Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:42 am

morrisond wrote:
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.


Good catch, but I think we need to be specific here. There is no "wrong table" as such, only 2 different ones.
There is a table for the 25k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 10,250ft
There is ALSO a table for a high thrust variant with a 28k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 8,500ft
Useful information.

So we have a comparison.
Base 737-9 at 88t and 25k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 10,250ft
Base A321NEO at 93.5t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 7,250ft

High thrust 737-9 at 88t and 28k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 8,500ft
This of course compares the basic 737-9 with the highest thrust to an A321XLR which is 2 weight growth increments up on the basic NEO with the lowest thrust (33k lb)

The A321NEO is also available with 35k lb thrust if required - a 6% increase.
If the 737-9 12% thrust increase delivers 1,750ft better field performance, I'd expect the 321NEO's 6% increase to deliver something like 750ft, giving

High Thrust A321NEO at 93.5t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude being 6,500ft

Flightglobal state that the design intent for the high lift system is that V1 stays the same for the XLR as it is for the standard NEO

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 41.article

He adds that the intention with the switch to the single-slotted inboard flaps on the A321XLR is to reduce weight and complexity without exceeding the V-speeds of the original A321.


As V is constant, acceleration will be inversely proportional to mass.
The mass increase from 93.5t to 101t is 8%
Acceleration will be down 8%, and time will be up 8%
distance will be proportional to acceleration x time^2
i.e 0.92 x 1.08^2.
The increase in take-off distance will be 7%

Which means that

Base A321XLR at 101t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (7,250ft x 1.07) = 7 750 ft
High thrust A321XLR at 101t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (6,500ft x 1.07) = 7 000 ft

Considerably less than the 737-9 MAX, and squarely in 757-200 field performance territory

757-200 figures from here

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft

High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb RR 535E4B at 0ft altitude being 6,500ft
High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb PW 2040 at 0ft altitude being 7,500ft

If the XLR calculation above is valid, that will put the XLR field performance somewhere between the RR powered 757-200 and the P+W powered 757-200.
The XLR of course flies a LOT further and therefore is disadvantaged in this comparison
:)

Rgds
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:04 pm

astuteman wrote:
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft


Just curious, why would field performance be so hugely different with identical weights and thrust?
That suggests other factors - not inlcuded in your analysis - are very important, which then sort of undermines your analysis . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:46 pm

PW100 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft


Just curious, why would field performance be so hugely different with identical weights and thrust?
That suggests other factors - not inlcuded in your analysis - are very important, which then sort of undermines your analysis . . .


I've no idea, and it is strange.
But it involves different engines - something I did not need to do for the XLR.
So it sort of doesn't undermine my analysis.
Does it?
:)

For what its worth, the A321 ACAP only shows data for the Leap 1A, so I have based everything off that.

The graphs for the CEO do show variations between the V2500 and the CFM 56, so engine choice clearly can make a difference

rgds
Last edited by astuteman on Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:52 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Good catch, but I think we need to be specific here. There is no "wrong table" as such, only 2 different ones.
There is a table for the 25k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 10,250ft
There is ALSO a table for a high thrust variant with a 28k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 8,500ft
Useful information.

So we have a comparison.
Base 737-9 at 88t and 25k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 10,250ft
Base A321NEO at 93.5t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 7,250ft

High thrust 737-9 at 88t and 28k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 8,500ft
This of course compares the basic 737-9 with the highest thrust to an A321XLR which is 2 weight growth increments up on the basic NEO with the lowest thrust (33k lb)

The A321NEO is also available with 35k lb thrust if required - a 6% increase.
If the 737-9 12% thrust increase delivers 1,750ft better field performance, I'd expect the 321NEO's 6% increase to deliver something like 750ft, giving

High Thrust A321NEO at 93.5t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude being 6,500ft

Flightglobal state that the design intent for the high lift system is that V1 stays the same for the XLR as it is for the standard NEO

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 41.article

He adds that the intention with the switch to the single-slotted inboard flaps on the A321XLR is to reduce weight and complexity without exceeding the V-speeds of the original A321.


As V is constant, acceleration will be inversely proportional to mass.
The mass increase from 93.5t to 101t is 8%
Acceleration will be down 8%, and time will be up 8%
distance will be proportional to acceleration x time^2
i.e 0.92 x 1.08^2.
The increase in take-off distance will be 7%

Which means that

Base A321XLR at 101t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (7,250ft x 1.07) = 7 750 ft
High thrust A321XLR at 101t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (6,500ft x 1.07) = 7 000 ft

Considerably less than the 737-9 MAX, and squarely in 757-200 field performance territory

757-200 figures from here

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft

High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb RR 535E4B at 0ft altitude being 6,500ft
High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb PW 2040 at 0ft altitude being 7,500ft

If the XLR calculation above is valid, that will put the XLR field performance somewhere between the RR powered 757-200 and the P+W powered 757-200.
The XLR of course flies a LOT further and therefore is disadvantaged in this comparison
:)

Rgds



Good data - the mystery deepens as I found several references to 29.3K engines (130KN) for the MAX 9 vs the tables which are based on 120KN which would improve it's performance as well. The articulated gear on the -10 could also be a magic bullet that reduces the takeoff run too. other than existing orders we are really taking about A321 vs -10 as that will probably be the variant most produced going forward.

Albeit not as good as the A321 - it does not seem like a "Groundhog" as one user suggests up thread.

They both seem quite capable, and nowhere near the legendary sluggish performance of the original A321's or 737-900's.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:10 pm

astuteman wrote:
PW100 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft


Just curious, why would field performance be so hugely different with identical weights and thrust?
That suggests other factors - not inlcuded in your analysis - are very important, which then sort of undermines your analysis . . .


It must be a typo. There haven't been any RR211 below 40,000 lbf. (?) I believe the RR211 535E4 has 42,540 lbf maximum thrust. That would explain the difference.

