• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
nry
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:57 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.


Depends on how big the backlog of A320 family models will be in 2023. The last thing they need to is have all their customers convert their A32x orders over to a more expensive-to-produce model.

And you hope that Airbus doesn't take 7 years from [EDIT]launch[/EDIT] to delivery. Boeing looks like it's shooting for a 5 year interval for the NMA, and my guess is that the NMA will be further along at launch next year than more recent models at launch given that the innovation will be in process tech rather than plane tech.
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320, A321, A340 (surprisingly no A330 yet)
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
morrisond
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:49 pm

tphuang wrote:
morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:

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.


Yes - NSA stands for new Small Airplane - Please do your research.

If you knew your Boeing history you would know that NSA back in 2011 was supposedly an Oval twin aisle in 2x3x2

If the latest J seat basically takes up the space of 1 row of 3 seats - but not quite - then 1 fits in the 2x part of say the starboard side, one fits in the middle 3x section (and you use the extra space from the third seat divided among the the three remaining J seats) and the third fits in the x2 part on the port side. That is 3 across - that is 50% more - Please do your research.

If if is Transcontinental Business Class seats (not sleepers) then instead of 2x2 you get 2x2x2 in a seat width of about 20.5" nice and comfy - that is 50% more - please do your research.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:24 pm

Euro 3-3 has mostly convertable 3-3 2-2 business class. So you can optimize the cabin per flight. LH used to have 3-3 to 2-3 convertables. But now mostly 3-3 to 2-2, moving armrest, inbetween table and more pitch.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tphuang
Posts: 2895
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
morrisond wrote:

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.


Yes - NSA stands for new Small Airplane - Please do your research.

If you knew your Boeing history you would know that NSA back in 2011 was supposedly an Oval twin aisle in 2x3x2

If the latest J seat basically takes up the space of 1 row of 3 seats - but not quite - then 1 fits in the 2x part of say the starboard side, one fits in the middle 3x section (and you use the extra space from the third seat divided among the the three remaining J seats) and the third fits in the x2 part on the port side. That is 3 across - that is 50% more - Please do your research.

If if is Transcontinental Business Class seats (not sleepers) then instead of 2x2 you get 2x2x2 in a seat width of about 20.5" nice and comfy - that is 50% more - please do your research.

Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

Recent suppliers have said they can do business class seating taking up equivalent of 33 inch pitch, but I guess you know better.

When JetBlue created mint, a321 had 190 seats and they got 143 y and 16 j seat after that. Do your math, 16 j seat for 47 y seat. Your mental image doesn't seem to apply to reality.
 
sketch
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:58 pm

tphuang wrote:
Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

It's a pretty big small error when you're using it to make the assertion that NSA will absolutely for sure be a single-aisle.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
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.


Doing a common NMA/NSA using new production methods and assembly buildings is the winner. A plane more capable than the A321 with a higher price should take on the A320 and A321 well, while not affecting the 738 much, which is B's most popular model. Once production of the NMA is going well, develop the wing for the NSA with the same body, or develop a new cross section that goes on the NMA wing to obtain maximum range. Issue out a new model every 2 or 3 years slowly transitioning away from the 737. The 737 might stay in production but at like rate 20. This at least is a good path to transition to the new model. Or Boeing Brazil comes in with a model to address the lower end of NB's, taking on the A220 as well.
 
2175301
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:41 pm

Amiga500 wrote:

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?



My information from my source is that the target NMA market is much larger than what the A321XLR can do, and as of today I have heard from my source that they anticipated the A321XLR and are not worried about it.

My source indicates that all is still go for the NMA once the 737Max8 issue is effectively resolved.

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:33 pm

tphuang wrote:
morrisond wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm referring to A321 vs 77W or 787-900



you do realize NSA = New single aisle, right?


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.


Yes - NSA stands for new Small Airplane - Please do your research.

If you knew your Boeing history you would know that NSA back in 2011 was supposedly an Oval twin aisle in 2x3x2

If the latest J seat basically takes up the space of 1 row of 3 seats - but not quite - then 1 fits in the 2x part of say the starboard side, one fits in the middle 3x section (and you use the extra space from the third seat divided among the the three remaining J seats) and the third fits in the x2 part on the port side. That is 3 across - that is 50% more - Please do your research.

If if is Transcontinental Business Class seats (not sleepers) then instead of 2x2 you get 2x2x2 in a seat width of about 20.5" nice and comfy - that is 50% more - please do your research.

Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

Recent suppliers have said they can do business class seating taking up equivalent of 33 inch pitch, but I guess you know better.

When JetBlue created mint, a321 had 190 seats and they got 143 y and 16 j seat after that. Do your math, 16 j seat for 47 y seat. Your mental image doesn't seem to apply to reality.


What does seat pitch have to do with how many seats will fit in the width of a fuselage? In the same length of Fuselage they would get 24 J seats - that's 50% more. If you look at the JetBlue seat maps - 1x1x1 of the suites would fit or 2x2x2 of the J seats would fit.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:37 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Doing a common NMA/NSA using new production methods and assembly buildings is the winner. A plane more capable than the A321 with a higher price should take on the A320 and A321 well, while not affecting the 738 much, which is B's most popular model. Once production of the NMA is going well, develop the wing for the NSA with the same body, or develop a new cross section that goes on the NMA wing to obtain maximum range. Issue out a new model every 2 or 3 years slowly transitioning away from the 737. The 737 might stay in production but at like rate 20. This at least is a good path to transition to the new model. Or Boeing Brazil comes in with a model to address the lower end of NB's, taking on the A220 as well.


That's what I think will happen as well - Boeing Brazil does a 5W Y fuselage. You stare at Delta 220 Images long enough and see that nice Profitable 2x2 Business class with less structure wasted on Y seats - basically J is more profitable and & Y just pays the bills. You will make more Money Short Range in an 220 5W as less cross section to get your 2x2 Business class.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:43 pm

I have heard from my source that they anticipated the A321XLR and are not worried about it.


Cold day in hell before they would admit. We heard the same on the NEO, Boeing wasn't worried Airbus was just catching up on the NG. In reality they underestimated and were panicking / rushing the MAX.

