Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14096
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:25 am

Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

A321 first flight was 1993, 757: 1982.



So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...

keesje wrote:
The 757 weighs 10t (~100 passengers) more than a A321.
Who wants to pay the fuel for flying 10t dead metal around, for decades?
The 757 maintenance program / costs looks more like a 767 than a 737. Also the engines.
I have nothing against the 757, it just became just too heavy & expensive for the airlines.



It is paradoxical...

and a huge mistake for Boeing.

1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?

2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.

Both have different handicapping characteristics


keesje wrote:
Designing a NMA, Boeing should watch out not getting too heavy & expensive. Twin aisle oval doesn't sound good in that respect.


Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately

It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?

keesje wrote:
Boeing better assume Airbus will do an affordable A322NEO and will put on 3-5% enhanced engines on the NEO's after 2025.


For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...


Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


I think these days for a NB aircraft a 1000 run would be considered marginal. But we are talking 2020, not 1980 :eyebrow:

In my opinion the A321XLR MTOW bump and related modifications are an indication an A322NEO is on the table. Which would be very attractive for Delta domestic operations. (And maybe an 200 seater, the A320 seems hard to stretch)..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 12:53 pm

Does DL even know what they are "waiting to order"? Considering all signs indicate Boeing themselves haven't even decided what exactly the NMA is supposed to be or do.

jetjack74 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
reltney wrote:
All interesting. The cheaper price seems to win over product quality every time. He stated he was waiting on Boeing and said the 321 with all the bells and whistles still can’t do what the 757 can but Boeing has their hands full. ....


FACT the A321XLR runs circles around the 757.

And it only took them 40 years and 3 remakes to do it. Congratulations Airbus on a “fine” job.


I'd say congrats too, at least they succeeded in the end. It could have been much worse, they could have been trying to match the other side's plane, end up contributing to the deaths of 300+ people and still failing at matching it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:04 pm

par13del wrote:
This the same Mullenburg who had issues with the MAX RTS timeline?


The point being - the claim was made that if the Lion MAX crash hadn't happened, NMA was "ready to go" in Oct 2018. I provided two sources that showed two different senior Boeing execs saying up to eight month later that the business case still wasn't closed. Draw your own conclusions as to whether NMA was "ready to go" in Oct 2018.

Further on the business case, if Boeing has subsequently closed it, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't say so publicly. At the very least, it might help to stem the avalanche of A321XLR orders.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5454
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:06 pm

I don't know why it's such a surprise delta is more interested in nma than xlr. They have always been the airline talking about greater comfort and charging premium in j cabin. Hence delta one suites. Not something you can do with narrowbody.

Besides, nma would be able to replace a330 on tatl routes also.

It will be interesting to see. Xlr vs nma on tatl routes. Different philosophies here.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:23 pm

keesje wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:


So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...




It is paradoxical...

and a huge mistake for Boeing.

1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?

2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.

Both have different handicapping characteristics




Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately

It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?



For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...


Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


I think these days for a NB aircraft a 1000 run would be considered marginal. But we are talking 2020, not 1980 :eyebrow:

In my opinion the A321XLR MTOW bump and related modifications are an indication an A322NEO is on the table. Which would be very attractive for Delta domestic operations. (And maybe an 200 seater, the A320 seems hard to stretch)..

Image


Keesje it's a horror and a nightmare for the market your thing.

If an A220-500X concept can be a good idea in addition to the A320neo and for the good of the market I agree. But pushing to the MAXimum (it's a pun) the whole A320neo family derivative above the A321neo would be paradoxical and bad for the market.

Beacause 25+ years ago we were told as a lie that the Duopole is enough. Lockheed withdrew, MC Donnel Douglas merged by Boeing was vital but in fact no, it was a mistake indeed in 2020!

You know time have changed

Today even if the 737MAX is planned to fly there is still a risk today. Boeing should have launched a cleansheat design in 2011. We remember that a certain J. Albaugh at the head of BCA was very vocal for that. On the other side, J. Leahy was the evil to dissuade Boeing to do not launching a 737 replacement by putting pressure on AA and the American airline company put pressure on Boeing. Chicago launched to the disappointment of many people, the 737MAX.

