• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile we read:

United Airlines continues to evaluate the newly launched Airbus A321XLR for its middle-of-the-market needs, but does not see the aircraft as a full solution to the gap in its fleet.

"The XLR doesn't solve the [Boeing] 767 replacement issue," Gerry Laderman, the US carrier's chief financial officer, told reporters at the Paris air show.

Clearly he also doesn't see A350/787/A330 as the solution either.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ni-459024/


Agreed - I highlighted this article yesterday.

But that niche (a short ranged 767 replacement) is incredibly small. In the past, airlines bought the longer range aircraft that offered that kinda capacity.

Why would they do any different now?

As I said yesterday, I don't think we've yet moved beyond (indeed, yet fully moved into) the era of right-payloading (right-sizing) to an era of right-payload-ranging. The market isn't big enough for it yet.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:49 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
You're gonna shank the same people who you want to buy the NSA when you kill the MAX. Great plan! It's one thing to make mistakes on MAX, it's a totally different thing to intentionally shiv your customer base. It'd null out any money they've already put into the MAX, throw them onto Airbus's tender mercy to find them an A320neo in five or so years time and/or hope NSA goes off without a flaw whilst their competitors enjoy next generation engine performance, nullify all their investment in 737 training and spares common with NG, etc.
Back to CEO School for you!

I didn't see the bit where he suggested stopping all MAX production before the NSA is ramped.

That's what the effect will be once the market gets ahold of the idea that NSA is being worked on.

Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing are going to have to transition sometime, better to get that underway from a position of some strength rather than when they are firefighting a serious performance deficit to, say, an A32x neo2 in the mid-2020s.

History shows that Boeing waits for the dying embers of a product line to go out before spooling up its replacement.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:51 pm

tomcat wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
Just to explain further. If Boeing launches the NMA and thus commits it's resources to it, Airbus can immediately initiate a whole list of things to put the 737 in a lot more trouble still:

- Increase A320 production further
- Increase A220 production further
- Launch an A322 based on the XLR design changes
- Launch an A220-500
- Composite wingbox and state of the art new wing for the A320
- Engine PIP or more for the A320
- Engine PIP or more for the A220
- Additive manufacturing improvements on A220 and A320


All stuff Boeing will not likely be able to respond sufficiently to because resources would be committed to the NMA and because ROI won't be there on a plane nearing end of life.

Possibly the only reason Airbus would not completely erode the 737 market share in that situation might be that A they don't have the production capacity and B they rather would maintain the NB duopoly and not destabilize that market too extremely in light of long term interests.


What if Boeing changes its priorities and first launches its new single aisle family covering the 180-250 seats market? Let's not be too optimistic and let's consider that it would be available by 2026. Although not a significant development, the XLR will keep Airbus busy for some time but that would be a complete waste if Boeing brings the NSA in 2026. Overall, the NEO outlook would be significantly reduced, while Boeing could offer the MAX customers to transfer some of their orders to the NSA.


That's the point. What if Boeing's NMA is just smoke and mirrors to keep Airbus from going aggressive with A320 (Airbus' let them move first approach). In order to bridge the time till there is enough engine and wing advancement to make the business case for the NSA against a 70+ a month A320 actually work?
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:57 pm

Airbus says the A321XLR will enter service 2023. Boeing is targeting 2025 (despite what the skeptics say). This isn’t a winner take all market. They can coexist. Airbus is getting a head start, while Boeing continues developing prelaunch.

estorilm wrote:
Airbus has the PERFECT platform for such a market; with minimal modifications and maximum commonality, they're going to bring an aircraft to service in a short period of time. It's also a low-risk project requiring minimal investment, which will demand a PREMIUM price tag - profit margins on this thing should be amazing for Airbus.


I agree Airbus will demand a premium price tag. Weight upgrades are usually quite an upcharge from lower MTOW planes. How long will those margins last?

What I challenge is whether the A321 is the word PERFECT platform for a 220K lbs MTOW plane. The airplane will have the range for Transatlantic, but how efficient will the wing be compared to a new composite design? The A321 wing is already undersized. Is the engine optimized for this mission? Does the wing trailing edge flap configuration to preserve thrust requirements result in other compromises such as engine out climb performance, etc? There are always compromises with upgrading existing designs. I challenge the word PERFECT.

I believe there is a market for both an NMA and A321XLR, but I expect some people will repeat the normal comebacks that Boeing can’t deliver on time in 2025, Boeing can’t built a widebody at narrowbody economics despite them saying they can, and technology innovation ended in 1988, etc.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
That's what the effect will be once the market gets ahold of the idea that NSA is being worked on.


As I said, they will have to transition at some point - better to do it when the product they have has a decent backlog and is good enough relative to the competition to earn further orders than when its backlog is mostly eroded and the competition is a clear step ahead.

Airbus can put another engine upgrade on the A32x in say 8 years time, same on the A220, and see tangible benefits of further BPR increases. Boeing really, really can't increase nacelle size much further.


Revelation wrote:
History shows that Boeing waits for the dying embers of a product line to go out before spooling up its replacement.


Which would be a massive mistake if there were up to 4 alternate options for airlines to consider.
- A32x neo2
- A220 neo1
- MS-21
- C919
Or the market weakened to the point that the single-aisle backlog was only a year or two of production.

(Yes, the MS-21 or C919 won't sell widely around the world, but in Russia or China, many of those would still be a possible sale lost that could have went to Boeing if their product were good enough.)