They should worry, I can see e.g. Delta placing an alarmingly large order and many airlines (US, Carabien, S Americas, Euro) responding. Including United calling it a day on MAX/NMA & acting.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:12 pm

Amiga500 wrote:

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

Most definitely Boeing will do it
no matter how much you don't wish it to be so. :roll:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:27 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

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

Most definitely Boeing will do it
no matter how much you don't wish it to be so. :roll:


Any new 130-200 seat NB would have to be real lean, mean, quiet, flexible and cheap. CASM unbeatable under 3 hours. Hard to combine that with a twin aisle 280 seat 5000 NM design. If Boeing would decide so, popping bottles in Toulouse :highfive: . But every second year aerospace student can tell they won't.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:34 pm

keesje wrote:
I have heard from my source that they anticipated the A321XLR and are not worried about it.

Cold day in hell before they would admit. We heard the same on the NEO, Boeing wasn't worried Airbus was just catching up on the NG. In reality they underestimated and were panicking / rushing the MAX.


Others will tell you that Airbus was in panic when Boeing threatened to launch NSA in 2011 ... Leahy was very vocal because he was scared. Otherwise he would have remained calm otherwise

Anyway Airbus could never have satisfied the market all by itself and you know it :biggrin:

keesje wrote:
They should worry, I can see e.g. Delta placing an alarmingly large order and many airlines (US, Carabien, S Americas, Euro) responding. Including United calling it a day on MAX/NMA & acting.


The more time passes and the more I see the A321NeoXLR as an A340 while the NMA would be something much better than the 777.

I'm sure you understand what I mean. Boeing has not been worried before, he will not be after :roll:
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:51 pm

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

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

Most definitely Boeing will do it
no matter how much you don't wish it to be so. :roll:


Any new 130-200 seat NB would have to be real lean, mean, quiet, flexible and cheap. CASM unbeatable under 3 hours. Hard to combine that with a twin aisle 280 seat 5000 NM design. If Boeing would decide so, popping bottles in Toulouse :highfive: . But every second year aerospace student can tell they won't.


I am not talking about fuselage and wing reuse. I'm talking about a culmination in the assembly line for the NSA inheriting the NMA ...

keesje wrote:
Hard to combine that with a twin aisle 280 seat 5000 NM design.


Difficult but not impossible. Finally this gives me hope!

It is rather a twin-aisle of 270 seats at 3000 NM and a smaller wing remains "positively questionable" :bigthumbsup:
 
2175301
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:23 am

Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Most definitely Boeing will do it
no matter how much you don't wish it to be so. :roll:


Any new 130-200 seat NB would have to be real lean, mean, quiet, flexible and cheap. CASM unbeatable under 3 hours. Hard to combine that with a twin aisle 280 seat 5000 NM design. If Boeing would decide so, popping bottles in Toulouse :highfive: . But every second year aerospace student can tell they won't.


I am not talking about fuselage and wing reuse. I'm talking about a culmination in the assembly line for the NSA inheriting the NMA ...

keesje wrote:
Hard to combine that with a twin aisle 280 seat 5000 NM design.


Difficult but not impossible. Finally this gives me hope!

It is rather a twin-aisle of 270 seats at 3000 NM and a smaller wing remains "positively questionable" :bigthumbsup:



I'm largely with Keesje on this. The NSA will not be the same fuselage or wing as the NMA. It will be a purpose designed aircraft from the ground up. There is a slight chance it might share a cockpit. I once asked my "Friend" and his comment was along the line of "well we could make the NMA cockpit common with the 787, or it could be a stand alone with an eye on perhaps having it common with the NSA; but, perhaps each aircraft family will have its own cockpit and unique type rating." I guess that covers the possibilities....

Many of his answers have been like that about things. I still have no idea if the NMA is composite or metal, etc. He's willing to discuss things studied and factors to be considered... and even the extent things have been studied or in some cases designed (i.e fabrication dwgs exist for long lead time items like landing gear forgings, etc.). But. he has not even implied what the NMA answers are to various questions.

Only thing he has said is that one of the goals was to produce an aircraft so cheap that Airbus could not match it with their existing aircraft base (with no hint if they accomplished that); and that recently that they were ready to present to the Board for approval to offer. I was told that was planned to happen earlier this year and the Paris Airshow was to be its public unveiling... But the 737Max8 issue has pushed things back. Not a problem - they keep working on the engineering and I've been told that everything is on track for the publicly announced dates of "Offer for sale" in 2019, Program Launch if enough "offer" orders in 2020. 1st Delivery 2025.

You are correct that the production systems used for the NMA will roll into the NSA. That, in my opinion, is potentially Airbus's biggest challenge to counter - the new Boeing production system which was started with the 787, and being further developed with the NMA - and then expected to be fine tuned for the NSA to make the NSA as low cost as possible.

Have a great day,
 
tphuang
Posts: 2895
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:38 am

sketch wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

It's a pretty big small error when you're using it to make the assertion that NSA will absolutely for sure be a single-aisle.

so are you saying NSA is not going to be single aisle? What is BA's single aisle replacement plan then? I've been led all along to believe NSA is BA's single aisle replacement.

morrisond wrote:

What does seat pitch have to do with how many seats will fit in the width of a fuselage? In the same length of Fuselage they would get 24 J seats - that's 50% more. If you look at the JetBlue seat maps - 1x1x1 of the suites would fit or 2x2x2 of the J seats would fit.


Have you actually seen how B6's mint configuration look like in person? There is a reason it's configured that way. The solo suites are that way because both sides are taken up by the cubbie extension from the row behind them. The 2x rows are that way because the middle part is used by cubbie extension from the solo suite. There is no wasted space anywhere. They managed to squeeze 16 full lie flat J seating in an area that would normally be at most 8 rows of y seating. You can't fit more than that. That's how they went from 190 Y seats to 143 Y + 16 J without reducing Y pitch. They even managed to add a "market place" that took space of 3 Y seats.

Even UA with it's domestic 777 and 8 across J seating couldn't reach the 3 Y to 1J ratio that B6 got on the A321s.

And with the new 1 by 1 lie flat business class, they are angled and arranged in such a way that for side that opens to the aisle, each row only take up 33 inch of space, which is equivalent to just having a row standard Y seating. See the distance from start of one row to the start of next row.
https://paxex.aero/2019/04/musing-jetbl ... pe-london/
check the diagram in there. That's a really space efficient setup.

