• 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
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
 
tphuang
Posts: 3110
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:42 pm

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

well, for each airlines, the economics are different. An airline that only operates A320 series vs an airline that operates several types including A320 vs an airline that does not operate A320 will all have different economics. Tinseth is really just marketing pitch.

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.

of course, even B6 is asking Boeing to put NMA in the market. Right now, airbus is getting away with murder on top of the single aisle market. At worst, NMA in the market would put a solid cap on A321XLR pricing, which is good for all the airline. At best, even an Airbus operator with huge A321 fleet like B6 could go for NMA. In the former case, Boeing will make airlines happy and shareholders not very happy. In the latter case, both airlines and shareholders will be happy.

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.


So this is another thing I think we can explore.

Someone like LH needs to have standardized j seating across its fleet. It's not a good thing for it to have a compact J seating on something like a321XLR and then much larger seating on A350 or 77X. So that's why I find the idea of NMA having more J seating per row laughable. On widebody (like what NMA will be), people will expect business class to be more spacious with bigger aisles. I'd be interested to see what they come up with, but it won't be like the compact stuff we see on A321.

That's how when installed with heavy premium config, you can get A321 of an all A320 fleet with comparable CASM to modern widebodies like 787 of a multiple fleet type operators. In that case, the widebody operator would have to make sure they can get a significant premium on their J seating and sell more of them to ensure they can cover all the cheap seats they have to sell to fill the cabin. That's a huge challenge even for an established airline like LH. Which is probably why they said they are happy B6 didn't have an aircraft that can compete fly to Germany (no longer true, sorry LH).
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:07 pm

Revelation wrote:
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


Far be it from me to disagree with Randy "the A321neo is just catching up with the 737-900ER" Tinseth, but.... [you know I can't resist :lol: ]

The 10AB 777 and 9AB 787 are not exactly stellar standard bearers for comfort.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:17 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
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.


Interesting.

Here are a few more

    767-2, OEW: 80.1-82.4T, A: 160m2, kg/m2: 500-515
    767-3, OEW: 86.1-90.0T, A:190m2, kg/m2:453-474
    787-8, OEW: 120.0T, A:232m2, kg/m2: 517
    787-9, OEW: 128.9T, A:266m2, kg/m2: 485
    787-10, OEW: 135.5T, A:299m2, kg/m2: 453

    A359, OEW: 142T, A:291m2, kg/m2: 488
    A35K, OEW: 155T, A:266m2, kg/m2: 470

    A332, OEW: 120.6T, A:238m2, kg/m2: 507
    A333, OEW: 129.4T, A:26m2, kg/m2: 486

    A338, OEW: 132T, A:238m2, kg/m2: 555
    A339, OEW: 137T, A:266m2, kg/m2: 515

    A300-600, OEW: 88.6T, A:215m2, kg/m2: 412

    A321c, OEW: 48.5T, A:127m2, kg/m2: 382
    A321n, OEW: 50.1T, A:127m2, kg/m2: 394


The A300-600 is significantly lighter than the 767 which would be the 7AB aircraft Boeing are supposedly seeking to replace. The range of the A300 was only about half of that which is slated for NMA (according to that chart Rev is posting up).

You wont get the range (or engines) without a weight penalty.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:31 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... ;)


Do not agree does not mean, do not understand...

In addition you seem not to know the file.

This is a flat-belly fret oval-ish 7-abreast for shaving weight :bigthumbsup:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:50 pm

Francoflier wrote:

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.
(...)


Let me add to that.

Then once one has added the second aisle for 7-abreast, it becomes irresistible to turn the project into an 8-abreast aircraft. The second aisle is already there so one adds 17 in. to the fuselage width and the capacity gets bumped by 14%. The only way to stop the project transition from 7- to 8-abreast is to shut out reality.

That is part of the reason why there is a gap in the market. It is just reality.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
(...)
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.


Where are those 8-abreast coach sections of the 787? They are gone. How about the 9-abreast 777 coach sections? On the way to extinction. How about the amazing cross section of the A380? Getting parked at a rate that shocks us all. Comfort of economy sections beyond some minimum bare standards makes very little difference on passenger purchase decisions. Price and schedule are much bigger factors.

I do find LH a very traditional airline. They are averse to change. But reality is catching up to them.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:52 pm

tphuang wrote:
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.

For you to even think that it is a joke really shows you are unknowledgeable. :sarcastic:

Business class seating always has wider aisles. So your point is irrelevant.

Economy aisle width actually varies by half a foot already from widest to narrowest. And guess what? The widest aisle happens to be on a single aisle aircraft and the narrowest aisle is on a twin aisle aircraft.
 
DCA350
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:52 pm

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.[/quote]


I don't think anybody is questioning that there is a market.. I think what's in question is, how big is said market and does it justify a clean sheet, knowing that the 737 and 777X markets will eventually have to be addressed with Clean Sheets. One of beauties of a duopoly is customers have limited options.. The NMA based on a 787 might be less than ideal but airlines that want that capacity for a medium range airliner won't have any other option as it's going to be significantly better than the A338. BA takes the upper end with the modified 787 and Airbus takes the lower end with the XLR.. Both sides win..
 
tphuang
Posts: 3110
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:02 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
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.

For you to even think that it is a joke really shows you are unknowledgeable. :sarcastic:

Business class seating always has wider aisles. So your point is irrelevant.

Economy aisle width actually varies by half a foot already from widest to narrowest. And guess what? The widest aisle happens to be on a single aisle aircraft and the narrowest aisle is on a twin aisle aircraft.


I never claimed to be knowledgeable.

My point on J is not irrelevant, since an airline operating A321 will be able to pack lie flat seating into much smaller real estate than an airline operating widebody. Given that these are mostly for TATL flights which can be quite premium heavy, that's a huge deal. When 40% of your aircraft is used for lie flat seating, the % of floor space wasted as aisle space is a big deal.

As for economy aisle width being narrow on single aisle, those airlines can also make single aisles narrow too. Just look at WN, their aisle is quite narrow.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:04 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
The A300-600 is significantly lighter than the 767 which would be the 7AB aircraft Boeing are supposedly seeking to replace. The range of the A300 was only about half of that which is slated for NMA (according to that chart Rev is posting up).

You wont get the range (or engines) without a weight penalty.

You will notice the empty weight is directly proportional to range. The shortest range aircraft is the lightest for any given cabin area.