Leahy was no less greedy than Boeing but it is also the world of industry that wants this.

For me these 350 dead sacrificed were victims of industry and money. If you think that Airbus should be the only one with only one cross section / 1 single family of aircraft you are making an obvious mistake for all its false reasons.

And you know this is wrong because even Airbus cannot satisfy the market on its own. Airbus may know better than we do that the 737MAX will be re-certified, but otherwise Boeing will have to launch something new that does not contradict the NMA.

With or without MAX, NMA is more vital than ever for all the reasons mentioned. To say that Boeing did not close the business case is a mistake because Boeing as a bean counter is also wrong.
He seeks profit before making himself useful to the market.

I wish that Boeing launches the NMA because Airbus will not be able to satisfy the market by itself already even that it would have been necessary a third manufacturer like Bombardier or Lockheed Martin in the civil ...

If nobody wants to take this responsability of it then why not Airbus which would come with something other than a single fuselage (A320neo family derivative) which would complement the A321neo but not an A322-X concept Especially as a derivative A320neo for all these reason and because it would be a hell of embarkation / debarkation for some people!

In reality 2-3-2 (2-4-2 dense) is the solution of the future for me ...

And I'm afraid the bean counter got it right with the NMA but it became MC Donell Douglas for its first centenary.

Who remembers that MC Donell Douglas had good ideas never materialized?

But your idea, Keesje is the worst case scenario for the market ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10394
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:58 pm

scbriml wrote:
Further on the business case, if Boeing has subsequently closed it, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't say so publicly. At the very least, it might help to stem the avalanche of A321XLR orders.

So you actually believe that airlines fall for PR and would not order an a/c because an OEM says they will offer a new a/c in 12 months time? The MOM and NMA have been talked about for years, how many airlines have not ordered a/c because of that?

Say it ain't so.....
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:02 pm

One thing to consider is that the XLR is getting current attention for:
1) northeast hubs to Europe (added frequency + secondary cities)
2) in response to LLC + JetBlue's transatlantic and south american plans (the majors will need to compete on cost against the new unprecedented invasion).

In closing: I think it's too early to realize that all major airlines will eventually need to be competitively nimble with BOTH the XLR and NMA in their fleets.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:20 pm

Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

A321 first flight was 1993, 757: 1982.



So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...

keesje wrote:
The 757 weighs 10t (~100 passengers) more than a A321.
Who wants to pay the fuel for flying 10t dead metal around, for decades?
The 757 maintenance program / costs looks more like a 767 than a 737. Also the engines.
I have nothing against the 757, it just became just too heavy & expensive for the airlines.



It is paradoxical...

and a huge mistake for Boeing.

1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?

2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.

Both have different handicapping characteristics


keesje wrote:
Designing a NMA, Boeing should watch out not getting too heavy & expensive. Twin aisle oval doesn't sound good in that respect.


Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately

It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?

keesje wrote:
Boeing better assume Airbus will do an affordable A322NEO and will put on 3-5% enhanced engines on the NEO's after 2025.


For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...


Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?
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...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19279
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:23 pm

par13del wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Further on the business case, if Boeing has subsequently closed it, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't say so publicly. At the very least, it might help to stem the avalanche of A321XLR orders.

So you actually believe that airlines fall for PR and would not order an a/c because an OEM says they will offer a new a/c in 12 months time? The MOM and NMA have been talked about for years, how many airlines have not ordered a/c because of that?

Say it ain't so.....


I wouldn't see saying the business case is closed as PR, but check the title of this thread. :wink2:

That's without any public confirmation from Boeing that the business case is closed. Maybe if NMA was "closer" AA and UA wouldn't have ordered 100 A321XLR between them?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm

In my personal opinion. Airlines probably prefer to order a clean-sheet MAX replacement that could replace B757-200 rather than NMA.