Remember even for 77W and A350W, they can't set it up to be as space efficient, because there still has to 2 aisle of spacing to account for. Generally if you have tried those premium airline's J config, the J aisles are normally noticeably wider than Y aisles.

So in reality, A321XLR for an airline like JetBlue will actually have the most space efficient lie flat seating in the market.

Now, I would say it's an inferior product to what Delta offers in their A350 Delta Suites or what QR offers with Q-Suites or what CX offers since those all take up a lot more real estate.

But we will have to see if it actually hurts on the revenue front.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:08 am

2175301 wrote:
.

You are correct that the production systems used for the NMA will roll into the NSA. That, in my opinion, is potentially Airbus's biggest challenge to counter - the new Boeing production system which was started with the 787, and being further developed with the NMA - and then expected to be fine tuned for the NSA to make the NSA as low cost as possible.

Have a great day,


This is the most important part here ;)
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:10 am

Checklist787 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
.

You are correct that the production systems used for the NMA will roll into the NSA. That, in my opinion, is potentially Airbus's biggest challenge to counter - the new Boeing production system which was started with the 787, and being further developed with the NMA - and then expected to be fine tuned for the NSA to make the NSA as low cost as possible.

Have a great day,


This is the most important part here ;)


I think 2 different aircraft is two supply chains and FALs. Little magical advantages in using the same architecture, philosophy etc. apart it can save some time in non-recurring and certification. There's even the risk of a single point of failure for two programs..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:21 am

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

This is the most important part here ;)


I think 2 different aircraft is two supply chains and FALs. Little magical advantages in using the same architecture, philosophy etc. apart it can save some time in non-recurring and certification.


There's even the risk of a single point of failure for two programs..


Interesting...
Which risk for example?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:26 am

sketch wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

It's a pretty big small error when you're using it to make the assertion that NSA will absolutely for sure be a single-aisle.


If some of you folks knew literally anything about aircraft design, you'd know that a new small aircraft will ***always*** be single-aisle.


For instance, just how competitive do you think a 7AB or 8AB seating 180 people would be?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:27 am

morrisond wrote:
If you knew your Boeing history you would know that NSA back in 2011 was supposedly an Oval twin aisle in 2x3x2


Wise up.

They are never releasing something Ryanair would carry 200 people in at 7AB.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:33 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

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

Most definitely Boeing will do it
no matter how much you don't wish it to be so. :roll:


They probably will do it. Internal inertia at this point is likely beyond the point of no return.

Good luck to them - IMO they'd be better doing a weight, cost and range reduction program on the 787-8. Cheaper, faster and keeps some commonality.

NMA seems to me to be an expensive bet on a niche that will end up primarily taking sales from one of their own products.


But hey - I'm not the one with the MBA and slick powerpoint presentation.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 12923
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:48 am

Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

This is the most important part here ;)


I think 2 different aircraft is two supply chains and FALs. Little magical advantages in using the same architecture, philosophy etc. apart it can save some time in non-recurring and certification.


There's even the risk of a single point of failure for two programs..


Interesting...
Which risk for example?


If you do projects in parallel & try to benefit from it, e.g. a new design FMC, FPE system, hp hydraulics or electrical architecture using the some components, those can be found to be unreliable, unavailable or expensive. It's in both programs at the same time, excellent only if there are no hick-ups. I remember from Airbus FBW system development full system redundancy was build in, two independent systems. Using different processors, software & the design / software engineers were not allowed to coordinate to prevent them possibly learning & applying the same, faulty choices. So one system could not replace the other in things do south due to an (unintended) design fault.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:57 am

Amiga500 wrote:
sketch wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Cool, I got one little araea wrong.

It's a pretty big small error when you're using it to make the assertion that NSA will absolutely for sure be a single-aisle.


If some of you folks knew literally anything about aircraft design, you'd know that a new small aircraft will ***always*** be single-aisle.


For instance, just how competitive do you think a 7AB or 8AB seating 180 people would be?


You are not entirely wrong. :scratchchin:

I think this question remains relevant. However, if we project into +2030-2090 period, global growth could create a Small Widebody 200-seater 2-class

With composite wings 2-4% bigger compared to an A321neo / 737MAX-10 wing. (fuel capacity)

It could carry easyly 270 passengers in a single-class.

I do not see anything aberrantly

It must be remembered that Boeing does not shoot the moon in term of technology for the NMA.

I think the challenge will be structural, materials and assembly with lowest cost than possible
 
CFRPwingALbody
Posts: 266
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:13 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:06 am

I think the A321XLR is a business risk for Boeing. I think it captures the lower half of the NMA/middle market. If you look at the A321XLR specs, it's a direct 757-200 replacement. If cargo capability isn't important, it also replaces the A310s and 767-200 (not ER). AFAIR that's roughly 1500 planes of the 4000 NMA market potential.
The A321XLR development cost are minimal, compared to a cleansheet NMA design.
I think the A321XLR center tank could also be implemented into the A320NEO or A319NEO. Airbus could use this for ACJ or MRTT.
But the A321XLR is cargo limited and it will be expansive to increase the range further.
I think there remains a market for 220pax 6000nm and 270pax 5000nm. The replacement for the 767-300s ,-400ER, A300 and early A330s. And on routes where cargo is important the A310s and 767-200ER. This is D-type gate size, with 140-200mT MTOW.
A 767MAX could be a good option for Boeing, as is a relaunch of the A300NEO.
I think that the engine efficiency improvements boost ranges by 1000 to 2000nm so non-ER versions would be a lot more attractive.
I think Boeing should also consider that Airbus can react with a A300NEO/A332NEO on the MNA. Any fuselage improvements on the A300/A330 fuselage can be implemented on the A330NEO. So the NMA is cornered from the bottom and the top.
(Sidenote I think the A330-800 is replacing the A340-200 [250pax 8000nm], Airbus hasn't a good replacement for the A330-200 [250pax 5000nm]. So at both A&B there is potential for a NMA. I think that Airbus has the advantage that it can share the A330FAL, where boeing has to repurpose the 767 or create a new one. Boeing needs 3 widebody production lines where Airbus could do with 2, so span the market. The 797 will have lower CASM than an A300NEO could have, because it could take on less cargo. But I think Airbus can develop and produce it cheaper than Boeing can.
Admitted I picture an Airbus favoured picture, but Boeing beter gets past their 737MAX trouble. I think NSA currently has a much higher priority than NMA for Boeing.

