Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
T4thH
Posts: 1102
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:21 am

Sorry folks, but you are clearly overestimating the demand for the A321Xlr (and A321LR).

It is estimated that the demand for the long range versions (LR + XLR) will be around 15 to 30% of the total number of A321 Neo orders and LR to Xlr will be something around a 50/50 distribution.

So numbers of 1000 Xlr already in the books are silly. With luck, of the 3200 A321 Neo till now ordered, around 600 to 800 LR and XLR are now in the books.
The long range versions are niche jets, most airlines will only need few of them. And only few will order the A321 Xlr or LR without also ordered A321 Neo or ceo standard jets.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:24 am

astuteman wrote:
All this could well be true. There are only 352 currently declared, plus Indigo (I guess plus AirAsia after their conversion too) but as you say, this could grow a lot depending upon what Airbus retrofit across the range as standard.

Please note that the Airasia unit that ordered the XLR is Airasia X Berhad, not Airasia Group Berhad. Airasia will have no need for the XLRs as their route network is restricted to flights of up to 4 hours only.

Meanwhile, Airasia X will find the XLR an ideal partner to their A333 and A339 Neos to give them capacity and scheduling flexibility.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:39 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
So you think Boeing will go with a medium range single aisle NMA and a short range single aisle FSA?

That would probably work very well especially if there is a great commonality for pilots and manufacturing.

Maybe a modern 150t 8ab A300 clone would work if it is a bigger product (twin aisle). Anything else is just to vulnerable.

NMA will definitely be a widebody and fit code D gates.

150-160t MTOW, 44-48m wingspan and 200m2 wing area. 500cm cabin width which is halfway between the 472cm 767 and the 528cm A330. This allows a tight 8ab with Boeing 17inch seats. Cabin length would be approx 32m and 38m making them exactly 767-200 and 767-300 in area. LD2 containers if circular cross section or an LD8-45 container if it has a reduced height lower lobe.

An A300NEO with its 188t MTOW and the latest engines and wingtips would probably have 5500nm range. It would also be larger and longer ranged than what the 797 is required to be. Putting the A300NEO plans in a photocopier and shrinking them by 5% would be very close. As weight is cubic that should bring the OEW down to 75-80t and the MTOW to 150-160t.


Exactly a modern "clone".

If Boeing launches something like that, I would like to see the reaction at Airbus. Would they launch an A300neo?

What I do not understand is why Airbus has not launched the A300neo yet. There is clearly the market to sell 500+, if smartly designed it could be build on the A330 line and would also be a perfect platform for a freighter. A lot of knowledge is already there R&D would be relatively low $5-7B, there is the opportunity to increase demand for the A330 with commonality, and it would put Boeing even more under pressure to deliver.

Good maybe the plans are there and the moment Boeing goes for a clean sheet Airbus launches the A300neo and possibly be 2 years + earlier at the market with a relatively cheap offer that prices Boeing out of their clean sheet. Could also be the reason why Boeing has not closed the business case. If they know that Airbus has a solution ready that takes 40+% of the market and the xlr that takes another 20% it might not be worth it to spend $20B+ on a clean sheet development for the remaining market.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:55 am

astuteman wrote:
It might be me being short-sighted, but I just struggle to see how a $15Bn+ to develop dedicated airframe can compete with the very unsexy, but very powerful "bog standardness" of the XLR (or derivative derivative of any other volume narrowbody programme)

I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the 150-180 seat market with the A320 and 737-800 as the highest sellers.

4,000 150-180 seaters (A320, 787-8)
3,000 180-210 seaters (737-9, 737-10)
2,250 210-240 seaters (A321)
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)
1,250 270-300 seaters (787-8, A330-200)
950 300-330 seaters (787-9, A330-300)
700 330-360 seaters (A350-900)
533 360-390 seaters (787-10)
400 390-430 seaters (A350-1000)
300 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
225 460-490 seaters (777-9)
150 500+ seaters (747-8, A380)

Now these seating values assume an average 2 class seating density.

There is currently no 240-270 seat aircraft with up to date engines so that is 1,650 orders that has to go to the size above and below. This is why nearly all of the 767's are still flying and the A321 is getting huge sales.

If a 240-270 seat 2 class 797 is launched with up to date engine tech it will capture the full 1,650 sales as it has that size segment all to itself. That fully justifies $15 billion. The 797 will probably then stretch up into the 270-300 seat market and will surely capture half of the 1,250 orders as well.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:13 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Exactly a modern "clone".

If Boeing launches something like that, I would like to see the reaction at Airbus. Would they launch an A300neo?
I expect they will launch something like that and keep the A330 cross section. Most likely it will have a very high aspect ratio carbon wing. An A310 stretched to A300 fuselage length would probably be a better starting point. I expect the name will surely be the A360 as Airbus has done a 180 degree turn back to the A300 and then another 180 to update the design. So they've done a 360. Engines they could probably used uprated versions based on the 797's.

The A330NEO will struggle with the 787-9 above and the 797 below. So the A360 would replace the A330NEO and allow the Airbus to ramp up A350 production.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)


Where are you getting your numbers from?

Hardly anyone is flying 767-200s in passenger service these days. That leaves just over 700 passenger 767s (-300s, -300ERs and -400s) to be replaced with absolutely no guarantee of getting 100% market share as you're suggesting.

It's no wonder Boeing seems reluctant to stump up $15billion for NMA plus convincing someone to build a new engine for it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
P1aneMad
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:05 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:00 pm

It is more like 600 767s total still flying today and getting fewer and fewer every month.
Of those just half are used for passengers, the rest are freighters.
Seems to me that certain people are trying to find a solution to a non existent problem.
Thankfully Boeing has shelved the NMA plan.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:00 pm

Exactly. The market simply isn't there for a $10B+ USD program for an aircraft that can do a little bit more than a single aisle but cannot do the long ranged missions of other widebodies. How many airlines currently use significant numbers of widebodies on exclusively 5000-5500nm missions? That is the market the NMA is only optimal for.


On missions less than 4500nm and its likely that an airline will see better value from an A321XLR as it can slip into their standard narrowbody routes and timetables. Anything more than 6000nm and its likely the NMA will be so payload limited* that a 787 would be the better aircraft.

*Unless Boeing cut off their nose to spite their face.



The 7AB 767 had half its orders accrued before the A330 first entered service in 1993. The -400ER was introduced in 2000 with a range of 5,600nm and a capacity slap bang in the "middle of market". It was a sales disaster gathering less than 40 frames sold.

Why do people expect things to be so different now?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:12 pm

And in the 767 we saw, that ER good, non-ER bad, when it comes to airlines. We saw a similar thing with the A300, when airlines also asked for more range (which led to the A310). We also saw that the A333 needed a certain range before it outsold the A332.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8456
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the 150-180 seat market with the A320 and 737-800 as the highest sellers.