I don't know. With all these mess. I don't think NMA would be such a good idea.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14096
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:43 pm

On todays Leeham News, Richard Aboulafia also prefers a big narrow body over a new twin aisle for Boeing.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/12/guest ... -year-ceo/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:10 pm

keesje wrote:
On todays Leeham News, Richard Aboulafia also prefers a big narrow body over a new twin aisle for Boeing.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/12/guest ... -year-ceo/


It's really a matter of what the large-order airlines want in the immediate future. If you cannot provide the current need for these airlines now (a new wide-body aircraft), they risk going elsewhere and then keeping their narrow body orders elsewhere as well.
Last edited by TYWoolman on Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Mightyflyer86
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:50 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:10 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:


So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...




It is paradoxical...

and a huge mistake for Boeing.

1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?

2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.

Both have different handicapping characteristics




Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately

It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?



For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...


Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


The big difference is that the PW2000s and the RB211 produced a lot more thrust since they were powering a much heavier airplane (757) (thus they consume more fuel).

Well seems like Airbus was way ahead of their time with fly by wire and thought about engine to ground clearance since they have successfully re-engined the A320 family without any of the 737 MAX issues (nose up tendency on a stall).
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1171
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:40 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Cite?


Common knowledge, just look it up.


No, it isn't. The sky is blue is common knowledge. Trump is the US president is common knowledge. Those are things you would expect anyone you talk to to know. Knowledge of the 757 vs A321 is not something the average person would have any clue about.

The nasty remarks are very saddening. How can you call yourself a fan of aviation but celebrate that a new aircraft may not be built?

Is does the same job as the 757, in fact it can fly farther, for much cheaper. That’s definitely running circles around a 35 year old aircraft just as it should around any 35 year old aircraft. Go on cherry-picking all you want; evidently, what he meant was common knowledge within this community. Context!

I like the 757 as much as anyone else, but those that say there still is no true functional replacement it are quite a few years behind the times. It’s been replaced, get over it.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:19 pm

Mightyflyer86 wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:

Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


The big difference is that the PW2000s and the RB211 produced a lot more thrust since they were powering a much heavier airplane (757) (thus they consume more fuel).

Well seems like Airbus was way ahead of their time with fly by wire and thought about engine to ground clearance since they have successfully re-engined the A320 family without any of the 737 MAX issues (nose up tendency on a stall).


They weren't ahead of their time. Innovation died as the A320 came out at the end of the Cold War and the simultaneous rise of "gangsta" rap culture.

Had Generation X and Y had different priorities we would have seen both replaced by now. The fact that an aircraft that is 95% identical to one built 30 years ago is very sad on an industry-wide level.
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...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14096
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:28 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:

Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


I think these days for a NB aircraft a 1000 run would be considered marginal. But we are talking 2020, not 1980 :eyebrow:

In my opinion the A321XLR MTOW bump and related modifications are an indication an A322NEO is on the table. Which would be very attractive for Delta domestic operations. (And maybe an 200 seater, the A320 seems hard to stretch)..

Image


Keesje it's a horror and a nightmare for the market your thing.

If an A220-500X concept can be a good idea in addition to the A320neo and for the good of the market I agree. But pushing to the MAXimum (it's a pun) the whole A320neo family derivative above the A321neo would be paradoxical and bad for the market.

Beacause 25+ years ago we were told as a lie that the Duopole is enough. Lockheed withdrew, MC Donnel Douglas merged by Boeing was vital but in fact no, it was a mistake indeed in 2020!

You know time have changed

Today even if the 737MAX is planned to fly there is still a risk today. Boeing should have launched a cleansheat design in 2011. We remember that a certain J. Albaugh at the head of BCA was very vocal for that. On the other side, J. Leahy was the evil to dissuade Boeing to do not launching a 737 replacement by putting pressure on AA and the American airline company put pressure on Boeing. Chicago launched to the disappointment of many people, the 737MAX.

Leahy was no less greedy than Boeing but it is also the world of industry that wants this.

For me these 350 dead sacrificed were victims of industry and money. If you think that Airbus should be the only one with only one cross section / 1 single family of aircraft you are making an obvious mistake for all its false reasons.

