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

tphuang · Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:13 pm

TObound wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This only works on the routes that are within the range of the A321.

The vast, vast majority of routes.

RJMAZ wrote:
After that point the airlines have to step right up to a large 7500+nm range widebody.

> 10 hrs on a narrowbody is probably pushing it anyway. how many city pairs are really viable at that point?

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will be able to do central Asia to West Europe , the A321XLR would struggle.

Why do you say that? This does not look like a huge challenge for the XLR to me:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ALA-BER%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 could do east asia to the US west coast. Lots of secondary cities can bypass a hub.

Even if there was a market, with 4700nm range, the XLR could theoretically do routes like this, if not at launch, then with a handful of PIPs:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-HND%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

But again, what's the point? This Pacific isn't the Atlantic with lots of thin city pairs that have 200 PDEW and are < 4000nm apart. Like which city pairs and operators do you imagine running 200 seat single aisle planes for > 10 hrs across the Pacific? This looks like a nice hypothetical capability that has no real world demand.

Sounds like he is making a great case of nma making 787 obsolete on many tpac route.

With another pip for a321, it will have the range to replace all the a330 tatl routes.

Given its flexibility, an airline like JetBlue really has no need to ever buy a widebody.
Another to watch out for is a220xlr. That will have enough range to take east coast to British aisle thin routes

TObound · Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:38 pm

tphuang wrote:
TObound wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
This only works on the routes that are within the range of the A321.

The vast, vast majority of routes.

RJMAZ wrote:
After that point the airlines have to step right up to a large 7500+nm range widebody.

> 10 hrs on a narrowbody is probably pushing it anyway. how many city pairs are really viable at that point?

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 will be able to do central Asia to West Europe , the A321XLR would struggle.

Why do you say that? This does not look like a huge challenge for the XLR to me:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ALA-BER%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

RJMAZ wrote:
The 797 could do east asia to the US west coast. Lots of secondary cities can bypass a hub.

Even if there was a market, with 4700nm range, the XLR could theoretically do routes like this, if not at launch, then with a handful of PIPs:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PDX-HND%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

But again, what's the point? This Pacific isn't the Atlantic with lots of thin city pairs that have 200 PDEW and are < 4000nm apart. Like which city pairs and operators do you imagine running 200 seat single aisle planes for > 10 hrs across the Pacific? This looks like a nice hypothetical capability that has no real world demand.

Sounds like he is making a great case of nma making 787 obsolete on many tpac route.

Yep. I don't see how you make a 7ab/8ab TATL capable aircraft with ~300 seats and not do some serious damage to 787 sales. It's better to eat your own lunch before the competition does, to be sure. But this is absolutely the implication of such a proposal.

tphuang wrote:
With another pip for a321, it will have the range to replace all the a330 tatl routes.

Given its flexibility, an airline like JetBlue really has no need to ever buy a widebody.
Another to watch out for is a220xlr. That will have enough range to take east coast to British aisle thin routes

Widebodies will always have value. There's lots of routes where demand is >250 PDEW where a widebody makes sense. But where frequencies can boost RASM, running two 321XLRs over a single 330/789 starts looking really attractive.

Set aside JetBlue. The most interesting 321XLR order is AA: 50 XLRs. I don't think any carrier will show the versatility of the XLR more. New routes to South America from every hub. British Isles from PHX. Lots of new TATL from PHL and CLT. Qantas' order for 36 XLRs for Jetstar is super interesting too. They'll be able to cover all of Southeast Asia, coastal China, some Japan and Korea and even Hawaii with the XLR. They would be able to boost seat counts and frequencies substantially. By comparison to these B6's deployment of 13 XLRs and 13 LRs looks almost conventional.

I'm not sure about 220XLR. Not sure how attractive it would be fly 150Y or 120 seats 3-class on such long routes. JetBlue style Mint layout on a 223 might be under 100 seats. I would imagine the case for that would be difficult.

RJMAZ · Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:04 am

tphuang wrote:
Sounds like he is making a great case of nma making 787 obsolete on many tpac route.

Yes, and the 787NEO will make the 777X obsolete in 20 years time.

The biggest trend is everything shifts upwards as new engines add capability and lighter frames replace older frames. Air New Zealand has 254t 787-10 replacing 297t 777-200ER. 97t A321 are replacing 115t 757.

We will see 160t 797 replacing 227t 787-8's.

Then you combine the second biggest trend of route fragmentation that is growing faster than passenger numbers. Take Australia to the US. Not long ago all traffic went through LAX and SYD. Now we have half a dozen cities on each side. This means on average most long haul routes have less passenger numbers than 10 years ago. This requires smaller widebody aircraft and the success of the 787 is from this trend.

