Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8454
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 1:33 pm

planecane wrote:
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.


So, basically name the largest NSA/FSA variant NMA.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Baldr
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:10 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:34 pm

flee wrote:
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.


Where did you get the $4-5bn figure from?

Quite a few A.net members seem to have a tendency to inflate Airbus product development numbers.

Now, the actual development costs for the A330neo cost was between €1.5 and €2 billion ($1.66 and $2.22 billion).

Airbus should go cash positive on the A330neo after the first 100-150 deliveries.

https://www.ft.com/content/a999f9c4-0b76-11e4-9e55-00144feabdc0
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24792
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:38 pm

alyusuph wrote:
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.

How did that work out with the Airbus A380? It was a clean sheet that had years of upgrades that Airbus pitched to their customers that no one bought. A clean sheet comes with its own set of very substantial risks. MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.

FluidFlow wrote:
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.

This has been debunked many times now. The deferred cost is a debt Boeing owes to Boeing. Boeing can decide how much to pay Boeing as each 787 is sold, and if the math works out, Boeing can decide to forgive Boeing all the debt with a swipe of the pen if that is the best course forward. How do we know this? That's exactly what Boeing did with the 747-8 deferred cost. And guess what? They have also recently increased the accounting block for MAX. Boeing is who decides how to deal with the debt it owes to Boeing. Protecting the 787 will have little bearing on the NMA decision, IMO.
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
 
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 3:03 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
planecane wrote:
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.


So, basically name the largest NSA/FSA variant NMA.


Kind of. If they go this route, I'd expect at least a 2 wing solution. That's the only way to really do better than the A321 on the high end and better than the A220 potential stretch on the low end.
 
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 3:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.


Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystalising).


McDonnell Douglas have long since taken over and withering due to fear is well under way.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8454
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 3:26 pm

planecane wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
planecane wrote:
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.


So, basically name the largest NSA/FSA variant NMA.


Kind of. If they go this route, I'd expect at least a 2 wing solution. That's the only way to really do better than the A321 on the high end and better than the A220 potential stretch on the low end.


Why not folding wingtips. Maybe the third time is the charm with NSA/FSA after 777 and 77X. It can still use Cat-C gates. A.net is very quiet on this topic.
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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:39 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
planecane wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:

So, basically name the largest NSA/FSA variant NMA.


Kind of. If they go this route, I'd expect at least a 2 wing solution. That's the only way to really do better than the A321 on the high end and better than the A220 potential stretch on the low end.


Why not folding wingtips. Maybe the third time is the charm with NSA/FSA after 777 and 77X. It can still use Cat-C gates. A.net is very quiet on this topic.



There is more to wing design than just the wingspan.

Bigger wing = more wetted area = more zero-lift drag. Not to mention the lift distribution (inboard of winglet/wingtip) being very different for a winglet vs. a folding wingtip


Folding wingtips *may* be something used in future - but they'd likely be equally used on the shorter range variant and longer ranged variant - both being of higher aspect ratio than current offerings.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24792
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:53 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.


Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystalising).


McDonnell Douglas have long since taken over and withering due to fear is well under way.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.

The narrow body market was solidly focused on the A320 to 738 size range.

Even 739 didn't come along till later in the decade, and in 2011 they launched MAX without finding the demand sufficient to develop the -10 till a few years later.

The early GTFs were targeted at MRJ, CS, E2, MC-21 and only grew to A321 size at best.

Perhaps with perfect hindsight they could have done what you suggest but that's what it would have taken.

And then of course we could have said Airbus should have just done A350 Mk1 instead of dithering about, but now we're really getting off topic.
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
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 737
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 3:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
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.

How did that work out with the Airbus A380? It was a clean sheet that had years of upgrades that Airbus pitched to their customers that no one bought. A clean sheet comes with its own set of very substantial risks. MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.

FluidFlow wrote:
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.

This has been debunked many times now. The deferred cost is a debt Boeing owes to Boeing. Boeing can decide how much to pay Boeing as each 787 is sold, and if the math works out, Boeing can decide to forgive Boeing all the debt with a swipe of the pen if that is the best course forward. How do we know this? That's exactly what Boeing did with the 747-8 deferred cost. And guess what? They have also recently increased the accounting block for MAX. Boeing is who decides how to deal with the debt it owes to Boeing. Protecting the 787 will have little bearing on the NMA decision, IMO.


You still need to book the money from one account to the other even if you own it to yourself and if you write it off the books you also take a hit as the money is "gone". Boeing wrote itself a check and made a promise to repay that money to itself, they can forgive that dept but then the account they took it from misses 20B$.

It is like when you take 100'000$ out of your pension to spend it. Now you owe your future self 100'000$. You can write it off and just have less pension or you can pay it back to yourself.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:55 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

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.


Boeing's accounting method makes things a bit more complicated; however, they should not be worrying about whether or not an NMA/NSA would hurt 787 sales. The reason is the £20billion is already gone and well known so the market should have already priced in the effect. They should make the decision on what they believe will maximise the future utility to the company, eg profit or similar. If it is better, to hurt 787 sales, but make more money overall with an NMA/NSA then they should go ahead. If it is worse, then avoid it. Though I do somewhat question Boeing's ability to do this well. Deferring NMA/NSA could help the programme or hurt it, if and when Boeing decide to launch it. As a consequence it might help or hurt Boeing overall. The problem Boeing has with NMA/NSA is where are they going to get the internal resources to run the programme right now. MAX recertification and RTS, and 777X are eating a lot of engineering and testing resources. This makes the opportunity cost of any new programme very high for the immediate future.