And you know this is wrong because even Airbus cannot satisfy the market on its own. Airbus may know better than we do that the 737MAX will be re-certified, but otherwise Boeing will have to launch something new that does not contradict the NMA.

With or without MAX, NMA is more vital than ever for all the reasons mentioned. To say that Boeing did not close the business case is a mistake because Boeing as a bean counter is also wrong.
He seeks profit before making himself useful to the market.

I wish that Boeing launches the NMA because Airbus will not be able to satisfy the market by itself already even that it would have been necessary a third manufacturer like Bombardier or Lockheed Martin in the civil ...

If nobody wants to take this responsability of it then why not Airbus which would come with something other than a single fuselage (A320neo family derivative) which would complement the A321neo but not an A322-X concept Especially as a derivative A320neo for all these reason and because it would be a hell of embarkation / debarkation for some people!

In reality 2-3-2 (2-4-2 dense) is the solution of the future for me ...

And I'm afraid the bean counter got it right with the NMA but it became MC Donell Douglas for its first centenary.

Who remembers that MC Donell Douglas had good ideas never materialized?

But your idea, Keesje is the worst case scenario for the market ...


I think offering the airlines the most efficient, suitable products is good for the customers, for competition and innovation.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:42 pm

keesje wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think these days for a NB aircraft a 1000 run would be considered marginal. But we are talking 2020, not 1980 :eyebrow:

In my opinion the A321XLR MTOW bump and related modifications are an indication an A322NEO is on the table. Which would be very attractive for Delta domestic operations. (And maybe an 200 seater, the A320 seems hard to stretch)..

Image


Keesje it's a horror and a nightmare for the market your thing.

If an A220-500X concept can be a good idea in addition to the A320neo and for the good of the market I agree. But pushing to the MAXimum (it's a pun) the whole A320neo family derivative above the A321neo would be paradoxical and bad for the market.

Beacause 25+ years ago we were told as a lie that the Duopole is enough. Lockheed withdrew, MC Donnel Douglas merged by Boeing was vital but in fact no, it was a mistake indeed in 2020!

You know time have changed

Today even if the 737MAX is planned to fly there is still a risk today. Boeing should have launched a cleansheat design in 2011. We remember that a certain J. Albaugh at the head of BCA was very vocal for that. On the other side, J. Leahy was the evil to dissuade Boeing to do not launching a 737 replacement by putting pressure on AA and the American airline company put pressure on Boeing. Chicago launched to the disappointment of many people, the 737MAX.

Leahy was no less greedy than Boeing but it is also the world of industry that wants this.

For me these 350 dead sacrificed were victims of industry and money. If you think that Airbus should be the only one with only one cross section / 1 single family of aircraft you are making an obvious mistake for all its false reasons.

And you know this is wrong because even Airbus cannot satisfy the market on its own. Airbus may know better than we do that the 737MAX will be re-certified, but otherwise Boeing will have to launch something new that does not contradict the NMA.

With or without MAX, NMA is more vital than ever for all the reasons mentioned. To say that Boeing did not close the business case is a mistake because Boeing as a bean counter is also wrong.
He seeks profit before making himself useful to the market.

I wish that Boeing launches the NMA because Airbus will not be able to satisfy the market by itself already even that it would have been necessary a third manufacturer like Bombardier or Lockheed Martin in the civil ...

If nobody wants to take this responsability of it then why not Airbus which would come with something other than a single fuselage (A320neo family derivative) which would complement the A321neo but not an A322-X concept Especially as a derivative A320neo for all these reason and because it would be a hell of embarkation / debarkation for some people!

In reality 2-3-2 (2-4-2 dense) is the solution of the future for me ...

And I'm afraid the bean counter got it right with the NMA but it became MC Donell Douglas for its first centenary.

Who remembers that MC Donell Douglas had good ideas never materialized?

But your idea, Keesje is the worst case scenario for the market ...


I think offering the airlines the most efficient, suitable products is good for the customers, for competition and innovation.


The problem is that I can't see innovation in a narrowbody.
What to put on this plane?

More electricity, advanced materials, composite wings, electric taxi and fly-by-light at minimum?