The third trend is increased frequency. Airlines are downgauging and adding frequency. Gone are the days of 3 flights a week, airlines operate the smallest aircraft to maintain one flight per day. The 747 routes became 777 routes and 777 routes became 787 routes. The 777X will replace A380's but I expect the down the track these 777X's to be replaced by 787NEO and A350NEO.

Ideally an airline would want 20 aircraft types to accurately match capabilities of an aircraft to each route. Airlines have no such luxury and aircraft often fly well below MTOW. The vast majority of A321's would be taking off every day with below 50% fuel capacity and well below MTOW. They too are carrying deadweight and airlines would be better served with a lighter shorter ranged aircraft.

The key is to operate fewer but more flexible aircraft types. Not to have huge capability gaps.

80t 737 max replacement.
160t 797 small widebody.
260t 787NEO.

That is a very flexible end goal for Boeing. 3 families, 3 fuselage lengths per family.

tphuang · Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:01 am

RJMAZ wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Sounds like he is making a great case of nma making 787 obsolete on many tpac route.

Yes, and the 787NEO will make the 777X obsolete in 20 years time.

The biggest trend is everything shifts upwards as new engines add capability and lighter frames replace older frames. Air New Zealand has 254t 787-10 replacing 297t 777-200ER. 97t A321 are replacing 115t 757.

We will see 160t 797 replacing 227t 787-8's.

I actually do agree with the premise here. An airline based in New York could do well for itself operating a mixed fleet of A220-100/300/500 and NMA, if it existed. As a JetBlue fan, A220 series does collide with A320 series a little too much and the economics of A220 are already better than A319/320NEO. NMA on top of that would legitimately cover every place you'd want to fly to out of NYC. All of Europe, GRU/GIG/EZE, TLV and NRT. That I would imagine is all possible with NMA.

Even if we believe in another PIP on top of A321XLR to extend another 500 miles, I'm not sure TLV is possible, GIG/GRU might be, but EZE is probably too far and NRT is definitely too far.

Set aside JetBlue. The most interesting 321XLR order is AA: 50 XLRs. I don't think any carrier will show the versatility of the XLR more. New routes to South America from every hub. British Isles from PHX. Lots of new TATL from PHL and CLT. Qantas' order for 36 XLRs for Jetstar is super interesting too. They'll be able to cover all of Southeast Asia, coastal China, some Japan and Korea and even Hawaii with the XLR. They would be able to boost seat counts and frequencies substantially. By comparison to these B6's deployment of 13 XLRs and 13 LRs looks almost conventional.

I'm not sure about 220XLR. Not sure how attractive it would be fly 150Y or 120 seats 3-class on such long routes. JetBlue style Mint layout on a 223 might be under 100 seats. I would imagine the case for that would be difficult.

Yes, 50 A321XLR is a huge order. I don't think it will be limited to TATL from PHL/CLT. Too many airframes JFK won't need XLR by then. And they'd be able to add frequency out of MIA to anywhere in South America.

For 220XLR, I'm thinking of 12J + 100Y/Y+ config, so 8 rows taken out to have 6 rows of 1+1 J seating. The CASM would be probably 20 to 25% higher than 140Y config, but could you imagine the type of routes that would allow for? You could do BOS-GLA/SNN or BDL/PVD-LON all year round with that.

dtw2hyd · Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:04 am

Honest question, What is BCA design/engineering team currently working on. Also what are the suits doing in the ivory tower?

NMA is now a Never Made to Assembly concept.

PacoMartin · Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:18 am

tphuang wrote:
10 hrs on a narrowbody is probably pushing it anyway. how many city pairs are really viable at that point?

The FAA defines flight time as the period during which the plane is under power and capable of movement. This includes not only the actual flight time, but also tasks such as taxiing, deicing and waiting time if the engines are on. If the pilot’s first flight of the day begins between 5 a.m. and 7:59 p.m., the maximum flight time limitation is nine hours if there is only one pilot on the flight. If the first flight begins at any other time, the maximum flight time is eight hours.

I would think the maximum limit on a narrowbody would be defined as routes that require only a single pilot. Wouldn't that rule out Atlanta to London?

oschkosch · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:05 am

So now United has also ordered 50 XLR. Business case of the nma still alive or actually buried alive?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

seahawk · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:15 am

As strong as ever.

strfyr51 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:39 am

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...

and the 737max9 has reached it along with it's short landing gear. The airplane is out of date and needs a whole new outlook. where the engines are not stuffed under the wing but have a good wing and ground clearance as the fans are getting larger with the engine more efficient. Boeing could well have started with the 757 format and updated the hell out of it, then follow on with the 767 format to supplement it using the same digital systems as the 777-9 or the 787. IT'S NOT that they can't do it but they would have to take a bath on the 737 Max to do it and admit that it's old news and old hat! That? they have no intention of doing!! So they'll milk that cow Dry first..
which is really? A damn bad decision.. But I do understand their problem.