Amiga500 wrote:
Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


Except Boeing did not have the resources, either in absolute or relative to their view on opportunity cost, to launch a 737 replacement any earlier than they did. The 787 was a beast that ate all that was thrown at it, and still wanted more. Until Boeing regained programme control over the 787 everything else basically ground to a halt. Keep in mind 747-8 was ongoing then and it got chewed-up in the process.

Stitch wrote:
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.


The is essentially the challenge. The market for NMA is really hard to determine. The business case may or may not close depending on your assumptions. If Boeing is risk neutral it will be much easier to close the case than if they are risk averse. This is simply because the sales could be as low as 0.

NMA has a couple of some real challanges
  • Putting a bigger wing on a A321/752 sized fuselage is just dumb. The 757 wing worked very well in 1982-1999. However, there is just too much wing area today for the payload it carries. If you are going to put 757 wing area on an aircraft you need a bigger fuselage that carries more people
  • The sweet spot that existed in the 1980s-90s in terms of wing-span has largely disappeared. The number of Code C+ gates has diminished compared to the number of pure Code C gates. This cuts two ways. If you go for 757 wing area, you can go for a higher aspect ratio as the span limit isn't as critical, you can make the aircraft truly Code D. However, there are not that many Code D gates anymore. All aircraft have drifted to Code C or E and the gates and stands are being resized accordingly. As such one you go over Code C in size you have the same stand footprint as aircraft as large as a 777X. Ouch

Therefore if Boeing were to ever launch an NMA I would suspect that they will have to find a way to carry 753 to 763 levels of payload efficiently, all while fitting in Code C stand footprints. The engine tech is probably just about there, though the uncertainty may be high. The wing options are also quite high programme risk. To do the development correctly will cost Boeing a lot. Something they haven't wanted to commit to of late.
 
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 3:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.


Do you know why that was?

It was because it cost around 20% more to run a 757 than an A321! Hardly a mystery!!


The early GTFs were targetted at the OEMs who were interested in them. Again, not a revelation.


The 737-900 was an acknowledged problem in Boeing. They built the -900ER to better combat the A321. The market was shifting from A319 to A320 and from 737-700 to 737-800.


Futures offices aren't supposed to plan for what is current - with a ~10 year development program they plan for 10 years in the future. With them betting so many billions on the 787 fragmenting the market - how could the same futures office not see a narrowbody doing the same further down?


You are making excuses for them being crap at their job.
 
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 4:02 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
Except Boeing did not have the resources, either in absolute or relative to their view on opportunity cost, to launch a 737 replacement any earlier than they did. The 787 was a beast that ate all that was thrown at it, and still wanted more. Until Boeing regained programme control over the 787 everything else basically ground to a halt. Keep in mind 747-8 was ongoing then and it got chewed-up in the process.


They should have begun the 737 replacement program approximately 2005 when P&W started to firm up the GTF going from study to production.

That would have replaced the 747-8 program.

It would also have been prior to the 787 problems really biting.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8454
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 4:17 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
There is more to wing design than just the wingspan.

Bigger wing = more wetted area = more zero-lift drag. Not to mention the lift distribution (inboard of winglet/wingtip) being very different for a winglet vs. a folding wingtip


Folding wingtips *may* be something used in future - but they'd likely be equally used on the shorter range variant and longer ranged variant - both being of higher aspect ratio than current offerings.


I think Boeing's NSA/FSA future was due in 2017.

Now
Fuselage (Grandfather MAX)
New wing design with folding wingtips.(Grandfather 77X)
New landing gear
Latest avionics, full FBW. (Grandfather 787)
Bleedless (Grandfather 787)

So technically new overall wing, landing gear and calculating center of gravity (which should be possible with all the computing power at their disposal)

The $$Billions and time spent will be well worth it.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Lewton
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
alyusuph wrote:
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.

How did that work out with the Airbus A380? It was a clean sheet that had years of upgrades that Airbus pitched to their customers that no one bought. A clean sheet comes with its own set of very substantial risks. MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.

FluidFlow wrote:
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.

This has been debunked many times now. The deferred cost is a debt Boeing owes to Boeing. Boeing can decide how much to pay Boeing as each 787 is sold, and if the math works out, Boeing can decide to forgive Boeing all the debt with a swipe of the pen if that is the best course forward. How do we know this? That's exactly what Boeing did with the 747-8 deferred cost. And guess what? They have also recently increased the accounting block for MAX. Boeing is who decides how to deal with the debt it owes to Boeing. Protecting the 787 will have little bearing on the NMA decision, IMO.


Boeing can do all that, but when they decide to write off this debt it will be written in their books an expense.
Depending on how big it is, it might make an otherwise profitable year close with a loss.
From Hamburg with love.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:28 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
And when Boeing confirms it will develop a clean sheet MAX replacement, all Airbus needs to do is to stretch the A220 to develop a 160-seat A220-500. The A220 will then effectively becomes the A318/A319/A320 "clean-sheet" replacement, while the A321NEO stays on with another stretch to make the A322NEO, which together will be the replacement of 757s.


Let’s just stretch everything into infinity. At some point these narrowbody airframes have to reach a length limit...

They already have, the A321 is as long as the airplane can go with a single dual wheel Main Landing gear to go further it would need a bogie arrangement like the 757.they sure as hell can't get much longer than the 757-300 if that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27305
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 8:18 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.


MAX was the only decision left after customers told Boeing in no-uncertain terms they would not wait for Yellowstone 1 (the 737 replacement Boeing had been developing since the 1990s) and backed that threat up by buying thousands of A320neo until Boeing cried "uncle" and offered MAX.