Edit to add: everybody realizes there are 3 737 FALs in Renton right?
Last edited by CFRPwingALbody on Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:07 am

Checklist787 wrote:
I think this question remains relevant. However, if we project into +2030-2090 period, global growth could create a Small Widebody 200-seater 2-class

It could carry easyly 270 passengers in a single-class.


Is that realistic?

270 in sardine class going to 200 in 2-class?


For comparison:
BA (just grabbed their seatmap) have a 4-class 787-9 at 216 seats [8/42/39/127].

Thomson have a 2-class 787-9 at 345 seats [63/282].
Norwegian have a 2-class 787-9 at 344 seats [35/309].

Max single-class seating on 787-9 is around 400 I believe.


A321 seats around 230 seats sardine class (Wizz), and around 200 in 2-class (Lufthansa).
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:09 am

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think 2 different aircraft is two supply chains and FALs. Little magical advantages in using the same architecture, philosophy etc. apart it can save some time in non-recurring and certification.


There's even the risk of a single point of failure for two programs..


Interesting...
Which risk for example?


If you do projects in parallel & try to benefit from it, e.g. a new design FMC, FPE system, hp hydraulics or electrical architecture using the some components, those can be found to be unreliable, unavailable or expensive. It's in both programs at the same time, excellent only if there are no hick-ups. I remember from Airbus FBW system development full system redundancy was build in, two independent systems. Using different processors, software & the design / software engineers were not allowed to coordinate to prevent them possibly learning & applying the same, faulty choices. So one system could not replace the other in things do south due to an (unintended) design fault.


Yes but we all know that NSA would be launched 5-7 years after NMA.

They will have time to correct some elements.
I always thought that NSA would be lessons learned from NMA..
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:20 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
I think this question remains relevant. However, if we project into +2030-2090 period, global growth could create a Small Widebody 200-seater 2-class

It could carry easyly 270 passengers in a single-class.


Is that realistic?

270 in sardine class going to 200 in 2-class?


For comparison:
BA (just grabbed their seatmap) have a 4-class 787-9 at 216 seats [8/42/39/127].

Thomson have a 2-class 787-9 at 345 seats [63/282].
Norwegian have a 2-class 787-9 at 344 seats [35/309].

Max single-class seating on 787-9 is around 400 I believe.


A321 seats around 230 seats sardine class (Wizz), and around 200 in 2-class (Lufthansa).


Airbus A321 ACAP shows 1-class 240 seats @ 28 "pitch and,

2-class 185 seats @ 32" pitch./ 16 First /Business or Premium seat @ 36" pitch

Where is the problem with a 7-Abreast small-widebody 200/220-270 seater?? :roll:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:27 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Where is the problem with a widebody 200-270 seater?? :roll:


Your looking at the numbers just as well as me. It should be pretty clear and obvious to you.

If you are insisting on 2-class 200 seats, where do you find the other 30 seats from for sardine-class?

A 2 class cabin at 200 seats won't work - the distribution of 1st class to economy has too big a deviation from norm to be acceptable.

3-class might work.
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:30 am

Checklist787 wrote:
Where is the problem with a 7-Abreast small-widebody 200/220-270 seater?? :roll:


:arrow: 7ab = one more aisle needed
:arrow: Need for a wider cross section
:arrow: Significant drag and weight disadvantage over NB design, higher fuel consumption, and all this just to accomodate 1 more seat per row. It is inefficient at best.

If you want to go the widebody way, better give a nice 8ab frame a shot, much better use of the WB concept, either for pax or cargo revenue. But I doubt to ever see that for the MoM.
Last edited by AirwayBill on Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:31 am

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
.

You are correct that the production systems used for the NMA will roll into the NSA. That, in my opinion, is potentially Airbus's biggest challenge to counter - the new Boeing production system which was started with the 787, and being further developed with the NMA - and then expected to be fine tuned for the NSA to make the NSA as low cost as possible.

Have a great day,


This is the most important part here ;)


I think 2 different aircraft is two supply chains and FALs. Little magical advantages in using the same architecture, philosophy etc. apart it can save some time in non-recurring and certification. There's even the risk of a single point of failure for two programs..

Are you complaining about the A330 and A350 again?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:36 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Where is the problem with a widebody 200-270 seater?? :roll:


Your looking at the numbers just as well as me. It should be pretty clear and obvious to you.

If you are insisting on 2-class 200 seats, where do you find the other 30 seats from for sardine-class?

A 2 class cabin at 200 seats won't work - the distribution of 1st class to economy has too big a deviation from norm to be acceptable.

3-class might work.


2-class 200 seats Business seat @ 85 "pitch lie-flat should work too

(A321 AA Transconti, A321 Jet Blue) :scratchchin:
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:52 am

AirwayBill wrote:

:arrow: 7ab = one more aisle needed

Since when do we need a single aisle for 270 passengers?


This is the basic rule that everything a.Netter needs a minimum knowledge. imho :scratchchin:

AirwayBill wrote:
:arrow: Need for a wider cross section
:arrow: Significant drag and weight disadvantage over NB design, higher fuel consumption, and all this just to accomodate 1 more seat per row. It is inefficient at best.


This is wrong.
270 passengers can work on a widebody

AirwayBill wrote:
If you want to go the widebody way, better give a nice 8ab frame a shot, much better use of the WB concept, either for pax or cargo revenue. But I doubt to ever see that for the MoM.


The market does not care about your doubt my friend,
Only Boeing is at the market :spit:
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:00 am

Checklist787 wrote:
2-class 200 seats Business seat @ 85 "pitch lie-flat should work too

(A321 AA Transconti, A321 Jet Blue) :scratchchin:


Yeah - which on A321 floor area equates to 240 seats single class!

So if you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 6AB, your probably looking at something like 132 seats first class (@39") and 72 seats economy (@32") to make it add up to 200 seats total.

If you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 7AB, then (assuming 6AB 1st class) you are looking at around:
- 42 1st class 6AB @39" / 175 economy 7AB @32" on conventional distribution of ~20% 1st class seats for a total of 217 seats
- 84 1st class 6AB @39" / 119 economy 7AB @32" to hit ~200 seats in 2-class configuration. That is 40% seats 1st class.

Do you not see the discrepancy?