P1aneMad · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:39 am

Stick a fork in it, it's done!

N14AZ · Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:00 am

seahawk wrote:
As strong as ever.

I see what you are doing here...

P1aneMad · Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:07 am

N14AZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
As strong as ever.

I see what you are doing here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

Checklist787 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:10 am

N14AZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
As strong as ever.

I see what you are doing here...

For 2020, Chicago must do something if he does not want to suffer fully from MC Donnel Douglas syndrome for the next years or next decade ... :scratchchin:

Good luck Boeing...

FluidFlow · Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:28 am

Checklist787 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
As strong as ever.

I see what you are doing here...

For 2020, Chicago must do something if he does not want to suffer fully from MC Donnel Douglas syndrome for the next years or next decade ...

Good luck Boeing...

Or be quiet for once. Can help a lot as well. Get the MAX back in the air and just work quietly on your products. Sell some 787 and a few more MAXs but just let the sales and deliveries speak. Every announcement of a new model will be straight linked to an effort to distract from the MAX.
They rather wait till 2022+ to announce the FSA.

On the other hand NMA is now probably dead or will have to be changed. The 757 replacement market is probably gone, now left is the 767 and there it might be better to upgrade and especially lighten up the 787-8. Invest in upgrading this product. Would be an even better aircraft with a weight reduction and lower MTOW to be used as a true 767 replacement.

Checklist787 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:37 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
I see what you are doing here...

For 2020, Chicago must do something if he does not want to suffer fully from MC Donnel Douglas syndrome for the next years or next decade ...

Good luck Boeing...

Or be quiet for once. Can help a lot as well. Get the MAX back in the air and just work quietly on your products. Sell some 787 and a few more MAXs but just let the sales and deliveries speak. Every announcement of a new model will be straight linked to an effort to distract from the MAX.
They rather wait till 2022+ to announce the FSA.

On the other hand NMA is now probably dead or will have to be changed. The 757 replacement market is probably gone, now left is the 767 and there it might be better to upgrade and especially lighten up the 787-8. Invest in upgrading this product. Would be an even better aircraft with a weight reduction and lower MTOW to be used as a true 767 replacement.

Good luck Boeing...

Jomar777 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:20 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Why is this a surprise? Boeing has been trying to push the NMA for years. Years! And no one bought it.
Now we're supposed to find this to be newsworthy?

Not really.

United and Delta were tripping over each other to be launch customer ........ except they didn't know what it was. Boeing have talked about the NMA for years, but have never commited to a precise deign, capacity, capability, engines, entry into service etc. The entire project was talk with no commitment. United's more recent statements have hinted that they are slowly loosing patience with Boeing to make their mind up. As the Boeing board never approved the NMA to be offered for sale it is no surprise no one bought it.

They did lose the patience - they order 50 A321XLRs now.

Many on A.net miss the B757 and even now advocate for a B757 MAX kind of plane. Obviously this is impossible since the tooling is gone and a lot has changed since. But the B797 should be exactly that - a NMA 757 (new composites, new wing, etc etc etc) but still a NB LH aircraft.

The A321XLR is flying out the the shelves fast and Boeing as it stands have no answer.

Where are the ones that stated that there was no market for a B757 kind of aircraft???

mjoelnir · Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:46 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
As strong as ever.

I see what you are doing here...

For 2020, Chicago must do something if he does not want to suffer fully from MC Donnel Douglas syndrome for the next years or next decade ...

Good luck Boeing...

As the current Boeing company is the result of the merger between Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, the current company is also McDonnell Douglas. That the name McDonnell Douglas was dropped, does not change a thing.

virage · Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:06 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Why is this a surprise? Boeing has been trying to push the NMA for years. Years! And no one bought it.
Now we're supposed to find this to be newsworthy?

Many on A.net miss the B757 and even now advocate for a B757 MAX kind of plane. Obviously this is impossible since the tooling is gone and a lot has changed since.

The 757 tooling is NOT gone, Boeing doesn't destroy its tooling, it's stored.
There is a discussion of this in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435857

UnMAXed · Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:32 pm

Apart from anutters is there any person working for any airline of this planet looking for a 757MAX as a fleet choice for the 20's, 30's and 40's?