The high thrust 35k lb will probably be popular with the A321XLR at 101t, in order to maintain good performance. The XLR will more often than a regular A321 be taking off at MTOW, so the higher thrust will come handy.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.


Good catch, but I think we need to be specific here. There is no "wrong table" as such, only 2 different ones.
There is a table for the 25k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 10,250ft
There is ALSO a table for a high thrust variant with a 28k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 8,500ft
Useful information.

So we have a comparison.
Base 737-9 at 88t and 25k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 10,250ft
Base A321NEO at 93.5t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 7,250ft

High thrust 737-9 at 88t and 28k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 8,500ft
This of course compares the basic 737-9 with the highest thrust to an A321XLR which is 2 weight growth increments up on the basic NEO with the lowest thrust (33k lb)

The A321NEO is also available with 35k lb thrust if required - a 6% increase.
If the 737-9 12% thrust increase delivers 1,750ft better field performance, I'd expect the 321NEO's 6% increase to deliver something like 750ft, giving

High Thrust A321NEO at 93.5t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude being 6,500ft

Flightglobal state that the design intent for the high lift system is that V1 stays the same for the XLR as it is for the standard NEO

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 41.article

He adds that the intention with the switch to the single-slotted inboard flaps on the A321XLR is to reduce weight and complexity without exceeding the V-speeds of the original A321.


As V is constant, acceleration will be inversely proportional to mass.
The mass increase from 93.5t to 101t is 8%
Acceleration will be down 8%, and time will be up 8%
distance will be proportional to acceleration x time^2
i.e 0.92 x 1.08^2.
The increase in take-off distance will be 7%

Which means that

Base A321XLR at 101t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (7,250ft x 1.07) = 7 750 ft
High thrust A321XLR at 101t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (6,500ft x 1.07) = 7 000 ft

Considerably less than the 737-9 MAX, and squarely in 757-200 field performance territory

757-200 figures from here

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft

High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb RR 535E4B at 0ft altitude being 6,500ft
High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb PW 2040 at 0ft altitude being 7,500ft

If the XLR calculation above is valid, that will put the XLR field performance somewhere between the RR powered 757-200 and the P+W powered 757-200.
The XLR of course flies a LOT further and therefore is disadvantaged in this comparison
:)

Rgds



Good data - the mystery deepens as I found several references to 29.3K engines (130KN) for the MAX 9 vs the tables which are based on 120KN which would improve it's performance as well. The articulated gear on the -10 could also be a magic bullet that reduces the takeoff run too. other than existing orders we are really taking about A321 vs -10 as that will probably be the variant most produced going forward.

Albeit not as good as the A321 - it does not seem like a "Groundhog" as one user suggests up thread.

They both seem quite capable, and nowhere near the legendary sluggish performance of the original A321's or 737-900's.


Everything's relative, I guess.

The analysis above shows

for the lower thrust versions:-

737-9 - 10,250ft (25k lb)
A321 XLR - 7,750ft (33k lb)
A321 NEO - 7,250ft (33k lb)
757-200 (RR) - 7,250 ft (37k lb)

Which by the way gives the NEO the same field performance as the RR 757-200

for the higher thrust versions:-

737-9 - 8,500ft (28k lb)
A321 XLR - 7,000ft (35k lb)
A321 NEO - 6,500ft (35k lb)
757-200 (RR) - 6,500 ft (40k lb)

Which by the way also gives the NEO (with a 35k lb engine) the same field performance as the RR 757-200 (with the 40k lb engine)

I was astonished, by the way, that the figures show that the 33k lb thrust NEO matches the best of the 37k lb thrust 757's - the RR version, at sea level, and even matches the P+W version with 40k lb thrust.
Even at 2,000ft elevation there is very little in it.

Either way, the 737-9 does not fare well against its immediate competitor - the A321NEO.
And even with the higher thrust engines, gets nowhere near the XLR with 33k lb LEAP's - a plane that is 13t heavier and flies about 1,100Nm further with a bigger payload.
I can't really bring myself to see still getting nowhere near much heavier and more capable planes as some sort of win for the 737-9 MAX

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:40 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Good catch, but I think we need to be specific here. There is no "wrong table" as such, only 2 different ones.
There is a table for the 25k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 10,250ft
There is ALSO a table for a high thrust variant with a 28k lb thrust LEAP which shows the 737-9 take off at 0ft altitude as 8,500ft
Useful information.

So we have a comparison.
Base 737-9 at 88t and 25k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 10,250ft
Base A321NEO at 93.5t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 7,250ft

High thrust 737-9 at 88t and 28k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is 8,500ft
This of course compares the basic 737-9 with the highest thrust to an A321XLR which is 2 weight growth increments up on the basic NEO with the lowest thrust (33k lb)

The A321NEO is also available with 35k lb thrust if required - a 6% increase.
If the 737-9 12% thrust increase delivers 1,750ft better field performance, I'd expect the 321NEO's 6% increase to deliver something like 750ft, giving

High Thrust A321NEO at 93.5t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude being 6,500ft

Flightglobal state that the design intent for the high lift system is that V1 stays the same for the XLR as it is for the standard NEO

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/a ... 41.article



As V is constant, acceleration will be inversely proportional to mass.
The mass increase from 93.5t to 101t is 8%
Acceleration will be down 8%, and time will be up 8%
distance will be proportional to acceleration x time^2
i.e 0.92 x 1.08^2.
The increase in take-off distance will be 7%

Which means that

Base A321XLR at 101t and 33k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (7,250ft x 1.07) = 7 750 ft
High thrust A321XLR at 101t and 35k lb thrust at 0 ft altitude is going to be (6,500ft x 1.07) = 7 000 ft

Considerably less than the 737-9 MAX, and squarely in 757-200 field performance territory

757-200 figures from here

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... 757_23.pdf

Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb RR 535E4 at 0ft altitude being 7,250ft
Base 757-200 at 116t and 37k lb PW 2037 at 0ft altitude being 9,500ft

High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb RR 535E4B at 0ft altitude being 6,500ft
High thrust 757-200 at 116t and 40k lb PW 2040 at 0ft altitude being 7,500ft

If the XLR calculation above is valid, that will put the XLR field performance somewhere between the RR powered 757-200 and the P+W powered 757-200.
The XLR of course flies a LOT further and therefore is disadvantaged in this comparison
:)

Rgds



Good data - the mystery deepens as I found several references to 29.3K engines (130KN) for the MAX 9 vs the tables which are based on 120KN which would improve it's performance as well. The articulated gear on the -10 could also be a magic bullet that reduces the takeoff run too. other than existing orders we are really taking about A321 vs -10 as that will probably be the variant most produced going forward.

