a common narrowbody family, then I'm all in - indeed I have suggested that elsewhere (might have been up-thread), although I buck the trend by suggesting the NSA variant should come first and pave the way for that "narrowbody" NMA.
Doesn't matter too much.
I'd be really excited to see a Boeing NMA with a MC21'esque cross-section, capable of the 240-270 seat 4500nm-5000nm stated, but also suited to downscaling to the 737 replacement.
I just think families are better grown into capability rather than shrunk.

If you're suggesting that NMA is a widebody and NSA is a narrowbody, then I'm nothing like as far in.

Rgds


Nope - I'm assuming same cross section "(common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W),"

BTW - That's a cross section that is only about 25% more than A320 with 16.7% more Y seats and 50% more Premium Seats - with 50-60% more cargo volume per meter of fuselage. You lose efficiency in the Y section - but that is less of a difference than A320 cross section over 737.

I agree with you that they are better grown - but that doesn't preclude them from Digitially designing NSA first and evolving that into NMA and producing that first. The MAX fiasco may change the order of what is done first.

NSA will really need efficient engines which will take time and they can use that time to reduce the weight of common NMA/NSA parts benefiting both parts of the program. NMA engines could be ready sooner which still means NMA done first.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:55 pm

Absynth wrote:
morrisond wrote:
You are assuming that the NMA is done as a standalone program from NSA.

If it's as I'm speculating on the previous page and NMA is basically just an ER Version of NSA with different Wing/Wingbox/Gear/Tail/ Engines then the production lines won't be designed for 14 per month.

It's conceivable that NMA and NSA could be built on the same lines - just like 77W/F and 777X are with two different wings.

Start with a greenfield in SC for NMA to prove out the new production process that could do say up to 50 per month and then as NSA comes on-line a few years after NMA - produce it on the NMA/NSA line in SC while 737 winds down in Renton before it transitions to NSA/NMA production as well at say up to 50 per month. You then have two flexible competing lines that can do any mix of NMA/NSA at up 100 per month - which is what you might need 10 years from now.

Doing NMA and NSA as a combined program (common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W), and systems architecture) provides economies of scale that will allow very aggressive pricing.

Assuming Boeing continues to use Program accounting having a combined starting block of 5-10,000 NMA/NSA frames - even with the cost of doing two wings/wingboxes/gear/tails - could make the economics on NMA (and to a lesser extent on NSA) a lot better than assumed.


A 7AB double aisle fuselage also used for a 6AB single aisle? My god, comfort on the NMA and economy on NSA will be brutal. Your post doesn't make any sense beyond wishful thinking.

There's that same kind of wishful thinking going on with many people (looking at Revelation mostly but also many others) claiming there will be hardly any development costs, just shrink the 787 a bit and somehow learn from that same production process despite having about the same volume the 787 already has.

How that prepares you for a mass volume NSA is beyond me. Either you test the 787 production process on a mass production plane or you invest in new technologies smaller scale. It can't be both. People saying a low volume NMA that is based on the 787 will somehow function as a precursor to the NSA when it:
1. doesnt share anything significant with it
2. doesnt offer production volume advantages compared to the 787
3. fully based on 15yr old tech (787) to save on development cost
yet
4. will revolutionise production.

This is [have your cake and eat it]^2. La-la-land territory.


No - My NMA/NSA would have the same cross section and both be double aisle's just like what was rumoured back in 2011 before they decided to do the MAX - see my post above - it's not really a penalty and not that inefficient.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:57 pm

tphuang wrote:
morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
There is no evidence that passengers will pay more for a tight 7 across config vs 18 inch wide 6 across config. And overhead bins have gotten really nice in the latest A320/737 models. There is no reason they can't continue to improve.


You have to think of things like Premium seating - In a tight 7W (call it 185"W) you can get a nice 2x2x2 Transcontinental Business class product in vs 2x2 on single Aisle and 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 on Single Aisle.

Plus your containers will hold 50-60% more volume than AKH's.

The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.


Have you actually seen the latest 1x1 in single aisle? You can squeeze in one full lie flat with direct aisle access for what's equivalent to around 33 inch in pitch. Which means you can squeeze in j seat that's as good as you'd find in a tightly packed 77W for basically 3 Y seats. I've taken the 6 across J seating before on both CA and KL. I don't see how they are better than and can get higher premium than ones on a A321.

That analysis that were done in comparing CASM on A321XLR vs A330NEO and B787-800 were done using similar premium configs. And they came out to have similar CASM (A321XLR was 5 to 10% lower than A330-800) when factoring in both fuel cost and cash operating cost.

There is simply no evidence in transcon market, DL's widebody D1 seating gets premium to AA's A321T. And there is no evidence UA's 78X J seating on EWR-LAX gets higher prices than AA's A321T or B6's A321 on JFK-LAX. There is just no such evidence based on available data.

There are 2 advantages widebodies have over A321XLR.
1) cargo revenue
2) cabin pressurized for lower altitude on something like 787

for the first one, that cargo revenue would have to go a long way to offset the lower RASM from having twice the number of seats to sell
for the second one, there is no actual evidence that people would pay more for something like 77W vs 787 when cabin is more "comfortable". I personally notice the difference when flying overnight on 77W vs A350. However, airlines price those seats the same way.


My NMA -S is only about A321 plus about 5% in seating capacity and NMA-M only about +15-20% in seating capacity - they are not 2x the size.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:05 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I predict if Boeing brings NMA in 2020 and start delivering 2026/27, Airbus will launch the A320 replacement in 2023 with delivery in 2030. Just that the new Airbus narrowbody will be 320/321/322 sized instead of 319/320/321.