You can't hit 200 seats 2 class and 270 seats single class without going far beyond the accepted norm of 1st vs. economy demand.
 
Noshow
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:01 am

How about some 787-3 version 2.0 with a new custom wing instead?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:09 am

Noshow wrote:
How about some 787-3 version 2.0 with a new custom wing instead?


Along with lighter u/c, smaller empennage (if tradeoff adds up), smaller a/c units and the new engines that a 797 would need anyway.

Then run improved cost efficiency into that assembly line (which can be started from a clean sheet on new floorspace) - this can later be rolled back into main 787 program

Makes more sense to me than building a niche that is either boxed in or leeching off your own products!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:22 am

Amiga500 wrote:
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.

What I've seen you do is move away from the indefensible point that the air market at the time of the 767-200/757 intro i.e. the 80s is similar to today's market, then introduce the 787-3 as a proof point that the MOM market doesn't exist, which is a red herring. The 787-3 was stuck with the same DNA as the rest of the 787 family. It had baked in to every design decision 50-70% more range and 10% more pax than the NMA's design points. The fact they could not sell an elephant to someone wanting a mouse isn't a surprise. The NMA will be a descendant of the 787 and not a sibling, so it's DNA can change to suit its market.

Amiga500 wrote:
Is NMA going to be above or below that range threshold?

Pictures say a thousand words:

Image
____

Amiga500 wrote:
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?

Nice attempt at brinksmanship.

The answer is both are correct. XLR is taking a sliver of what NMA will become, but if there is no NMA, then other things will eventually fill the void, but I'm sure Randy's sliver comment was in the context of knowing there will be a NMA.

Keep in mind we're looking only at the initial part of the market. XLR is doing well though a sizeable part of its orders are just customers capturing the value and flexibility that the big tank offers over the standard A321 narrowbodies they already had on order. NMA will be a 40-50 year program along the same lines as 767 and A330 are showing themselves to be and will be firmly in the MOM gap.

Amiga500 wrote:
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.

So Boeing should maximize its clean sheet investments, or each one should be a dead end, which is it?

See what I did there?

Amiga500 wrote:
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?

We already know it is a two aircraft family, see above.

The 787 has 50-70% more range and at least 10% more pax than the NMA

If we see a 797-4 it is very likely to be a more pax less range trade off just like 787-10 and 767-4 are so stretching the NMA is not likely going to add range, it's going to subtract range.

Boeing will wait to see what the market looks like before launching it, just like they did for 787-10 and 767-4.

If the 787-9 market is tapped and the 797-4 needs to add both range and capacity, they probably can do that too.

Again, the program will be targeted at a 40-50 year production run.

By the time it finishes, A321 as a metal narrowbody will be out of production for 20-30 years.

Lots of things will change by the time a stretch of the 797 is in play.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Checklist787
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:29 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
2-class 200 seats Business seat @ 85 "pitch lie-flat should work too

(A321 AA Transconti, A321 Jet Blue) :scratchchin:


Yeah - which on A321 floor area equates to 240 seats single class!

So if you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 6AB, your probably looking at something like 132 seats first class (@39") and 72 seats economy (@32") to make it add up to 200 seats total.

If you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 7AB, then (assuming 6AB 1st class) you are looking at around:
- 42 1st class 6AB @39" / 175 economy 7AB @32" on conventional distribution of ~20% 1st class seats for a total of 217 seats
- 84 1st class 6AB @39" / 119 economy 7AB @32" to hit ~200 seats in 2-class configuration. That is 40% seats 1st class.

Do you not see the discrepancy?

You can't hit 200 seats 2 class and 270 seats single class without going far beyond the accepted norm of 1st vs. economy demand.


Be a little serious please

It works if is 7-abreast 275 passengers floor area as for 6-abrast 185-240 floor area, for the A321

We are not at a mistake of 5 seats.
I don't see the discrepancy. :scratchchin:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:42 am

Noshow wrote:
How about some 787-3 version 2.0 with a new custom wing instead?

Because every design decision for the 787 baked in a lot more range (50-70% more) and a lot more passenger capacity than NMA will, and you can't just wave a magic wand and make this disappear.

You end up with a plane where pretty much every structural element is too thick/heavy, fasteners stronger than they need to be, etc.

You can only do so much to reduce this, whereas there probably is built in margin to grow.

This is why 777x needed to stretch when a new wing was added.

And as Boeing's CEO is telling those who listen, NMA isn't just about getting product into the market, it's also about developing a whole new generation of design and production techniques.

Most of us will make the leap that says this means preparing for the inevitable 737 replacement.

You can't do all this by iterating the 787 wing for the Nth time (788, 789, 777x, now this) and putting it on to a 787 fuse.
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: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:45 am

Revelation wrote:
Pictures say a thousand words:

Image


Gotta run, so will deal with rest later...

Below that range threshold is your answer. Even worse - just below it. So your carrying most of the pain without the gain.

That chart hasn't considered the change in capability of airframes over time since launch and how their orders adjusted over time.
Look at the ranges of all these weight variants.
http://janes.migavia.com/usa/boeing/boeing-767.html

Right across this proposed "gap".

Furthermore, the A332 did not start off as a 7250 nm range frame. The A333 isn't even in the picture, yet its range developed right through the range considered.


Boeing walked this path before - and moved toward a longer ranged aircraft at the airlines' request.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:54 am

Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing walked this path before - and moved toward a longer ranged aircraft at the airlines' request.

And (a) has satisfied that customer base while (b) leaving a gap below for a new product.

I suspect we're just not going to end up in agreement.

Your focus seems to be historical norms, whereas I'm going with what hockey great Wayne Gretzky said: you don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where the puck is going!
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
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:03 pm

I've seen a few people say that widebodies are too heavy.

Lets crunch some numbers:
Take the A300. Build an aurcraft with exact dimensions but make most of it out of carbon fibre. The empty weight should easily reduce by 5% that brings the empty weight to 84,000kg

Now the A300 has a cabin area of 215m2.
That is 390kg of aircraft weight per square metre of cabin area.

Now take the A321NEO a weight of 50,100kg and 127m2 of cabin area. 394kg of aircraft weight per square metre of cabin area.

The carbon A300 would be lighter than the A321NEO in terms if cabin area.