4,000 150-180 seaters (A320, 787-8)
3,000 180-210 seaters (737-9, 737-10)
2,250 210-240 seaters (A321)
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)
1,250 270-300 seaters (787-8, A330-200)
950 300-330 seaters (787-9, A330-300)
700 330-360 seaters (A350-900)
533 360-390 seaters (787-10)
400 390-430 seaters (A350-1000)
300 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
225 460-490 seaters (777-9)
150 500+ seaters (747-8, A380)


Are these estimates or real sales. 777-300ER sold 844 copies.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
And in the 767 we saw, that ER good, non-ER bad, when it comes to airlines. We saw a similar thing with the A300, when airlines also asked for more range (which led to the A310). We also saw that the A333 needed a certain range before it outsold the A332.


Agreed.

For whatever reason - range sells.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
Another thing to consider is that if Boeing does the NMA now and the FSA later (say 2030+ EIS)...


I have serious doubts that Boeing will ever build single aisle aircraft again if they push the FSA to 2030+.
By then there will be so many competitors that the profit margin might not be there.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:05 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the 150-180 seat market with the A320 and 737-800 as the highest sellers.

4,000 150-180 seaters (A320, 787-8)
3,000 180-210 seaters (737-9, 737-10)
2,250 210-240 seaters (A321)
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)
1,250 270-300 seaters (787-8, A330-200)
950 300-330 seaters (787-9, A330-300)
700 330-360 seaters (A350-900)
533 360-390 seaters (787-10)
400 390-430 seaters (A350-1000)
300 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
225 460-490 seaters (777-9)
150 500+ seaters (747-8, A380)


Are these estimates or real sales. 777-300ER sold 844 copies.

These values would accurately represent the current total market size. The demand would be consistent across all sizes. Any peak in sales in a certain size range does mean that size has a higher market demand, it simple means there is a lack of competition in the surrounding sizes. An aircraft can sell above any of these numbers if there is no competing aircraft in the size above or below. When the 777-300ER was launched the A350 and 787 did not exist in the 330-430 seat categories so the 777 was sharing multiple categories of sales with the A340.

For example halving the values to represent the smaller market 15 years ago:
350 330-360 seaters
266 360-390 seaters
200 390-430 seaters
150 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
112 460-490 seaters

Roughly 1060 aircraft which equals the combined A340-600 and 777W total.

Likewise the A330-300 in the 20 years ago had the size range to itself, the size above was vacant and the size below the A330-200 had the size range to itself. As a result the A330CEO collected the combined sales total of multiple sizes.

The high 787 sales is a result of the sizes below it being vacant. I expect the 777-9 to sell well as all the sizes above it will soon be vacant.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8456
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:02 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the 150-180 seat market with the A320 and 737-800 as the highest sellers.

4,000 150-180 seaters (A320, 787-8)
3,000 180-210 seaters (737-9, 737-10)
2,250 210-240 seaters (A321)
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)
1,250 270-300 seaters (787-8, A330-200)
950 300-330 seaters (787-9, A330-300)
700 330-360 seaters (A350-900)
533 360-390 seaters (787-10)
400 390-430 seaters (A350-1000)
300 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
225 460-490 seaters (777-9)
150 500+ seaters (747-8, A380)


Are these estimates or real sales. 777-300ER sold 844 copies.

These values would accurately represent the current total market size. The demand would be consistent across all sizes. Any peak in sales in a certain size range does mean that size has a higher market demand, it simple means there is a lack of competition in the surrounding sizes. An aircraft can sell above any of these numbers if there is no competing aircraft in the size above or below. When the 777-300ER was launched the A350 and 787 did not exist in the 330-430 seat categories so the 777 was sharing multiple categories of sales with the A340.

For example halving the values to represent the smaller market 15 years ago:
350 330-360 seaters
266 360-390 seaters
200 390-430 seaters
150 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
112 460-490 seaters

Roughly 1060 aircraft which equals the combined A340-600 and 777W total.

Likewise the A330-300 in the 20 years ago had the size range to itself, the size above was vacant and the size below the A330-200 had the size range to itself. As a result the A330CEO collected the combined sales total of multiple sizes.

The high 787 sales is a result of the sizes below it being vacant. I expect the 777-9 to sell well as all the sizes above it will soon be vacant.


My interpretation was completely the opposite.

The absence of 787 and A350 and A330NEO lead to 77W's success among big twin-engined aircraft.
The presence of highly successful 787 and reasonably successful A350, and a much improved A330 ie., NEO will lead to slow/no sales of 77X. Fragmentation killed the 77X's sale potential.

You seem to be generalizing that airlines will always upsize, IMHO those days are gone. You can correct me if I am wrong.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
I expect the 777-9 to sell well as all the sizes above it will soon be vacant.


The size above it has effectively been vacant since 777X launch - A380 has a total of 17 net sales and the 748I eight.

dtw2hyd wrote:
The absence of 787 and A350 and A330NEO lead to 77W's success among big twin-engined aircraft.
The presence of highly successful 787 and reasonably successful A350, and a much improved A330 ie., NEO will lead to slow/no sales of 77X. Fragmentation killed the 77X's sale potential.


:checkmark:

The 777X has lots more viable competition that the 77W ever had. It will impact sales - indeed we've already seen its biggest customer downsizing and cutting back their order.

dtw2hyd wrote:
You seem to be generalizing that airlines will always upsize, IMHO those days are gone. You can correct me if I am wrong.


Too many generalisations and too many optimistic assumptions (like 100% market share) lead to erroneous conclusions. If it were as straightforward as presented, Boeing would have launched NMA a long time ago.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:14 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Exactly a modern "clone".

If Boeing launches something like that, I would like to see the reaction at Airbus. Would they launch an A300neo?
I expect they will launch something like that and keep the A330 cross section. Most likely it will have a very high aspect ratio carbon wing. An A310 stretched to A300 fuselage length would probably be a better starting point. I expect the name will surely be the A360 as Airbus has done a 180 degree turn back to the A300 and then another 180 to update the design. So they've done a 360. Engines they could probably used uprated versions based on the 797's.

Wouldn’t a stretched A310 just be an ordinary A300?
The A330NEO will struggle with the 787-9 above and the 797 below. So the A360 would replace the A330NEO and allow the Airbus to ramp up A350 production.
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:28 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
So you think Boeing will go with a medium range single aisle NMA and a short range single aisle FSA?

That would probably work very well especially if there is a great commonality for pilots and manufacturing.

Maybe a modern 150t 8ab A300 clone would work if it is a bigger product (twin aisle). Anything else is just to vulnerable.

NMA will definitely be a widebody and fit code D gates.

150-160t MTOW, 44-48m wingspan and 200m2 wing area. 500cm cabin width which is halfway between the 472cm 767 and the 528cm A330. This allows a tight 8ab with Boeing 17inch seats. Cabin length would be approx 32m and 38m making them exactly 767-200 and 767-300 in area. LD2 containers if circular cross section or an LD8-45 container if it has a reduced height lower lobe.