They already ___ked about too long on the NSA decision when Airbus forced their hand via the NEO into doing the MAX.
They are currently ___king around with the NMA decision when the A321LR and now A321 XLR are grabbing sales that could have went to NMA - and are now far beyond the point of institutional bias in anything that drives decision making on NMA.

Too indecisive - probably too worried about the short to medium term effect on stock price than on the long term health of the company.
Last edited by Amiga500 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
VS11
Posts: 1436
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:05 pm

astuteman wrote:
VS11 wrote:
A CFRP 757/767 sounds great but why hasn’t Boeing announced it yet? They have access to so much market intelligence, they should be able to have incredibly sophisticated macroeconomic modeling capabilities. They should be able to identify every possible route where their NMA can provide a competitive advantage. At this point, they should know everything there is know to make a decision. All of this waiting is hurting them because the XLR is a compelling aircraft.


I think your answer is in your question. If they "know everything there is know to make a decision" and yet haven't launched, what should that be telling you?

Rgds


I have been pretty vocal before about not believing Boeing will go ahead with it but for the benefit of the doubt I would consider any reasonable argument to the contrary. I do believe Boeing have decided not to build it but have not publicly said so to keep Airbus on their toes. There is a slight chance that Boeing becomes possessed by the "fear of missing out" and does launch "something" - the way they did with the 747-8 despite their better judgement.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:06 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
What I challenge is whether the A321 is the word PERFECT platform for a 220K lbs MTOW plane.


Its very far from perfect, but it is sufficient for now as there is no real competitor in the marketplace which is better.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I believe there is a market for both an NMA and A321XLR, but I expect some people will repeat the normal comebacks that Boeing can’t deliver on time in 2025, Boeing can’t built a widebody at narrowbody economics despite them saying they can, and technology innovation ended in 1988, etc.


Boeing can't deliver by 2025. Believing otherwise is just daft and in contrary to every bit of recent historical evidence.

The build cost is a different factor. Per seat I'm sure they can beat narrowbody prices quite comfortably - per frame I cannot see it getting close enough to matter.
Last edited by Amiga500 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:07 pm

ethernal wrote:
There is nothing magical that makes a widebody more comfortable than a narrowbody.


That is your opinion. Many frequent flyers will disagree with you. The magic is S P A C E.

When I am shopping for air travel, if there is a widebody option available, I will go out of my way to book it and am even willing to pay a small premium in order to do so.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:08 pm

DL747400 wrote:
When I am shopping for air travel, if there is a widebody option available, I will go out of my way to book it and am even willing to pay a small premium in order to do so.


You and literally 16* other people worldwide.


*may not be 16. Might be 17.
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:11 pm

Taxi645 wrote:
Just to explain further. If Boeing launches the NMA and thus commits it's resources to it, Airbus can immediately initiate a whole list of things to put the 737 in a lot more trouble still:

- Increase A320 production further
- Increase A220 production further
- Launch an A322 based on the XLR design changes
- Launch an A220-500
- Composite wingbox and state of the art new wing for the A320
- Engine PIP or more for the A320
- Engine PIP or more for the A220
- Additive manufacturing improvements on A220 and A320


All stuff Boeing will not likely be able to respond sufficiently to because resources would be committed to the NMA and because ROI won't be there on a plane nearing end of life.

Possibly the only reason Airbus would not completely erode the 737 market share in that situation might be that A they don't have the production capacity and B they rather would maintain the NB duopoly and not destabilize that market too extremely in light of long term interests.

Exactly - this is what I've been trying to quantify and explain for a while. It's been checkmate for quite some time now... and honestly (as I said above) - I'm a little surprised Airbus even bothered to make the XLR move, since they really didn't need to. It's the less extreme option in their play book though. Like you said - if Boeing even thinks about an NMA announcement, they can take many additional steps including the re-wing 322 which will still come to market faster and cheaper (and with more commonality) than anything Boeing can do.

The whole thing has slowly escalated over the years, but it's really near a tipping-point with Boeing now. They need to abandon the NMA and launch a 737 replacement with a size range that includes something 321XLR-sized or a bit larger on the "big end" - it'll solve multiple problems but most importantly, they need to retain a competitive product in their "bread and butter segment" with the 737-type aircraft. They absolutely know that such a family will break even and turn a nice profit, but a standalone NMA is complex and high-risk, while leaving the 737 family high and dry competing against an extremely competitive A32X family at the moment.

Recent events have really taken more of a toll on that lineup than I would have expected. I just don't see much life left in it. Perhaps this was best for Boeing.

TaromA380 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
The "mistake" was made decades ago - most of us here saw this situation unfolding for years now, the issue is that they just don't have the right platform to produce a product for this market segment. Airbus has the PERFECT platform for such a market; with minimal modifications and maximum commonality, they're going to bring an aircraft to service in a short period of time. It's also a low-risk project requiring minimal investment, which will demand a PREMIUM price tag - profit margins on this thing should be amazing for Airbus.

I guess my point is that none of what I said above really applies to Boeing, they just don't have the platform available. Could they make a new aircraft? Sure - but would it ever break even on such a niche segment? Doubtful.. it's only doable for Airbus because they've got the thing right in front of them already.

This is the aggressive move I was curious about Airbus making.. they didn't really have to (look at their backlog for the 32X right now) but it seems they wanted to drive another nail in the coffin for Boeing's NMA.

