Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:51 pm

Checklist787 wrote:

The 777-X has the same 17.2 "seats as the 787, It does not want to gain 2 cm as you claim.


Literally from an article pinned on Boeing's 777X page:

By redesigning the sidewalls and fitting thinner insulation, internal cabin width has been carved out from the 231in (587cm) of the B777-300ER, to 235in (597cm). Four inches may not sound like much, but it represents a significant engineering and design effort, and that extra width gives airlines more design flexibility and scope for expression – something that airline customers have indicated to Boeing that they want...

....that wide cabin enables 18in-wide seats at 10 abreast in economy.


https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

And that article is pinned on Boeing's 777X page.


The 787 has a cabin for 7-abreast Premium seat and not 8-abreast.


Depends on carrier. My point is that a passenger shouldn't have to pay W fares to get an 18" seat. Airbus has this as standard on every mainline carrier. Boeing should be able to pull it off.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:08 pm

Revelation wrote:
TObound wrote:
Rolls and Boeing to some extent both say 2000-4000. For a program in the tens of billions which has to charge a lot less than other widebodies, that is a tough business case.

At the end of the day, the volume market is where the 321 is. Thousands sold already. And room to sell thousands more.

Whatever they decide, they need to do it quick. Analysis paralysis is killing them. Every day they dither, Airbus adds to the 321XLR count cutting their market. Sure the NMA could be great. But if it's too late for the 757 and 767 replacement waves, many airlines may just decide to live with the 321XLR, 789, 339 and 359.

I don't think 2,000-4,000 on its own is a tough case.
  • 757: 1,050 produced
  • 767: 1,176 produced
  • 777: 1,627 produced


First, most of those programs have been able to spread development costs beyond just the base program. For example, the 777 has developed into 77W/77L and now 777X. This improves the math.

Next, development costs have gone up a lot since the 777. Will certainly be more than the 787. And spending that much for a market of 2000-4000 when they can't charge as much as other widebodies and Airbus can massively undercut them on a good chunk of sales? That'd be tough.

Revelation wrote:
Personally I think trying to take A321 and its installed base head on is a tougher business case. You may end up with incrementally better tech but you will lose on price.


Sure, but the marketshare balance tilts in favour of Boeing. So imagine the 321/757 market becoming 60% Boeing. Even with discounting, they'd make enough to pay for development. They'll also have a lot of stuff developed they can pass down to the NSA.

Revelation wrote:
Boeing has no choice but dither till the MAX has its RTS and all the associated issues with ungrounding are sorted.


We're getting close to the end on this chapter. So the decision point on NMA is coming in hot and fast.

Revelation wrote:
I still see room between A321XLR and 789.


There's room. But it's really narrow. Whatever they sell has to take enough 321XLR and 330N sales to justify the cannibalization of their own 789 sales and the development costs. That is a very, very tight business case.

It comes back to how you see narrowbody long-haul working. People think it opens up new destinations. I don't see that. I see it making more destinations daily and year-round and the widebodies being used as seasonal swing capacity. In that scenario, a 225 seater may be too big for daily flights and the 275 seater may be too small for seasonal peak capacity.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:15 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
Looking down the line a bit - with the focus on environment only growing ever sharper - if people are not willing to sacrifice the convenience of flights, they may be much more amenable to accepting increased delivery times.

i.e. air cargo could become a somewhat endangered species in a decade or two.

Relatively easy target for the politicians.


Or there's more pressure to get rid of cargo operators and move it all to belly freight.....
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.
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.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:00 pm

TObound wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 777-X has the same 17.2 "seats as the 787, It does not want to gain 2 cm as you claim.


Literally from an article pinned on Boeing's 777X page:

By redesigning the sidewalls and fitting thinner insulation, internal cabin width has been carved out from the 231in (587cm) of the B777-300ER, to 235in (597cm). Four inches may not sound like much, but it represents a significant engineering and design effort, and that extra width gives airlines more design flexibility and scope for expression – something that airline customers have indicated to Boeing that they want...

....that wide cabin enables 18in-wide seats at 10 abreast in economy.


https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

And that article is pinned on Boeing's 777X page.


The 787 has a cabin for 7-abreast Premium seat and not 8-abreast.


Depends on carrier. My point is that a passenger shouldn't have to pay W fares to get an 18" seat. Airbus has this as standard on every mainline carrier. Boeing should be able to pull it off.


Not a single airline has 8-abreast Premium economy in the 787 Dreamliner

Only JAL and ANA have offered 8-abreast economy, but NOT Premium ECONOMY.

In the Boeing ACAPS

The Triple 7-X is a 10-abreast with 17.2" seat width...

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

2.5 Cross section
2.5.1
Last edited by Checklist787 on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:00 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.


Yes it could be - that may a length too far - that is kind of why I said that the 175 seat size would be base vs A223 as base size. It may need a little more fuselage height to get there - which of course opens the possibility of it being able to take an LD3-45 turning the tables on Airbus.

NMA/NSA would take a new custom larger LD3-45 but there is no reason you wouldn't be able to put a LD3-45 in that either.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:07 pm

WIederling wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Yes, the 737 has very low ground clearance...

It was designed when its only competitor, was the DC-8 had very low ground clearance too, and it seems a characteristic at the time...


DC-8 is a 4 engine contemporary to the 707.
You mean the DC-9 ?

737 and 747 are ~~contemporary designs. High bypass engines were definitely on the horizon.
Joe Sutter was moved from 737 to 747 development.


Effectively,
I mean the DC-9

Thanks :thumbsup:
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.