Albeit not as good as the A321 - it does not seem like a "Groundhog" as one user suggests up thread.

They both seem quite capable, and nowhere near the legendary sluggish performance of the original A321's or 737-900's.


Everything's relative, I guess.

The analysis above shows

for the lower thrust versions:-

737-9 - 10,250ft (25k lb)
A321 XLR - 7,750ft (33k lb)
A321 NEO - 7,250ft (33k lb)
757-200 (RR) - 7,250 ft (37k lb)

Which by the way gives the NEO the same field performance as the RR 757-200

for the higher thrust versions:-

737-9 - 8,500ft (28k lb)
A321 XLR - 7,000ft (35k lb)
A321 NEO - 6,500ft (35k lb)
757-200 (RR) - 6,500 ft (40k lb)

Which by the way also gives the NEO (with a 35k lb engine) the same field performance as the RR 757-200 (with the 40k lb engine)

I was astonished, by the way, that the figures show that the 33k lb thrust NEO matches the best of the 37k lb thrust 757's - the RR version, at sea level, and even matches the P+W version with 40k lb thrust.
Even at 2,000ft elevation there is very little in it.

Either way, the 737-9 does not fare well against its immediate competitor - the A321NEO.
And even with the higher thrust engines, gets nowhere near the XLR with 33k lb LEAP's - a plane that is 13t heavier and flies about 1,100Nm further with a bigger payload.
I can't really bring myself to see still getting nowhere near much heavier and more capable planes as some sort of win for the 737-9 MAX

Rgds


We will just ignore the 130kn engines on the MAX -9 then (if that information is right)?

No it's not a win - but the characterization of the MAX 9 "It's a Groundhog" is unfair and unjustified. That is what started this discussion.
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:56 pm

The 321NEO doesn't have wings and engines optimized for better field performance and long haul. Any new Boeing airplane would probably do that.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4446
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:05 pm

TObound wrote:
The 321NEO doesn't have wings and engines optimized for better field performance and long haul. Any new Boeing airplane would probably do that.


But why? Those things don't come for free. They bring increased drag and weight. Is anybody really asking for something significantly better than the 321?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:41 pm

reidar76 wrote:
It must be a typo. There haven't been any RR211 below 40,000 lbf. (?) I believe the RR211 535E4 has 42,540 lbf maximum thrust. That would explain the difference.

The high thrust 35k lb will probably be popular with the A321XLR at 101t, in order to maintain good performance. The XLR will more often than a regular A321 be taking off at MTOW, so the higher thrust will come handy.


That would make more sense. The P+W figures are quoted on the ACAP charts, but the RR ones aren't.
I guess the -535-E4B is the 42.5k lb variant you quote.

It means the A321NEO at a 93.5t MTOW with 33k lb LEAP's matches the 40k lb 757-200's at 116t MTOW - at sea level at least.
Who would have thunk?
To throw the 752 crowd a bone, the field performance diverges a lot at higher altitude, where I presume the 752's much bigger wing comes into play more

morrisond wrote:
No it's not a win - but the characterization of the MAX 9 "It's a Groundhog" is unfair and unjustified. That is what started this discussion.


I must admit that I was surprised by how much closer both the NEO/XLR and MAX are to the 757 than their predecessors.
So the 737-9 MAX is probably better than it is portrayed.
Like I said though, everything's relative :)

Rgds
 
TObound
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 10:55 pm

VSMUT wrote:
TObound wrote:
The 321NEO doesn't have wings and engines optimized for better field performance and long haul. Any new Boeing airplane would probably do that.


But why? Those things don't come for free. They bring increased drag and weight. Is anybody really asking for something significantly better than the 321?


I would argue that there's a market for something better than the 321. Now Boeing knows that Airbus could respond with a stretched, rewinged and re-engined 321. So the goal should be competitive to where Airbus could be. And with an aircraft that's better optimized to do the heavier 2-4 hr flights with a slightly faster cruise, better field performance, lower fuel burn and higher passenger capacities, I think Boeing could take a good chunk of the market.
 
planecane
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:50 pm

TObound wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
TObound wrote:
The 321NEO doesn't have wings and engines optimized for better field performance and long haul. Any new Boeing airplane would probably do that.


But why? Those things don't come for free. They bring increased drag and weight. Is anybody really asking for something significantly better than the 321?


I would argue that there's a market for something better than the 321. Now Boeing knows that Airbus could respond with a stretched, rewinged and re-engined 321. So the goal should be competitive to where Airbus could be. And with an aircraft that's better optimized to do the heavier 2-4 hr flights with a slightly faster cruise, better field performance, lower fuel burn and higher passenger capacities, I think Boeing could take a good chunk of the market.


This is why if Boeing does the NMA, it has to be with the intent of having the NSA develop out of the same program. Boing needs to be able to "simply" create the NSA almost as easily and cheaply as a re-winged and re-engined A321 can be done by Airbus. Basically, Airbus can "easily" compete with the NMA so Boeing needs to be able to "easily" compete with and beat the A320 with the derived program.

Otherwise, I can't see any way for the NMA to be financially viable. I didn't see it before the A321XLR and I certainly can't see it now.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5193
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:32 am

This NSA also needs to be better than A220 at the low end, which is no easy task considering how efficient A220-300 is compared to other comparable aircraft.