Amiga500 wrote:
When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class). That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


Airbus knew that Boeing could develop a plane with similar overall performance and economics to the A320 family because it would have been of similar dimensions using the same engines and systems. The only area Boeing could stake a clear technical advantage was aerodynamics thanks to a wing three decades newer. But as we have seen with the A330neo and 787, engines are the significant majority of where an airframe can show a marked improvement and both frames would have had GTF and LEAP-X s a new wing would have helped, but it would not have "invalidated" all the other areas the A320 had parity with Yellowstone 1. And Boeing would have to charge significantly more for it because they would have to recoup the costs of completing development, testing and certifying it, putting it into production and then ramping that production as quickly as possible to scores per month.

Worse than Airbus knowing this was the airlines also knowing this, which is why they told Boeing they would neither pay more for Y1 nor would they wait years longer. Let us not forget that the world's airlines had just experienced a "revenue shock" from the fall out of the recent Global Financial Crisis and also a "cost shock" from a significant increase in fuel prices. They wanted cheap, fuel efficient planes now - not expensive ones, later.


Amiga500 wrote:
That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystallizing).


Boeing knew about the GTF. Heck, Pratt's VP in charge of the thing was saying in 2009 that he thought they could still shoe-horn it onto the 737NG. But they had an exclusivity clause with CFM and Pratt had been "****ing about" on the GTF for decades with less than stellar results (ask Airbus about the SuperFan and the A340).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24792
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:20 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Futures offices aren't supposed to plan for what is current - with a ~10 year development program they plan for 10 years in the future. With them betting so many billions on the 787 fragmenting the market - how could the same futures office not see a narrowbody doing the same further down?

You are making excuses for them being crap at their job.

Then Airbus's futures office must also be crap at their job (witness A380), or maybe the job is harder than you allow .
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Amiga500
Posts: 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 9:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
MAX was the only decision left after customers told Boeing in no-uncertain terms they would not wait for Yellowstone 1


Because Boeing was dithering!

If they'd permission to offer a 737RS from 2008 onwards, there would have been no worries about neo.


Stitch wrote:
Airbus knew that Boeing could develop a plane with similar overall performance and economics to the A320 family because it would have been of similar dimensions using the same engines and systems. The only area Boeing could stake a clear technical advantage was aerodynamics thanks to a wing three decades newer. But as we have seen with the A330neo and 787, engines are the significant majority of where an airframe can show a marked improvement and both frames would have had GTF and LEAP-X s a new wing would have helped, but it would not have "invalidated" all the other areas the A320 had parity with Yellowstone 1. And Boeing would have to charge significantly more for it because they would have to recoup the costs of completing development, testing and certifying it, putting it into production and then ramping that production as quickly as possible to scores per month.


Ah, now need to correct a common misconceptions here.

The 737RS would not have been using the same systems as an A320. Diagnostics and maintenance would have been significantly improved - with resulting improvements in both dispatch rates and in check intervals.

The A320 systems were extremely good for their time, and have received updates - but there are still some fundamental things they cannot work around. Fuel system drainage limitations being one I know of for definite.

Yes, the 737RS would have had better aerodynamics, it would also have had improved field performance and a wider fuselage leading to better turnaround times.

There is probably 3-5% CASM on the table from improved systems/aerodynamics etc.

When you are faced with selling maybe 10,000 aircraft over the production run - on a $10B USD program, that is $1m USD extra per airframe you need to charge for R&D cost (relative to competition). The lifetime cost of a single-aisle aircraft is probably somewhere around $200-300m USD - so every 1% lower CASM is relative to the competition gives $2-3m USD in value to the airline. At 3% CASM, that'd be $6-9m USD. Boeing could take at least $1m of that back in higher pricing.


Stitch wrote:
Boeing knew about the GTF. Heck, Pratt's VP in charge of the thing was saying in 2009 that he thought they could still shoe-horn it onto the 737NG.


2009 was too late.

If Boeing knew about it in 2005 and did nothing, then the shareholders should be pulling the BoD into a courtroom.
 
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 9:40 pm

Revelation wrote:
Then Airbus's futures office must also be crap at their job (witness A380), or maybe the job is harder than you allow .


The A380 was a vanity project.

Proper management would have seen the wing sized for the damn fuselage instead of the arrogance of leaving 10% performance lying on the drawing board.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27305
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 10:26 pm

Stitch wrote:
MAX was the only decision left after customers told Boeing in no-uncertain terms they would not wait for Yellowstone 1

Amiga500 wrote:
Because Boeing was dithering! If they'd permission to offer a 737RS from 2008 onwards, there would have been no worries about neo.


Well Boeing was still trying to digest the 787 at that time which had just started it's certification and testing program and with a production process still trying to figure out as well as trying to drag the 747-8 program over the finishing line (spending shedloads more then they had planned to in both monetary and human resources). Getting the Board to do another "bet the company" program right then was probably a tough sell, though they were working with customers to test the waters about doing so.

So if customers had responded with an enthusiastic "yes" (say 500 orders to launch compared to the 50 for the 787 and 16 for the 747-8), the BoD might very well have said "yes" themselves even with the 747-8 and 787 fiascoes in front of them. Instead, the customers appear to have "dithered" on the concept before deciding the A320neo was "cheap enough, efficient enough and fast enough" to get the job done. Something they also happened to decide the 737 MAX was, as well.