Maybe this is just a comfortable tactical move (easy $$$, even more pressure on B), while holding on the real aggressive one – the A322 – as answer to Boeing’s future try to escape the trap.

How many of you remember one of Leahy’s last major brag before retirement? It was about the NMA. Like a farewell spell, he predicted exactly what’s developing under our eyes.


Oh I remember, like I said above.. checkmate. There isn't enough (IMHO) demand for a niche ground-up design. Airbus has out-flanked Boeing here and cut their margins and available orders to the point where a ground-up is practically insane. A 737 replacement is the only way to go.

Thus the cat and mouse game continues.. in 10 years a composite 737 family including a larger long-range model on the high-end will really start to eat into Airbus' sales. For the foreseeable future though, AB has this market cornered.
Last edited by estorilm on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile we read:

United Airlines continues to evaluate the newly launched Airbus A321XLR for its middle-of-the-market needs, but does not see the aircraft as a full solution to the gap in its fleet.

"The XLR doesn't solve the [Boeing] 767 replacement issue," Gerry Laderman, the US carrier's chief financial officer, told reporters at the Paris air show.

Clearly he also doesn't see A350/787/A330 as the solution either.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ni-459024/


Good point.

Interpretation of the detail that changes everything about the need of the US carrier..
 
AirwayBill
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:21 pm

DL747400 wrote:

That is your opinion. Many frequent flyers will disagree with you. The magic is S P A C E.

When I am shopping for air travel, if there is a widebody option available, I will go out of my way to book it and am even willing to pay a small premium in order to do so.


According to Anet wisdom, passengers don't care for tight 10ab Y 777/350 as long as the price is right, but now they'd be all over the booking system to find out whether the aircraft flying them transatlantic is a narrowbody? And willing to pay premium to fly a larger jet? Paint me very skeptical. If we believe the apologists of the cramped 787 economy class, the A321XLR will probably do more than fine! :sarcastic:
Last edited by AirwayBill on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Sokes
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:24 pm

olle wrote:
The new A320 will create many new point to point destinations. For people like me liviing in Stockholm i suppose that connections that I needed to thru hubs now might become connection directly from ARN.

Transatlantic market will change.


Aither wrote:
IMO the collateral victim of the A321XLR will be the 777X and the A350-1000.
The 787 brought some network fragmentation but there was not a significant acceleration of new long haul routes openings. Still most of the 787s operate the traditional way from hubs.
With the A321XLR this will be more interesting. The hub is no longer a necessity and more important, this brings the entry ticket to long haul operations much lower. If we go "ultra fragmentation" this will impact a lot some mega hubs. Probably Emirates will be less imapcted than some European or Asian hubs. But I believe the large aircraft market could shrink significantly to the point of being discontinued just like the A380 was.


Revelation wrote:
Airbus at one point thought an A330 with bit of GLARE and some new engines would be good enough to compete with 787, but in the end found they had to go clean sheet. They think the A321 is good enough to fend off NMA but I think in the end we will find that NMA will build a strong market for itself in a market space one size bigger than A321 is, and Airbus will have to find a way to access that market.


LH707330 wrote:
The reason we still see so many 767-300ERs plodding around is that they have ok trip costs, even if their CASM is garbage relative to an A330 or 787. A new CFRP plane in that segment with 10-11 hour range and 45-50k engines would be more flexible than a 321XLR (see 233t A333), and have trip costs way lower than a 788 because it'd be optimized for those shorter routes. CASM might be marginally worse, but as long as RASM stays better, you're good to go.

The 787-3 failed because it was a clipped-wing 787-8 with the heavier engines and structure, so there was no real trip cost savings there.


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

I suppose Boeing's delay in proceeding with the NMA may have more to do with engine supplier's capabilities the last years than with Boeing.
Boeing may want to wait till geared fans reach maturity and size. Engine suppliers have no free capacity.
I can't judge if 6- or 7-abreast is better. I find it strange that Boeing doesn't want cargo capability.
But a new plane sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't think the A321XLR is a risk to Boeing's NMA business case. Rather the NMA is a business risk for B777X and B787.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:25 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile we read:

United Airlines continues to evaluate the newly launched Airbus A321XLR for its middle-of-the-market needs, but does not see the aircraft as a full solution to the gap in its fleet.

"The XLR doesn't solve the [Boeing] 767 replacement issue," Gerry Laderman, the US carrier's chief financial officer, told reporters at the Paris air show.

Clearly he also doesn't see A350/787/A330 as the solution either.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ni-459024/


Good point.

Interpretation of the detail that changes everything about the need of the US carrier..


Boeing are still many billions in the hole for deferred costs on the 767 replacement. Why would they make another?

... and Revelation was worried about them cannabalising sales of the MAX?!?!
 
planecane
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:30 pm

Amiga500 wrote:


Boeing can't deliver by 2025. Believing otherwise is just daft and in contrary to every bit of recent historical evidence.

The build cost is a different factor. Per seat I'm sure they can beat narrowbody prices quite comfortably - per frame I cannot see it getting close enough to matter.


I agree that it is unlikely they could deliver by 2025 (although 2025 could mean 12/31/2025), but it is not impossible. First of all, there would have to be a lot of unleaked, secret work that has gone on before now. I would also have to be heavily based on the 787.