The lower end will be covered by 220-500.

Thats why Boeing has such a hard time justifying the NMA because it will give Airbus a headstart on the A320 replacement. On the other side a new NSA launched two early will kill the price for the MAX. Its a bad situation Boeing has moved itself in with the MAX instead of an NSA.
The 321 in all versions is probably the best aircraft airbus ever launched. Boeing even had to bring the MAX-10 to the table and it is just not a good product in comparison. The good thing for Boeing is that on the other side Airbus has big problems in the widebody segment


I don't disagree on that timing as that is when the engines will probably be available.

However as one Program Boeing launches NMA in the next twelve months for delivery 2026-2027 and then launches NSA based on 7W NMA for 2030 delivery in 2022/2023.

However Boeing has the advantage of two wing choices essentially - and covers single class capacity from about 200-300. Mix and match what Fuselage Length and Wing size you want.

The NSA wing/gear/wingbox/tails engines - would be optimized for Class 3 gates without folding tips and call it max 3,500nm range in the smallest variant - where the longest distance NMA's reach out to 5,500NM.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2994
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:38 pm

morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You have to think of things like Premium seating - In a tight 7W (call it 185"W) you can get a nice 2x2x2 Transcontinental Business class product in vs 2x2 on single Aisle and 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 on Single Aisle.

Plus your containers will hold 50-60% more volume than AKH's.

The profit is not in Y seating - it's in the Premium Product.


Have you actually seen the latest 1x1 in single aisle? You can squeeze in one full lie flat with direct aisle access for what's equivalent to around 33 inch in pitch. Which means you can squeeze in j seat that's as good as you'd find in a tightly packed 77W for basically 3 Y seats. I've taken the 6 across J seating before on both CA and KL. I don't see how they are better than and can get higher premium than ones on a A321.

That analysis that were done in comparing CASM on A321XLR vs A330NEO and B787-800 were done using similar premium configs. And they came out to have similar CASM (A321XLR was 5 to 10% lower than A330-800) when factoring in both fuel cost and cash operating cost.

There is simply no evidence in transcon market, DL's widebody D1 seating gets premium to AA's A321T. And there is no evidence UA's 78X J seating on EWR-LAX gets higher prices than AA's A321T or B6's A321 on JFK-LAX. There is just no such evidence based on available data.

There are 2 advantages widebodies have over A321XLR.
1) cargo revenue
2) cabin pressurized for lower altitude on something like 787

for the first one, that cargo revenue would have to go a long way to offset the lower RASM from having twice the number of seats to sell
for the second one, there is no actual evidence that people would pay more for something like 77W vs 787 when cabin is more "comfortable". I personally notice the difference when flying overnight on 77W vs A350. However, airlines price those seats the same way.


My NMA -S is only about A321 plus about 5% in seating capacity and NMA-M only about +15-20% in seating capacity - they are not 2x the size.

I'm referring to A321 vs 77W or 787-900

morrisond wrote:
No - My NMA/NSA would have the same cross section and both be double aisle's just like what was rumoured back in 2011 before they decided to do the MAX - see my post above - it's not really a penalty and not that inefficient.


you do realize NSA = New single aisle, right?

morrisond wrote:
Nope - I'm assuming same cross section "(common cockpit/fuselage cross section(tight 7w Ovalish about 160-165"H x 185-190"W),"

BTW - That's a cross section that is only about 25% more than A320 with 16.7% more Y seats and 50% more Premium Seats - with 50-60% more cargo volume per meter of fuselage. You lose efficiency in the Y section - but that is less of a difference than A320 cross section over 737.

how do you get 50% more premium seats? The latest single aisle J seat for single aisle basically takes up the real estate of one row of 3 Y seats. How is NMA's premium seating getting more efficient than that? Please actually do some research on these things.

And even if look at existing configs on A321CEO. B6 managed to put 16 J seats + 143 Y+/Y with really wide pitch on A321.
 
sketch
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:50 pm

tphuang wrote:
you do realize NSA = New single aisle, right?

By whose rules? If "NMA" stands for "New Midsize Airplane" (and it does), then you should only need one guess as to what "NSA" would stand for, and that ain't it, chief.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:52 pm

sketch wrote:
tphuang wrote:
you do realize NSA = New single aisle, right?

By whose rules? If "NMA" stands for "New Midsize Airplane" (and it does), then you should only need one guess as to what "NSA" would stand for, and that ain't it, chief.
My guess was actually new small aircraft. Seriously lol!

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2255
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
They should. Its their last cleansheet design and a $20B program. Shareholders would not be happy at Boeing undermining it with a product that must be cheaper and will (at the very least initially, if not forever) generate a lower profit margin than selling a 787-8 right now.

Again, facts not in evidence.


You have yet to provide one shred of evidence as to why the market has changed. I've provided two datapoints, one recent past, other more distant - both of which highlight that airlines seem to value a range threshold of in around 5500 nm as important.

Is NMA going to be above or below that range threshold?

Revelation wrote:
Shareholders see 787 with huge non-788 backlog and nothing to fight against A321XLR


Boeing have stated A321XLR is only taking a sliver of the NMA market.

You are stating NMA is needed to fight against A321XLR

Which is it?


Revelation wrote:
and no path to NSA without NMA.


A twin aisle NMA is not a path to NSA, no matter how much you wish it to be so.


Revelation wrote:
787 development cost is old news and sunk cost.


Undermining it still means less return on the program as a whole.

Is NMA going to be a single aircraft family? If not, what do you think the stretch version means for 787-9?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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