Amiga500 wrote:
The 737RS would not have been using the same systems as an A320. Diagnostics and maintenance would have been significantly improved - with resulting improvements in both dispatch rates and in check intervals......the 737RS would have had better aerodynamics, it would also have had improved field performance and a wider fuselage leading to better turnaround times....There is probably 3-5% CASM on the table from improved systems/aerodynamics etc.


So then why did airlines not jump all over the 737RS? Why would they not wait and pay more for it? Why did they "settle" for the 737MAX and A320neo?


Amiga500 wrote:
2009 was too late. If Boeing knew about (the GTF) in 2005 and did nothing, then the shareholders should be pulling the BoD into a courtroom.


The ironic...karmic?,..thing is P&W felt they could get a GTF with an 80" fan on the 737 airframe by mounting it even higher and farther forward then the 68" LEAP-1B. Boeing needed MCAS to address the aerodynamic instability of the LEAP. How much more would they have needed to mount an even larger GTF?
 
Utah744
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:41 pm

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:53 pm

To solve the wingspan problem, how about a small wing attached to the top of the fuselage? A bi-plane. I'm sure there are many experts/knowledgeable people on this board that can comment and I look forward to their posts.
You are never too old to learn something stupid
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3710
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:51 pm

As aero and engine performance improves the useful window of performance extends upward at the top and extends downward (although to a lesser degree than the high end). This spreading of useful performance means more performance from less aircraft.

There will always be areas where a more optimised frame could sit and be fit the market better but it comes at a cost, both investment and impact on other models.

My sense is that if there is a legitimate space for this mom aircraft it will be placed in to a difficult segment that is, and will continue to decline in size/share.

Seeing that BA are running the A350-1000 on TATL routes not much over 3knm which is well within the useful range of the A321 family. The spec payload of the A321xlr overlaps with the bottom of the useful portion of the 787-10 capability (MZFW range). I’m not sure where the mom sits.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
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

Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:24 am

Stitch wrote:
Well Boeing was still trying to digest the 787 at that time which had just started it's certification and testing program and with a production process still trying to figure out as well as trying to drag the 747-8 program over the finishing line (spending shedloads more then they had planned to in both monetary and human resources). Getting the Board to do another "bet the company" program right then was probably a tough sell, though they were working with customers to test the waters about doing so.


You are mixing timelines.

Permission to offer comes several years after the program is started internally.

The program would have internally started in ~2005. Permission to order might have been granted circa 2008 or so when they'd have had more confidence in performance.

Bean counters are all too quick to tell you the cost of doing something. Very few of them are bright enough to tell you the cost of not doing something.

That killed McAir. Its now killing Boeing.


Stitch wrote:
Instead, the customers appear to have "dithered" on the concept before deciding the A320neo was "cheap enough, efficient enough and fast enough" to get the job done. Something they also happened to decide the 737 MAX was, as well.


Not true. If Boeing had dangled a 20+% fuel burn and 10+% CASM carrot* in front of airlines, they'd have bitten - hard.

*all relative to 737NG and A320ceo.



Stitch wrote:
So then why did airlines not jump all over the 737RS? Why would they not wait and pay more for it? Why did they "settle" for the 737MAX and A320neo?


Boeing never put the offer of a 737RS on the negotiating table.

How could airlines jump over something that was never on the table?


Stitch wrote:
The ironic...karmic?,..thing is P&W felt they could get a GTF with an 80" fan on the 737 airframe by mounting it even higher and farther forward then the 68" LEAP-1B. Boeing needed MCAS to address the aerodynamic instability of the LEAP. How much more would they have needed to mount an even larger GTF?


P&W are not airframe aerodynamacists. Why would their ignorance of the stability and control of a 737 be of any relevance to a 797?

[Just clarifying - you do know what 737RS is? 737ReplacementStudies - the ongoing research within Boeing around that time period for replacement of the 737. It was not a derivative. It would have been an entirely new airframe.]
 
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

Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:25 am

Utah744 wrote:
To solve the wingspan problem, how about a small wing attached to the top of the fuselage? A bi-plane. I'm sure there are many experts/knowledgeable people on this board that can comment and I look forward to their posts.


Sorry, bad idea.

Interference between the wings would lead to a significantly lower L/D than a monoplane.
 
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

Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:08 am

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.


Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystalising).


McDonnell Douglas have long since taken over and withering due to fear is well under way.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.

The narrow body market was solidly focused on the A320 to 738 size range.

Even 739 didn't come along till later in the decade, and in 2011 they launched MAX without finding the demand sufficient to develop the -10 till a few years later.

The early GTFs were targeted at MRJ, CS, E2, MC-21 and only grew to A321 size at best.

Perhaps with perfect hindsight they could have done what you suggest but that's what it would have taken.

And then of course we could have said Airbus should have just done A350 Mk1 instead of dithering about, but now we're really getting off topic.


Boeing should have known years before the neo, that they would need a new narrow body frame. The success of the 737 is hanging on exemptions, that the A320 family fulfills. Boeing is dependent on regulators not taking a harder stand. I know that the have the FAA in the pocket, but they have to expect some regulator to step out of line and the problem is there.
 
Airbusfan29
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:49 pm

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

Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:25 pm

The NMA doesn't make sense, I want a FSA with better FBW than the 787 has and an EICAS that gives you checklists automatically (like the ECAM) and the overhead should be simpler with 787 style push buttons, and 1: a yoke with a takeover priority button or 2: a sidestick. We also need automatic trim. And I heard that we'll get the FSA in 2030. With the Max problems I doubt we'll get it in 2030, maybe they will just start with the FSA in 2030!
 