If it reused the 787 cockpit and systems (but downsized where possible) and was just a new fuselage shape and wing, it would be marginally possible. Now, can the engines be ready in time? I have no idea.
 
ethernal
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:34 pm

DL747400 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
There is nothing magical that makes a widebody more comfortable than a narrowbody.


That is your opinion. Many frequent flyers will disagree with you. The magic is S P A C E.

When I am shopping for air travel, if there is a widebody option available, I will go out of my way to book it and am even willing to pay a small premium in order to do so.


What makes a widebody have more space? You mean the fact that the ceiling is slightly higher and feels a little bigger? Even though that space is not really that functional?

Consumers for the most part can't even be arsed to pay for 9-abreast 777 versus 10-abreast - or generally willing to pay for extra pitch. And you think the average consumer is going to make a decision about amorphous feeling of spaciousness independent of their personal space? Call me crazy, but I don't believe it.

Widebodies tend to be configured less densely than narrowbodies - that is true. They typically have larger galleys, more lavatories per seat, and generally more pitch on average than narrowbodies. But that is a configuration choice that is broadly independent of whether it is a widebody or narrowbody. And that is not magic.
Last edited by ethernal on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:34 pm

DL747400 wrote:
ethernal wrote:
There is nothing magical that makes a widebody more comfortable than a narrowbody.


That is your opinion. Many frequent flyers will disagree with you. The magic is S P A C E.


With the same pitch a Y seat on an A320 offers more space then a Y seat on most 787 and 77W and about the same as on the 77X, and I see no reason the Y+ and J can't have the same space either. Not many complains up front on A321T at AA, or is there?

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


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

I don't think the A321XLR is a risk to Boeing's NMA business case. Rather the NMA is a business risk for B777X and B787.


Rangewise the XLR covers a good chunk of TATL flying and pretty much all inner Asia flying .... that will bite of quite a bit at the low end.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
airbazar
Posts: 9577
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:37 pm

ethernal wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
I think its funny when people bring up 757 operations outside Europe and North America.

How many 757s were operated outside these regions? Going even further, how many of the TOTAL operators actually used the 757 to it's extent?

Comparatively, how many operators period use the A321 on longer routes than a US transcon? The 321XLR isnt going to magically open routes like Hanoi-Bangalore, or Antofagasta-Mexico City. TATL-length missions arent going to appear in Africa, Middle East, South East Asia etc...


Your point is fair, but the APAC region is littered with awkward 6-9 hour routes that are overserved by widebodies today. And APAC is where the growth is.

Regarding the 757 - significantly more than half of new plane purchases are sold to airlines that didn't exist when the 757 was first sold. Today is very different than yesterday.


The A321neo and LR are still very young. Give it more time and we will see more of these routes materialize.
YUL-NCE, MNL-SYD, and OPO-EWR just some of the routes made possible by this aircraft.
Soon enough you will see Europe-Africa and N.America-S.America routes with the NEO.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:38 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing are still many billions in the hole for deferred costs on the 767 replacement. Why would they make another?

787 originally was going to be a true 767 replacement, but airlines wanted a bigger plane, so Boeing up sized it into a A330 replacement and beyond with 9x seating. There is room for NMA below 787. Airbus has tried to access that slot twice via A359 and A338 and is floundering. UA just told us they want a true 767 replacement and told us that XLR and 787 do not do it for them.

Amiga500 wrote:
... and Revelation was worried about them cannabalising sales of the MAX?!?!

Get a grip, mate, that comment was in the context of NMA taking a u-turn and becoming a NSA.

Boeing has placed 5000 MAXes and the idea that they would devalue that backlog by pivoting to NSA any time soon is silly.

Image
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 2619
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:42 pm

Quite sure Airbus gave Boeing exactly what they were waiting for. Boeing cedes the lower end of the market where there wasn't much demand anyways, and that focuses Airbus and their capital on dealing with a more scrutinized cert process for grandfathering another A321 iteration. Puts Boeing in the position to develop the NMA to fill that upper 757, lower 767 market. What Airbus also misses is the loading time issue. Airlines are asking for the twin aisle NMA because it improves turn around times. Which is very critical in the short haul / medium haul high load factor routes.

I think this plays right into Boeing's hands. Not quite A380esque. Airbus will make money. But it's not going to hurt Boeing's business case. In fact, it now takes away the question of what Airbus was looking to do to counter the NMA.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:46 pm

@Revelation: That completely flies in the face of the question of what a 787-lite would do to 787 sales.

The company that stands to lose most from the (anet proposed) NMA is Boeing! While the A330neo might not be selling like hotcakes - it didn't cost $20B USD to develop and who knows what how much deferred production costs either. A330 will more or less wash its own face for Airbus based on existing orders. Boeing introduces an NMA at 300 seats and <5000nm that the airlines love and what the hell happens all that projected return from the 787 investment?!?

MAX cost Boeing a couple of billion - and it will always pay for itself based on narrowbody demand. The 787 is not in such a position.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:47 pm

Amiga500 wrote:

They already ___ked about too long on the NSA decision when Airbus forced their hand via the NEO into doing the MAX.
They are currently ___king around with the NMA decision when the A321LR and now A321 XLR are grabbing sales that could have went to NMA - and are now far beyond the point of institutional bias in anything that drives decision making on NMA.

Too indecisive - probably too worried about the short to medium term effect on stock price than on the long term health of the company.


This has nothing to do with it.