Many posters bring up two aisles as a problem. Two narrow aisles versus one wide aisle it is a wash. The aisle as a percentage of the width could be the same for both. 6ab vs 8ab. A single 30inch wide aisle in the 6ab would be the same percentage as two 20inch aisles in an 8ab cabin. Or if the 6ab had a relatively narrow 24inch aisle the 8ab could still have two 16inch aisles.

Now fit some scaled up LEAP engines to this carbon A300 and range goes up from 4000nm to near 5000nm. So the 797 specs can easily match the A321.

Now the 797 looks to be slightly smaller than the A300 but the longer 797 version will be fairly close in size. I would say the 797 fuselage will be approximately half a foot narrower than the A300. The Airbus 18inch seats and 20inch aisles will drop down to the tighter Boeing 17.5inch seats and 18inch aisle. Narrower LD2 containers will fit instead of the LD3's.

The shorter version will then knock off around 5metres. Not quite as short as the A310.
 
tphuang
Posts: 2895
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
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.

What I've seen you do is move away from the indefensible point that the air market at the time of the 767-200/757 intro i.e. the 80s is similar to today's market, then introduce the 787-3 as a proof point that the MOM market doesn't exist, which is a red herring. The 787-3 was stuck with the same DNA as the rest of the 787 family. It had baked in to every design decision 50-70% more range and 10% more pax than the NMA's design points. The fact they could not sell an elephant to someone wanting a mouse isn't a surprise. The NMA will be a descendant of the 787 and not a sibling, so it's DNA can change to suit its market.


Why would say it's indefensible point that air market in the 90s is similar to today's market? Back then, they didn't have lie flat seating on single aisle aircraft that was workable. They didn't have single aisle with transcon range let alone TATL range. 747 was needed for any ultra long haul flight. 787-3 didn't sell, because in the end airlines are always looking to upsize within an aircraft type since more seats means lower CASM.

Important questions since you know a lot. JetBlue probably needs an aircraft going forward that can fly further than what A321XLR does in 2023. If something like NMA enters service by 2026/7, will it have 5000+ nm TATL range in 2 class configurations? If it can, how many seats are we looking at in a premium heavy config (like for A321XLR will be 24 J + 125 Y/Y+ at 32/35 inch pitch). Something like UA has here https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Unite ... 300_ER.php but more premium would be the similar config for 767 (I'm guessing probably 200 seat in total). For NMA, how many seats would that be?

NMA would have to establish total operating cost per ASM of probably at least 10% lower than A321XLR over TATL flights (so CASM 10% lower than B788 8 years from now) for it to make sense for an airline. And that total cost would include the costs of operating/adding a new type, higher cost of purchase and higher pilot pay. How cheap does NMA have to be priced and how light does it have to be in order to do that.

What's the range advantage of NMA over A321XLR by 2027? Is it 500 miles or more? How many more relevant routes are we looking at? Most of TATL is already covered by A321XLR from NorthEast. NMA won't have the range to do TPAC unless Boeing wants to cannibalize 787. So if you are just operating single aisle and looking into expanding to long haul, what's the advantage of picking NMA over 787?
 
tphuang
Posts: 2895
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Many posters bring up two aisles as a problem. Two narrow aisles versus one wide aisle it is a wash. The aisle as a percentage of the width could be the same for both. 6ab vs 8ab. A single 30inch wide aisle in the 6ab would be the same percentage as two 20inch aisles in an 8ab cabin. Or if the 6ab had a relatively narrow 24inch aisle the 8ab could still have two 16inch aisles.

Is this a joke? If you are putting in a business class seating. How do you justify to customers that you are putting 16 inch aisles because there happens to be 2 aisles.

And even for Y, I have never noticed the single aisle width to be wider than twin aisle width. All i know is that when I'm rolling my luggage along, it always barely scrapes by regardless of whether it's on a 77W or a A320.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:02 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
2-class 200 seats Business seat @ 85 "pitch lie-flat should work too

(A321 AA Transconti, A321 Jet Blue) :scratchchin:


Yeah - which on A321 floor area equates to 240 seats single class!

So if you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 6AB, your probably looking at something like 132 seats first class (@39") and 72 seats economy (@32") to make it add up to 200 seats total.

If you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 7AB, then (assuming 6AB 1st class) you are looking at around:
- 42 1st class 6AB @39" / 175 economy 7AB @32" on conventional distribution of ~20% 1st class seats for a total of 217 seats
- 84 1st class 6AB @39" / 119 economy 7AB @32" to hit ~200 seats in 2-class configuration. That is 40% seats 1st class.

Do you not see the discrepancy?

You can't hit 200 seats 2 class and 270 seats single class without going far beyond the accepted norm of 1st vs. economy demand.


Be a little serious please

It works if is 7-abreast 275 passengers floor area as for 6-abrast 185-240 floor area, for the A321

We are not at a mistake of 5 seats.
I don't see the discrepancy. :scratchchin:


I'm afraid you really don't understand the point about 7 abreast seating. You essentially need to add the width of 2 aisles to your fuselage to gain the benefit of only one extra aisle.

Basically, compared to a 6 abreast single aisle or a 9/10 abreast twin aisle, your ratios of fuselage diameter per seat, floor area per seat and fuselage volume per seat are all worse. This means that you are carrying more fuselage weight per seat than any of the other layouts.

This is the dilemma that manufacturers have to deal with. It might be overcome through newer and fancier materials, but those can also be applied to the other cases, negating any advantage, or you can try oval fuselages or other 'out-of-the-box' methods to get around the inherent efficiency problem, but those would be very expensive to develop and certify.

I'm simply not sure there is a business case for a narrow twin aisle airplane. Single aisle aircraft can theoretically be stretched to where they almost meet the capacity and range of the smallest twin aisles (787-8 and 330-800) and Pax and airlines will always go for price over comfort.

At the very least, it's a very tight margin Boeing would venture into if they did.

Now, a true 8 abreast successor to the A310, and you've got my attention... ;)
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
What I've seen you do is move away from the indefensible point that the air market at the time of the 767-200/757 intro i.e. the 80s is similar to today's market, then introduce the 787-3 as a proof point that the MOM market doesn't exist, which is a red herring. The 787-3 was stuck with the same DNA as the rest of the 787 family. It had baked in to every design decision 50-70% more range and 10% more pax than the NMA's design points. The fact they could not sell an elephant to someone wanting a mouse isn't a surprise. The NMA will be a descendant of the 787 and not a sibling, so it's DNA can change to suit its market.


