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.
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.
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?
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?
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.]