Boeingphan · Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:38 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Honest question, What is BCA design/engineering team currently working on. Also what are the suits doing in the ivory tower?

NMA is now a Never Made to Assembly concept.

The suits are all CPA's and currently counting beans like they've been doing for the past 10 years with their heads in the sand. They can't look up to see whats passing them by.

patrickjp93 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:18 pm

UnMAXed wrote:
Apart from anutters is there any person working for any airline of this planet looking for a 757MAX as a fleet choice for the 20's, 30's and 40's?

The freighters are. Passenger airlines?...

Honestly it's not a bad idea in the slightest. The 757 reborn with the 300 length as the base model can easily be stretched to the 400 and a new 500 length, and the range from new engines would happily cover the up-to-ten-hours window Boeing has mentioned previously. That said, they'd need to sculpt the inside of the fuselage and find some spare inches for passenger comfort.

But for it to be compelling, the flight economics have to be a leap ahead of the A321XLR, so no expenses spared. CFRP wings, CFRP or AL-Li fuselage, folding wingtips for the passenger version, electric architecture like the 787, lightweight internal materials, anything and everything to safely take weight out of her, and certification for up to 350 exit limit for LCCs to bring in the business they just lost from United.

frmrCapCadet · Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:11 pm

797 will be the last cleansheet airliner using today's tube plus wing plus two bypass engines. Boeing does not have an alternative at this time.

PHLspecial · Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:11 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
UnMAXed wrote:
Apart from anutters is there any person working for any airline of this planet looking for a 757MAX as a fleet choice for the 20's, 30's and 40's?

The freighters are. Passenger airlines?...

Honestly it's not a bad idea in the slightest. The 757 reborn with the 300 length as the base model can easily be stretched to the 400 and a new 500 length, and the range from new engines would happily cover the up-to-ten-hours window Boeing has mentioned previously. That said, they'd need to sculpt the inside of the fuselage and find some spare inches for passenger comfort.

But for it to be compelling, the flight economics have to be a leap ahead of the A321XLR, so no expenses spared. CFRP wings, CFRP or AL-Li fuselage, folding wingtips for the passenger version, electric architecture like the 787, lightweight internal materials, anything and everything to safely take weight out of her, and certification for up to 350 exit limit for LCCs to bring in the business they just lost from United.

That is a lot of development cost. Would boeing be able sell enough to make that program profitable?

astuteman · Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:31 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
Many on A.net miss the B757 and even now advocate for a B757 MAX kind of plane. Obviously this is impossible since the tooling is gone and a lot has changed since. But the B797 should be exactly that - a NMA 757 (new composites, new wing, etc etc etc) but still a NB LH aircraft.

The A321XLR is flying out the the shelves fast and Boeing as it stands have no answer.

Where are the ones that stated that there was no market for a B757 kind of aircraft???

I think the argument is considerably more nuanced than that.
Many of believe there is insufficient market to invest in an all-new airframe dedicated to NMA space, that has little in common with any other airframe.
The inability of Boeing to close the NMA business case clearly shows this.

There is clearly ample market for a cheap derivative of a mass-market narrowbody family, that extends that family's capability into NMA space, but retains commonality with its sibling narrowbody family. The overnight success of the A321XLR clearly shows this.
It does not show that there is a market for a dedicated aircraft.
Quite the opposite in my view.

For some of us this was always the hurdle that NMA would be unable to overcome.

Rgds

cledaybuck · Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:46 pm

Boeingphan wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Honest question, What is BCA design/engineering team currently working on. Also what are the suits doing in the ivory tower?

NMA is now a Never Made to Assembly concept.

The suits are all CPA's and currently counting beans like they've been doing for the past 10 years with their heads in the sand. They can't look up to see whats passing them by.

The current CEO is an engineer.

morrisond · Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:01 pm

astuteman wrote:
Jomar777 wrote:
Many on A.net miss the B757 and even now advocate for a B757 MAX kind of plane. Obviously this is impossible since the tooling is gone and a lot has changed since. But the B797 should be exactly that - a NMA 757 (new composites, new wing, etc etc etc) but still a NB LH aircraft.

The A321XLR is flying out the the shelves fast and Boeing as it stands have no answer.

Where are the ones that stated that there was no market for a B757 kind of aircraft???

I think the argument is considerably more nuanced than that.
Many of believe there is insufficient market to invest in an all-new airframe dedicated to NMA space, that has little in common with any other airframe.
The inability of Boeing to close the NMA business case clearly shows this.