I reiterated the point with a look at the A332 vs the A333 - and that crossover is a little over 10 years old. I'm not just going back to the 80s here for datapoints.

The *original* 787-3 was much more than just a clipped wing version.

The fuselage is conservative anyway - any composite barrel fuselage will continue to be conservatively designed for ramp-rash - indeed it could be argued that something that is designed to be on the ground twice as often (NMA vs 787) would need to continue with same beefed up fuselage skin.

None of the 787-3 argument changes the evidence of 767 and A330 either.


Revelation wrote:
Nice attempt at brinksmanship.

The answer is both are correct. XLR is taking a sliver of what NMA will become, but if there is no NMA, then other things will eventually fill the void, but I'm sure Randy's sliver comment was in the context of knowing there will be a NMA.

Keep in mind we're looking only at the initial part of the market. XLR is doing well though a sizeable part of its orders are just customers capturing the value and flexibility that the big tank offers over the standard A321 narrowbodies they already had on order. NMA will be a 40-50 year program along the same lines as 767 and A330 are showing themselves to be and will be firmly in the MOM gap.


Yeah, I wasn't really serious about it being either/or. Just keeping you on your toes. :)

The next generation of single aisles might fill a bit more of the lower end than A321XLR - otherwise there is nothing else on the drawing boards. Airbus had an NRA study about 10-15 years ago which looked at pretty much this market. It was binned (I don't know rationale, but I assume they found in favour of A330 re-engine).

787 would be in the box seat for decades.

Revelation wrote:
So Boeing should maximize its clean sheet investments, or each one should be a dead end, which is it?

See what I did there?


Nope, missed it. You mean if they don't do NMA, they are somehow not maximizing 787 investment?



Revelation wrote:
We already know it is a two aircraft family, see above.

The 787 has 50-70% more range and at least 10% more pax than the NMA

If we see a 797-4 it is very likely to be a more pax less range trade off just like 787-10 and 767-4 are so stretching the NMA is not likely going to add range, it's going to subtract range.

Boeing will wait to see what the market looks like before launching it, just like they did for 787-10 and 767-4.

If the 787-9 market is tapped and the 797-4 needs to add both range and capacity, they probably can do that too.

Again, the program will be targeted at a 40-50 year production run.

By the time it finishes, A321 as a metal narrowbody will be out of production for 20-30 years.

Lots of things will change by the time a stretch of the 797 is in play.


That is a seekingalpha chart - I wouldn't call it hard evidence just yet.

As you well know - every airliner has found efficiency savings after EIS and improvements in MTOW. If the basic airframe does those figures, then put 10% on it for improvements and within a few years of EIS, your deeply cannabalising 787. If the basic airframe doesn't do those figures and Boeing intend to grow into it - then will the airlines buy it?

I get that NMA would be a better product for most of the market than 787 - but as far as Boeing goes its robbing Peter to pay Paul (and I suppose, taking A330 orders too).


Which would then bring us onto the next can of worms.... if Boeing do 7AB - how will it look if and when Airbus do a clean sheet A330 replacement at 8AB?

[I don't take the ovoid 7AB fuselage as a magic pancea - the potential buckling mode of the floor beams causes all sorts of trouble.]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing walked this path before - and moved toward a longer ranged aircraft at the airlines' request.

And (a) has satisfied that customer base while (b) leaving a gap below for a new product.

I suspect we're just not going to end up in agreement.

Your focus seems to be historical norms, whereas I'm going with what hockey great Wayne Gretzky said: you don't aim for where the puck is, you aim for where the puck is going!


I could believe there will be a market for a high-cycle 300 seat 2500 nm aircraft. Is there right now? Erm, not sure, probably is.

I can't believe that Boeing's interests are best served by putting $15B into a 5000nm 280 seat aircraft that replaces the 767. Given they have just finished spending $20B on a 7000nm 300 seat aircraft that replaces the 767. Especially not when the 737 is so deep in the brown stuff and 777X is starting to look like a questionable business case.


Hopefully whatever they do, they do the right thing and it works. I (along with every other aero engineer on the planet) have a vested self-interest in healthy competition that forces both sides to respond to the other. Missteps lead to stagnation - and that leads to layoffs.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:27 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If you knew your Boeing history you would know that NSA back in 2011 was supposedly an Oval twin aisle in 2x3x2


Wise up.

They are never releasing something Ryanair would carry 200 people in at 7AB.


Wise up - An Ovalish 7W has no real cross section penalty (and up to an 25% advantage for Premium seats) for passengers any worse than A320 over 737 and potentially a 50-60% Cargo Volume Improvement.

It would be stubby - but not that stubby. The shortest Small wing NSA variant would probably be sized to seat Seat 200 in single class at "New Standard" 30-31" Seat pitch. No 29" Sardine class - although I'm sure it would take it but that would push it over 200 seats.

I suspect the Boeing Brazil project will result in a 5W aircraft to take on the space up to 175 seats- just like the A220 probably will.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:52 pm

Francoflier wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Yeah - which on A321 floor area equates to 240 seats single class!

So if you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 6AB, your probably looking at something like 132 seats first class (@39") and 72 seats economy (@32") to make it add up to 200 seats total.

If you've floor area for 270 seats single class in 7AB, then (assuming 6AB 1st class) you are looking at around:
- 42 1st class 6AB @39" / 175 economy 7AB @32" on conventional distribution of ~20% 1st class seats for a total of 217 seats
- 84 1st class 6AB @39" / 119 economy 7AB @32" to hit ~200 seats in 2-class configuration. That is 40% seats 1st class.

Do you not see the discrepancy?

You can't hit 200 seats 2 class and 270 seats single class without going far beyond the accepted norm of 1st vs. economy demand.


Be a little serious please

It works if is 7-abreast 275 passengers floor area as for 6-abrast 185-240 floor area, for the A321

We are not at a mistake of 5 seats.
I don't see the discrepancy. :scratchchin:


I'm afraid you really don't understand the point about 7 abreast seating. You essentially need to add the width of 2 aisles to your fuselage to gain the benefit of only one extra aisle.

Basically, compared to a 6 abreast single aisle or a 9/10 abreast twin aisle, your ratios of fuselage diameter per seat, floor area per seat and fuselage volume per seat are all worse. This means that you are carrying more fuselage weight per seat than any of the other layouts.