The 767 being heavier than the A300 has nothing to do with it being 7ab it is because the 767 is able to fly nearly twice as far. With any given generation of aircraft weight goes up significantly as range increases. Likewise the aircraft can be designed lighter if the range requirement itls decreased.

The 797 published range is only 450nm greater than the A300. 4050nm vs 4500nm. Definitely not half as you stated. No weight gain would be required to get such a small range increase as 40 years of engine tech improvements would easily cover that.

If anything a straight NEO of the A300 would get well over 5000nm range so the 797 could be designed even lighter than the A300 without even taking into account the use of carbon.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13121
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:08 pm

DCA350 wrote:
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.



I don't think anybody is questioning that there is a market.. I think what's in question is, how big is said market and does it justify a clean sheet, knowing that the 737 and 777X markets will eventually have to be addressed with Clean Sheets. One of beauties of a duopoly is customers have limited options.. The NMA based on a 787 might be less than ideal but airlines that want that capacity for a medium range airliner won't have any other option as it's going to be significantly better than the A338. BA takes the upper end with the modified 787 and Airbus takes the lower end with the XLR.. Both sides win..[/quote]

I looked at a 787 based NMA years ago. It would be rechnically possible, but expensive to develop, build and operate IMO.

Image

viewtopic.php?t=1358167
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:24 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
The A300-600 is significantly lighter than the 767 which would be the 7AB aircraft Boeing are supposedly seeking to replace. The range of the A300 was only about half of that which is slated for NMA (according to that chart Rev is posting up).

You wont get the range (or engines) without a weight penalty.

You will notice the empty weight is directly proportional to range. The shortest range aircraft is the lightest for any given cabin area.

The 767 being heavier than the A300 has nothing to do with it being 7ab it is because the 767 is able to fly nearly twice as far.


Erm, I never said that weight difference was due to it being 7AB - that'd be silly when we are measuring m2 and not seats - it was pointing out that with a narrow fuselage the 767 is still heavier due to other reasons (i.e. range).

Also, OEW isn't necessarily directly proportional to range. Consider the 767 - enabling or disabling the centre tank added much to range beyond the weight increase.

Against that, modern wings, being both thinner and lower area (higher CLcruise), obviously won't come with the same scope for fuel in wings.

Anyhoo - we really need to get the fuel fractions, ranges and go from there in comparing airframe OEW per cabin m2 per nm range (or a function of them).


RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 published range is only 450nm greater than the A300. 4050nm vs 4500nm. Definitely not half as you stated.


Would you believe I was looking at take-off field length and not range. :oops:
 
Sokes
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:47 pm

Suppose:
Continental budget airlines/ point to point go for B737 MAX8/ 9 or A320/ A321.
Continental connecting flights from hubs needing more than A321 seating capacity go for B797 or bigger.
Intercontinental (e.g.TATL US East coast to Europe) point to hub with high demand for business seats (1-2-1) goes for B797.
Intercontinental (e.g.TATL US East coast to Europe) point to hub with low demand for premium seats go for A321.
Intercontinental (e.g.TATL US East coast to Europe) hub to hub (e.g. Paris-NY) go for A330/ B787/ A350 (freight).
Would continental business (2-2-2) be acceptable?
How many B797 would that require?
Is there no place for B797 even if A321 has better CASM?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:01 pm

tphuang wrote:
My point on J is not irrelevant, since an airline operating A321 will be able to pack lie flat seating into much smaller real estate than an airline operating widebody.

It is irrelevant. The lie flat J seat is the same size regardless of aircraft. It does not become smaller on a single aisle.

American has 1-1 lie flat beds in the A321. It has a massive 36inch wide aisle or 18inch of aisle space per seat which is a waste of space. The A321 cabin is too wide for 1-1 but it is too narrow for 1-1-1. 2-2 business class seating which also gets used on narrowbodies required the window seat to step over aisle seat and the seat itself is more like a premium economy widebody seat.

Now the 797 could simply run 1-1-1 using the same angled bed seat American uses. To give the same aisle percentage the 797 would need 54inchs of total aisle or two 27inch aisles. 27inch is still very wide and 3ab is 50% more seats than 2ab in the A321.

The most important feature is the 797 will allow both 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 business class bed seating. All seats have direct aisle access.

The 797 will allow:
1-1-1 first class angled bed seats
1-2-1 business class straight bed seats
2-2-2 premium economy recliners
2-3-2 mainline economy seats
2-4-2 low cost carrier seats with narrow aisles.
 
Sokes
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:22 pm

If one compares the cross section of 7 abreast economy B767 with 6 abreast economy A321, the B767 has no chance.
If one compares the cross section of 1-2-1 business of a B797 with a 1-2-1 business of a B787/ A350, the B797 does quite well.
To follow RJMAZ, maybe the two main advantages of the B797 are capacity for hub airlines and an "economical" 1-2-1 business/ 2-2-2 premium economy. I assume the plane will have a disadvantage for economy seats.
However if only 85% of economy seats are sold, nobody will have to take a middle seat. If only 20% are willing to pay extra, the airline can't charge extra. But if two airlines offer the same rate, frequent flyers might know which airline to choose.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3135
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:30 pm

Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:34 pm

More on topic; I see no reason whatsoever Airbus cannot respond to the NMA sandwiching it further with a stretched 322 alongside a next-gen 8AB that has a much different focus then the original A300.

<sarcasm>
And if everyone is consistent they will tell you that a next-gen 8AB will undermine the 9AB A350 that Airbus just invested so much in, and instead Airbus should just clip a few feet off the A350 wing, slap on winglets, and Bob's your uncle. Also, that A322 is a great idea, but, grandfathering will prevent it from happening.
</sarcasm>
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
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
More on topic; I see no reason whatsoever Airbus cannot respond to the NMA sandwiching it further with a stretched 322 alongside a next-gen 8AB that has a much different focus then the original A300.

<sarcasm>
And if everyone is consistent they will tell you that a next-gen 8AB will undermine the 9AB A350 that Airbus just invested so much in, and instead Airbus should just clip a few feet off the A350 wing, slap on winglets, and Bob's your uncle. Also, that A322 is a great idea, but, grandfathering will prevent it from happening.
</sarcasm>



I don't get your sarcasm. The 330 is universally considered too large and heavy, too capable in performance, for it's category. It sits too close to the A350, and the fuselage is too wide for 8AB, too narrow for 9AB. How would optimising the plane for it's intended segment by trimming it's size and weight; less pax & cargo, maybe even less range undermine the A350? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Last edited by Absynth on Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sabby
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:40 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
My point on J is not irrelevant, since an airline operating A321 will be able to pack lie flat seating into much smaller real estate than an airline operating widebody.