Neither near nor far. History shows that the 777 was launched late against the A340. We knew the fate of the second. Nothing to do with any late decision.. :shakehead:

Amiga500 wrote:
So more than 240 seats (sardine class) and less than 360 seats (sardine class).


A good aircraft must be able to be flexible in terms of seat configuration and comfort. In this case the NMA is better by offering 140 more seats with one more aisle. It's more comfort by having empty square meters so that passengers can circulate properly :yes:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:48 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
What Airbus also misses is the loading time issue. Airlines are asking for the twin aisle NMA because it improves turn around times. Which is very critical in the short haul / medium haul high load factor routes.


So critical that the airlines asked Airbus to remove the L2 door from the A321 as they didn't use it for loading....
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:50 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Neither near nor far. History shows that the 777 was launched late against the A340. We knew the fate of the second. Nothing to do with any late decision.. :shakehead:


777 was the first aircraft conceptualised for ETOPS (and indeed came about because of a market rejection of the 767X).

Those conditions can not repeat themselves.



Checklist787 wrote:
A good aircraft must be able to be flexible in terms of seat configuration and comfort. In this case the NMA is better by offering 40 more seats with one more aisle. It's more comfort by having empty square meters so that passengers can circulate properly :yes:


"Circulate properly?"

Does it have a spiral staircase, grand ballroom and swimming pool like all those A380 concepts did?
Last edited by Amiga500 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:51 pm

Boeing needs more airlines like UAL to declare their stand. They cannot afford to spend billions on NMA only to receive orders for a few hundred aircraft. They are finding it hard to close a business case because the market space for the NMA is small. The Airbus A321XLR further proves that aircraft with specialised capabilities only appeal to a limited number of airlines with some special routes. Boeing should really look at NSA/NMA as a joint development so that costs are shared over a higher number of production units.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:57 pm

flee wrote:
Boeing needs more airlines like UAL to declare their stand. They cannot afford to spend billions on NMA only to receive orders for a few hundred aircraft. They are finding it hard to close a business case because the market space for the NMA is small. The Airbus A321XLR further proves that aircraft with specialised capabilities only appeal to a limited number of airlines with some special routes. Boeing should really look at NSA/NMA as a joint development so that costs are shared over a higher number of production units.



+1
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:03 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Quite sure Airbus gave Boeing exactly what they were waiting for..


what Airbus could do with an XLR was a fairly open secret and there was zero chance of Airbus launching a clean sheet design at all ..... so nothing has changed aside of the first orders in the segment being placed ...

Airbus and their capital on dealing with a more scrutinized cert process for grandfathering another A321 iteration.


for a weight variant with a little more fuel and EASA not allowing to self-certify at FAA levels anyways? Hardly so... imagine the scrutiny the next clean sheet will face...nothing to grandfather in, everything to certify from scratch, self-certification pretty much a non-starter for the time being and the FAA understaffed and underfunded? Airbus dropping the XLR onto the FAAs feet may cause certification delays by staff shortage all by itself....

What Airbus also misses is the loading time issue. Airlines are asking for the twin aisle NMA because it improves turn around times.


saving 10 minutes turning around after a 10 hour trip is fairly irrelevant given the likely higher cruise speed of the NMA and its advantage there in any case.

But it's not going to hurt Boeing's business case


taking just the bottom quarter/third away means a lot fewer frames to spread R&D over, lower production rates and hence less scale effects....

The 797 will be better than a revamped A321 will ever be, but will it be good enough to pay for all the R&D, lower production rates and lower total qty?

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Boeing are still many billions in the hole for deferred costs on the 767 replacement. Why would they make another?

787 originally was going to be a true 767 replacement, but airlines wanted a bigger plane, so Boeing up sized it into a A330 replacement and beyond with 9x seating. There is room for NMA below 787. Airbus has tried to access that slot twice via A359 and A338 and is floundering. UA just told us they want a true 767 replacement and told us that XLR and 787 do not do it for them.

Amiga500 wrote:
... and Revelation was worried about them cannabalising sales of the MAX?!?!

Get a grip, mate, that comment was in the context of NMA taking a u-turn and becoming a NSA.

Boeing has placed 5000 MAXes and the idea that they would devalue that backlog by pivoting to NSA any time soon is silly.

Image


Of course...

There is never any question that NMA become NSA.

Never.

NSA will be the lessons learned from the NMA while it will be an assembly line derisked in 2030
 
StTim
Posts: 3406
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:06 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Meanwhile we read:


Clearly he also doesn't see A350/787/A330 as the solution either.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ni-459024/


Good point.

Interpretation of the detail that changes everything about the need of the US carrier..


Boeing are still many billions in the hole for deferred costs on the 767 replacement. Why would they make another?

... and Revelation was worried about them cannabalising sales of the MAX?!?!


Much as I dislike the accounting procedures being used by Boeing - and they way it allows current management to pull forward profit (and bonuses) I think all must agree from a cash perspective the 787 is no longer in a hole. In fact at the moment it is the only frame earning substantial cash flow for Boeing.

Whether they are comfortable to start a fresh sheet plane at the moment is dubious though. At least until the 737 MAX is flying again - which it will.

Additive Layer Manufacturing will have an impact on the cost to manufacture and weight of the peice for all items. I can see it being used as part of on going improvements in current products. Obviously the biggest impact will be on new frames.
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:09 pm

It feels like the overwhelming sentiment is that taking the time to get it right before launch is a bad thing.