There is clearly ample market for a cheap derivative of a mass-market narrowbody family, that extends that family's capability into NMA space, but retains commonality with its sibling narrowbody family. The overnight success of the A321XLR clearly shows this.
It does not show that there is a market for a dedicated aircraft.
Quite the opposite in my view.

For some of us this was always the hurdle that NMA would be unable to overcome.

Rgds

Agreed. This is why I keep thinking it's the tight light 7W that works for both NSA and NMA. Even if the 7W isn't quite as technically efficient as an 8W - development cost/commonality of components used also on NSA, amortizing NSA/NMA using Program accounting over 7-10,000 frames and the possibility of building on the same production line, makes a combined program the winner.

If it isn't 7W then 6W makes a lot more sense than 8W, but with two different wing sizes to cover the range of capabilities most efficiently.

Stitch · Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:46 pm

With the US3 now committed to the A321-200neo family for their 757 and 767 replacement, the only hope for NMA is a cargo-optimized model for Asia and I don't see them interested in enough to make it worth the effort.

So I expect Boeing will quietly shelve NMA and move the resources to NSA (737 replacement) which will assuredly have a model in the ~240 seat (single class) market at the top end.

Revelation · Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:27 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Honest question, What is BCA design/engineering team currently working on. Also what are the suits doing in the ivory tower?

Last we heard, around a thousand of them were working on NMA, yet since then we have a new BCA president and of course ongoing MAX and 77X problems.

The suits still have the same problem: How do you monetize the 4500 or so MAXes in the backlog if you start telling people about an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement"?

Positioning NMA above MAX was one way to address that problem.

Boeing will need one hell of a cover story to avoid panic in the ranks of those holding MAX orders.

Chemist · Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:48 pm

Jomar777 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Why is this a surprise? Boeing has been trying to push the NMA for years. Years! And no one bought it.
Now we're supposed to find this to be newsworthy?

Not really.

United and Delta were tripping over each other to be launch customer ........ except they didn't know what it was. Boeing have talked about the NMA for years, but have never commited to a precise deign, capacity, capability, engines, entry into service etc. The entire project was talk with no commitment. United's more recent statements have hinted that they are slowly loosing patience with Boeing to make their mind up. As the Boeing board never approved the NMA to be offered for sale it is no surprise no one bought it.

They did lose the patience - they order 50 A321XLRs now.

Many on A.net miss the B757 and even now advocate for a B757 MAX kind of plane. Obviously this is impossible since the tooling is gone and a lot has changed since. But the B797 should be exactly that - a NMA 757 (new composites, new wing, etc etc etc) but still a NB LH aircraft.

The A321XLR is flying out the the shelves fast and Boeing as it stands have no answer.

Where are the ones that stated that there was no market for a B757 kind of aircraft???

Yes, I used to see a lot of those posts. So that "non-market" somehow seems to be selling a lot of airplanes, and Boeing has nothing.
They've really made some poor strategic choices lately, haven't they?

dtw2hyd · Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:06 pm

Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Honest question, What is BCA design/engineering team currently working on. Also what are the suits doing in the ivory tower?

Last we heard, around a thousand of them were working on NMA, yet since then we have a new BCA president and of course ongoing MAX and 77X problems.

Better than I expected, I thought everyone is working on 77X wasting money, time and talent.
BTW, Rockwell Collins is working on MCAS, do they need hundreds of Boeing badges gawking.

Revelation wrote:
The suits still have the same problem: How do you monetize the 4500 or so MAXes in the backlog if you start telling people about an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement"?

Positioning NMA above MAX was one way to address that problem.

Boeing will need one hell of a cover story to avoid panic in the ranks of those holding MAX orders.

At this point, NG + Compensation looks like an amicable solution to BCA and airlines, just fire up the NG assembly line until the next new whatever aircraft rolls out.

Revelation · Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:14 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
At this point, NG + Compensation looks like an amicable solution to BCA and airlines, just fire up the NG assembly line until the next new whatever aircraft rolls out.

That's absurd. MAX is something like 16% more efficient than NG, and all those customers who have ordered 4,912 of them ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries ) have signed contracts that specify such a gain in efficiency. Their suppliers (esp CFM) have made huge investments in MAX technology. There's no way Boeing could afford to compensate all the vendors and airlines, ramp up NG production, then do the investment it will take to develop an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement".

seahawk · Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:25 pm

Catch 22 - The NMA would need to be big enough to not compete with the MAX, but after the MCAS problem, they need a 737 replacement more than the NMA. The problem is making the NMA still competitive compared to the NSA.

dtw2hyd · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
At this point, NG + Compensation looks like an amicable solution to BCA and airlines, just fire up the NG assembly line until the next new whatever aircraft rolls out.