What will you see in the cabin of a narrowbody with the limited possibility if not the same large luggage bin currently on the 737NG / MAX's and A320'NEOs ...
What innovation you talking about?

It is not the passenger who wins but the airlines that will NEVER be satisfied, they will soon be crowding more and more passengers with 28-29 "@ pitch seats. They will consider them as cattle.

It's no secret that you're not too fond of Boeing one thing but to claim that it is good for passengers / customers, and innovation I m not conviced ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:57 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:


So if the A321 is from 1993 then we will consider that the 757-300 and 737NG's are from 1999?
Be serious Keesje...




It is paradoxical...

and a huge mistake for Boeing.

1. The 757 was a "hybrid" because it had a 737 fuselage with wings close to the dimensions of the A310. Normal that it is heavy. The 757 was a medium-term IMO solution. So why compare it with the A321 which is a "pure" narrow body?

2. The other weakness and Boeing error is that the 737 did not have enough ground clearance as the 757 until the solution of the landing gear of the 737 MAX 10. We know the story with the 737 Max-8.

Both have different handicapping characteristics




Rather, the NMA will be lighter than the A330-200's, 767-400ER's and 787-8's ultimately

It'll be cheap since Boeing studied the feasibility. Why have you been repeating the opposite for years?



For some passengers the A322-X concept would be a hell of boarding and disembarking...


Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


One can talk about age, but what matters is technology. The A320 presented a jump in technology, a new generation. The A300, A310, 737, 757 and 767 did not make this jump, all the same if it is a sixties design or an eighties design. FBW is an technological jump independent of the year of introduction. No clean sheet design at Boeing or Airbus has been done without FBW since. So a 757 and an A320 are different generations in aircraft design, even if they have their EIS in the same decade.
That is also why the A330 is no derivative of the A300. The A330/340 was designed around a FBW, even if the fuselage is a stretch of the A300.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:

Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


One can talk about age, but what matters is technology. The A320 presented a jump in technology, a new generation. The A300, A310, 737, 757 and 767 did not make this jump, all the same if it is a sixties design or an eighties design. FBW is an technological jump independent of the year of introduction. No clean sheet design at Boeing or Airbus has been done without FBW since. So a 757 and an A320 are different generations in aircraft design, even if they have their EIS in the same decade.
That is also why the A330 is no derivative of the A300. The A330/340 was designed around a FBW, even if the fuselage is a stretch of the A300.


Airbus had tested many technologies before the A320 on the A310 ...

https://www.airbus.com/company/history/ ... -1987.html
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
JoergAtADN
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:01 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:32 pm

Mightyflyer86 wrote:
Well seems like Airbus was way ahead of their time with fly by wire and thought about engine to ground clearance since they have successfully re-engined the A320 family without any of the 737 MAX issues (nose up tendency on a stall).


Not questionable, that the fly by wire system in the original A320 was groundbreaking, but the ground clearance is another topic. The 737 is much older and was streched multiple times from 28.65m to 43.80m, while the A320 was only once streched from 37.57m to 44.51m. This strech was the original A321 launched 4 years after the launch of A320.

I think the original 737 was designed with enough ground clearance, but after streching it so much, also the neccessary engines increased in size. In 1965, when the 737 was defined, Boeing was ahead of the time, but not 50 years ahead of the time.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 9:35 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:

:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


One can talk about age, but what matters is technology. The A320 presented a jump in technology, a new generation. The A300, A310, 737, 757 and 767 did not make this jump, all the same if it is a sixties design or an eighties design. FBW is an technological jump independent of the year of introduction. No clean sheet design at Boeing or Airbus has been done without FBW since. So a 757 and an A320 are different generations in aircraft design, even if they have their EIS in the same decade.
That is also why the A330 is no derivative of the A300. The A330/340 was designed around a FBW, even if the fuselage is a stretch of the A300.


Airbus had tested many technologies before the A320 on the A310 ...

https://www.airbus.com/company/history/ ... -1987.html


You changed the text when I wanted to answer. Yes the A300 and A310 were very advanced for it´s time, use of fiber reinforced plastic, electrical signaling, super critical wing profile, first twin engined wide body, overall more modern than the conservative 757/767.