How quickly we forget the impact of the following failures:
A350 MK1
A350-800
787-3
A380F

Vetting the business case ahead of time to avoid renegotiating or cancelling orders is a good thing.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:11 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
What Airbus also misses is the loading time issue. Airlines are asking for the twin aisle NMA because it improves turn around times. Which is very critical in the short haul / medium haul high load factor routes.


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


that door was so close to the Wing & Engine that many airlines didn´t want to use it.

Of course nothing kept Airbus from moving the door one frame forward if the demand was so high....

I think it is an overstated issue, when i still boarded planed we turned a Condor 767 in the same time as their 753 or an AB 737-700, and from my passenger experience, i didn´t make statistics, i recall hearing a lot of "We are still loading cargo and will shortly be on the way" when passengers where all long on board and seated....

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
tomcat
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:16 pm

Revelation wrote:

Boeing has placed 5000 MAXes and the idea that they would devalue that backlog by pivoting to NSA any time soon is silly.

Image


One could see the MAX backlog as 5000 potential launch orders for the NSA. The airlines who couldn't wait for the NSA to be delivered would still get a much appreciated MAX. In any case, airlines cannot expect that cheap upgrades like the NEO and the MAX would remain competitive for the 20 years to come. A clean-sheet design is bound to be offered sooner rather than later.

As far as Boeing is concerned, they would still deliver thousands of MAXes till the NSA would become available so the MAX program would still turn a profit anyway.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:25 pm

flee wrote:


They are finding it hard to close a business case because the market space for the NMA is small. The Airbus A321XLR further proves that aircraft with specialised capabilities only appeal to a limited number of airlines with some special routes. Boeing should really look at NSA/NMA as a joint development so that costs are shared over a higher number of production units.


No doubt the NMA will integrate the market well.

As said so well "Revelation", it will be calibrated for 2025-2045 period

Add to that the Asia Pacific market of which Boeing expects a huge market of 17,400 aircrafts between widebody's and narrowbody's - there's bound to be a space in the middle.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/market ... t-outlook/
 
incitatus
Topic Author
Posts: 3295
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
(...)
The opportunity is for NMA to be to A321XLR what 787 is to A330, bigger, mostly CFRP design, better fuel burn, lower maintenance, etc.

All this careful scrubbing of the business plan should tell us that if they do launch they are confident that they can make money building it.


I think you are overlooking one critical difference in these comparisons. The past comparisons are widebody-to-widebody, but the NMA and the -XLR are different bodies. The NMA is bound to carry its heavier frame and larger drag - and have higher capacity. Plus it will need a price premium to pay the clean sheet costs.

Is Boeing slotting the NMA as a 767 replacement? Is appears so. Maybe we can then compare NMA/-XLR to the 767/757. The 757 did not prevent the success of the 767. But the -XLR is a more capable aircraft than the 757. I am not confident of quoted range on paper aircraft but the -XLR eats into a lot of the TA market. It should be able to do IAD-FCO, which is 4500 mi. Logically, to preserve a decent incremental capability over the -XLR, the NMA needs some more range than a 763. But that eats into the 787-8 market. The sweet spot for the NMA is real thin. Using another UA example, IAH-LHR is 4800 mi. It sounds like a great route for the NMA, but in practice how can the NMA be significantly better at it than the 787-8? I am not aware of any technology Boeing can put into the NMA to make that happen. UA can replace a lot of 767/757 routes with -XLRs and then buy another dozen 787-8s and be done with the 767 replacement.

My thought might evolve, but right now I think Boeing should dump the NMA. Bring back a less capable 787. But instead of just trimming the wing, invest real money into making the aircraft lighter and optimized for shorter flights. This will still cost a fraction of a clean sheet NMA. Then address the longer range narrowbody later with a 737 replacement.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
RandWkop
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:38 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Quite sure Airbus gave Boeing exactly what they were waiting for. Boeing cedes the lower end of the market where there wasn't much demand anyways, and that focuses Airbus and their capital on dealing with a more scrutinized cert process for grandfathering another A321 iteration. Puts Boeing in the position to develop the NMA to fill that upper 757, lower 767 market. What Airbus also misses is the loading time issue. Airlines are asking for the twin aisle NMA because it improves turn around times. Which is very critical in the short haul / medium haul high load factor routes.

I think this plays right into Boeing's hands. Not quite A380esque. Airbus will make money. But it's not going to hurt Boeing's business case. In fact, it now takes away the question of what Airbus was looking to do to counter the NMA.

That almost reads like : Boeing deliberately crashed 2 MAX aircraft to make life more difficult for Airbus. It doesn't make sense on any level.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:45 pm

incitatus wrote:
The sweet spot for the NMA is real thin. Using another UA example, IAH-LHR is 4800 mi.


And in unless fairly high capacity configuration, the XLR can probably do that too. With 1x ACT it seems to be able to carry a lot more fuel than it can lift of with beyond a 150 seat cabin. Looking at the A321T there seems to be a business case for low density/J-heavy aircraft, maybe not just transcon.

Low trip cost connectivity generator seems to be the target market, not mid-capacity medium to long haul.

Which however might be a big enough market on its own to make a 797 successful.

Not bad for an aircraft that probably only costs Airbus a couple of hundred million to make....