An A300NEO with its 188t MTOW and the latest engines and wingtips would probably have 5500nm range. It would also be larger and longer ranged than what the 797 is required to be. Putting the A300NEO plans in a photocopier and shrinking them by 5% would be very close. As weight is cubic that should bring the OEW down to 75-80t and the MTOW to 150-160t.


Even a A333 does not have 5500nm range with a full payload and a A300C4 does 2500nm with 35t payload.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, but is this a vote for "do nothing" till 2030 or so?


Essentially, yes. I don't believe NMA/MOM as a small widebody has a business case and I believe FSA should not be launched "soon" if it will only be a general copy of the A320neo.


questions wrote:
What was the 7E7? A twin aisle smaller than the 787 yet using the 787’s technology?


The 7E7 grew out of the Yellowstone project which was designed to be the eventual replacement for the 737/757 (Yellowstone 1), the 767 (Yellowstone 2) and the 747/777 (Yellowstone 3). When the program was formally launched with the 50 frame All Nippon Airways order, it became the 787. Through discussion with customers, the airframe was enlarged from a 767 replacement to an A330-300HGW / 777-200ER replacement.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:11 pm

The 321LR/XLR is a compromise aircraft. We shouldn’t forget that. It’s not close to optimized for the long-haul routes it will be doing. Same old wing. Strengthened landing gear but still single bogey. Cabin using bleed air. Etc. It’s even a bit too small. Once you do three class (lie flat J/Y+/Y), seat counts are closer to 170 (see TAP) than 200. Tighter 2-class fits like Aer Lingus are still around the 180 mark. It’s fit for purpose. But hardly optimized for the TATL mission.

And yet the 321LR/XLR being unoptimized is sort of irrelevant from a business point of view. It’s marginally more expensive for Airbus to build. And marginally more expensive for a 320NEO operator to employ. The real issue here remains: the 321NEO is a beast. And beating it could well take more than one family.

I question whether a twin aisle is really needed in the 200-250 seat/TATL range category. I also question whether Boeing needs to replace the 737 with a family that covers up to 230 seats and 4000nm. Narrowbodies are ridiculously overbuilt for most of the regional missions they fly, while also being seriously compromised for the thin and long routes that some are now being used for. There’s no reason the solution here isn’t simply to split the market into two narrowbody markets: 200-250 seats with TATL range and 150-200 seats with max TCON range.

That leaves room for Boeing to offer a vastly better TATL narrowbody aircraft. Even if it’s not a twin aisle. Boeing could easily make a modern aircraft for the 757 space (I don't mean an updated 757 here). Newest engines, CFRP wings and fuse, modern manufacturing techniques, bleedless air, containerised cargo, etc. And most importantly, designed and optimized for the medium to long haul mission. Wings and engines that get it the speed (>M0.8) to do TATL trips in a decent time, with a design range (>4500nm) that actually enables plenty of TATL city pairs in realistic year-round winds. Maybe steal a page from Bombardier with 18 in standard width seats and wider middle seats and aisle.

And then target the 320NEO and 321NEO from below. With an aircraft that is optimized for the shorter routes that most of these aircraft fly. None of these aircraft should have more than 200 seats and more range than necessary for TCON year-round.

No doubt in my mind that Boeing could build the above and do it well. The real questions are whether there’s profit to be made in such a proposal. I think there might be. The 200-250 seater is less of a niche aircraft than the tight 300 seat twins some are proposing. Both categories I suggest are aircraft that could be commoditized easily and sold in the thousands. Airlines wanting a 250 seat plan would simply “abuse” it by flying it on shorter sectors, possibly in-between longer flights. And lots of those light 150-200 seat feeder narrowbodies would be snapped up. Done right, Boeing may be able to leverage development in one family to use in the other. Maybe common fuse sections and cockpits for the 200-250 and 150-200 markets, with different wings, tails and landing gear. There’s lots of potential here and having bought Embraer, they now have the large engineering pool needed to execute a dual-family strategy, even if it’s in succession rather than parallel development.
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:32 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Another thing to consider is that if Boeing does the NMA now and the FSA later (say 2030+ EIS)...


I have serious doubts that Boeing will ever build single aisle aircraft again if they push the FSA to 2030+.
By then there will be so many competitors that the profit margin might not be there.


Based on your POV, I wonder if Boeing read the competitive market, determined that they’d never build a new single aisle aircraft again and decided to milk the 737 one last time with the MAX before exiting the market.
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:40 pm

TObound wrote:
The 321LR/XLR is a compromise aircraft. We shouldn’t forget that. It’s not close to optimized for the long-haul routes it will be doing. Same old wing. Strengthened landing gear but still single bogey. Cabin using bleed air.

That leaves room for Boeing to offer a vastly better TATL narrowbody aircraft. Even if it’s not a twin aisle. Boeing could easily make a modern aircraft for the 757 space (I don't mean an updated 757 here). Newest engines, CFRP wings and fuse, modern manufacturing techniques, bleedless air, containerised cargo, etc.


What does bleed air and bleedless air mean?
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:49 pm

questions wrote:
TObound wrote:
The 321LR/XLR is a compromise aircraft. We shouldn’t forget that. It’s not close to optimized for the long-haul routes it will be doing. Same old wing. Strengthened landing gear but still single bogey. Cabin using bleed air.

That leaves room for Boeing to offer a vastly better TATL narrowbody aircraft. Even if it’s not a twin aisle. Boeing could easily make a modern aircraft for the 757 space (I don't mean an updated 757 here). Newest engines, CFRP wings and fuse, modern manufacturing techniques, bleedless air, containerised cargo, etc.


What does bleed air and bleedless air mean?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed_air

Reduces efficiency.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:08 pm

TObound wrote:
Reduces efficiency.


Is this quantifiable?

Of course the proponents of bleedless architecture claim it's better and more efficient, but I've yet to read compelling arguments. As with all things related to aircraft design, there are compromises and costs associated with all choices. I don't believe bleed vs bleedless is any different.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7184
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
It might be me being short-sighted, but I just struggle to see how a $15Bn+ to develop dedicated airframe can compete with the very unsexy, but very powerful "bog standardness" of the XLR (or derivative derivative of any other volume narrowbody programme)

I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid.

I have no problem with the general principle of a pyramid for the airliner market, but once again your example (ignoring the noise on specific types) illustrates the problem perfectly.
If the market worked according to the pyramid model, generally as you describe, then there would be no market gap. The players would have come and gone to suit the generally growing demand. But this is NOT what has happened.

A gap has appeared between the narrowbodys and the widebodys. It has been appearing for a very long time and has continued to grow over a very long time. And in that time NONE of the players have aligned themselves to your pyramid model in that gap with a new or revised entrant. And EVERY model that was in that gap has gone the way of the Dodo.

I ask the question again and again.. Why is that?