Airbusfan29
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:49 pm

What can we expect from the Boeing FSA?

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:12 am

Boeing has problems with the MAX. A lot of people don’t trust Boeing because of the MAX. A lot of people think Airbus is better than Boeing, and I agree. But here comes the question: will the FSA be a game-changer in cockpit technology like the A320 was in the 80s?
 
Airbusfan29
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:49 pm

What can we expect from the Boeing FSA?

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:54 am

Boeing has a lot of problems with the MAX. And the 737 platform is outdated. Boeing does not want to lose customers, and loyal customers like KLM won’t switch to Airbus. Boeing really needs to step up their game a lot with the FSA. They need to forget the yoke. They need to use side sticks. They need to have priority takeover push buttons. The overhead switches need to be like on the 787, with push buttons. Look at Airbus: their A320 mostly uses LED push buttons. It would be smart for Boeing to also have that. Boeing needs efficient, but still powerful engines. They need to have an ECAM-like display that gives checklists in an emergency that automatically removes an item from the checklist when completed. They need better FBW. The ‘pilot can override computers’ idea is a little bit nonsense. Boeing needs to have an competitor to the Airbus FSA, and Boeing doesn’t want Airbus to win from them like with the A320. Boeing needs to have an Airbus competitor that’s better than the Airbus FSA. That single pilot concept is so stupid, that should not be allowed by the FAA and EASA. Airbus currently has much modern aircraft than Boeing, and Boeing needs to have much more modern aircraft than Airbus this time. And the Boeing FSA needs to have an automatic retard callout to close the thrust levers just before touchdown.

And PLEASE Boeing, DO NOT REDUCE TRAINING TIME WITH MCAS OR ANOTHER STUPID SYSTEM!!!

Boeing, please build quality aircraft like you used to!
 
Lewton
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: What can we expect from the Boeing FSA?

Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:54 pm

Airbusfan29 wrote:
loyal customers like KLM won’t switch to Airbus

Until they do. :)
The same works vice-versa too.
Loyal Airbus customers can switch to Boeing as well.
From Hamburg with love.
 
ItnStln
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: What can we expect from the Boeing FSA?

Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:13 pm

Lewton wrote:
Airbusfan29 wrote:
loyal customers like KLM won’t switch to Airbus

Until they do. :)
The same works vice-versa too.
Loyal Airbus customers can switch to Boeing as well.

Indeed
 
Yinrenao2001
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:41 am

as the 737MAX still the most important thing for boeing, the plan about NSA or FSA may temporarily being put away. Boeing is now stick in a dilemma, as the A321XLR greatly increase the game level of this market, which gives boeing a difficult question to reply, fans of boeing want boeing can fightback, but it really need time, developing a whole new platform is a huge work, but operate the current one maybe a visable great choice. exactly the 787 series who have the ability be become a so-called Middle Aircraft, or even update engine and wings to compete with the future A350neo, which is now a open secret.
 
TObound
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:18 pm

Yinrenao2001 wrote:
as the 737MAX still the most important thing for boeing, the plan about NSA or FSA may temporarily being put away. Boeing is now stick in a dilemma, as the A321XLR greatly increase the game level of this market, which gives boeing a difficult question to reply....


How relevant is the 321XLR really? We're talking about a subtype that may sell a few hundred. It's not going to materially damage the market for FSA. I'm not even sure it really damaged the NMA market, so much as showed how limited this market really is.
 
Yinrenao2001
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:55 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:26 pm

TObound wrote:
Yinrenao2001 wrote:
as the 737MAX still the most important thing for boeing, the plan about NSA or FSA may temporarily being put away. Boeing is now stick in a dilemma, as the A321XLR greatly increase the game level of this market, which gives boeing a difficult question to reply....


How relevant is the 321XLR really? We're talking about a subtype that may sell a few hundred. It's not going to materially damage the market for FSA. I'm not even sure it really damaged the NMA market, so much as showed how limited this market really is.


the market you just mention may not very limited, because a huge developing country , china ,now having a huge need about this kind of plane as they bulid more airports for the past few years.
but what Boeing want to do about this level is very interesting and full of ambition, once they told the media that their plans about it, is making a plane providing "twin-aisle comfort with single-aisle economics,leveraging new technologies,bringing a whole new airplane into the space", also making a what they called "the paradigm shift" into it,which I think mean that a series of variants and subtype will appear to fit with the market requirements precisely.
From A220 to A32X(neo), Airbus has a complete product line, which boeing do not have and even with a dangerous blank area , maybe the cooperation with Brazil will give a little help and inspiration. maybe a B6XX series will come too, :lol:
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
MAX was the right business decision, but suffered from a dreadful implementation. We can discuss further on the MAX thread if you like.


Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystalising).


McDonnell Douglas have long since taken over and withering due to fear is well under way.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.

The narrow body market was solidly focused on the A320 to 738 size range.

Even 739 didn't come along till later in the decade, and in 2011 they launched MAX without finding the demand sufficient to develop the -10 till a few years later.

The early GTFs were targeted at MRJ, CS, E2, MC-21 and only grew to A321 size at best.

Perhaps with perfect hindsight they could have done what you suggest but that's what it would have taken.

And then of course we could have said Airbus should have just done A350 Mk1 instead of dithering about, but now we're really getting off topic.


The A321 was already selling well. The 737-900/900ER has a terrible take off performance and a high landing speed.