It is irrelevant. The lie flat J seat is the same size regardless of aircraft. It does not become smaller on a single aisle.

Many airlines use the same 1-2-1 seats on their 77W as well A330, DL even have 1-2-1 on their 767s. You'd be amazed how J seats can be configured with varying density to utilize space. What tphuang means is that same lie flat seats can be configured in narrow body aircraft with very little amount of space wasted.

RJMAZ wrote:
American has 1-1 lie flat beds in the A321. It has a massive 36inch wide aisle or 18inch of aisle space per seat which is a waste of space. The A321 cabin is too wide for 1-1 but it is too narrow for 1-1-1. 2-2 business class seating which also gets used on narrowbodies required the window seat to step over aisle seat and the seat itself is more like a premium economy widebody seat.


You are talking about F seats in 1-1 for AA A321T, they have 2-2 J seats. UA have the same B/E Diamond 2-2-2 seats in their 787s on some of their longest flights, quite a few big airlines over the world do too e.g. QF(A380,747,A330), KLM(777,A330), AF(A330), LH etc. If Airlines are going to operate NMA instead of current wide body aircraft to reduce cost, you bet they will use denser business class seats, especially since we are talking about mostly under 7-8 hour flights.


RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will allow:
1-1-1 first class angled bed seats
1-2-1 business class straight bed seats
2-2-2 premium economy recliners
2-3-2 mainline economy seats
2-4-2 low cost carrier seats with narrow aisles.

I doubt the NMA will have First and PY for most airlines if it is like 767 in size and a bit lower in the range. I mean F is almost gone in most airlines, especially for shorter routes and PY is still not universal yet. The airlines who will have premium heavy configuration will operate 789/A359 because the seat count drops real fast when you add high J and proper PY seats. Look at QF 789, SQ A359, 77W, CX 77W.
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:48 pm

Revelation wrote:
More on topic; I see no reason whatsoever Airbus cannot respond to the NMA sandwiching it further with a stretched 322 alongside a next-gen 8AB that has a much different focus then the original A300.

<sarcasm>
And if everyone is consistent they will tell you that a next-gen 8AB will undermine the 9AB A350 that Airbus just invested so much in, and instead Airbus should just clip a few feet off the A350 wing, slap on winglets, and Bob's your uncle. Also, that A322 is a great idea, but, grandfathering will prevent it from happening.
</sarcasm>



Oh well, you may remove the sarcasm and write more or less the same lines. The 339 undermined the A350.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:02 pm

incitatus wrote:
Revelation wrote:
More on topic; I see no reason whatsoever Airbus cannot respond to the NMA sandwiching it further with a stretched 322 alongside a next-gen 8AB that has a much different focus then the original A300.

<sarcasm>
And if everyone is consistent they will tell you that a next-gen 8AB will undermine the 9AB A350 that Airbus just invested so much in, and instead Airbus should just clip a few feet off the A350 wing, slap on winglets, and Bob's your uncle. Also, that A322 is a great idea, but, grandfathering will prevent it from happening.
</sarcasm>

Oh well, you may remove the sarcasm and write more or less the same lines. The 339 undermined the A350.

And thus on to the third bite of the apple, a "next-gen 8AB" ? Or fourth if you consider "a stretched 322"? Or fifth if you consider A321XLR to be a "MOM"? Or sixth if we consider what "A350 MkI" should have been a dozen years ago? Nothing left to the apple but core, no?

Meanwhile, Boeing should forget NMA, and go with MAX-10 and a castrated 787, because that will make the stock holders happiest?

I think I'll stick with the sarcasm tags, TYVM.
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
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
And thus on to the third bite of the apple, a "next-gen 8AB" ? Or fourth if you consider "a stretched 322"? Or fifth if you consider A321XLR to be a "MOM"? Or sixth if we consider what "A350 MkI" should have been a dozen years ago? Nothing left to the apple but core, no?

I think I'll stick with the sarcasm tags, TYVM.


Now you are being disingenuous. Sour grapes much?

First of all the 321XLR is 6AB single aisle with shorter range. That's a completely different market then the 330 serves.

Second, it's a 757 replacement in the 180-240 pax range. It is only a 'sliver' of the bottom end of the 767 target market.

Thirdly, why are you making the continued case for the Boeing NMA while you deny that same MoM 250-300pax market for Airbus to enter? That's just beyond weird.

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile, Boeing should forget NMA, and go with MAX-10 and a castrated 787, because that will make the stock holders happiest?


Red herring. Literally nobody is claiming this. The opposing position to the NMA-then-NSA strategy that is being taken here is they should focus on a ground-up 6AB single aisle design FIRST, instead of trying to shoe-horn a 7AB widebody into the mainstream NB market.
 
Absynth
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:10 pm

And you know this very well. The argument has been made over a hundred times by now, by dozens of people, if not more.

I'm a bit baffled by your bizarre response TBH.
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
(...)

Meanwhile, Boeing should forget NMA, and go with MAX-10 and a castrated 787, because that will make the stock holders happiest?

I think I'll stick with the sarcasm tags, TYVM.


I never suggested any sort of yet another 737 derivative, even if just a slight stretch, nor have I brought up Boeing's stockholders.

I go from a basic principle. The airframe makers and the airlines that buy their products exist to take people where they want to go - with safety, reliability and affordability in mind. An A321XLR makes sense from that perspective. A substantially redesigned 787 for shorter hauls makes more sense than a large expenditure on a new program to design something slightly smaller with less range. As for 7-abreast, I am waiting for that "magic" cross section that makes the burden of a second aisle disappear.

Evidently, I see that part of what I wrote is opinion, not fact. I might be wrong. But my opinion has not changed considering everything I read in this thread in the last week. The beauty of a.net is that in a couple of years we can come back to same thread with hindsight 20/20.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:31 pm

Sokes wrote:
If one compares the cross section of 7 abreast economy B767 with 6 abreast economy A321, the B767 has no chance.
If one compares the cross section of 1-2-1 business of a B797 with a 1-2-1 business of a B787/ A350, the B797 does quite well.
To follow RJMAZ, maybe the two main advantages of the B797 are capacity for hub airlines and an "economical" 1-2-1 business/ 2-2-2 premium economy. I assume the plane will have a disadvantage for economy seats.
However if only 85% of economy seats are sold, nobody will have to take a middle seat. If only 20% are willing to pay extra, the airline can't charge extra. But if two airlines offer the same rate, frequent flyers might know which airline to choose.