But the A320 brought FBW and side stick and again a super critical wing, altogether a packet far advanced of it's time.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:17 pm

keesje wrote:
On todays Leeham News, Richard Aboulafia also prefers a big narrow body over a new twin aisle for Boeing.

https://leehamnews.com/2020/01/12/guest ... -year-ceo/


R. Aboulafia is not a real reference. You would have told me Steven Udvar-Hazy there I would have bowed but it is not the case. It is too weak an argument to quote R. Aboulafia, especially since J. MC Nerney has never been with GE!

MC Nerney was at 3M not GE so people are leading Boeing down, giving as an example: J. Welsh = J. MC Nerney = D. Calhoun and bla bla bla ...

This is all the more false since in addition D. Muillenburg was a trainee engineer at Boeing, and the "little protégé of a former 3M, J. MC Nerney.

Like this GE is responsible for the down to hell of Boeing

It brushes amateurism for them nevertheless beautiful" popcorn article "on the background of drama" thriller-industrial ".
Leeham doesn't really like Boeing also...

Aboulafia didn't even use the term "Big Narrowbody" ...

But ultimately it may be a good idea if it complements the A321neo's and 737MAX-10 upwards (2-class185-220 seats /4000-5000 Nm)

But the NSA better than the NMA I am not convinced ...
Last edited by Checklist787 on Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
1989worstyear wrote:
Mightyflyer86 wrote:

Are you calling a program that sold 1,050 units a mistake???

1) The 757 is no hybrid, it is a narrowbody. It was designed in the late 1970s to replace a three engined airplane (727).
2) The 727 was a short to medium haul airplane that had excellent runway performance so the 757 had to match it which is why it has a lot of wing surface area and powerful 1970s engines.
3) The 757 was an ultra efficient narrowbody by 1980s standards since it replaced a three engined airplane.
4) Both the 737NG and the A320 can fly the majority of the 757 routes with a lot less weight.
5) The 737NG and A320 are responsible for the 757's demise which is why Boeing stopped production in 2004.
6) One of the few reasons the 757 has been able to live a long life is because it is capable of flying short TATL routes which Continental Airlines started in 2007/2008.
7) The A321neo has been able to match the 757s range with a lot less weight so the 757 has become "heavy" by modern standards
8) The 757 is a great airplane, it has become obsolete because, after all, it's an airplane with technology from the 1970s.


:shakehead:

The PW2000's are not 1970's engines. They were introduced in 1984, just a few years prior to today's CFM56-5 and V2500 on the A320 CEO.

You never seem to realize the A320 is mid 80's technology (MSN1 production started in 1987), and the NG is a Frankenstein of 60's technology. Why is that?


One can talk about age, but what matters is technology. The A320 presented a jump in technology, a new generation. The A300, A310, 737, 757 and 767 did not make this jump, all the same if it is a sixties design or an eighties design. FBW is an technological jump independent of the year of introduction. No clean sheet design at Boeing or Airbus has been done without FBW since. So a 757 and an A320 are different generations in aircraft design, even if they have their EIS in the same decade.
That is also why the A330 is no derivative of the A300. The A330/340 was designed around a FBW, even if the fuselage is a stretch of the A300.


...and this is why I have more in common with all 16 year olds than anyone born in 1986 (757 was state of the art in 1986).
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...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:30 pm

I don't see how Airbus can offer an "Airbus A322" due to the current Exit Limits / Maximum Seating Capacities of the A321, which is 230 with 4xType C exits or 244 with 3xType C and 2xType III.

To go any higher, Airbus would have to replace the existing floor exits (1/3/4) with larger ones (Type B or Type I) and at that point, they'd really need to scale the frame to 757-300 lengths to maximize those larger exits.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9408
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:58 pm

Stitch wrote:
I don't see how Airbus can offer an "Airbus A322" due to the current Exit Limits / Maximum Seating Capacities of the A321, which is 230 with 4xType C exits or 244 with 3xType C and 2xType III.