And once again, Boeing does know about all the exceptions that are needed to keep the 737 certified. Yes, the FAA has been compliant and always backed down, when Boeing said that it would expensive or difficult to follow the rules with the 737. But Boeing must have known that the luck could run out and the FAA would not back down any longer.
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:02 pm

TObound wrote:
Yinrenao2001 wrote:
as the 737MAX still the most important thing for boeing, the plan about NSA or FSA may temporarily being put away. Boeing is now stick in a dilemma, as the A321XLR greatly increase the game level of this market, which gives boeing a difficult question to reply....


How relevant is the 321XLR really? We're talking about a subtype that may sell a few hundred. It's not going to materially damage the market for FSA. I'm not even sure it really damaged the NMA market, so much as showed how limited this market really is.


This "sub-type that may sell a few hundred" has already sold a minimum of 450 copies, and most likely more than that in its first 6 months of being offered.
I really struggle to associate that remarkable statistic with your characterisation, to be honest.
It feels to me like it has already proved its relevance in the marketplace within 6 months of being introduced.

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27305
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:05 pm

TObound wrote:
How relevant is the 321XLR really?


It's relevant in that it is a member of an extremely popular sub-family that now offers even more performance. It might become popular outside of TATL operations due to it's higher operating weights and fuel capacity. I have read on this forum that all A321neo models deliver with at least one ACT and the gist I am getting from Airbus is that the A321XLR's RCT offers the capacity of at least two ACTs without taking up as much space in the rear cargo hold. So the A321XLR will supplant the A321LR going forward and might become a significant plurality of A321neo family orders.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:07 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Max was the only decision left to them after they dithered so long.

When P&W started building the GTF for a production model in the early 2000s, Boeing should have been straight away working on something that would look like an MC21-400 (249 pax single class sardines) that would fly 4000nm (~210 pax 2-class). Then a smaller version (199 pax single sardine class) that would fly 5000nm (~160 pax 2-class).

That could have entered the market in 2015 and cleaned the A321neo out. There would be no A321XLR either.


That path should have been clear to Boeing when the next step in turbofan BPR was imminent. Instead they ****ed about and burned money on the 747-8 (2004 would have been around the time the GTF plans would have been crystalising).


McDonnell Douglas have long since taken over and withering due to fear is well under way.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.

The narrow body market was solidly focused on the A320 to 738 size range.

Even 739 didn't come along till later in the decade, and in 2011 they launched MAX without finding the demand sufficient to develop the -10 till a few years later.

The early GTFs were targeted at MRJ, CS, E2, MC-21 and only grew to A321 size at best.

Perhaps with perfect hindsight they could have done what you suggest but that's what it would have taken.

And then of course we could have said Airbus should have just done A350 Mk1 instead of dithering about, but now we're really getting off topic.


The A321 was already selling well. The 737-900/900ER has a terrible take off performance and a high landing speed.

And once again, Boeing does know about all the exceptions that are needed to keep the 737 certified. Yes, the FAA has been compliant and always backed down, when Boeing said that it would expensive or difficult to follow the rules with the 737. But Boeing must have known that the luck could run out and the FAA would not back down any longer.


At up to 101T and with the same wing the A321 XLR will be getting up there on takeoff performance and landing speed as well.

Neither is good though, both have been pushed about as far as they should be.

The MAX looks like it is within about 10 knots of an A321XLR at Max Landing weight and the XLR looks like it will be over 10,000' on takeoff according to the charts below from Airbus - possibly significantly - look in Section 3.

Also see where it says the normal A321NEO would be about 134 Knots on final approach- add more for the XLR - probably more like the A321-200 at 143 Knots.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Max 9 seems to be about 153 Knots according to Post 22 in this thread - it could be lower with the new gear on the -10 viewtopic.php?t=1416511
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

In the early 2000s they were doing a last call on 757s and finding no takers.

The narrow body market was solidly focused on the A320 to 738 size range.

Even 739 didn't come along till later in the decade, and in 2011 they launched MAX without finding the demand sufficient to develop the -10 till a few years later.

The early GTFs were targeted at MRJ, CS, E2, MC-21 and only grew to A321 size at best.

Perhaps with perfect hindsight they could have done what you suggest but that's what it would have taken.

And then of course we could have said Airbus should have just done A350 Mk1 instead of dithering about, but now we're really getting off topic.


The A321 was already selling well. The 737-900/900ER has a terrible take off performance and a high landing speed.

And once again, Boeing does know about all the exceptions that are needed to keep the 737 certified. Yes, the FAA has been compliant and always backed down, when Boeing said that it would expensive or difficult to follow the rules with the 737. But Boeing must have known that the luck could run out and the FAA would not back down any longer.


At up to 101T and with the same wing the A321 XLR will be getting up there on takeoff performance and landing speed as well.

Neither is good though, both have been pushed about as far as they should be.

The MAX looks like it is within about 10 knots of an A321XLR at Max Landing weight and the XLR looks like it will be over 10,000' on takeoff according to the charts below from Airbus - possibly significantly - look in Section 3.

Also see where it says the normal A321NEO would be about 134 Knots on final approach- add more for the XLR - probably more like the A321-200 at 143 Knots.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Max 9 seems to be about 153 Knots according to Post 22 in this thread - it could be lower with the new gear on the -10 viewtopic.php?t=1416511


Your hopes of the A321XLR will be a groundhog like the 737-900/900ER and now the 737-9 will be in vain. The A321neo needs a take off run of about 2000m at MTOW and ISA. The A321XLR will get redesigned flaps to keep that performance.