The 767 in 8ab has excellent economy seat economics. It uses 16.4inch wide seats and for short haul this would be fine. With the 787 using standard 17.2inch "Boeing" seats the 767 only needs to be 0.8inch wider per seat or a 6.4inch wider fuselage.

I am certain the 797 fuselage width will be half way between the width of the 767 and A300. This will allow standard 787 economy seats with narrow aisles.

All the official press documents have stated widebody with narrowbody economics and have not mentioned 7ab. That is an airliners.net assumption.

The "official" seating capacity numbers given for the 797 are with a Boeing 2 class cabin. The smallest 797 capacity is still two rows larger than the A310 so it will not need to be that stubby even if it is 8ab.

The largest seating capacity number for the 797 of 270 seats 2 class is between the 767-300 and 767-400. This would mean a very long and skinny fuselage if it was 7ab. If the fuselage cross section was oval or reduced height it would look even skinnier when viewed from the side.

Considering most aircraft get a fuselage stretch after engines improve there would be no room to stretch such a pencil shaped 7ab fuselage.

Boeing will be planning this aircraft to be in production for 30 years so they will plan for a fuselage stretch. There are probably 1000 A330CEO and 787-8's that are currently doing regional and domestic work that will eventually need to be replaced. I expect future 797's to capture the majority of this market.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3110
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:34 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
My point on J is not irrelevant, since an airline operating A321 will be able to pack lie flat seating into much smaller real estate than an airline operating widebody.

It is irrelevant. The lie flat J seat is the same size regardless of aircraft. It does not become smaller on a single aisle.

American has 1-1 lie flat beds in the A321. It has a massive 36inch wide aisle or 18inch of aisle space per seat which is a waste of space. The A321 cabin is too wide for 1-1 but it is too narrow for 1-1-1. 2-2 business class seating which also gets used on narrowbodies required the window seat to step over aisle seat and the seat itself is more like a premium economy widebody seat.

Now the 797 could simply run 1-1-1 using the same angled bed seat American uses. To give the same aisle percentage the 797 would need 54inchs of total aisle or two 27inch aisles. 27inch is still very wide and 3ab is 50% more seats than 2ab in the A321.

The most important feature is the 797 will allow both 1-1-1 and 1-2-1 business class bed seating. All seats have direct aisle access.

The 797 will allow:
1-1-1 first class angled bed seats
1-2-1 business class straight bed seats
2-2-2 premium economy recliners
2-3-2 mainline economy seats
2-4-2 low cost carrier seats with narrow aisles.


for someone who knows a lot, it seems like you are very rigid on j seating. Maybe you can look up and fly some business class seating and find out the vast differences in the real estate they occupy in reality. Like for example, they use the same seat on CX for A350 and B77W. But if you've actually flown them, you'd know that A350's J seat has slightly less space. And that's for the same airline.

They've managed to come up with a config for A321 that is 2 seat per row, but each row only takes up 33 inch in pitch (meaning start of one row to next row is 33 inch). And due to the angling and such, those came out to be full sized flat bed in extended forms. A330 on CX has 3 seat per row in J, but even that takes up more than 33 inch in pitch. 797 may be able to hold 3 angled flat bed in a row but each of the rows are going to be more than 33 inch in from the beginning of one row to beginning of next. If you lay 3 85 inch seat almost horizontally in a row and add 2 wide aisles for business class, do you think that can fit in the cross section of 797? Remember, 797 cross section is one seat + one "narrow aisle" according to you more than 320's cross section. If that seat is 21 inch across including the armrest and the narrow aisle is 16 inch, then it would only need to be about 40 inch wider in cross section than 320. Is that enough to fit 85 inch seat angled to almost horizontally?

On A321, you are basically getting 1 J seat for each 3 y seat. And that can be verified on A321 mint configuration where they traded 47 Y seat from all core configuration for 16 J seat. There isn't a single widebody aircraft that offers that kind of ratio. It just doesn't exist.

As for your comment about 1-2-1 straight lie flat layout. Based on AA's 767 layout, each J row takes up about 60 inch in pitch per row.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... 67-300.php
and those are with some of the narrowest lie flat bed I've ever sat in. It was not comfortable. Note how it's 20 inch based on the layout there.

So if NMA adapts those same seating (even if it had same cross section as 767), it would get 4 lie flat seating for 60 inch in pitch. A321 would get 4 lie flat seating for 66 inch in pitch.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:10 am

tphuang wrote:
On A321, you are basically getting 1 J seat for each 3 y seat. And that can be verified on A321 mint configuration where they traded 47 Y seat from all core configuration for 16 J seat. There isn't a single widebody aircraft that offers that kind of ratio. It just doesn't exist.

The mint "business" class seats run 2-2 for every second row. The window seat does not have direct aisle access, you can hardly call this business class to the standards of a widebody.

You can get any ratio if you are willing to reduce seating area and aisle access. It is simple. Pitch multiplied by width you get the seat area. The A321 is not magic that it creates extra cabin area out of thin air. If the A321 runs 1-1 business class it is a huge waste of space. If it runs 2-2 the seats are too narrow and the window passenger has to climb over a sleeping passenger to go to the toilet.

tphuang wrote:
As for your comment about 1-2-1 straight lie flat layout. Based on AA's 767 layout, each J row takes up about 60 inch in pitch per row.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... 67-300.php
and those are with some of the narrowest lie flat bed I've ever sat in. It was not comfortable. Note how it's 20 inch based on the layout there.

If the mint 2-2 beds on the A321 are acceptable then the 1-2-1 beds on the 767 are also acceptable. Even if you double the aisle width the 767 will be able to have much wider beds.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:10 am

william wrote:
Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.

:banghead:
That would be asking a lot!
 
alyusuph
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:33 am

planecane wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
SelseyBill wrote:

Completely agree.

If I'm Boeing right now, Im looking to launch a 797, but it would be a slightly wider, higher-sitting 3-3 narrow-body all new 737 replacement, sitting between the E2 and the 788. and roughly covering the 180/210/240 seat ranges.


You can say it again! Boeing should shelve the double isle idea for the 797, Just get a clean sheet 737-10 with 3-3 seating, bigger belly cargo and in-cabin luggage space, slightly wider and a bit more longer fuselage, longer landing gear, borrow the Carbon fiber technologies from the 787, very long ranges. The longer they delay to make decisions the worse it will get. Boeing should learn from the "boiling frog metaphor".