That's absurd. MAX is something like 16% more efficient than NG, and all those customers who have ordered 4,912 of them ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries ) have signed contracts that specify such a gain in efficiency. Their suppliers (esp CFM) have made huge investments in MAX technology. There's no way Boeing could afford to compensate all the vendors and airlines, ramp up NG production, then do the investment it will take to develop an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement".

Assuming next <whatever> aircraft will be ready in 3-4 years, it is not a bad idea to swap early MAX deliveries with NG+Comp(for lost efficiency) and future deliveries with N<W>A. 5000 won't be NG swaps.

Like I said somewhere on this forum. BCA has 77X and MAX programs mixed up. Clean slate N<W>A.with better engines, CFRP, full FBW, and folding tips are the only way to regain NB market from competition. No amount of lipstick on a near-VLA is not going sell in large quantities to make a profit.

planecane · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
At this point, NG + Compensation looks like an amicable solution to BCA and airlines, just fire up the NG assembly line until the next new whatever aircraft rolls out.

That's absurd. MAX is something like 16% more efficient than NG, and all those customers who have ordered 4,912 of them ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries ) have signed contracts that specify such a gain in efficiency. Their suppliers (esp CFM) have made huge investments in MAX technology. There's no way Boeing could afford to compensate all the vendors and airlines, ramp up NG production, then do the investment it will take to develop an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement".

I think Southwest reported 13% back in the day when the MAX was flying.

Revelation · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:04 pm

seahawk wrote:
Catch 22 - The NMA would need to be big enough to not compete with the MAX, but after the MCAS problem, they need a 737 replacement more than the NMA. The problem is making the NMA still competitive compared to the NSA.

I think NMA-6 was made big enough in terms of payload/range to not compete with MAX-10, and NMA-7 was slated to come out first to give MAX-10 more time to gain acceptance.

I think the primary need is to monetize the MAX backlog.

I think people responding to this thread haven't been able to explain a workable way to do that after the "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" is announced.

The most workable way I can think of is to use NMA to mask the development of an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" in the same way Sonic Cruiser ended up masking the development of the 787 core technology.

However, MAX has thrown a huge wrench into whatever strategy they may have been trying to use before MAX.

Boeing has made such a mess of things, they're going to take an awful lot of pain before they see a gain.

seahawk · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Catch 22 - The NMA would need to be big enough to not compete with the MAX, but after the MCAS problem, they need a 737 replacement more than the NMA. The problem is making the NMA still competitive compared to the NSA.

I think NMA-6 was made big enough in terms of payload/range to not compete with MAX-10, and NMA-7 was slated to come out first to give MAX-10 more time to gain acceptance.

I think the primary need is to monetize the MAX backlog.

I think people responding to this thread haven't been able to explain a workable way to do that after the "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" is announced.

The most workable way I can think of is to use NMA to mask the development of an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" in the same way Sonic Cruiser ended up masking the development of the 787 core technology.

However, MAX has thrown a huge wrench into whatever strategy they may have been trying to use before MAX.

Boeing has made such a mess of things, they're going to take an awful lot of pain before they see a gain.

Maybe the best idea is to do nothing. They need to fix the MAX any way and then maybe it would be a good time to make some money, which both OEMs and the engine OEMs do really need. And then do a new small aircraft with a launch around 2028 and an EIS 4 years later. You could get better engines then and maybe their military programs help with solving the challenge of doing a CFRP design at that huge monthly numbers and still making good money. If the 767MAX works through the freighters, it might be a good idea too.

flyingclrs727 · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:30 pm

oschkosch wrote:
So now United has also ordered 50 XLR. Business case of the nma still alive or actually buried alive?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Well it's only 50 planes not a larger order. They still need to replace their 767-300 and 767-400, and the 787 is too much plane.

morrisond · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Catch 22 - The NMA would need to be big enough to not compete with the MAX, but after the MCAS problem, they need a 737 replacement more than the NMA. The problem is making the NMA still competitive compared to the NSA.

I think NMA-6 was made big enough in terms of payload/range to not compete with MAX-10, and NMA-7 was slated to come out first to give MAX-10 more time to gain acceptance.

I think the primary need is to monetize the MAX backlog.

I think people responding to this thread haven't been able to explain a workable way to do that after the "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" is announced.

The most workable way I can think of is to use NMA to mask the development of an "all new 737MAX and 757 replacement" in the same way Sonic Cruiser ended up masking the development of the 787 core technology.

However, MAX has thrown a huge wrench into whatever strategy they may have been trying to use before MAX.