To go any higher, Airbus would have to replace the existing floor exits (1/3/4) with larger ones (Type B or Type I) and at that point, they'd really need to scale the frame to 757-300 lengths to maximize those larger exits.


Perhaps a stretch would work for full service airlines rather than LCC.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10394
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:02 pm

You thinking that Airbus will somehow find a way to stretch the a/c so only full service carriers can use the added space?
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:13 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
... J. MC Nerney has never been with GE!

MC Nerney was at 3M not GE so people are leading Boeing down, giving as an example: J. Welsh = J. MC Nerney = D. Calhoun and bla bla bla ...

This is all the more false since in addition D. Muillenburg was a trainee engineer at Boeing, and the "little protégé of a former 3M, J. MC Nerney.


McNerney joined General Electric in 1982. There, he held top executive positions including president and CEO of GE Aircraft Engines and GE Lighting; president of GE Asia-Pacific; president and CEO of GE Electrical Distribution and Control; executive vice president of GE Capital, one of the world's largest financial service companies; and president of GE Information Services. McNerney competed with Bob Nardelli and Jeff Immelt to succeed the retiring Jack Welch as chairman and CEO of General Electric. When Immelt won the three-way race, McNerney and Nardelli left GE (as was Welch's plan); McNerney was hired by 3M in 2001...On June 30, 2005, The Boeing Company hired McNerney as the chairman, President and CEO. McNerney oversaw the strategic direction of the Chicago-based, $61.5 billion aerospace company with a focus on spending controls.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McNerney
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:18 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
The problem is that I can't see innovation in a narrowbody.
What to put on this plane?


I would think there is a lot of reasearch and innovation involved in increasing efficiency by 30 - 45% since first 757?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:39 pm

PW100 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The problem is that I can't see innovation in a narrowbody.
What to put on this plane?


I would think there is a lot of reasearch and innovation involved in increasing efficiency by 30 - 45% since first 757?

Good for airlines, and passengers?

40 years separate the 757 to now. Technological progress is not very innovation.
Not convinced...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:40 pm

PW100 wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The problem is that I can't see innovation in a narrowbody.
What to put on this plane?


I would think there is a lot of reasearch and innovation involved in increasing efficiency by 30 - 45% since first 757?


That's true for the first 757, but NOT true for the first A320 and 737 NG.
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...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27300
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Perhaps a stretch would work for full service airlines rather than LCC.


I honestly don't see it. Looking at Delta, the A321 seats 20F | 30C+ | 147MC whereas the 757-300 is 24F | 32C+ | 178MC. So the stretch is used primarily for Economy and probably for low(er)-yield leisure passengers considering they are primarily used hub-to-hub or between hubs and tourist cities like Las Vegas and Orlando. United uses their 757-300s for much the same and I expect their domestic A321XLRs will be configured with similar First Class and Economy Plus seating as the 753s (with consequently lower Economy class capacity).

With such small 753 fleets, I don't see either of them asking for a larger Airbus, but instead just using more A321s / 737-10s to scale to seasonal and route demand once the 757-300s are retired.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:14 am

speedbird52 wrote:
How attractive would a lower MTOW A330-800 be to airlines? Perhaps with no center tanks?

Not very, All the US majors have had a chance to view the A330 and imagine the uses for it, If they were going to order the model by now? They would have. Now were Airbus to build something to Directly replace the 767? Then we might have a conversation. A 2-2-2 first class cabin and a 3-3-3main cabin with 2 main galleys and 6-7 Lavs in the cabin able to load LD-2's or LD-3 cargo containers? with a 5500 SM range? It would need a 60K thrust engine and you'd have a winner of an airplane for the USA-EU, Intra- Europe and Asia and Africa, About the only place it might not work is Australia to Aasia and NZ to Asia. though I'm really not sure of even that.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20544
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Delta “Waiting To Order” Boeing NMA

Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:52 am

Thread has gone off topic. Please start new threads on various non-NMA discussions. Please start a new thread if there is NMA news.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.

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