NMA needs to be bigger and have longer range than the 321 if it is a clean sheet. There is no business case to spend $15 billion to split the A321 market space. A replacement for the whole 737 series needs to be at least 15% more fuel efficient than the 737MAX to be worth the investment. The necessary engine tech for that won't be here soon enough for a 2025 or 2026 EIS.


If Boeing had the tooling for the 757, a 757NG/Max might have been an appropriate stop gap measure
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
planecane
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:14 am

alyusuph wrote:
planecane wrote:
alyusuph wrote:

You can say it again! Boeing should shelve the double isle idea for the 797, Just get a clean sheet 737-10 with 3-3 seating, bigger belly cargo and in-cabin luggage space, slightly wider and a bit more longer fuselage, longer landing gear, borrow the Carbon fiber technologies from the 787, very long ranges. The longer they delay to make decisions the worse it will get. Boeing should learn from the "boiling frog metaphor".


NMA needs to be bigger and have longer range than the 321 if it is a clean sheet. There is no business case to spend $15 billion to split the A321 market space. A replacement for the whole 737 series needs to be at least 15% more fuel efficient than the 737MAX to be worth the investment. The necessary engine tech for that won't be here soon enough for a 2025 or 2026 EIS.


If Boeing had the tooling for the 757, a 757NG/Max might have been an appropriate stop gap measure

The changes that would be needed to make the 757 competitive with the A321XLR would not be cheap or simply slapping new engines on. For a similar investment they could make a 737MOM (how's that for a name?) by stretching and putting a new wing on the 737 (which would enable taller gear to be added). The 757 would have likely required a new wing anyway.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:06 am

planecane wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
planecane wrote:

NMA needs to be bigger and have longer range than the 321 if it is a clean sheet. There is no business case to spend $15 billion to split the A321 market space. A replacement for the whole 737 series needs to be at least 15% more fuel efficient than the 737MAX to be worth the investment. The necessary engine tech for that won't be here soon enough for a 2025 or 2026 EIS.


If Boeing had the tooling for the 757, a 757NG/Max might have been an appropriate stop gap measure

The changes that would be needed to make the 757 competitive with the A321XLR would not be cheap or simply slapping new engines on. For a similar investment they could make a 737MOM (how's that for a name?) by stretching and putting a new wing on the 737 (which would enable taller gear to be added). The 757 would have likely required a new wing anyway.

We did coin a name here for just such a thing, Mad MAX, back in the days leading up to what became MAX-10: viewtopic.php?t=1344107

We even had the usual dubious fly-splattered photoshop creation:

Image

This was in the time where -10 was not yet announced and all kinds of proposals were swirling around.

One camp thought there would be an "improved" MAX as NMA, others thought there would be a relatively simple stretch of MAX nicknamed MaxDumbo and a clean sheet NMA.

Of course the later is the direction Boeing proceeded along.

And, yeah, 757MAX is as dead as dead can be. It makes no sense on so many dimensions. It is a pre-digital program. Everything about it is too heavy. There is no modern engine for it and no vendor would make one for such a poor product. The last thing Boeing needs now is another "retrograde" program. It's time to move on to NSA via its pre-cursor, NMA.
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: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:11 am

william wrote:
Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.


So how did the 747-8 and A380 work out for these all knowing corporations?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3135
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:02 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
william wrote:
Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.


So how did the 747-8 and A380 work out for these all knowing corporations?


Easy to pick to examples out of many. Boeing and Airbus have way more hits than misses. They know their market.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3110
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:03 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
On A321, you are basically getting 1 J seat for each 3 y seat. And that can be verified on A321 mint configuration where they traded 47 Y seat from all core configuration for 16 J seat. There isn't a single widebody aircraft that offers that kind of ratio. It just doesn't exist.

The mint "business" class seats run 2-2 for every second row. The window seat does not have direct aisle access, you can hardly call this business class to the standards of a widebody.

You can get any ratio if you are willing to reduce seating area and aisle access. It is simple. Pitch multiplied by width you get the seat area. The A321 is not magic that it creates extra cabin area out of thin air. If the A321 runs 1-1 business class it is a huge waste of space. If it runs 2-2 the seats are too narrow and the window passenger has to climb over a sleeping passenger to go to the toilet.

I just posted a link in this thread of how the 1-1 J seat would look like on A321. It's a really space efficient set up and provides direct aisle access and only 33 inch per row. This set up wasn't available when mint was launched, but it is now. Have you bothered looking these things up before commenting?

I use mint as an example because that's one place where they adopted really efficient space usage with full lie flat season and were able to squeeze in 16 J seat in place of 47 Y seat. So if setup correctly, you can get 3 Y for 1 J seat on A321 in premium layout.
If the mint 2-2 beds on the A321 are acceptable then the 1-2-1 beds on the 767 are also acceptable. Even if you double the aisle width the 767 will be able to have much wider beds.

again, I'm comparing 1-1 J seat vs 1-2-1 on 767. You get 2 rows of 1-1 J seat and it takes 66 inch in pitch and you get 1 row of 1-2-1 beds on 767 and that takes at minimum 60 inch in pitch despite the much wider cross section.. And those 767s have the narrowest bed I've ever had on any J flat bed seating. And I've even had the displeasure of trying out EK's 7 across 777 J cabin

A321's j seating area by having one aisle saves a lot of space compared to widebodies having 2 really wide aisles.

The question here should be whether or not airlines can get premium for having more real estate for widebodies rather than whether or not they can be as space efficient, because the answer for that is definitely no.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:34 pm

william wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
william wrote:
Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.


So how did the 747-8 and A380 work out for these all knowing corporations?


Easy to pick to examples out of many. Boeing and Airbus have way more hits than misses. They know their market.


or the A340-500/600
or the 787-3 [could let Boeing off with this as they cancelled fairly early - but there was still substantial money put into it in contracts/promises]
or the A350-800 [similar, but not quite as good as above - a good bit of money spent here]
or the 767-400ER
or the 737 max7 [enough unique structure to define this as an investment failure]



Their hit rates are nothing stellar given the markets they are operating in and the money they spend on evaluating those markets. Having "more hits than misses" when you are spending literally millions upon millions in researching your markets is nothing to crow about.
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:50 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
(...)

All the official press documents have stated widebody with narrowbody economics and have not mentioned 7ab. That is an airliners.net assumption.