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:46 pm

I took a look at UA fleet. Their 767-300ER has 214 seats with 30 J, 767-400ER has 240 seats with 39J. Their 787-8 has 219 seats with 36J. What exactly are they looking for in a 767 replacement ? Boeing themselves discarded 787-3 as the operations cost difference wasn't worth the development cost. For a clean sheet 767 replacement, the advantages need to be pretty good to overcome the costs associated with it. The only way I see it happens is if they combine NSA and NMA programs and develop two different aircraft family with 70-80% commonality. Or, build larger E2 jets to cover up to 170-180pax segment and then have two NMA models to compete with both A321 and 787-8 (to be defunct) size.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:00 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
It feels like the overwhelming sentiment is that taking the time to get it right before launch is a bad thing.

Vetting the business case ahead of time to avoid renegotiating or cancelling orders is a good thing.


There is taking time to do it right, and taking too much time to make it tell you what you want it to tell.

Like I said elsewhere, Boeing have been talking about the middle of the market - not since 2015 - but since 2002!! This is not a new area of market research to them. They've been talking about MoM in the current guise since at least 2012.

At what point does institutional bias take over and numbers get massaged to whatever you want them to mean? IMO, it has long since taken over.


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

Middle of the market nearly 20 years ago:
https://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/a ... cover.html
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:12 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
what Airbus could do with an XLR was a fairly open secret and there was zero chance of Airbus launching a clean sheet design at all ..... so nothing has changed aside of the first orders in the segment being placed ...

It's interesting how this fact can be read two ways, either Boeing keeps talking up NMA even knowing what Airbus could do with XLR, or Boeing still hasn't launched NMA because they've been afraid of XLR.

My understanding is that NMA was to be launched right now i.e. at PAS until the MAX tragedy took control of events, so I think XLR did not deter Boeing.

As far as we know Boeing still has ~1000 people working on the program and is just looking for the right conditions to launch the product.

tomcat wrote:
One could see the MAX backlog as 5000 potential launch orders for the NSA.

Why would one shut down one promising new market opportunity to spend money trying to get orders you already have?

This makes no sense to me.
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
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:22 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
It feels like the overwhelming sentiment is that taking the time to get it right before launch is a bad thing.

How quickly we forget the impact of the following failures:
A350 MK1


They practically ended up building it what... 10 years later?

A350-800


That was one... and it would not have happened had they just pushed forward with the A350 MK1

787-3


You think Boeing offered that out of the blue?

A380F


Wasnt canned over lack of customer demand, but costly delays of the A380 non-F made the F too late to meet lunch customer demand. That would have been an amazing parcel cargo lifter.... but, too late of course...

Vetting the business case ahead of time to avoid renegotiating or cancelling orders is a good thing.


Overvetting seems to be just as much of a problem then not doing enough of it....

Best regards
Thomas
Last edited by tommy1808 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This Singature is a safe space......
 
airbazar
Posts: 9577
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:23 pm

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

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


They've done their studies and found out that there is no market for a clean sheet MoM, or NSA, or whatever marketing name they'll come up with next. All their talk has been nothing but trying to trick Airbus into launching their own clean sheet, which as they know would be a commercial failure.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:24 pm

Revelation wrote:

tomcat wrote:
One could see the MAX backlog as 5000 potential launch orders for the NSA.

Why would one shut down one promising new market opportunity to spend money trying to get orders you already have?

This makes no sense to me.


I think he is trying to say: without the Max Boeing would have a 5000 Unit NSA backlog now.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
Why would one shut down one promising new market opportunity to spend money trying to get orders you already have?

This makes no sense to me.


I am not advocating an NSA that replaces like with like - at least straight off the bat.

If I were in charge of Boeing (luckily for the folks in Seattle I'm not but anywayz :) )

[all capacities sardine class to make it simple]
Step 1: 249 seat single-aisle aircraft capable of travelling ~4000 nm [fuselage A, wingset A]
Step 2: 199 seat single-aisle aircraft capable of travelling ~5000 nm [fuselage B, wingset A]

Step 3: 249 seat single-aisle aircraft capable of travelling ~2500 nm [fuselage A, wingset B]
Step 4: 199 seat single-aisle aircraft capable of travelling ~3500 nm [fuselage B, wingset B]


So step1 & step2 do not take too many orders (of course, there will always be some) from MAX as there is a distinct capability gap. Step 3 and step 4 replace the MAX, but they don't EIS till quite a bit later - after production is ramped - after the structure is better understood (which feeds into a significantly lighter design) and after engine maker(s) have shot down all the pesky bugs.

In the end you have a platform that is newer than A32x and is built such that it can be more easily upgraded over time - you could even do a fuselage and wingset C for a 149 seat version if the market were there - but probably better to cede that arena to the 5AB CSeries which will always be better suited. Then, way on down the line, when engine performance has improved, you can do a further redesign of wingset A to keep range around the levels noted while offering airlines improved fuel consumption due to reduced drag and improved tsfc.


The biggest risk to the overall program is novel propulsion technology (propfans, hydrogen fuelled or ANOther).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:38 pm

sabby wrote:
Boeing themselves discarded 787-3 as the operations cost difference wasn't worth the development cost.

It was a lot more complicated decision than "the operations cost difference wasn't worth the development cost".

Keep in mind the market of the early 2000s is different than the market of the late 2010s.
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
 
estorilm
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:03 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
Airbus says the A321XLR will enter service 2023. Boeing is targeting 2025 (despite what the skeptics say). This isn’t a winner take all market. They can coexist. Airbus is getting a head start, while Boeing continues developing prelaunch.