Boeing has made such a mess of things, they're going to take an awful lot of pain before they see a gain.

Assuming they sell 1,000+ at a discount for MAX delays and say they remain at rate 52 - they could easily have a 9-10 year backlog.

That is still more than enough time to get an NSA based on the NMA in the market with the NMA coming first. Announce NMA first (right after MAX RTS) in the space above MAX 10 for realistic delivery around 2027 with NSA being announced in 2023/2024 and entering service about 2030. By 2023/2024 the MAX controversy should be over and the backlog no longer threatened.

Meanwhile if Customers want more MAX they can easily go to Rate 57 or higher or just extend out the backlog a little while longer. They can build the first NSA on NMA lines (possibly old 747 Factory buildings which should not be in use by 2025) and then convert Renton or build another line in SC. They may only need one 787 line by that point so one of those (SC?) could convert to NMA/NSA as an alternative.

It's not as though they will run out of backlog in 2-3 years - they may just not be able to grow the Rate as much as expected - plus they will sell more after the expected MAX delay compensation orders surge. Maybe not enough to sell until 2040 but definitely enough to sell into the 2030's.

The industry needs a lot of planes and Airbus won't be able to supply them all.

Stitch · Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:35 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Assuming next <whatever> aircraft will be ready in 3-4 years, it is not a bad idea to swap early MAX deliveries with NG+Comp(for lost efficiency) and future deliveries with N<W>A. 5000 won't be NG swaps.

The 737NG supplier chain is now designed around low-volume military derivative production because the P-8 and 737 AEW&C are the only two NG-based models available for sale. It would take significant time and cash to ramp that chain back up since the suppliers are now focused on large-scale MAX production, by which time MAX will be back in full-scale production and NSA will still be a decade away.

SEPilot · Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:52 am

I have always been dubious about the NMA. 7 abreast is just inherently inefficient, and no amount of diddling with oval cross sections can change that. With the A321 on one end and the A330NEO and 787 on the other, I do not see a hole big enough to justify a clean sheet aircraft to fill it. Better design an all-new narrowbody that can be stretched at least as long as the 753.

morrisond · Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:02 am

SEPilot wrote:
I have always been dubious about the NMA. 7 abreast is just inherently inefficient, and no amount of diddling with oval cross sections can change that. With the A321 on one end and the A330NEO and 787 on the other, I do not see a hole big enough to justify a clean sheet aircraft to fill it. Better design an all-new narrowbody that can be stretched at least as long as the 753.

And yet Boeing only sold 50 of those (753) as it's possible the operators just found them too long for efficient operations.

You can only stretch a 6W so far. As has been demonstrated many times 7W may not be that inefficient. Carbon tubes in this size have excess strength due to impact strength requirements - meaning that a 7W may be relatively weight efficient and a 6W weight inefficient.

But who knows we are all only speculating.

MRYapproach · Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:48 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
ILNFlyer wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:

There is a paywall.

I find it very interesting airlines are pushing for FSA over the NMA.

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... placement/

Why doesn't Boeing just ask "What do you want your next airplane to be?"

That doesn't commonly lead to innovation. You get small-step (small-minded) incremental improvements.

It’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.

— Steve Jobs

As Henry Ford famously said:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

JayinKitsap · Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:41 am

Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Assuming next <whatever> aircraft will be ready in 3-4 years, it is not a bad idea to swap early MAX deliveries with NG+Comp(for lost efficiency) and future deliveries with N<W>A. 5000 won't be NG swaps.

The 737NG supplier chain is now designed around low-volume military derivative production because the P-8 and 737 AEW&C are the only two NG-based models available for sale. It would take significant time and cash to ramp that chain back up since the suppliers are now focused on large-scale MAX production, by which time MAX will be back in full-scale production and NSA will still be a decade away.

Also, there is a significant amount of parts production, but everything to make a P-8 needs to be there until the line closes. I saw a post that the P-8 may be starting to ramp down. But we have heard this before on other programs (LOL)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 9c1ea059fe

FluidFlow · Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:45 am

I do not think Boeing will launch an 767 sized aircraft in the next 2-3 years. There are still a lot of 788 on order and launching an aircraft way more suited than the 788 for the mission profile the 788 now fits best would lead to 50+ deferred or transformed orders away from 788. Boeing already will cut the rate on the 787. Losing orders would mean short term open slots and probably an even faster rate cut. If there would not be a 20B$ liability that would be ok but a rate cut leads to higher production costs and less money to pay off them 20B$ per aircraft. Short term open slots means heavy discounts to make at least a bit of money what also leads to no pay offs towards the deferred production costs. Boeing would either have to correct the number of sold aircraft up and spread the costs even more but most probably they would have to take a hit and write a big part off. Or at least risk a write off. Together with the MAX write off and further costs no sane board would allow an outgoing CEO to take such a decision. The true MAX costs will not be known till the end of 2020 when production is back to normal and a lot of claims are settled. Then Boeing will need a good 2021 before making decisions that could lead to writing off money hitting the cash flow. So 2022+ is my earliest estimate off any new launch especially a MoM aircraft.