(...)


Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.

Of course, this being official press, we can't give it too much credit, regardless of it coming from Boeing or Airbus.

The possibility that you raised - NMA ends up being 8-abreast, is another point in favor of a shorthaul redo of the 787 - the "castrated" version.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3077
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:02 pm

Positioning a new aircraft into its market is difficult. There are misses.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
HugoJunkers
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:17 pm

sassiciai wrote:
tomcat wrote:
One area where the NMA can make a difference is the cruise speed as the M.78 cruise speed of the XLR is not ideal for flight duration reaching 8 to 10 hours. A NMA cruising at M.85 or M.86 could save up to 50 minutes or so on a 4500nm flight compared to the XLR.

In the grand scheme of things, is a 50 minute reduction on a 12+ hour experience worth much? (12 hours is the 8 - 10 hour flight, plus the pre- and after- flight bits). Would you pay a mythical $500 for a M.85 flight to get to the destination 50 mins earlier than the alternative at M.78 at $400? If you answer "Yes", I think that you are in a small minority, or have someone else paying your ticket!

Look at how successful the Sonic Cruiser concept was!


Speed and altitude will probably become an issue for the XLR. One issue will be that more elaborate crew rest areas will be needed should the XLR start improving its range much without also speeding up. I suspect at some point Airbus will develop a new wing box to fit a composite wing. The wing will be lighter, hold more fuel, be slipperier. Meanwhile second gen turbofans will increase range a few percentage points. With new engines the A321XLR may hit ranges of 5000nm and with a new wing 5250nm, maybe more if MTOW goes up.

The thing is if Boeing launch the NMA it will surely only start deliveries in 2026 giving Airbus a 3 year lead. What will AB offer in 3 years time.
 
2175301
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:17 pm

incitatus wrote:

Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.


Absolutely agree with this. The NMA, if launched, will be the next generation of aircraft. I have no doubt that it's basic press release claim will hold up on the economics. I also have no doubt that no one else will be able to effectively counter it in its market with older generation aircraft.

We have seen that many times over the decades. Newer generation aircraft displace older generation aircraft due to the improved efficiencies and cost.

I really don't understand the people who don't understand that a new generation of aircraft can obsolete the previous generations... History is very convincing on that.

Have a great day,
 
hawk2100n
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:25 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:26 pm

incitatus wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
(...)

All the official press documents have stated widebody with narrowbody economics and have not mentioned 7ab. That is an airliners.net assumption.

(...)


Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.

Of course, this being official press, we can't give it too much credit, regardless of it coming from Boeing or Airbus.

The possibility that you raised - NMA ends up being 8-abreast, is another point in favor of a shorthaul redo of the 787 - the "castrated" version.


There are a lot of ways to think about how they can make the economics work but at the end of the day, a 787-8 has an OEW that is more than 60k lbs higher than an 767-300ER. Then recall that the operating economics are superior on longer stages (at 4500 nmi+) are superior on the 787, then you have to think, how would an aircraft that has similar or less OEW than a 767-300ER (less than 200k lbs dry) perform with next generation wing and engine technology?

This aircraft would probably have 5000 - 6000 nmi range, seat ~220 passengers, and have a similar footprint to the 767, but would carry 30% less fuel, have a smaller wing, and lower landing fees while still having 7 or 8 abreast seating.

This is the potential of the NMA, saving 60k-80k lbs over a 787 for 10 hour missions. It would outperform a 787 on everything up to it's max range, and have the payload and passenger capacity to really bring in the right mix of revenues (premium, eco, cargo).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21214
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:32 pm

2175301 wrote:
incitatus wrote:

Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.


Absolutely agree with this. The NMA, if launched, will be the next generation of aircraft. I have no doubt that it's basic press release claim will hold up on the economics. I also have no doubt that no one else will be able to effectively counter it in its market with older generation aircraft.

We have seen that many times over the decades. Newer generation aircraft displace older generation aircraft due to the improved efficiencies and cost.

I really don't understand the people who don't understand that a new generation of aircraft can obsolete the previous generations... History is very convincing on that.

Have a great day,

It seems some people are taking a very narrow view of a very broad term, "economics".

It seems some people think the primary factor of "economics" is cross section and drag.

It seems some people don't want to take in the idea that end to end model based engineering coupled with a new approach to production and large reuse of proven 787 and 777x tech can change economics as well as can cross section and drag.

I'm fine with skepticism of a marketing slogan, but I think some people are missing the forest for the trees.

And I'm also not saying Airbus can't or won't be in a similar place at a similar time if they chose to do so.

The thing is we have a pretty reasonable paper trail going back to Project Black Diamond and lots of executive level statements stating the intent.

Hopefully they can execute the stated intention, but the fact that it's such a big gamble on something that is not a certainty is what makes it so interesting to watch this industry.
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: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:46 pm

2175301 wrote:
I really don't understand the people who don't understand that a new generation of aircraft can obsolete the previous generations... History is very convincing on that.


I wouldn't agree that recent history suggests that is always the case at all.

Did CS300 obsolete the A320neo or 787-8?
Did 787 obsolete the A330neo?
Did A380 obsolete 77W?

In all instances, a re-engine of an existing frame (with perhaps some minor mods thrown in) have remained at least somewhat competitive with, or significantly better in some cases, other new aircraft that would have been expected to clean up the markets.

Between efficiency of established high production rates, only incremental gains in aerodynamic performance and bad market placement - there is plenty of scope for a new design to not make the impact envisaged.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:52 pm

2175301 wrote:
incitatus wrote:

Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.


Absolutely agree with this. The NMA, if launched, will be the next generation of aircraft. I have no doubt that it's basic press release claim will hold up on the economics. I also have no doubt that no one else will be able to effectively counter it in its market with older generation aircraft.

We have seen that many times over the decades. Newer generation aircraft displace older generation aircraft due to the improved efficiencies and cost.

I really don't understand the people who don't understand that a new generation of aircraft can obsolete the previous generations... History is very convincing on that.

Have a great day,


I'll disagree with this. It could be close to a wash on whether or not a Clean Sheet 6W would have any advantage over a tight/light Ovalish 7W 2x3x2. When you do the cross section math it's only 25% more cross section than 6W for 16.7% more Seats and up to 50% more Premium seats. At the same capacity a 6W would have to be a lot longer.

The wetted area disadvantage of the Wider fuselage as it's shorter might not be that bad. You also have the the issues on adequate stiffness in a 6W longer than A321 which is where the market seems to be going from a capacity standpoint.