Looking at airbus product range, it seems like A320NEO and A220 series collide too much. At some point, Airbus just need to make the decision to let A220 take the lower capacity segment and move A320 series to 321 and 322. To me, re-winged 321/322 seems to be inevitable even if NMA doesn't come along.
 
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 16, 2019 12:33 am

planecane wrote:
There is no way there is a big enough market in between the A321 and the 787 to justify a $15+ billion investment.


There have been many jets in the past in - between the A321 and 787. I thought Boeing was shooting for an updated B767-300ER
Engine: # B767-300ER : first - last delivery date
GE 357 19. Feb. 1988 25. Jun. 2013
PW 195 29. Apr. 1988 26. Jun. 2014
RR 31 8. Feb. 1990 29. Jun. 1998

MTOW (kg)
254,000 Boeing 787-9
253,500 Airbus A340-200
251,000 Airbus A330-900neo
242,000 Airbus A330-300
242,000 Airbus A330-200
228,000 Boeing 787-8
204,000 Boeing 767-400ER
192,000 Airbus A300-600R
187,000 Boeing 767-300ER
163,000 Airbus A300-600
159,000 Boeing 767-300
157,000 Airbus A310-300
151,000 Boeing 707-320B/C
142,000 Airbus A310-200
141,000 Airbus A400M
124,000 Boeing 757-300
117,000 Boeing 707-120B
116,000 Boeing 757-200
101,000 Airbus A321XLR
Last edited by PacoMartin on Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
planecane
Posts: 1570
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:50 am

PacoMartin wrote:
planecane wrote:
There is no way there is a big enough market in between the A321 and the 787 to justify a $15+ billion investment.


There have been many jets in the past in - between the A321 and 787. I thought Boeing was shooting for an updated B767-300ER
Engine: # B767-300ER : first - last delivery date
GE 357 19. Feb. 1988 25. Jun. 2013
PW 195 29. Apr. 1988 26. Jun. 2014
RR 31 8. Feb. 1990 29. Jun. 1998

MTOW (kg)
254,000 Boeing 787-9
253,500 Airbus A340-200
250,000 Ilyushin IL-96-300
242,000 Airbus A330-300
242,000 Airbus A330-200
231,300 Lockheed L-1011-500
228,000 Boeing 787-8
211,400 Lockheed L-1011-200
208,000 Ilyushin IL-86
204,000 Boeing 767-400ER
192,000 Airbus A300-600R
187,000 Boeing 767-300ER
185,000 Concorde
163,000 Airbus A300-600
159,000 Boeing 767-300
157,000 Airbus A310-300
152,000 Vickers VC10
151,000 Boeing 707-320B/C
147,000 Douglas DC-8-61
142,000 Airbus A310-200
141,000 Airbus A400M
140,000 Douglas DC-8-32
125,000 Douglas DC-8-51
124,000 Boeing 757-300
117,000 Boeing 707-120B
116,000 Boeing 757-200
101,000 Airbus A321XLR


I didn't say that there weren't airlines that could use an aircraft in between the A321 and 787. I said there wasn't a large enough market to justify a $15+ billion investment.
 
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 16, 2019 1:20 am

planecane wrote:
I didn't say that there weren't airlines that could use an aircraft in between the A321 and 787. I said there wasn't a large enough market to justify a $15+ billion investment.


Well it is difficult to say what part of the market justifies a $15+ billion investment.
The $5 billion spent on the B777X airline with 300 orders hardly seems like a sure thing.
Neither does the €11 billion spent on the A350 development.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2281
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:41 am

The way this thread has been going, I would suggest moving it to Tech-Ops.

No news and just a bunch of arguments about minor technical points that no one else cares about.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:44 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.

You do understand performance does not come for free?
If the 757 is a rocket on take-off, it comes at a hefty price... For nothing more than showing off, which pax won't pay for.
 
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 16, 2019 10:18 am

DLPMMM wrote:
The way this thread has been going, I would suggest moving it to Tech-Ops. No news and just a bunch of arguments about minor technical points that no one else cares about.


For US airlines, 99.99% of domestic trips, 95.87% of trips to Latin America, and 85.50% of trans-Atlantic trips are 5000 statute miles or less.

For Pacific Flights
31.5% 5000 sm or less
21.5% 5001-6000 sm
47.0% 6000 sm or more

The A321XLR will have a still air range of 5400 statute miles, and the NMA may have a range of 6200 statute miles. As far as range, the NMA will provide little advantage over the A321XLR. It should provide more capacity.

It's not immediately clear that the NMA will outsell the XLR.
 
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 16, 2019 10:22 am

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


Which do you think an airline would rather have? The runway performance or the DOC?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
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 16, 2019 11:01 am

Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.


Which do you think an airline would rather have? The runway performance or the DOC?


More importantly in the context of NMA and FSA, if the runway performance isn't as bad as is made out, what is it that has caused the 737-9 MAX to absolutely tank in the marketplace compared to its competitor, that FSA needs to avoid?

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:39 am

Good question.

Anyone have payload-range curves to compare? [I guess we'd start with that before going on to projecting fuel burn]
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 1:51 pm

astuteman wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.


Which do you think an airline would rather have? The runway performance or the DOC?


More importantly in the context of NMA and FSA, if the runway performance isn't as bad as is made out, what is it that has caused the 737-9 MAX to absolutely tank in the marketplace compared to its competitor, that FSA needs to avoid?

Rgds
Size?
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
P1aneMad
Posts: 463
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 16, 2019 2:12 pm

Morrisond tries to judge which vehicle makes the better taxi by comparing quarter mile performance on a drag strip....
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:15 pm

P1aneMad wrote:
Morrisond tries to judge which vehicle makes the better taxi by comparing quarter mile performance on a drag strip....


No I did not - if you read upthread another poster was saying the 739 was a Groundhog. I refuted that.

I suspect the 321LR and XLR have sold a lot better as they have much further range giving them more flexibility.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:17 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Give it a rest - we were talking about runway performance - I would hope a plane that much newer would be that much more efficient.