Without knowing why this discontinuity in the "pyramid model" has evolved over decades, we can't know that a model be placed in it can be successful. I personally believe the answer lies somewhere like this..
Amiga500 wrote:
Exactly. The market simply isn't there for a $10B+ USD program for an aircraft that can do a little bit more than a single aisle but cannot do the long ranged missions of other widebodies. How many airlines currently use significant numbers of widebodies on exclusively 5000-5500nm missions? That is the market the NMA is only optimal for.
On missions less than 4500nm and its likely that an airline will see better value from an A321XLR as it can slip into their standard narrowbody routes and timetables. Anything more than 6000nm and its likely the NMA will be so payload limited that a 787 would be the better aircraft.

This works for me.
RJMAZ wrote:
[If a 240-270 seat 2 class 797 is launched with up to date engine tech it will capture the full 1,650 sales as it has that size segment all to itself. That fully justifies $15 billion. The 797 will probably then stretch up into the 270-300 seat market and will surely capture half of the 1,250 orders as well.

Not if the gap is a structural one, as many of us believe
FluidFlow wrote:
What I do not understand is why Airbus has not launched the A300neo yet. There is clearly the market to sell 500+.


You ask the question that needs asking, but ask it as if you already know the answer.
There may be a market to sell 500 aircraft, but no manufacturer I know is going to develop an aircraft specific to this role, with all the investment it implies, just for 500 aircraft. If that model worked, then the MOM gap would have been being filled for the last 20 years. But it isn't.

Between them the two OEM's have had 6 models in this space that could have been developed to suit. But they haven't. Boeing have tried for five years to make the business case work for a MOM aircraft. But they haven't. I really struggle to understand why people can't see the relevance of this to the debate about NMA/MOM
As an enthusiast I would love a Boeing NMA new design, and delight in an all new Airbus response.
As hard as I try to see it happening, I fail.
Fingers crossed, though.

Rgds
 
DenverTed
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:48 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
I consider the airline market like a pyramid. If there are no aircraft available in a certain size then the sales must go to the aircraft above and below on the pyramid. The base of the pyramid is the 150-180 seat market with the A320 and 737-800 as the highest sellers.

4,000 150-180 seaters (A320, 787-8)
3,000 180-210 seaters (737-9, 737-10)
2,250 210-240 seaters (A321)
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)
1,250 270-300 seaters (787-8, A330-200)
950 300-330 seaters (787-9, A330-300)
700 330-360 seaters (A350-900)
533 360-390 seaters (787-10)
400 390-430 seaters (A350-1000)
300 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
225 460-490 seaters (777-9)
150 500+ seaters (747-8, A380)


Are these estimates or real sales. 777-300ER sold 844 copies.

These values would accurately represent the current total market size. The demand would be consistent across all sizes. Any peak in sales in a certain size range does mean that size has a higher market demand, it simple means there is a lack of competition in the surrounding sizes. An aircraft can sell above any of these numbers if there is no competing aircraft in the size above or below. When the 777-300ER was launched the A350 and 787 did not exist in the 330-430 seat categories so the 777 was sharing multiple categories of sales with the A340.

For example halving the values to represent the smaller market 15 years ago:
350 330-360 seaters
266 360-390 seaters
200 390-430 seaters
150 430-460 seaters (777-300ER)
112 460-490 seaters

Roughly 1060 aircraft which equals the combined A340-600 and 777W total.

Likewise the A330-300 in the 20 years ago had the size range to itself, the size above was vacant and the size below the A330-200 had the size range to itself. As a result the A330CEO collected the combined sales total of multiple sizes.

The high 787 sales is a result of the sizes below it being vacant. I expect the 777-9 to sell well as all the sizes above it will soon be vacant.

Makes sense to me. There used to be a lot of domestic DC-10s and L1011s. Today there is the 753 and 777domestic on trunk routes which will need a replacement. As long as there are enough code D gates to make it work. One argument about cargo was that the LD2 was an oddball. Now that there are so many 767-300Fs out there, this seems less of an issue. A 5m cabin 797 could transition to the next freighter along side the 767 easily.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:48 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
My interpretation was completely the opposite.

The absence of 787 and A350 and A330NEO lead to 77W's success among big twin-engined aircraft.
The presence of highly successful 787 and reasonably successful A350, and a much improved A330 ie., NEO will lead to slow/no sales of 77X. Fragmentation killed the 77X's sale potential..

dtw2hyd wrote:
We will have 250 A380's to be replaced. I doubt many of the current 777X orders are directly replacing the A380. If an airport has slot shortages then an airline will want to keep an aircraft as big as possible otherwise they give up marketshare. This may keep the A380's operating for longer than expected. Airlines will want the largest plane to reduce the damage.

dtw2hyd wrote:
You seem to be generalizing that airlines will always upsize, IMHO those days are gone. You can correct me if I am wrong.

A 7000nm range large aircraft can always fly a 5000nm route. A 4000nm small aircraft can not fly a 5000nm route. If there is a large gap in the market then the majority will have to buy larger not smaller.

For example lets assume an airlines has routes 4500nm, 5000nm, 5500nm, 6000nm, 6500nm and 7000nm distance. Airlines have to upsize these to a 7000nm widebody for 5 out of the 6 routes they can not downsize to an A321XLR.

The trend is definitely moving towards smaller and longer ranged aircraft. You could create a similar pyramid for demand for range.

4,000 500-1000nm
3,000 1000-1500nm
2,250 1500-2000nm
1,650 2000-2500nm
1,250 2500-3000nm
950 3500-4000nm
700 4500-5000nm
533 5000-5500nm
400 6000-6500nm
300 6500-7000nm
225 7000-7500nm
150 7500-8000nm
100 8000+nm

Optimising for a shorter range gains efficiency but a manufacturer will sacrifice the market above that range. Designing an aircraft with a a 2000nm brochure range could still sell 5000+ aircraft if it is 10+% more efficient than the current aircraft with 3500+nm brochure range.

The larger 797 would be much more efficient than a 787-8 on short routes.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
An A300NEO with its 188t MTOW and the latest engines and wingtips would probably have 5500nm range.


Even a A333 does not have 5500nm range with a full payload and a A300C4 does 2500nm with 35t payload.

That is brochure range. Brochure range is usually with a medium density cabin and no extra cargo. This is well below full cargo.

The Airbus website lists the A300-600 as 4050nm with 266 (2-class).

The A300NEO with A330NEO style wingtips and two big geared turbofans would easily have 5000nm range. My estimate is close to 5500nm.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15765
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:39 pm

TObound wrote:
The 321LR/XLR is a compromise aircraft. We shouldn’t forget that. It’s not close to optimized for the long-haul routes it will be doing. Same old wing. Strengthened landing gear but still single bogey. Cabin using bleed air. Etc. It’s even a bit too small. Once you do three class (lie flat J/Y+/Y), seat counts are closer to 170 (see TAP) than 200. Tighter 2-class fits like Aer Lingus are still around the 180 mark. It’s fit for purpose. But hardly optimized for the TATL mission.