Offset by the Issues of making an 7W oval adequately stiff - maybe not such a big issue with Carbon and the rumor that it's not actually an Oval but 1/2 of say an 185" Outer Diameter Circle on Top and say 1/4 of an much bigger Circle on the bottom - which might take care of the floor beam compression issues as well. There might be a small aero benefit to this as the flatter belly could help generate lift as a quasi lifting body.

With the growth in the air market 10 years from now A321 size might be the minimum size for mainline and you may need something that goes two sizes larger than that. That will be hard to do with a 6W.

A 7W small wing NSA could be made to work for 200 Seat Single class (A320.5 size) and 5W take care of everything under that. The rumoured A220-500 seems like it will be able to be stretched to take on the short haul A320/738 space.

It's hard to see Boeing Brazil doing anything other than a 5W as there next cleansheet so I see it hard to see Boeing doing an 8W or 7W NMA and then an 6W NSA. The most logical solution is to do 7W for there mainline solution in NMA (Big Wing) and NSA (Small Wing) versions to save on development costs and give them something unique in the shorter range NSA space at maybe not that much if any penalty at all over 6W.

If the do 8W NMA and 6W NSA - they would then have 4W and 5W Boeing Brazil, 6W, 8W, 9W 787 and 10W 777. - That doesn't seem that efficient to me. Arguably I would reduce it to 5W, 7W and 9W long term if 777X turns out to be short lived (I think it's real long term potential will be stretching it to 85M taking it into the 450-500 seat range).

If the market was still demanding 150-180 seat planes as the Volume product for mainline I would get the 6W argument - but the market seems to have moved on and the Minimum Mainline size shifting to 200 and above.

Just to clarify - I see NMA as smaller than a lot of people are assuming - if an A321 is 127M^2 floor Space - NMA - S is about somewhere around 135-140M^2, NMA-M around 160-165M^2 (762 Sized) and an eventual NMA- L close to 763 in floor space.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:10 pm

What are the rules on Cabin Crew from one to two isles? For example, how many cabin crew are needed (minimum) for a 240 pax single aisle vs a 280 pax double aisle if the aircraft is at maximum capacity.

If the double aisle needs two more than the single aisle, a clean sheet single aisle 240 pax with the same range as the double aisle will be the number one choice for every LCC and ULCC. This could only be offset if the double aisle costs less to buy than the single aisle and this is not gonna happen. The economics will even be worse if not all seats are sold, as you still need full crew I guess. So Boeing needs a new single aisle in my opinion and this should be priority number one and not the NMA. Volumes ares old in the single aisle class and money is made were volumes are sold.

The manufacturer who brings the better single aisle in 2030 with a possible rate of 100+ deliveries a month will be able to fund any project for MoM and widebody while the loser will be running behind in all three segments.

Thats also why the MAX disaster happened. Boeing was sh*tting themselves losing out on the narrow body market when the neo was launched. This can not happen again. The NMA should therefore not bind a lot of resources. If it is no possible to develop and bring it to the market in time with a rather low budget, the MAX scenario will happen again. Airbus launches a clean sheet A320 replacement and Boeing has to run again. If one thing at Boeing is learned from the MAX disaster it should be: NSA has absolute priority if they want to compete in the narrow body market. And Boeing has the abilities and resources to win that competition if they do not waste it on the NMA first.
 
Sokes
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:22 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
...
The 767 in 8ab has excellent economy seat economics. It uses 16.4inch wide seats and for short haul this would be fine. With the 787 using standard 17.2inch "Boeing" seats the 767 only needs to be 0.8inch wider per seat or a 6.4inch wider fuselage.

I am certain the 797 fuselage width will be half way between the width of the 767 and A300. This will allow standard 787 economy seats with narrow aisles.
...

"I am certain" is quite a strong formulation unless you designed the fuselage.
I found your argument of 1-2-1 business or 2-2-2 premium economy quite convincing. I don't have knowledge of business seats. I take it as a fact that B797 business seats would be narrower. So if a business traveler wants to fly NY-Stuttgart, he can take a B787 via Frankfurt or Munich or B797 direct.
7x17'= 119' = 6x19.8' = 4x29.75'
Agreed, I took all aisles same width. Is it enough width?
8x17' comes close to A330, a plane quite down the learning curve. Good diameter for cargo, but apparently that's not Boeing's business case.


tphuang wrote:
...
They've managed to come up with a config for A321 that is 2 seat per row, but each row only takes up 33 inch in pitch (meaning start of one row to next row is 33 inch). And due to the angling and such, those came out to be full sized flat bed in extended forms.
...
On A321, you are basically getting 1 J seat for each 3 y seat. And that can be verified on A321 mint configuration
...

Strong point. I agree a B797 can't beat that on business class.
It's actually alternate 2seats/ row and 4 seats/ row. I don't understand what you mean with angling.
Here a 1:12 min video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMsnTWISiLs
Seat plan from seatguru:
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/JetBl ... anscon.php

Why not alternate 6 seats/ row with 4 seats/ row the same way? 6 seats/ row for premium economy, 4 seats/ row for super premium economy?
I didn't think about how to differentiate 4 seats/ row of super premium economy and 4 seats/ row of business.
Such layout requires a little broader fuselage. Therefore a B797.

william wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
william wrote:
Folks, do you really believe Boeing has not had these same arguments within the company? Single aisle? 7 or 8 abreast? What would Airbus response and how fast? Please tell me you do believe Boeing has done its due diligence. Unlike those of us here, Boeing has to make money on this product and has spoken to customers on what they want and in what numbers they would be willing to buy. We have not, Boeing has. Ditto for Airbus, Airbus did not launch the XLR because it would be "neat". Give these corporations some credit.


So how did the 747-8 and A380 work out for these all knowing corporations?


Easy to pick to examples out of many. Boeing and Airbus have way more hits than misses. They know their market.


Why does mankind tend to have so much respect for authorities?
How many planes for commercial service were designed and how many became a success?
To remain with Airbus/ Boeing: Is the B777-300ER such a good plane or are the engines such good engines? Ignoring twin vs quads, same goes for A340.
I sometimes wonder if Airbus/ Boeing wouldn't be better off not to speak with customers.
Point already made: Somebody who wants to use A321XLR may demand a B797 so that Airbus can't charge whatever they feel.
I agree they know their market. So why speak with customers? Let statistics speak for themselves.
AFAIK Emirates wasn't even in the group of airlines advising Airbus about the A380.
For some time people get euphoric about airport congestion, for some time about point to point. Statistics are not prone to any euphory.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:31 pm

2175301 wrote:
(...)