This is the dilemma that manufacturers have to deal with. It might be overcome through newer and fancier materials, but those can also be applied to the other cases, negating any advantage, or you can try oval fuselages or other 'out-of-the-box' methods to get around the inherent efficiency problem, but those would be very expensive to develop and certify.

I'm simply not sure there is a business case for a narrow twin aisle airplane. Single aisle aircraft can theoretically be stretched to where they almost meet the capacity and range of the smallest twin aisles (787-8 and 330-800) and Pax and airlines will always go for price over comfort.

At the very least, it's a very tight margin Boeing would venture into if they did.

Now, a true 8 abreast successor to the A310, and you've got my attention... ;)


So they are going to stretch the A321 from 240 Seat Sardine Single class to 788 359 Seat Sardine class? There is a lot bigger difference in seating capacity and flooring area than people are assuming.

NMA-2 I think is going to be A321 plus about 5% Sardine class - call it 250 seats 29" pitch and 270-280 Sardine class. An eventual NMA-4 would be more like 300-310 - 15-20% less than an 788.

The latest Boeing rumor on Fuselage design is that it is Ovalish - Half a Circle on top and say 1/3 of a larger diameter circle on Bottom. That takes care of the Floor being in Compression issue and is not that difficult to build.

The cross section would be about 25% more than an A320 for 16.7% more Y seats (call it an 8% penalty using really simple math) and up to 50% more premium seats (a 25% premium). The A320 has a cross section disadvantage to the 737 of about 10% and that doesn't seem to hurt it that much.

A tight narrow 160-165"H x185-190"W Ovalish 2x3x2 when you average it over Premium and Y seats could have an Advantage over A320 - plus you could have a custom container in the belly that holds 50-60% more volume due to the extra width.

It won't be that hard to build - Boeing has been working on that cross section for a decade and there is no real cross section disadvantage.

However there are Passenger experience Benefits especially on longer haul flights. Boeing would be smart to something different to differentiate themselves when COMAC comes on strong with C919 in a decade and ramps up production as they reuse NMA fuselage for NSA.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20592
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:08 pm

tphuang wrote:
Why would say it's indefensible point that air market in the 90s is similar to today's market? Back then, they didn't have lie flat seating on single aisle aircraft that was workable. They didn't have single aisle with transcon range let alone TATL range. 747 was needed for any ultra long haul flight. 787-3 didn't sell, because in the end airlines are always looking to upsize within an aircraft type since more seats means lower CASM.

Important questions since you know a lot. JetBlue probably needs an aircraft going forward that can fly further than what A321XLR does in 2023. If something like NMA enters service by 2026/7, will it have 5000+ nm TATL range in 2 class configurations? If it can, how many seats are we looking at in a premium heavy config (like for A321XLR will be 24 J + 125 Y/Y+ at 32/35 inch pitch). Something like UA has here https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Unite ... 300_ER.php but more premium would be the similar config for 767 (I'm guessing probably 200 seat in total). For NMA, how many seats would that be?

NMA would have to establish total operating cost per ASM of probably at least 10% lower than A321XLR over TATL flights (so CASM 10% lower than B788 8 years from now) for it to make sense for an airline. And that total cost would include the costs of operating/adding a new type, higher cost of purchase and higher pilot pay. How cheap does NMA have to be priced and how light does it have to be in order to do that.

What's the range advantage of NMA over A321XLR by 2027? Is it 500 miles or more? How many more relevant routes are we looking at? Most of TATL is already covered by A321XLR from NorthEast. NMA won't have the range to do TPAC unless Boeing wants to cannibalize 787. So if you are just operating single aisle and looking into expanding to long haul, what's the advantage of picking NMA over 787?

We don't have the numbers to answer your questions.

All we have is broad statements such as:

Tinseth reiterated Boeing’s contention that the type will offer “widebody comfort with single aisle economics.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... cis-453005

Yet if we allow for this to be true, most of your questions get answered in a positive way.

It seems airlines like UA and LH are waiting for this kind of product as opposed to XLR, and it wouldn't surprise me if various premium oriented airlines are as well.

B6 is an interesting test point at some point in the future. First of all we don't even know if their TATL business will succeed or not. Second as you point out it will be difficult for an airline heavily invested in Airbus to transition to an all-new Boeing product. Third, if their TATL business is a success they will have established a customer base content with Mint rather than "wide body comfort". Not a good potential customer for NMA IMHO.

As for encroaching on 787,

The Dreamliner, (Boeing vice president of commercial sales & marketing Ihssane) Mounir said, is “sub-optimised for — what you’re doing is carrying the structure that allows you to do seventeen hours. That’s the premise,” Mounir said.

Ref: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... -797-paxex

They sell it now in cases like HA because it is a modern clean sheet with great economics but they see they can do better if they trade range and capacity for economy.

morrisond wrote:
Wise up - An Ovalish 7W has no real cross section penalty (and up to an 25% advantage for Premium seats) for passengers any worse than A320 over 737 and potentially a 50-60% Cargo Volume Improvement.

Boeing is pushing the "wide body comfort" angle a lot:

RGN pressed Boeing vice president of commercial sales & marketing Ihssane Mounir for answers about the airframer’s PaxEx plans.

We’re optimising the fuselage for passenger comfort, is what we’re doing,” Mounir said. “That was my comment about the A321, being in it for eight hours.”

Mounir had suggested passengers would not want to spend longhaul flights in a narrowbody aircraft, in a sort of sideways shot at Airbus’ remarkably successful A321neo, including the A321LR and a much-rumoured capability-boosted stretch, purportedly the A321XLR. The airlines producing impressive passenger experience products in narrowbodies — JetBlue, for example, or all-Boeing customer flydubai — might show demonstrated evidence to the contrary.

When pressed on the NMA’s passenger experience, Mounir conceded that “we’re talking about a twin-aisle airplane. The whole premise of the NMA is twin-aisle comfort with the economics of a single aisle. That’s the premise.

Ref: https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2018/08/2 ... -797-paxex

Interestingly enough, LH's CEO just said the XLR is not a game changer and said it was not comfortable to spend more than four hours on a flight in a narrow-bodied aircraft ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1425571 ).

Seems he is reading from the NMA play book.
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
  • 1
  • 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