Agreed. I've long maintained that what Boeing should be developing is a narrowbody, single-aisle aircraft that falls squarely between the B757-200 and B757-300 in capacity, with 4000-4500nm range. If they can crank that out, it's a huge winner.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19285
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:57 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
I've long maintained that what Boeing should be developing is a narrowbody, single-aisle aircraft that falls squarely between the B757-200 and B757-300 in capacity, with 4000-4500nm range. If they can crank that out, it's a huge winner.


But isn't this exactly part of the problem for Boeing and why they haven't been able to close the business case on NMA? If you pick that specific plane, you'll have a few customers who say, "Great, that's exactly what we want!", but you'll have other customers who say "We want a bigger plane with that range." and others who say "We want that size of plane, but with more range." maybe even others who say "No, we need a bigger plane with more range, but not a 787."

IMHO, the market for your specific plane is probably not big enough to justify the investment required to build it (assuming it's not a 737 derivative), especially with the A321XLR biting chunks out of it.

It may be that there simply isn't enough consensus amongst potential customers - the "middle of the market" may mean too many different things to too many different airlines.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
TObound
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:20 pm

astuteman asked the right question. Why does the gap exist?

I would posit they it exists because of the nature of commercial aviation. Unless you have a very efficient aircraft, it was always cheaper to put the 180 pax on a widebody with connections than on a 752. There had to be higher yields to make up for the higher cost of a more direct flight. And there was probably a limit on markets where that would work.

Add 30 years of urbanization, population and economic growth and there's a lot more city pairs where a 757 type of service is sustainable. Meanwhile, tech has brought the costs of operating such a service lower. Not just because of fuel efficiency, but because of commonality. Being part of the NEO family makes the marginal cost of running 321XLRs trivial for 320NEO operators. This is why the NMA will be a hard sell unless it also comes with lots of commonality with the FSA.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15765
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:17 am

scbriml wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
I've long maintained that what Boeing should be developing is a narrowbody, single-aisle aircraft that falls squarely between the B757-200 and B757-300 in capacity, with 4000-4500nm range. If they can crank that out, it's a huge winner.


But isn't this exactly part of the problem for Boeing and why they haven't been able to close the business case on NMA? If you pick that specific plane, you'll have a few customers who say, "Great, that's exactly what we want!", but you'll have other customers who say "We want a bigger plane with that range." and others who say "We want that size of plane, but with more range." maybe even others who say "No, we need a bigger plane with more range, but not a 787."

IMHO, the market for your specific plane is probably not big enough to justify the investment required to build it (assuming it's not a 737 derivative), especially with the A321XLR biting chunks out of it.

It may be that there simply isn't enough consensus amongst potential customers - the "middle of the market" may mean too many different things to too many different airlines.


Not really, if the base model is as described, with scalable versions both up in capacity/slightly down in range and slightly down in capacity (not below B757-200 levels) and up in range. Basically, a base that's a larger, more capable, flexible version of the A321, if you will.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8495
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:24 am

T4thH wrote:
Sorry folks, but you are clearly overestimating the demand for the A321Xlr (and A321LR).

It is estimated that the demand for the long range versions (LR + XLR) will be around 15 to 30% of the total number of A321 Neo orders and LR to Xlr will be something around a 50/50 distribution.


It is estimated by whom? Care to point to that?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:40 am

I have heard that the standard configuration for the A321 now is with a single ACT, so if you bought an A321LR with a single ACT (as opposed to two or three), you received effectively the same plane.

I could see the A321XLR becoming the "de facto" model for the extra MTOW if nothing else. The RCT offers more volume than multiple ACTs without taking up as much cargo hold space so a customer would almost certainly buy it over a multi-ACT A321LR (will that model even be offered?) and quite possibly over a single-ACT A321.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8456
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
A 7000nm range large aircraft can always fly a 5000nm route.A 4000nm small aircraft can not fly a 5000nm route. If there is a large gap in the market then the majority will have to buy larger not smaller.

Isn' that model fail? No airline can send A380s at 50%PLF throughout the year just because they have the biggest aircraft.

RJMAZ wrote:
For example lets assume an airlines has routes 4500nm, 5000nm, 5500nm, 6000nm, 6500nm and 7000nm distance. Airlines have to upsize these to a 7000nm widebody for 5 out of the 6 routes they can not downsize to an A321XLR.

Is there any such airline. Even purely international sixth freedom carriers have quite a few destinations short of 4500nm.

RJMAZ wrote:
Optimizing for a shorter range gains efficiency but a manufacturer will sacrifice the market above that range.

That is not the trend as you said
RJMAZ wrote:
The trend is definitely moving towards smaller and longer ranged aircraft.


RJMAZ wrote:
The larger 797 would be much more efficient than a 787-8 on short routes.

Assuming 787 is the only competitor.

Routes are long and thin (or) short and thick. Technology permits a shorter range with smaller planes and longer range with bigger planes. There is an inherent mismatch that cannot be solved with any key metric magic.

There is an acute need for a small (200/2 Class) aircraft with a 5000nm true range. I don't see any innovation to achieve that. All I see is an obsession to pack more seats to achieve the range and publish glossy brochures with CASM numbers.
All posts are just opinions.
 
musman9853
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:45 am

scbriml wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
1,650 240-270 seaters (767)


Where are you getting your numbers from?

Hardly anyone is flying 767-200s in passenger service these days. That leaves just over 700 passenger 767s (-300s, -300ERs and -400s) to be replaced with absolutely no guarantee of getting 100% market share as you're suggesting.

It's no wonder Boeing seems reluctant to stump up $15billion for NMA plus convincing someone to build a new engine for it.


all indications are that there won't be a new engine entirely for nma if it moves forward. the ge ceo a few months ago said a scaled up leap to 50k lbfs would be sufficient for nma, and is certainly within cfm's ability to deliver within a few years.
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:12 am

RJMAZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
An A300NEO with its 188t MTOW and the latest engines and wingtips would probably have 5500nm range.


Even a A333 does not have 5500nm range with a full payload and a A300C4 does 2500nm with 35t payload.

That is brochure range. Brochure range is usually with a medium density cabin and no extra cargo. This is well below full cargo.

The Airbus website lists the A300-600 as 4050nm with 266 (2-class).

The A300NEO with A330NEO style wingtips and two big geared turbofans would easily have 5000nm range. My estimate is close to 5500nm.


You are missing the point, you need to define the payload before you can talk about range. If you want haul around ~260pax and bags, we are talking about 26t payload. A A321NEO takes 23t to 3000nm with 3 ACTs, the XLR takes it a bit further. I dare say a twin aisle needs to be able to take more payload further to be attractive.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:54 am

Noshow wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is a 2030 project. The 757 replacement market is done, where they do not want to miss out is when the A321CEOs and 737-900s are up for replacement and they need to avoid being surprised by Airbus again. After the NEO, the last thing they need is Airbus launching a re-winged A320 with improved engines while Boeing is still undecided about a FSA.


You can almost bet Airbus will do this sooner than later. It will be hard to counter with some expensive and first risky new design.