Which do you think an airline would rather have? The runway performance or the DOC?


If Airlines don't need the range of the XLR or LR the -9 seems to have more than adequate Runway performance and it should have lower DOC as you are flying lower weights with lower thrust.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:28 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
planecane wrote:
I didn't say that there weren't airlines that could use an aircraft in between the A321 and 787. I said there wasn't a large enough market to justify a $15+ billion investment.

Well it is difficult to say what part of the market justifies a $15+ billion investment.
The $5 billion spent on the B777X airline with 300 orders hardly seems like a sure thing.
Neither does the €11 billion spent on the A350 development.

I think in the fullness of time both 77x and A350 will provide good ROI.

I think if there is a NMA it should be viewed as breaking ground for the future NSA and won't provide much ROI on its own.

It will be interesting if Boeing does decide to suspend MAX production till the return to service date becomes more clear.

It will be interesting if life without 737s rolling down the line causes Boeing to do a big re-think of NMA vs NSA vs the EMB acquisition.

Add to this we have a new guy in charge of Boeing Commercial Airplanes and things might get very interesting in the near future.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
I think if there is a NMA it should be viewed as breaking ground for the future NSA and won't provide much ROI on its own.


I think the NSA / FSA / 737 replacement is growing from an option into a neccesity rapidly. For the FSA a nimble, quiet, cheap 50t, 180-230 seater with up to 4700NM range, sold in the thousands is the benchmark. I think it would be very complicted to shrink an NMA into those specs. Boeing is in no position to ignore, dismiss this reality.

Image
https://www.yupxo.com/hashtag/a321
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:22 pm

keesje wrote:
For the FSA a nimble, quiet, cheap 50t, 180-230 seater with up to 4700NM range, sold in the thousands is the benchmark. It very complicted to shrink an NMA into those specs. Boeing is in no position to ignore, dismiss this reality

Unfortunately for Boeing they are in no position to produce a "cheap 50t, 180-230 seater with up to 4700NM range" any time soon.

They are stuck with the decisions made in the past, they can't switch horses in mid stream.

They are stuck MAXimizing (sic) the income they can hope to gain from 737 for the next several years.

The "fast, cheap, good" axiom only allows you to pick two not three.

It reminds me of the early 787 days where Airbus was paniced and initially went with a fast, cheap but not good enough A350 Mk1, but once they stepped back they realized they had to do a "full Monty" A350.

Going with "fast, cheap but not good enough" in a moment of panic is fool's gold, IMO.

Going right at the competition with similar tech is not going to be a winning approach, the competition already has their market cornered.

I think Stich's earlier analysis was pretty good, if there is to be a change in direction it would have to be for a best-of-breed aircraft, but it's not realistic to expect that before 2030.

Richard Aboulafia's article posted earlier on this thread said Boeing really had three choices: NMA, NSA/FSA, or do nothing.

I think the recent set back in 737 RTS causes more weight to shift to the "do nothing" option, but time will tell.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
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 16, 2019 4:42 pm

Imho it boils down to "do nothing" or do something to fix the MAX problem aka FSA. NMA does cost the same money and would not remedy the MAX problem either.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
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 16, 2019 4:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
It reminds me of the early 787 days where Airbus was paniced and initially went with a fast, cheap but not good enough A350 Mk1, but once they stepped back they realized they had to do a "full Monty" A350.

Going with "fast, cheap but not good enough" in a moment of panic is fool's gold, IMO..


Although some might argue with a hint of irony that in hindsight the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A350 mk1 was actually the right thing to do at the time. Particularly as the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A330NEO launched a full 15 years later seems to be holding its own .... :)

Rgds
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8034
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:08 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
planecane wrote:
There is no way there is a big enough market in between the A321 and the 787 to justify a $15+ billion investment.


There have been many jets in the past in - between the A321 and 787. I thought Boeing was shooting for an updated B767-300ER
Engine: # B767-300ER : first - last delivery date
GE 357 19. Feb. 1988 25. Jun. 2013
PW 195 29. Apr. 1988 26. Jun. 2014
RR 31 8. Feb. 1990 29. Jun. 1998

MTOW (kg)
254,000 Boeing 787-9
253,500 Airbus A340-200
251,000 Airbus A330-900neo
242,000 Airbus A330-300
242,000 Airbus A330-200
228,000 Boeing 787-8
204,000 Boeing 767-400ER
192,000 Airbus A300-600R
187,000 Boeing 767-300ER
163,000 Airbus A300-600
159,000 Boeing 767-300
157,000 Airbus A310-300
151,000 Boeing 707-320B/C
142,000 Airbus A310-200
141,000 Airbus A400M
124,000 Boeing 757-300
117,000 Boeing 707-120B
116,000 Boeing 757-200
101,000 Airbus A321XLR


The market space you allege exists is filled with a bunch of dead dead dead aircraft. 707s? I mean, what the heck!? Let's just talk about 8-track tapes and Studebakers.

321XLRs and 787-8s didn't exist when Boeing was selling lots of passenger 763ERs. MTOW is a worthless - and I mean worthless - rank metric here. Passenger count, range, cargo volume, and weight/range curves are among reasonable capability determinants. Like planecane, there may be a space to sell some NMA aircraft but I don't see how Boeing can justify a very big investment. Boeing's hesitation is indicative.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:10 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the NSA / FSA / 737 replacement is growing from an option into a neccesity rapidly. For the FSA a nimble, quiet, cheap 50t, 180-230 seater with up to 4700NM range, sold in the thousands is the benchmark. I think it would be very complicted to shrink an NMA into those specs. Boeing is in no position to ignore, dismiss this reality.


Keesje, I had a funny moment.... I thought... How can Boeing build a 50k MTOW 230pax when the 737-9 is already at 88k and the A321XLR is at 101k?.... Then I realized you cited tons....... as in 50t is 100klbs. haha.
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:30 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the NSA / FSA / 737 replacement is growing from an option into a neccesity rapidly. For the FSA a nimble, quiet, cheap 50t, 180-230 seater with up to 4700NM range, sold in the thousands is the benchmark. I think it would be very complicted to shrink an NMA into those specs. Boeing is in no position to ignore, dismiss this reality.