dtw2hyd · Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:49 am

Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
Assuming next <whatever> aircraft will be ready in 3-4 years, it is not a bad idea to swap early MAX deliveries with NG+Comp(for lost efficiency) and future deliveries with N<W>A. 5000 won't be NG swaps.

The 737NG supplier chain is now designed around low-volume military derivative production because the P-8 and 737 AEW&C are the only two NG-based models available for sale. It would take significant time and cash to ramp that chain back up since the suppliers are now focused on large-scale MAX production, by which time MAX will be back in full-scale production and NSA will still be a decade away.

Airline with the biggest aircraft on a given route is the most vulnerable. Per seat economics are purely academic. Airlines want the aircraft with the lowest trip cost for the mission.

I doubt there is an appetite for a twin aisled aircraft to fill the gap. So NMA as a WB is a non-starter.
I doubt MAX brand can sell 5000 copies, these are not 737-rudder or MD-10 days, social media is MAX's biggest enemy. At least they have relaunch with a different name.

That leaves with only one option, a more capable clean sheet single-aisle aircraft.

Amiga500 · Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:15 pm

Boeing need to look 10 years down the road and envisage the landscape.

If in 2029, Airbus decide to Neo2 the A320 (which would be approximately 20 years after deciding to Neo1 the A320 which would be approximately 20 years after launch - not implausible) - and said engine upgrade means a further increase in BPR and fan diameter - Boeing simply don't have a credible response with the 737.

At which point, four things could happen:
(1) Boeing have done the ground work for NSA and can achieve EIS in a similar time to A320neo2.
(2) Boeing have sat on their hands, printed executive bonuses and need an extra 5-10 years to get their NSA out the door and got production to sufficient volume to meet market need. Thus are faced with a (further) significant contraction in market share to the A32x.
(3) Boeing effectively exit the single aisle market, surrendering to Airbus/Comac/Irkut. I consider this very unlikely.
(4) Unducted rotors (propfans) solve their noise abatement problems and are accepted by the public despite not "looking like jets", thus Boeing can launch an NSA which has a propulsive efficiency advantage over the A320neo2 and look to regain market share long term. I consider the UDF/propfan opportunity as slim and getting slimmer.

So... what do they do?

SteelChair · Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:34 pm

This is just another of the endless threads full of a.net member speculation with little or no hard information from rudderless Boeing.

estorilm · Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
And yet Boeing only sold 50 of those (753) as it's possible the operators just found them too long for efficient operations.

Completely different market back then - 747s were selling like hot cakes, and the 321CEO certainly was not. TATL and long-range narrow-body flights in general weren't toooo common.

Fast-forward to a time when perhaps airlines might want a 753, and they're far to inefficient to justify - just an older design.

Quads are now (basically) gone, and modern twins are achieving unheard of performance compared to when the 753 launched, combine that with a huge resurgence in the point-to-point model in general (as hub-spoke and VLA's drop off) and you've got quite a business case for something like the XLR and NMA (ie 753-ish) - unfortunately you can only justify the program by loading it up with similar aircraft which need to be retired first, hence why Delta and United were targeted as launch customers. With the "niche" XLR already selling hundreds and showing no signs of losing momentum, I think we can agree the market case for the NMA (which IMHO was already optimistic given potential sales vs. development costs) has completely evaporated.

Go all-in on a CFRP 737 replacement, starting around the -10 size, maybe one shrink, but definitely room for a stretch. That covers such a sweet spot in the industry that I'm not sure what they're even hesitating about.

Actually an added advantage might be some MAX backlog conversions for customers looking at 5+ year delivery slots, or at least some good incentives. I'd imagine such a plane wouldn't be flying for ~8 years anyways.

JetBuddy · Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:07 pm

Is there any way the 737-10 can be fitted with large enough tanks for A321XLR / 757-200 range?

FluidFlow · Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:20 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Is there any way the 737-10 can be fitted with large enough tanks for A321XLR / 757-200 range?

I think the problem is that the MTOW is not high enough to carry enough fuel and payload. And even if you could the -9 already has an abysmal runway performance. With an increase in MTOW, say 10t it would probably never lift off at all.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net