If Boeing avoids the risk of coming up with a clean sheet, they will be repeating the same mistakes when they wasted so much time pondering on the cleansheet versus Max, and see where they have ended with. It is better to take the risk, develop a new airliner which will give them lots of years of upgrading in the future.
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:06 am

astuteman wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
What I do not understand is why Airbus has not launched the A300neo yet. There is clearly the market to sell 500+.


You ask the question that needs asking, but ask it as if you already know the answer.
There may be a market to sell 500 aircraft, but no manufacturer I know is going to develop an aircraft specific to this role, with all the investment it implies, just for 500 aircraft. If that model worked, then the MOM gap would have been being filled for the last 20 years. But it isn't.

Between them the two OEM's have had 6 models in this space that could have been developed to suit. But they haven't. Boeing have tried for five years to make the business case work for a MOM aircraft. But they haven't. I really struggle to understand why people can't see the relevance of this to the debate about NMA/MOM
As an enthusiast I would love a Boeing NMA new design, and delight in an all new Airbus response.
As hard as I try to see it happening, I fail.
Fingers crossed, though.

Rgds


I think there are different reasons Airbus has not done it over the last 20 years. The early 00 years were bad for aviation anyway. Then there was the really bad launch of the A350, the A380 struggled and R&D was also needed to Neo the other two families.
Now they actually have no need to launch it because the XLR does great, Boeing has nothing to offer, so why make the effort.

I still think though that Airbus should and could launch an aircraft that has a lot off commonality with the A330 that would over time be the real MoM aircraft between the A350 and the A321. This role was long occupied by the A333 but now the A339 is just too close to the A359 to be a sales monster.

On the other side if Airbus "starts" again with a clear two size family in mind (the same idea as the A320/321 plan, two models with big differences and still huge commonality) they could "relaunch" the A300 as the A360 (or what ever) based on the A330 line. A de-rated shorter fuselage, a new CFRP wing, lighter smaller engines. OEW of 80t, MTOW 160t, 300 seats single class 8ab, 6500nm range (with 230pax 2class, no cargo). Then afterwards build a stretch, OEW 95t, MTOW 170t, 260pax two class with 5000nm range.

For everything above there is the A350, underneath the A321.

Due to recycling a lot of technology from the A330 line and no fancy fuselage only new wings Airbus could do it for 5-10B$. Same as if Boeing would refresh the 767 but Airbus has the advantage of having already an Aircraft to derive this new NMA from that is in pax service production.
Investing 20B$+ into this gap seems insane when you have to sell Max-10 and 787s. Especially when you struggle to fill the 787 order book. Airbus on the other side has relatively less sales to lose. The A330 does not sell like crazy and airlines like the commonality of the A321. So an A360 based off the A330 with launch in 2028+ would not cannibalize too much their own market.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:53 am

Talk to persons who experienced scheduling the A300 in a route network back in the days and you will see that it was anything but an easy plane to use efficiently year round.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:10 am

FluidFlow wrote:
astuteman wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
What I do not understand is why Airbus has not launched the A300neo yet. There is clearly the market to sell 500+.


You ask the question that needs asking, but ask it as if you already know the answer.
There may be a market to sell 500 aircraft, but no manufacturer I know is going to develop an aircraft specific to this role, with all the investment it implies, just for 500 aircraft. If that model worked, then the MOM gap would have been being filled for the last 20 years. But it isn't.

Between them the two OEM's have had 6 models in this space that could have been developed to suit. But they haven't. Boeing have tried for five years to make the business case work for a MOM aircraft. But they haven't. I really struggle to understand why people can't see the relevance of this to the debate about NMA/MOM
As an enthusiast I would love a Boeing NMA new design, and delight in an all new Airbus response.
As hard as I try to see it happening, I fail.
Fingers crossed, though.

Rgds


I think there are different reasons Airbus has not done it over the last 20 years. The early 00 years were bad for aviation anyway. Then there was the really bad launch of the A350, the A380 struggled and R&D was also needed to Neo the other two families.
Now they actually have no need to launch it because the XLR does great, Boeing has nothing to offer, so why make the effort.

I still think though that Airbus should and could launch an aircraft that has a lot off commonality with the A330 that would over time be the real MoM aircraft between the A350 and the A321. This role was long occupied by the A333 but now the A339 is just too close to the A359 to be a sales monster.

On the other side if Airbus "starts" again with a clear two size family in mind (the same idea as the A320/321 plan, two models with big differences and still huge commonality) they could "relaunch" the A300 as the A360 (or what ever) based on the A330 line. A de-rated shorter fuselage, a new CFRP wing, lighter smaller engines. OEW of 80t, MTOW 160t, 300 seats single class 8ab, 6500nm range (with 230pax 2class, no cargo). Then afterwards build a stretch, OEW 95t, MTOW 170t, 260pax two class with 5000nm range.

For everything above there is the A350, underneath the A321.

Due to recycling a lot of technology from the A330 line and no fancy fuselage only new wings Airbus could do it for 5-10B$. Same as if Boeing would refresh the 767 but Airbus has the advantage of having already an Aircraft to derive this new NMA from that is in pax service production.
Investing 20B$+ into this gap seems insane when you have to sell Max-10 and 787s. Especially when you struggle to fill the 787 order book. Airbus on the other side has relatively less sales to lose. The A330 does not sell like crazy and airlines like the commonality of the A321. So an A360 based off the A330 with launch in 2028+ would not cannibalize too much their own market.


Just one point, the A330 has not sold worse than the 787 the last 5 years and neither the last 10 years.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:20 am

mjoelnir wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
astuteman wrote:


You ask the question that needs asking, but ask it as if you already know the answer.
There may be a market to sell 500 aircraft, but no manufacturer I know is going to develop an aircraft specific to this role, with all the investment it implies, just for 500 aircraft. If that model worked, then the MOM gap would have been being filled for the last 20 years. But it isn't.

Between them the two OEM's have had 6 models in this space that could have been developed to suit. But they haven't. Boeing have tried for five years to make the business case work for a MOM aircraft. But they haven't. I really struggle to understand why people can't see the relevance of this to the debate about NMA/MOM
As an enthusiast I would love a Boeing NMA new design, and delight in an all new Airbus response.
As hard as I try to see it happening, I fail.
Fingers crossed, though.

Rgds


I think there are different reasons Airbus has not done it over the last 20 years. The early 00 years were bad for aviation anyway. Then there was the really bad launch of the A350, the A380 struggled and R&D was also needed to Neo the other two families.
Now they actually have no need to launch it because the XLR does great, Boeing has nothing to offer, so why make the effort.

I still think though that Airbus should and could launch an aircraft that has a lot off commonality with the A330 that would over time be the real MoM aircraft between the A350 and the A321. This role was long occupied by the A333 but now the A339 is just too close to the A359 to be a sales monster.