Keesje, I had a funny moment.... I thought... How can Boeing build a 50k MTOW 230pax when the 737-9 is already at 88k and the A321XLR is at 101k?.... Then I realized you cited tons....... as in 50t is 100klbs. haha.


I should have been more clear, I was looking at OEW, which together with payload-range, tells a lot about aircraft efficiency.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:56 pm

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It reminds me of the early 787 days where Airbus was paniced and initially went with a fast, cheap but not good enough A350 Mk1, but once they stepped back they realized they had to do a "full Monty" A350.

Going with "fast, cheap but not good enough" in a moment of panic is fool's gold, IMO..


Although some might argue with a hint of irony that in hindsight the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A350 mk1 was actually the right thing to do at the time. Particularly as the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A330NEO launched a full 15 years later seems to be holding its own .... :)

Rgds

I'm sure GE would agree with that. :D
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27162
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 16, 2019 8:28 pm

astuteman wrote:
Although some might argue with a hint of irony that in hindsight the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A350 mk1 was actually the right thing to do at the time. Particularly as the "fast, cheap but not good enough" A330NEO launched a full 15 years later seems to be holding its own .... :)


But not nearly as well as the "A350 Mark II" is. And it also would have allowed Boeing to continue to milk the 777-300ER as there would continue to have been no competitive alternative..
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
It reminds me of the early 787 days where Airbus was paniced and initially went with a fast, cheap but not good enough A350 Mk1, but once they stepped back they realized they had to do a "full Monty" A350.

Going with "fast, cheap but not good enough" in a moment of panic is fool's gold, IMO.

Going right at the competition with similar tech is not going to be a winning approach, the competition already has their market cornered.

Boeing has also a huge part of the market cornered.

Personally I believe NSA does not need to be 15% or 20% better than the A320. 5..10% is enough. With 5..10% Boeing can maintain the duopoly. And any market share larger than something within 40% to 60% is anyway an illusion. Because Airbus will be able build a competing product within some %s.

There is always nothing more to capture for Boeing than roughly half of the market. Look at the two scenarios:

a) If Boeing brings a 20% better NSA in 2030, Airbus will bring also a 20% better single aisle in 2032. End result -> duopoly reestablished
b) If Boeing brings a 5%..10% better NSA in 2025 (challenging, but such promise would help getting 5000 orders at EIS) Airbus anyway has to answer with a clean sheet. End result -> duopoly reestablished

The pattern, "B moves, A follows" is not different in both cases. Also the end result will be the same no matter. But only in case a) Boeing has to endure 5 years more with the MAX on an increasingly tilted market place.

So IMO Boeing should built a "Full Monty" NSA asap. There is nothing to loose.

IMO nothing would be more in Airbus interest, than Boeing lingering on with the 737 for many years. The appetite for NMA seems to have calmed down so that danger is fended off. But Boeing pushing an NSA would quickly bring Airbus out of their comfort zone. Very quickly.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Dec 16, 2019 9:19 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
Personally I believe NSA does not need to be 15% or 20% better than the A320. 5..10% is enough. With 5..10% Boeing can maintain the duopoly. And any market share larger than something within 40% to 60% is anyway an illusion. Because Airbus will be able build a competing product within some %s.

The illusion is real: Airbus is approaching 60% of the narrow body market and Boeing has little option to get that 5-10% better plane to magically appear to restore the balance.

Getting that plane requires devaluing the current MAX backlog once its replacement is known, then spending several years and lots of money on R&D and facilities and materials to be able to produce the replacement at a similar rate as the A320/737 thus negating any performance advantages you have been able to establish by cost and time to market disadvantages.

Boeing has in essence blown this cycle of the tic-toc development model. Its best best is to take in whatever revenue it may still be able to get off its MAX investment and target their next product at a market that doesn't already have an entrenched competitor.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 5:44 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
The market space you allege exists is filled with a bunch of dead dead dead aircraft. 707s? I mean, what the heck!? Let's just talk about 8-track tapes and Studebakers.

321XLRs and 787-8s didn't exist when Boeing was selling lots of passenger 763ERs. MTOW is a worthless - and I mean worthless - rank metric here. Passenger count, range, cargo volume, and weight/range curves are among reasonable capability determinants. Like planecane, there may be a space to sell some NMA aircraft but I don't see how Boeing can justify a very big investment. Boeing's hesitation is indicative.


Ouch!
Unfortunately, I kind of agree with you. So I will confess to being a bit lazy.

We can argue that one of the most successful jets of all time, the A320, was a middle of the market offering.

OEW
32,821 kg B737-300
42,600 kg A320
58,440 kg B757-200
77,400 kg - 79,200 kg A310
88,505 kg - 88,626 kg A300

Certainly, the Middle of the Market is much bigger than it was in the late 1980s.

OEW
50,100 kg A321neo
80,127 kg - 90,011 kg B767-200/300 (ER)
119,950 kg / 128,850 kg / 135,500 kg B787-8/9/10
132,000 kg to 137,000 kg A330-800/900neo

It is difficult to believe that they would launch a NMA program while the MAX production lines are turned off completely.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:31 am

Revelation wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
Personally I believe NSA does not need to be 15% or 20% better than the A320. 5..10% is enough. With 5..10% Boeing can maintain the duopoly. And any market share larger than something within 40% to 60% is anyway an illusion. Because Airbus will be able build a competing product within some %s.

The illusion is real: Airbus is approaching 60% of the narrow body market and Boeing has little option to get that 5-10% better plane to magically appear to restore the balance.

Getting that plane requires devaluing the current MAX backlog once its replacement is known, then spending several years and lots of money on R&D and facilities and materials to be able to produce the replacement at a similar rate as the A320/737 thus negating any performance advantages you have been able to establish by cost and time to market disadvantages.