There isn't a chance in the entire universe that Boeing gets a ground-up, brand new composite aircraft family up and flying / certified 2 years after Airbus sends out a modified A32X family member. If anyone buys into such a thing, Boeing will be facing ungodly amounts of $$$ in penalties (AGAIN!) I just have to assume that if there's any brains involved in the decisions over at Boeing, that they'd rather put resources into a replacement 737 than this market which is pretty much already locked-down by AB. In my opinion, Boeing won't have an answer for the XLR any sooner than 6+ years from now (in any way/shape/form). The current 737 design is obviously completely out of the question at this point.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
Airbus has the PERFECT platform for such a market; with minimal modifications and maximum commonality, they're going to bring an aircraft to service in a short period of time. It's also a low-risk project requiring minimal investment, which will demand a PREMIUM price tag - profit margins on this thing should be amazing for Airbus.


I agree Airbus will demand a premium price tag. Weight upgrades are usually quite an upcharge from lower MTOW planes. How long will those margins last?

What I challenge is whether the A321 is the word PERFECT platform for a 220K lbs MTOW plane. The airplane will have the range for Transatlantic, but how efficient will the wing be compared to a new composite design? The A321 wing is already undersized. Is the engine optimized for this mission? Does the wing trailing edge flap configuration to preserve thrust requirements result in other compromises such as engine out climb performance, etc? There are always compromises with upgrading existing designs. I challenge the word PERFECT.

I believe there is a market for both an NMA and A321XLR, but I expect some people will repeat the normal comebacks that Boeing can’t deliver on time in 2025, Boeing can’t built a widebody at narrowbody economics despite them saying they can, and technology innovation ended in 1988, etc.

Yup, the flexibility of that MTOW change is what really makes the XLW a gem, and Airbus knows this - that's why they launched it and that's why airlines are already buying it (even in the face of the recently-launched LR!) In reality, it's represents minimal changes for the production, maintenance, certification, and training of the platform though. It's basically an (additional) gold mine for Airbus from the same package.

No - it isn't "perfect" from an overall engineering perspective, but it is perfect for airlines requiring a niche aircraft at a decent price-point (all $$ factors included ie MX and training / ops) with a fairly quick delivery time frame.

Also - in my opinion, it doesn't matter how efficient the wing will be. You have absolutely zero alternatives except an all-new aircraft, which isn't going to happen (not for this specific NB / long-range market). Your EIS for any alternative is WAY OUT there, if it ever happens at all. Meanwhile many of these airlines need the capacity ASAP, and others have really pushed their NB TATL fleet to the max lifetime-wise.

Having said that, I don't think it's horribly inefficient anyways.. isn't it something like 20+% cheaper CASM than a 757? Airlines will be happy with that - especially when faced with an alternative of a high-risk aircraft that might never get built, or may face huge delays and still present operators with much larger initial investments, as well as higher maintenance and training costs due to lack of commonality.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:47 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
777 was the first aircraft conceptualised for ETOPS (and indeed came about because of a market rejection of the 767X).

Those conditions can not repeat themselves.


I see more of fear on your part.
The 777 killed the A340 because it flew farther and faster with more passengers than the A340. ETOPS was the icing on the cake

I see the same scenario with the NMA. Fly farther with more passengers


Amiga500 wrote:
Circulate properly?"

Does it have a spiral staircase, grand ballroom and swimming pool like all those A380 concepts did?

No,

It would have been necessary to understand better circulate with

Twin Aisle VS Single Aisle.


:crowded: ___ :crowded:
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
sabby
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:11 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 4:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
sabby wrote:
Boeing themselves discarded 787-3 as the operations cost difference wasn't worth the development cost.

It was a lot more complicated decision than "the operations cost difference wasn't worth the development cost".

Keep in mind the market of the early 2000s is different than the market of the late 2010s.


How so ? If memory serves me right, 787-3 was more efficient upto 250-350nm, after that it was a wash. Also, 787-3 was cancelled around 2010 and just before A320neo family announcement. If anything, the window became narrower with the A321neo and now the XLR. Most of the 767s around the world were replaced by either A330 or 787, except the US3. I am not saying there is no market, just questioning if the market is big enough to justify the clean sheet design investment. Something has got to give, either the higher end of 737 and future NSA and/or 787-8 shut down.

Let me ask you this, what do you think should be the specs of the NMA and where would you see it beat all existing and announced upcoming aircraft in RFPs on capex and opex ? Who outside the US3 would buy it and for what kind of routes ? I am genuinely curious. Believe it or not, as a fan, I'd actually love another clean sheet wide body smaller than 787/A330 but capable of long range, just don't see it happening quite yet.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6264
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:17 pm

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

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


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


Not correct, but then again factual accuracy is optional on A.net these days.

The NMA is very much a real program. It’s such a smoke screen that hundreds of people are working on it. (Not that I would personally know anything about the program. ;))
 
hivue
Posts: 1903
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:54 pm

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


Perhaps. But if so and the strategy was successful, what we have now is a major manufacturer pushing a -- lets say "well seasoned" -- airframe design into the 3rd decade and beyond of the 21st century for perceived commercial advantage. Where have we seen this story before?
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10644
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Business Risk for Boeing: The A321XLR

Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:06 pm

hivue wrote:
Where have we seen this story before?


In a low cost, some more TOW, some more fuel, not even an updated engine, variant on a very relaxed timeline into a field without competition at EIS? Never?

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 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