On the other side if Airbus "starts" again with a clear two size family in mind (the same idea as the A320/321 plan, two models with big differences and still huge commonality) they could "relaunch" the A300 as the A360 (or what ever) based on the A330 line. A de-rated shorter fuselage, a new CFRP wing, lighter smaller engines. OEW of 80t, MTOW 160t, 300 seats single class 8ab, 6500nm range (with 230pax 2class, no cargo). Then afterwards build a stretch, OEW 95t, MTOW 170t, 260pax two class with 5000nm range.

For everything above there is the A350, underneath the A321.

Due to recycling a lot of technology from the A330 line and no fancy fuselage only new wings Airbus could do it for 5-10B$. Same as if Boeing would refresh the 767 but Airbus has the advantage of having already an Aircraft to derive this new NMA from that is in pax service production.
Investing 20B$+ into this gap seems insane when you have to sell Max-10 and 787s. Especially when you struggle to fill the 787 order book. Airbus on the other side has relatively less sales to lose. The A330 does not sell like crazy and airlines like the commonality of the A321. So an A360 based off the A330 with launch in 2028+ would not cannibalize too much their own market.


Just one point, the A330 has not sold worse than the 787 the last 5 years and neither the last 10 years.


I don't care about the 787 vs A330 at all. From an independent view on the A330 the sales are just enough to keep the frame produced at a relative low production rate. Starting from this point you do not have to lose a lot if you replace it with a different frame. If Airbus would sell 100+ every year it would be a different perspective and no changes to the line up are needed. Right now on the other side if Airbus changes the loss of the A330 production will not hurt if it can be replaced by a frame that sells more.

On the other side looking at the 787 alone, Boeing can not afford to further reduce the production rate and therefore any product that cannibalizes on the 787 would be a disaster. Yes the line is profitable but there is still a 20B$ bill to be footed. This has to be done one way or the other. The best is by selling aircraft. The lower the production the lower the margin to pay off this bill.
Of course Boeing could just pay off 10B$ in 2020 and 10B$ in 2021 and take a hit on the earnings but we all know that is not gonna happen. So Boeing is poised to produce and sell 787 until it is economically possible to write off the rest of the bill.

So we do not need to care which of them models sell more, that is just there to feed trolls. Both companies are in a different position on each production line and can do different things and in the end it does not matter which model sells more at all as long as both are happy but Airbus is in a way more comfortable situation. They do not need to sell A330, they can. If they don't it will not cost them, Boeing on the other side needs to sell 787s.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:22 am

FluidFlow wrote:
On the other side if Airbus "starts" again with a clear two size family in mind (the same idea as the A320/321 plan, two models with big differences and still huge commonality) they could "relaunch" the A300 as the A360 (or what ever) based on the A330 line. A de-rated shorter fuselage, a new CFRP wing, lighter smaller engines. OEW of 80t, MTOW 160t, 300 seats single class 8ab, 6500nm range (with 230pax 2class, no cargo). Then afterwards build a stretch, OEW 95t, MTOW 170t, 260pax two class with 5000nm range.

For everything above there is the A350, underneath the A321.

Due to recycling a lot of technology from the A330 line and no fancy fuselage only new wings Airbus could do it for 5-10B$. Same as if Boeing would refresh the 767 but Airbus has the advantage of having already an Aircraft to derive this new NMA from that is in pax service production.

Investing 20B$+ into this gap seems insane when you have to sell Max-10 and 787s. Especially when you struggle to fill the 787 order book. Airbus on the other side has relatively less sales to lose. The A330 does not sell like crazy and airlines like the commonality of the A321. So an A360 based off the A330 with launch in 2028+ would not cannibalize too much their own market.

It looks very nice on paper - however the reality is that Airbus is not likely to go for it for another 5 years, even if it looks like a good idea now. The A330Neo has just entered service and new orders are beginning to flow in. Airbus needs to go cash positive on this aircraft to recover the development costs ($4-5b?) before they can start thinking of phasing it out in favour of a proposed A360 programme.

I think it may be easier for Airbus to cover the NMA by developing a new carbon wingbox/wing and a stretch to accommodate about 250 pax (in two class configuration) or about 200 pax in XLR configuration. An uprated CFM LEAP or PW GTF will be needed (maybe 45,000 lbs thrust). This kind of aircraft will most likely cost less to develop and will still be an effective competitor. The biggest question mark is whether there will be engines available to power it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:08 am

If Boeing does a NMA, they might be.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:43 am

I think the Airbus answer to a NMA, if that bird would really be launched one day, will be wholly dependent on what Boeing will offer.

The answer could be an extension of the A321, but a new A300/310 would occupy a different production system. The most likely answer would be doing nothing for a while, as the orderbook at Airbus is overflowing.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:46 am

FluidFlow wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I think there are different reasons Airbus has not done it over the last 20 years. The early 00 years were bad for aviation anyway. Then there was the really bad launch of the A350, the A380 struggled and R&D was also needed to Neo the other two families.
Now they actually have no need to launch it because the XLR does great, Boeing has nothing to offer, so why make the effort.

I still think though that Airbus should and could launch an aircraft that has a lot off commonality with the A330 that would over time be the real MoM aircraft between the A350 and the A321. This role was long occupied by the A333 but now the A339 is just too close to the A359 to be a sales monster.

On the other side if Airbus "starts" again with a clear two size family in mind (the same idea as the A320/321 plan, two models with big differences and still huge commonality) they could "relaunch" the A300 as the A360 (or what ever) based on the A330 line. A de-rated shorter fuselage, a new CFRP wing, lighter smaller engines. OEW of 80t, MTOW 160t, 300 seats single class 8ab, 6500nm range (with 230pax 2class, no cargo). Then afterwards build a stretch, OEW 95t, MTOW 170t, 260pax two class with 5000nm range.

For everything above there is the A350, underneath the A321.

Due to recycling a lot of technology from the A330 line and no fancy fuselage only new wings Airbus could do it for 5-10B$. Same as if Boeing would refresh the 767 but Airbus has the advantage of having already an Aircraft to derive this new NMA from that is in pax service production.
Investing 20B$+ into this gap seems insane when you have to sell Max-10 and 787s. Especially when you struggle to fill the 787 order book. Airbus on the other side has relatively less sales to lose. The A330 does not sell like crazy and airlines like the commonality of the A321. So an A360 based off the A330 with launch in 2028+ would not cannibalize too much their own market.


Just one point, the A330 has not sold worse than the 787 the last 5 years and neither the last 10 years.


I don't care about the 787 vs A330 at all. From an independent view on the A330 the sales are just enough to keep the frame produced at a relative low production rate. Starting from this point you do not have to lose a lot if you replace it with a different frame. If Airbus would sell 100+ every year it would be a different perspective and no changes to the line up are needed. Right now on the other side if Airbus changes the loss of the A330 production will not hurt if it can be replaced by a frame that sells more.