Perhaps you will convince Boeing to put the 737-10 gear on the 737-10, but I believe the customers will just by 737-10 instead and the 737-9 will die. The 737-10 will also first have to pass the no groundhog test.
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:01 pm

morrisond wrote:

Max 9 seems to be about 153 Knots according to Post 22 in this thread - it could be lower with the new gear on the -10 viewtopic.php?t=1416511


Putting the new gear on the 9 for better field performance, or Airbus stretching the A321 a few rows seem like the next plausible iterations of those two aircraft.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The A321 was already selling well. The 737-900/900ER has a terrible take off performance and a high landing speed.

And once again, Boeing does know about all the exceptions that are needed to keep the 737 certified. Yes, the FAA has been compliant and always backed down, when Boeing said that it would expensive or difficult to follow the rules with the 737. But Boeing must have known that the luck could run out and the FAA would not back down any longer.


At up to 101T and with the same wing the A321 XLR will be getting up there on takeoff performance and landing speed as well.

Neither is good though, both have been pushed about as far as they should be.

The MAX looks like it is within about 10 knots of an A321XLR at Max Landing weight and the XLR looks like it will be over 10,000' on takeoff according to the charts below from Airbus - possibly significantly - look in Section 3.

Also see where it says the normal A321NEO would be about 134 Knots on final approach- add more for the XLR - probably more like the A321-200 at 143 Knots.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Max 9 seems to be about 153 Knots according to Post 22 in this thread - it could be lower with the new gear on the -10 viewtopic.php?t=1416511


Your hopes of the A321XLR will be a groundhog like the 737-900/900ER and now the 737-9 will be in vain. The A321neo needs a take off run of about 2000m at MTOW and ISA. The A321XLR will get redesigned flaps to keep that performance.

Perhaps you will convince Boeing to put the 737-10 gear on the 737-10, but I believe the customers will just by 737-10 instead and the 737-9 will die. The 737-10 will also first have to pass the no groundhog test.


It sure doesn't seem like that when you look at this Document https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Look at sections 3-3-1 and 3-3-2 at ISA and a clean Runway over 100T it's looking like 9,000' No idea what thrust on the engines though.

Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:59 pm

Stitch wrote:
TObound wrote:
How relevant is the 321XLR really?


It's relevant in that it is a member of an extremely popular sub-family that now offers even more performance. It might become popular outside of TATL operations due to it's higher operating weights and fuel capacity. I have read on this forum that all A321neo models deliver with at least one ACT and the gist I am getting from Airbus is that the A321XLR's RCT offers the capacity of at least two ACTs without taking up as much space in the rear cargo hold. So the A321XLR will supplant the A321LR going forward and might become a significant plurality of A321neo family orders.


The RCT has the capacity of 4 x ACT's, for the weight of 1, and the space of 2.

https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 36.article

He says the aircraft will feature a 12,900 litre rear fuel tank which holds the equivalent of four current additional centre tanks.
These additional tanks, as featured on the A321LR, each hold 3,121 litres of fuel.
Scherer says the rear tank has a weight "equivalent" of a single additional centre tank, and that it takes up the cargo hold space of two.


Rgds
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:

At up to 101T and with the same wing the A321 XLR will be getting up there on takeoff performance and landing speed as well.

Neither is good though, both have been pushed about as far as they should be.

The MAX looks like it is within about 10 knots of an A321XLR at Max Landing weight and the XLR looks like it will be over 10,000' on takeoff according to the charts below from Airbus - possibly significantly - look in Section 3.

Also see where it says the normal A321NEO would be about 134 Knots on final approach- add more for the XLR - probably more like the A321-200 at 143 Knots.

https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Max 9 seems to be about 153 Knots according to Post 22 in this thread - it could be lower with the new gear on the -10 viewtopic.php?t=1416511


Your hopes of the A321XLR will be a groundhog like the 737-900/900ER and now the 737-9 will be in vain. The A321neo needs a take off run of about 2000m at MTOW and ISA. The A321XLR will get redesigned flaps to keep that performance.

Perhaps you will convince Boeing to put the 737-10 gear on the 737-10, but I believe the customers will just by 737-10 instead and the 737-9 will die. The 737-10 will also first have to pass the no groundhog test.


It sure doesn't seem like that when you look at this Document https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Look at sections 3-3-1 and 3-3-2 at ISA and a clean Runway over 100T it's looking like 9,000' No idea what thrust on the engines though.

Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.


It would be interesting why you go to 100 t,, when their is no 100 t MTOW yet available, you do not know what engines and so on. I assume it is the worst case scenario with the smallest available engines. The A321XLR will get different flaps exactly to increase lift, so the graph for the normal A321neo does not apply.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:26 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Your hopes of the A321XLR will be a groundhog like the 737-900/900ER and now the 737-9 will be in vain. The A321neo needs a take off run of about 2000m at MTOW and ISA. The A321XLR will get redesigned flaps to keep that performance.

Perhaps you will convince Boeing to put the 737-10 gear on the 737-10, but I believe the customers will just by 737-10 instead and the 737-9 will die. The 737-10 will also first have to pass the no groundhog test.


It sure doesn't seem like that when you look at this Document https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... C-A321.pdf

Look at sections 3-3-1 and 3-3-2 at ISA and a clean Runway over 100T it's looking like 9,000' No idea what thrust on the engines though.

Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.


It would be interesting why you go to 100 t,, when their is no 100 t MTOW yet available, you do not know what engines and so on. I assume it is the worst case scenario with the smallest available engines. The A321XLR will get different flaps exactly to increase lift, so the graph for the normal A321neo does not apply.