We have seen that many times over the decades. Newer generation aircraft displace older generation aircraft due to the improved efficiencies and cost.
(...)


But the rehashed 737 from the original mid-60s design is still here holding up against the mid-80s A320. Derivatives from previous generation aircraft can be very successful.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:33 pm

Revelation wrote:
2175301 wrote:
incitatus wrote:

Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.


Absolutely agree with this. The NMA, if launched, will be the next generation of aircraft. I have no doubt that it's basic press release claim will hold up on the economics. I also have no doubt that no one else will be able to effectively counter it in its market with older generation aircraft.

We have seen that many times over the decades. Newer generation aircraft displace older generation aircraft due to the improved efficiencies and cost.

I really don't understand the people who don't understand that a new generation of aircraft can obsolete the previous generations... History is very convincing on that.

Have a great day,

It seems some people are taking a very narrow view of a very broad term, "economics".

It seems some people think the primary factor of "economics" is cross section and drag.

It seems some people don't want to take in the idea that end to end model based engineering coupled with a new approach to production and large reuse of proven 787 and 777x tech can change economics as well as can cross section and drag.

I'm fine with skepticism of a marketing slogan, but I think some people are missing the forest for the trees.

And I'm also not saying Airbus can't or won't be in a similar place at a similar time if they chose to do so.

The thing is we have a pretty reasonable paper trail going back to Project Black Diamond and lots of executive level statements stating the intent.

Hopefully they can execute the stated intention, but the fact that it's such a big gamble on something that is not a certainty is what makes it so interesting to watch this industry.


I would add the slogan could be read in a different way: a widebody with narrowbody economics can also be viewed as a threat for the smallest widebodies currently on the market. If we look at it that way, then it's clear that the NMA would have unbeatable economics. One of the issue with the current widebodies is that they offer plenty of cargo capacity (read: 'volume' and think to the lift that is foreseen to carry this cargo) that is not always put to good use. The P2P/low cost airlines don't even carry cargo. Network airlines could also optimize their capacity by combining the NMA with the current heavylifter widebodies. On sectors served multiple times per day, the cargo capacity could be optimized by planning the right mix between NMA and heavylifters.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:39 pm

Sokes wrote:
I sometimes wonder if Airbus/ Boeing wouldn't be better off not to speak with customers.


That is a very interesting observation and something I have pondered often in the past.

The original A350 would have ended up very competitive with the 787 - if not getting the majority of the market due to lower production costs allowing lower pricing and (you would assume) much quicker entry into service given the 787 issues.

Of course, airlines wanted to put the squeeze on 777 pricing so convinced Airbus to step up a size with A350XWB. Which now is in a situation where the A359 is vulnerable to the 787-10 (and very vulnerable to any 787-11) and the A35K is looking a bit of a niche product (like the entire 777X lineup).


Are airlines whining for NMA to allow them to squeeze A321 on pricing? (Its pretty common knowledge that A321 has the best margins of any commercial aircraft right now.)

Another concern for Boeing in a nightmare product placement task that already has more than its fair share of concerns.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:16 pm

incitatus wrote:
Can we all agree that "widebody with narrowbody economics" cannot exist? Unless we are comparing different generation aircraft.

I think most agree a widebody can easily reach narrowbody economics providing the widebody doesn't have double the range. It is mainly the Airbus fans who do not think it is possible because the A321 is the best.


incitatus wrote:
The possibility that you raised - NMA ends up being 8-abreast, is another point in favor of a shorthaul redo of the 787 - the "castrated" version.

Very doubtful. To fully optimise the 787 for half the range would require nearly a full redesign. New wing, wingbox, landing gear, new engines, smaller tail. New fuselage barrel to make it shorter. The 787-10 inserts an extended section to make the fuselage longer, shortening the 787-8 is not easy and it would need all new tooling. This is 75% of the engineering work required for a cleansheet design. A shorter 787 would have large nose and tail tapers so the cabin length would become a smaller percentage of the fuselage length. It would be well worth paying 25% more and getting a perfectly optimised tight 8ab cross section.

In a tech ops thread we thought of some ways to lighten the 787-8 such as the wing flaps could be fully removed if the MTOW was dropped below 180T. Max payload weight dropped by 25% and the centre fuel tank deleted would significantly reduce wing root bending moment allowing a much lighter centre wing box. With most parts it would keep the same tooling but adding less carbon layers as the design would be re-optimised for lower loads thanks to the lower MTOW. The current 787 tail is heavy to handle the 787-10 so again less carbon layers but the same dimensions. The big cost would be new lighter landing gear and brand new engines that are lighter with higher bypass and lower thrust.

Even after all of this no one thought the design could actually reach a target of 100T empty. With the 787-8 ACAP we could determine the performance. A 100T lightweight 787-8 with 30T payload would perform the same as a 120T 787-8 with 10T payload. The ACAP shows a lines for a 181T MTOW so we have very accurate performance numbers.

100T empty weight, 30T payload, 50T fuel and a MTOW gives a range of 5300nm. That blows the 787-3 numbers out of the water but it would be very costly.

If the design is not optimised as far and only 10T of empty weight is removed then fuel load drops from 50T to 40T at the same MTOW. This results in a big range hit and fuel burn penalty down to what the original 787-3 was going to have.

Basically the more money invested the better the performance. Only a full cleansheet widebody with a range below 5000nm could reach narrowbody economics.

I'll put some rough values on it.

Lightweight 787
110T light weight 787 - $5 billion development. 5% less fuel burn per seat over existing 787-8. Estimated Sales 400 aircraft. Development cost $12.5 million per aircraft

Ultralightweight 787
100T weight 787 - $10 billion development. 10% less fuel burn per seat over existing 787-8. Estimated sales 1000 aircraft. Development cost $10 million per aircraft.

Cleansheet 797
80T weight 797 - $15 billion development. 15% less fuel burn per seat over existing 787-8. Estimated sales 2000 aircraft. Development cost $7.5 million per aircraft.

The fuel burn improvement per dollar invested is linear. One thing I have noticed is the sales growth is exponential as the fuel burn advantage grows. Boeing should go straight to the 797 cleansheet if it wants to get max profit and max market share.

The question was never if Boeing should build NMA, the question was always what NMA should Boeing build.
  • 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