Boeing has in essence blown this cycle of the tic-toc development model. Its best best is to take in whatever revenue it may still be able to get off its MAX investment and target their next product at a market that doesn't already have an entrenched competitor.

The option is hard work to ship a state of the art aircraft (which the A320 is not anymore) asap. A 6 breast tube aircraft is less risk than NMA. So a 6 abreast tube aircraft in 2025 is more credible, than NMA would be in 2028.

The rest is not different regardless of the time when they begin. EIS in 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. EIS after 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. An entrenched competitor? Will always be there. The new Boeing NSA just needs to disroot the A320 within some years.

From the past we know, that it takes not so much to accomplish that. They did it with the 77W against the A346. Also the hype around the 787 vs A330 or A350Mk1 did not happen because the former was 20% or so more efficient.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:40 am

Amiga500 wrote:
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.


Not much has changed after 1988 technologically in the NB segment - I don't see what Boeing could do. There's a reason the CEO is still in production in virtually unchanged form 31 years later.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
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 17, 2019 8:01 am

1989worstyear wrote:
Not much has changed after 1988 technologically in the NB segment - I don't see what Boeing could do. There's a reason the CEO is still in production in virtually unchanged form 31 years later.


Like I said, with improved diagnostics and smarter systems - added to refined aerodynamics, you are looking at a 3-5% CASM saving.


The A320 has very much changed from what was released in 1988. Airbus are continually looking at it, seeing what can be tweaked or redesigned. Just because it isn't visible on the outside, doesn't mean there hasn't been wholesale changes on the inside. But there is a limit to what can be done with the architecture being what it is.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:21 am

Mass production can be your best friend and your worst enemy.

High margins at optimum volume, but they disappear quickly as you start to scale back and a new model is launched, and then turn red.

The combination of high volumes / high profits is a disincentive to launch new models unless customer benefits of such magnitude and value can be guaranteed. In other words, if the new model has customer benefits of 10%, costs 5% more for the OEM to build, and costs the customer 7% to acquire, is that a persuasive buying proposition? That's where emissions and other external factors may tip the balance.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
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 17, 2019 4:01 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
The rest is not different regardless of the time when they begin. EIS in 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. EIS after 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. An entrenched competitor? Will always be there. The new Boeing NSA just needs to disroot the A320 within some years.

From the past we know, that it takes not so much to accomplish that. They did it with the 77W against the A346. Also the hype around the 787 vs A330 or A350Mk1 did not happen because the former was 20% or so more efficient.

Well, if one had an advantage as striking as the GE90-115B which came in better than expected and a competitor as weak as the heavy four engined A346 then one can go about taking it on directly, but for other cases we need to aim at the gap in the competitor's product line and use a pincer movement.

The A350 aimed itself at the gap between 787 and 77W and found traction. A320 aimed itself at the gap between 737 classic and 757 and found traction. The NMA will aim itself at the gap above A321XLR and below A330 and find traction. The NSA will aim underneath A321 and undermine it from below.

A six abreast tube aimed at the A321XLR will give Boeing very little advantage in performance or payload-range and great disadvantage in price and compatibility whilst killing any chance of cashing in on the 4,500 contracted orders for MAX.
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
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
The rest is not different regardless of the time when they begin. EIS in 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. EIS after 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. An entrenched competitor? Will always be there. The new Boeing NSA just needs to disroot the A320 within some years.

From the past we know, that it takes not so much to accomplish that. They did it with the 77W against the A346. Also the hype around the 787 vs A330 or A350Mk1 did not happen because the former was 20% or so more efficient.

Well, if one had an advantage as striking as the GE90-115B which came in better than expected and a competitor as weak as the heavy four engined A346 then one can go about taking it on directly, but for other cases we need to aim at the gap in the competitor's product line and use a pincer movement.

The A350 aimed itself at the gap between 787 and 77W and found traction. A320 aimed itself at the gap between 737 classic and 757 and found traction. The NMA will aim itself at the gap above A321XLR and below A330 and find traction. The NSA will aim underneath A321 and undermine it from below.

A six abreast tube aimed at the A321XLR will give Boeing very little advantage in performance or payload-range and great disadvantage in price and compatibility whilst killing any chance of cashing in on the 4,500 contracted orders for MAX.

Why do you reduce the Airbus NB offering to the A321 only? It's a 3-frame family (A319/320/321), even if the bulk of the production will be the 2 bigger ones.
And, along with the A220, Airbus has the "below-A321" market nicely covered (A220-100, A220-300, maybe A220-500, A319neo, A320neo), even if a new entrant is always possible and even welcome for the sake of competition.
So, the NSA market is not 100% clear for "below-A321", it won't be the only player.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
rheinwaldner wrote:
The rest is not different regardless of the time when they begin. EIS in 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. EIS after 2030? Same story and hurdles to overcome. An entrenched competitor? Will always be there. The new Boeing NSA just needs to disroot the A320 within some years.

From the past we know, that it takes not so much to accomplish that. They did it with the 77W against the A346. Also the hype around the 787 vs A330 or A350Mk1 did not happen because the former was 20% or so more efficient.

Well, if one had an advantage as striking as the GE90-115B which came in better than expected and a competitor as weak as the heavy four engined A346 then one can go about taking it on directly, but for other cases we need to aim at the gap in the competitor's product line and use a pincer movement.

The A350 aimed itself at the gap between 787 and 77W and found traction. A320 aimed itself at the gap between 737 classic and 757 and found traction. The NMA will aim itself at the gap above A321XLR and below A330 and find traction. The NSA will aim underneath A321 and undermine it from below.

A six abreast tube aimed at the A321XLR will give Boeing very little advantage in performance or payload-range and great disadvantage in price and compatibility whilst killing any chance of cashing in on the 4,500 contracted orders for MAX.


Exactly - Big and small Winged versions of a tight light 7W NMA/NSA built on the same lines (NMA first) to take on the A320 series from above and below.