Because they have that curve in the ACAP - Look at Astuteman's post #88 in this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1436583&start=50

Sometimes they extend those curves as you can get one-time permission for things like Ferry Flights at more than MTOW so you need to know what it will do. It gives a pretty good idea of what the XLR will do at 101T.

Yes I am aware it won't apply as it will have different flaps - but a little more thrust and new flaps won't magically cut the takeoff distance from 3,000 to 2,000 meters.

Does the XLR actually have a thrust bump? I can't find any mention of it.

It's not terrible runway performance but that wing was only originally designed for an 83T MTOW (Presumably with some growth built in but probably not close to the 25% it's being pushed to now).

Hopefully a new generation of Small airliners will bring those speeds down (approach) they lead to too many accidents.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19281
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:03 pm

astuteman wrote:
The RCT has the capacity of 4 x ACT's, for the weight of 1, and the space of 2.


To which, one Paul Daniels would have said "That's magic!" ;)
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: 784
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:50 pm

Stitch wrote:
TObound wrote:
How relevant is the 321XLR really?


It's relevant in that it is a member of an extremely popular sub-family that now offers even more performance. It might become popular outside of TATL operations due to it's higher operating weights and fuel capacity. I have read on this forum that all A321neo models deliver with at least one ACT and the gist I am getting from Airbus is that the A321XLR's RCT offers the capacity of at least two ACTs without taking up as much space in the rear cargo hold. So the A321XLR will supplant the A321LR going forward and might become a significant plurality of A321neo family orders.


Sure. But I guess I'm thinking of it in the broader picture of sales and profits for the OEM. The way I look at it, Airbus is just upselling a 321N and collecting a nice premium. The real enemy for Boeing here is the baseline 321N. That's what I was getting at. The 321XLR is basically improving yield for Airbus. Every spot on their production line is now worth more.

But Boeing can't necessarily replicate the success. A huge part of the 321XLR advantage is type commonality with regular 321Ns and 321LRs. Offering a new type to just combat the 321XLR doesn't really overcome that advantage. They have to offer something that also replaces the 321N simultaneously. This is why I think the NMA is going to turn out to be the long range/high gross weight version of the FSA. Can't really beat Airbus any other way.
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:56 pm

scbriml wrote:
astuteman wrote:
The RCT has the capacity of 4 x ACT's, for the weight of 1, and the space of 2.


To which, one Paul Daniels would have said "That's magic!" ;)


It is that. It also means that the A321XLR will have an OEW over 1 tonne less than the A321LR with 3 x ACT's, and about the same as the regular A321NEO with 1 x ACT (give or take 100kg)

Rgds
 
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

Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.


Damn right its no 757.

An A321ceo is about 20% cheaper to run than a 757-200...

Compound the neo effect on that and your looking at 30+% cheaper to run!


So yeah, nowhere near a 757.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:07 am

Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.


Damn right its no 757.

An A321ceo is about 20% cheaper to run than a 757-200...

Compound the neo effect on that and your looking at 30+% cheaper to run!


So yeah, nowhere near a 757.


Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.

Actually according to Wikipedia ( not a great source) the Max 9 at Sea level may beat the XLR taking off in 8,500' vs over 9,000' at MTOW.
 
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

Sat Dec 14, 2019 6:00 am

morrisond wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Go to 2-4,000' Pressure Altitude on on ISA day +15C and a wet runway and it sure ain't no 757. Better than a MAX - but nowhere near a 757.


Damn right its no 757.

An A321ceo is about 20% cheaper to run than a 757-200...

Compound the neo effect on that and your looking at 30+% cheaper to run!


So yeah, nowhere near a 757.


Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.

Actually according to Wikipedia ( not a great source) the Max 9 at Sea level may beat the XLR taking off in 8,500' vs over 9,000' at MTOW.


Why rely on wiki when you've been quoting ACAP's up to now which have to be far more authoritative?

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevE.pdf

The respective take-off distances at ISA standard day and 0 ft altitude are:-

Base A321NEO at 93.5t MTOW - 7 250 ft
Base A321NEO at XLR's 101t MTOW - 9 000ft
737-9 MAX at 88t MTOW - 10 250ft

I expect the XLR's new high lift system to give improved field performance over the base model.

(The above shows just how good the base A321 NEO field performance at its normal MTOW is, by the way - it matches the P+W powered 752 in these conditions. The RR powered 752 beats it)

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:53 am

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Damn right its no 757.

An A321ceo is about 20% cheaper to run than a 757-200...

Compound the neo effect on that and your looking at 30+% cheaper to run!


So yeah, nowhere near a 757.


Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.

Actually according to Wikipedia ( not a great source) the Max 9 at Sea level may beat the XLR taking off in 8,500' vs over 9,000' at MTOW.


Why rely on wiki when you've been quoting ACAP's up to now which have to be far more authoritative?

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevE.pdf

The respective take-off distances at ISA standard day and 0 ft altitude are:-

Base A321NEO at 93.5t MTOW - 7 250 ft
Base A321NEO at XLR's 101t MTOW - 9 000ft
737-9 MAX at 88t MTOW - 10 250ft

I expect the XLR's new high lift system to give improved field performance over the base model.

(The above shows just how good the base A321 NEO field performance at its normal MTOW is, by the way - it matches the P+W powered 752 in these conditions. The RR powered 752 beats it)

Rgds


Actually the ACAP agrees with WIKI - if you go to 3-62 in the Boeing ACAP it shows 8,500' at ISA standard and 0 Elevation as well.

Originally I as looking at the wrong table as well (I went to the last one 3-65) and thinking 10,250' was optimistic.

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