On the other side looking at the 787 alone, Boeing can not afford to further reduce the production rate and therefore any product that cannibalizes on the 787 would be a disaster. Yes the line is profitable but there is still a 20B$ bill to be footed. This has to be done one way or the other. The best is by selling aircraft. The lower the production the lower the margin to pay off this bill.
Of course Boeing could just pay off 10B$ in 2020 and 10B$ in 2021 and take a hit on the earnings but we all know that is not gonna happen. So Boeing is poised to produce and sell 787 until it is economically possible to write off the rest of the bill.

So we do not need to care which of them models sell more, that is just there to feed trolls. Both companies are in a different position on each production line and can do different things and in the end it does not matter which model sells more at all as long as both are happy but Airbus is in a way more comfortable situation. They do not need to sell A330, they can. If they don't it will not cost them, Boeing on the other side needs to sell 787s.


It does not really matter if Boeing can afford to cut the production rate, you can not sell 60 frames a year and produce between 144 and 168 a year.

According to sales, the 787 has to come down to 5 frames a month and the A330 can stay at that rate.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:54 am

I reckon the middle of the market gap is real but at the moment is a bit larger than it necessarily needs to be both from to top as well as the bottom.

From the top:
- The 7-abreast 767 got competed out by the 8-abreast A330 which also had more range.
- The A330 itself got increasingly more range and eventually a lot more capable in NEO form.
- The 787 got scaled up based on demand from part of the customer base (which makes the widebody range for Boeing quite difficult because the 787 sizing doesn't leave much room above and below in todays market).


From the bottom:
- A viable, more capable narrowbody than the A321XLR is plausible with more modern, longer wings with more fuel. Also a slight stretch could reduce the capacity gap from the bottom.

So in short I think it's true that indeed there is a structural gap in the market but at the moment it is larger than needs be, due to specific product development decisions the last decade.


I do see a much lighter tighter 8-abreast composite fuselage and winged A330 replacement in the coming decade with a range reset closer to the original A330 (bit longer still, but closer). I don't expect any less capable widebodies to pop up. More capable narrowbodies also seem likely.

So I expect the gap to remain, but both ends of the gap to get closer the coming decade.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:12 am

scbriml wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
I've long maintained that what Boeing should be developing is a narrowbody, single-aisle aircraft that falls squarely between the B757-200 and B757-300 in capacity, with 4000-4500nm range. If they can crank that out, it's a huge winner.


But isn't this exactly part of the problem for Boeing and why they haven't been able to close the business case on NMA? If you pick that specific plane, you'll have a few customers who say, "Great, that's exactly what we want!", but you'll have other customers who say "We want a bigger plane with that range." and others who say "We want that size of plane, but with more range." maybe even others who say "No, we need a bigger plane with more range, but not a 787."

IMHO, the market for your specific plane is probably not big enough to justify the investment required to build it (assuming it's not a 737 derivative), especially with the A321XLR biting chunks out of it.

It may be that there simply isn't enough consensus amongst potential customers - the "middle of the market" may mean too many different things to too many different airlines.
That's exactly the problem. Everyone does want something different. Perhaps the problem is that it is right at the crossover point between narrow body and widebody. Each type has it's advantages. But you can't have them both at the same time.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 738
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:19 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Just one point, the A330 has not sold worse than the 787 the last 5 years and neither the last 10 years.


I don't care about the 787 vs A330 at all. From an independent view on the A330 the sales are just enough to keep the frame produced at a relative low production rate. Starting from this point you do not have to lose a lot if you replace it with a different frame. If Airbus would sell 100+ every year it would be a different perspective and no changes to the line up are needed. Right now on the other side if Airbus changes the loss of the A330 production will not hurt if it can be replaced by a frame that sells more.

On the other side looking at the 787 alone, Boeing can not afford to further reduce the production rate and therefore any product that cannibalizes on the 787 would be a disaster. Yes the line is profitable but there is still a 20B$ bill to be footed. This has to be done one way or the other. The best is by selling aircraft. The lower the production the lower the margin to pay off this bill.
Of course Boeing could just pay off 10B$ in 2020 and 10B$ in 2021 and take a hit on the earnings but we all know that is not gonna happen. So Boeing is poised to produce and sell 787 until it is economically possible to write off the rest of the bill.

So we do not need to care which of them models sell more, that is just there to feed trolls. Both companies are in a different position on each production line and can do different things and in the end it does not matter which model sells more at all as long as both are happy but Airbus is in a way more comfortable situation. They do not need to sell A330, they can. If they don't it will not cost them, Boeing on the other side needs to sell 787s.


It does not really matter if Boeing can afford to cut the production rate, you can not sell 60 frames a year and produce between 144 and 168 a year.

According to sales, the 787 has to come down to 5 frames a month and the A330 can stay at that rate.


Exactly so Boeing can just not launch anything that hits the sales of the 787 (right now). When the deferred costs are gone then Boeing can reduce the rate. Right now their top priority has to be selling as many 787 as possible and launching any program that takes more sales away from said program can not be economical. Goal number one is to sell around 120 787s a year for another 3-4 years till all the deferred production costs are gone. Right now Boeing struggles with that but it has to be done from a shareholder point of view. Launching a program that will further reduce sales and on top of that also bears the risk of transferring orders from the 787 to the 797 is a massive risk. Why take a 787-8 when you can take the new 797 for the same or even lower price. Why buy a 787-9 for a TATL when you can run the same route with two 797 in peak season and one in low season?

That is a massive problem because up to now Airlines up-gauged to the 787 or are now down-gauging to the 321xlr. A launch of the 797 would right now hurt the 787 the most and of all the airliners built right now the 787 is the one that carries a massive 20B$ liability.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:23 pm

flee wrote:
I think it may be easier for Airbus to cover the NMA by developing a new carbon wingbox/wing and a stretch to accommodate about 250 pax (in two class configuration) or about 200 pax in XLR configuration. An uprated CFM LEAP or PW GTF will be needed (maybe 45,000 lbs thrust). This kind of aircraft will most likely cost less to develop and will still be an effective competitor. The biggest question mark is whether there will be engines available to power it.


Indeed.

They could reuse the existing A320 fuselage and have a new wing for a ULR variant. The low production numbers allowing that to ramp up in a controllable fashion.

Then on down the line, that wing design can start to come back down the family (with modifications) and built on the now matured production line.


Further on in the future, Airbus can start to morph fuselage variants onto a new system - clever design now allowing them to adjust fuselage diameter a bit later if they wanted to widen it a bit.


The toughest ever problem facing the big airframers is going to be managing the orderbook and production rate of the single-aisle replacements. Having a controlled morphing from A32x family to an A36x family (new wing) and then A37x family (new wing and new fuselage) that occurs over a decade and in several stages would significantly de-risk that.



Boeing, by comparison, have to do the whole lot in one go as the 737 is not really a viable basis for iteration.
 
planecane
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing NMA in doubt as customers push for all new 737MAX and 757 replacement

Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:30 pm

The only way I can see the NMA making any business sense is if the development costs are shared with NSA and the NMA is first to work out technology and production methods. There is no way there is a big enough market in between the A321 and the 787 to justify a $15+ billion investment.

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