Not much else makes sense - unless you want to do two separate programs which will not happen anytime soon.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24308
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 17, 2019 4:36 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Why do you reduce the Airbus NB offering to the A321 only? It's a 3-frame family (A319/320/321), even if the bulk of the production will be the 2 bigger ones.

Since you seem to be offended, I'll point out I intended no slight.

The thing is that the MAX-8 is actually holding its own against the A320, the big disparity in sales happens when you compare A321 to 737-9/10.

WayexTDI wrote:
And, along with the A220, Airbus has the "below-A321" market nicely covered (A220-100, A220-300, maybe A220-500, A319neo, A320neo), even if a new entrant is always possible and even welcome for the sake of competition.
So, the NSA market is not 100% clear for "below-A321", it won't be the only player.

But as you see the Airbus product family is not broadly compatible: the cockpit, avionics and systems are all different, whereas I would think NSA+NMA would make sure they were compatible.

This would be an advantage of note, along with whatever improvements that came with the NMA+NSA family, but of course would not "kill off" the competitor, it will have its own advantages too.

The problem for Boeing right now is IMO they are too committed to MAX to kill it off yet also not in a position to start its replacement till they can kill it off.

This leaves a gap in time where the choices are to (a) do nothing or (b) do something that won't compete with the MAX replacement, i.e. do the NMA.

PacoMartin wrote:
It is difficult to believe that they would launch a NMA program while the MAX production lines are turned off completely.

Perhaps a bigger problem for NMA right now is that shutting down MAX is going to hurt the LEAP supply chain, yet NMA presumably will be using a LEAP variant for its engine and thus the same vendors will need to be investing in that new engine at the same time as their cash flow gets greatly reduced.

This supply chain has just put HUGE amounts of money into developing LEAP and building out the infrastructure to build it at a HUGE rate, and now Boeing is going to want them to put all that on ice and be ready to turn it all back on in a few month's time, a HUGE cost for everyone involved.

Various reports are saying Boeing will need to "support" its supply chain during the shut down, but it's not clear if such support would go towards helping them launch a new engine for NMA.

I also think Boeing's upper management is going to be so consumed with MAX RTS to spend much if any time advancing NMA, not to mention MAX's impact on Boeing's own cash flow.

Yet we have not yet read of any shelving of the efforts started for NMA by Boeing's engineers, which is strange.

You would think in times of trouble there would be a reduction in new product development, just as the T1000 crisis caused RR to reduce its UltraFan staffing.
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
 
morrisond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Why do you reduce the Airbus NB offering to the A321 only? It's a 3-frame family (A319/320/321), even if the bulk of the production will be the 2 bigger ones.

Since you seem to be offended, I'll point out I intended no slight.

The thing is that the MAX-8 is actually holding its own against the A320, the big disparity in sales happens when you compare A321 to 737-9/10.

WayexTDI wrote:
And, along with the A220, Airbus has the "below-A321" market nicely covered (A220-100, A220-300, maybe A220-500, A319neo, A320neo), even if a new entrant is always possible and even welcome for the sake of competition.
So, the NSA market is not 100% clear for "below-A321", it won't be the only player.

But as you see the Airbus product family is not broadly compatible: the cockpit, avionics and systems are all different, whereas I would think NSA+NMA would make sure they were compatible.

This would be an advantage of note, along with whatever improvements that came with the NMA+NSA family, but of course would not "kill off" the competitor, it will have its own advantages too.

The problem for Boeing right now is IMO they are too committed to MAX to kill it off yet also not in a position to start its replacement till they can kill it off.

This leaves a gap in time where the choices are to (a) do nothing or (b) do something that won't compete with the MAX replacement, i.e. do the NMA.

PacoMartin wrote:
It is difficult to believe that they would launch a NMA program while the MAX production lines are turned off completely.

Perhaps a bigger problem for NMA right now is that shutting down MAX is going to hurt the LEAP supply chain, yet NMA presumably will be using a LEAP variant for its engine and thus the same vendors will need to be investing in that new engine at the same time as their cash flow gets greatly reduced.

This supply chain has just put HUGE amounts of money into developing LEAP and building out the infrastructure to build it at a HUGE rate, and now Boeing is going to want them to put all that on ice and be ready to turn it all back on in a few month's time, a HUGE cost for everyone involved.

Various reports are saying Boeing will need to "support" its supply chain during the shut down, but it's not clear if such support would go towards helping them launch a new engine for NMA.

I also think Boeing's upper management is going to be so consumed with MAX RTS to spend much if any time advancing NMA, not to mention MAX's impact on Boeing's own cash flow.

Yet we have not yet read of any shelving of the efforts started for NMA by Boeing's engineers, which is strange.

You would think in times of trouble there would be a reduction in new product development, just as the T1000 crisis caused RR to reduce its UltraFan staffing.


With the move to stop production of the MAX they should be cash flow positive which allows them to continue development of the NMA if that is what they are doing.

Once MAX RTS/production resumes Boeing' cash flow should be immense as they get paid for 70+ MAX's per month.

REV - what is your concept for a combined NMA/NSA program?

Capacities? Fuselage Architecture? Range's?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
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 17, 2019 5:03 pm

This is a chance imho as CFM will be happy to have another frame to hang the engine on. They will be very motivated to make a business case. What I heard is that the MAX saga will be over in 2019 and the NMA will launch in the 1st half of 2020, Boeing is set to come back stronger than ever.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27162
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 17, 2019 5:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
I also think Boeing's upper management is going to be so consumed with MAX RTS to spend much if any time advancing NMA, not to mention MAX's impact on Boeing's own cash flow. Yet we have not yet read of any shelving of the efforts started for NMA by Boeing's engineers, which is strange.


Though I remain skeptical the BoD is going to actually grant Authority to Offer, Boeing need to keep those engineers engaged on something so keeping NMA design studies active does that and if the original design concepts talked about in the aviation press have not found traction, then those engineers could be working on new concepts based on feedback received from airlines Boeing made presentations to.

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