I think this ignore the fact that Boeing's competitor is deeply entrenched in category 1 and has driven the market for category 1 deeply towards saturation. A "me too" aircraft is going to have a hard time making a positive ROI. Many airlines don't see a need for category 2 but we've had supportive statements from airlines such as DL and QF saying they want such an aircraft, and they would be in the right position to benefit from customers who grow out of category 1 just as NMA becomes a mature category 2 product.


But still the question (like I said so often in the past) is: What would airlines buy if there is no MoM? Would all 797s become A321s, if yes does it mean that the 7 abreast is too big? If no, how many of those would be 787, which could also need sales to keep the line running at a high rate.

I think that if the 737-1000 is not a total dud (it does not seem to be if Ryanair wants it) Boeing should wait and only do a FSA for an EiS after 2030.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:42 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.


I think it's the maximum passenger config.

In the real world, it would rather be :

"1-class 195-197 passengers @ 28-29 " pitch"...

"1-class 180 passengers @ 30" pitch

"2-class 145 passengers @ 30" pitch
Last edited by Checklist787 on Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:59 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
planecane
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:45 pm

I don't know if this is the right thread for this question but why, in the 1990's did Boeing decide to re-wing (with a bigger wing) and re-engine the 737 to make the NG instead of putting a smaller wing and new engines on the 757 and making the "757-100" size aircraft and making the 757 their narrow body to compete with the A320? The 757 was a far more modern design and already had commonality with the 767 and sort of commonality with the 777. Was it just to make the 737-700 for southwest and have commonality with their 737 Jurassic and Classic fleet? Or did the grandfathering let them make a much lighter and cheaper aircraft than a 757NG would have been?

I ask in this thread because, had they done that and made the 757 their 1990s+ narrow body, they'd easily be on par with the A320 series with the 757MAX. I am not suggesting they resurrect the 757 and do this now. It would have only worked out had they made the 757 lighter and more efficient 15 years ago first.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7133
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:53 pm

scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.


I think you could, hence all of the energy around an A220-500.
It would be about the same length as an A321
It's perhaps worth pointing out that the Embraer E2-195 is 4-abreast and only 3m shorter than an A321, so already has a finer aspect ratio

Rgds
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:01 pm

planecane wrote:
Or did the grandfathering let them make a much lighter and cheaper aircraft than a 757NG would have been?

beyond other reasons _this_

737 needs less structure as it only needs to match the lesser g limits of its base certification.
Next is less thrust as it only needs to match those older lower obstacle clearance numbers for one engine out.
Then going forward the 737 got more waived certification requirements than a homeless dog fleas!

The 757-200 is a heavy bird. It has 10t higher OEW ( 58t vs 48t ) than the A321CEO. 20% more.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:08 pm

astuteman wrote:
scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.


I think you could, hence all of the energy around an A220-500.
It would be about the same length as an A321
It's perhaps worth pointing out that the Embraer E2-195 is 4-abreast and only 3m shorter than an A321, so already has a finer aspect ratio

Rgds


This is why it is not possible the "FSA-Stretch" can be a 200 seater @ 30 in pitch...
Last edited by Checklist787 on Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 821
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
To me the most likely way to take this is that FSA is the Future Brazil Project and NMA will take the core.


This is insanity. One thing we can be certain of is that the A320 and 737NG/MAX series cover the market sweet spot. 27,000 odd orders between them prove that. It may have moved slightly in capacity, from A319/A320 to A320/A321 but let's not overegg that by mistaking changes in the optimal airframe variant for changes in market demand. I'm certain that Boeing will not compromise the design, specifications or timing of it's 737 replacement to accommodate other smaller market segments. Calhoun intimated as much when he announced the moratorium on NMA development. He talked about the market split (between the Max and A320) being key - "But I wouldn't kid you if there were a reason that that share position didn't restore itself".

If the NMA does go ahead before the FSA (or whatever the current acronym is) I'm sure it will act to reduce risk on the FSA and there will be sharing of technology where appropriate, in the manner of the 757/767 programmes. But they will be very different aircraft optimised around different points, cruise speed, noise, average stage length, floorspace per passenger (particularly premium), cargo and carry on requirements etc etc. A 200 pax 5000nm (still air) range aircraft might look like a 200pax 3500nm aircraft, but when one is optimised around 700nm stage lengths, and the other 3000nm it's another matter. And there's no way on gods earth that Boeing will let the middle of market distraction compromise their bread and butter - let alone semi-outsource it to Boeing Brazil.

I think the key to whether the NMA happens is timing. The enabling tech for the FSA will mature to be ready for a 2030 or so EIS. So even if Boeing were to hit that, ramping production up to rate 60 or more is going to take years - probably 2035 if things go smoothly which they probably wont. So you could be looking at delivering Maxes into the second half of next decade. Feasible? Maybe, just. So can you squeeze another clean sheet program in before 2030? Given that it's on hold now? If not, how into the '30's are you willing to push back the 737 replacement? I guess that's the questions Calhoun is going to be asking.

TL;DR - the 737 replacement program trumps everything else - and it should. The NMA will only happen if it doesn't jeopardise that.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27090
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:45 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.


True. And this was evidently said to be impacting it's interest with Asian operators. I am going to presume they felt that if they could not carry cargo, they might as well stick with narrowbodies.


seahawk wrote:
Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


Agreed, which is why I think Boeing should be making NMA a single aisle from 220-290 seats with up to 4000nm range so it can cover all of 1 and most of 2, with the 787 there for the remainder of 2 and all of 3.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27090
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:50 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
The key to the concept is the reuse of a fuselage that appears to be made of aluminum, in this case an enlarged 757 or a 767 fuselage.


I'm not sure a new fuselage geometry can be considered a "re-use" of a pre-existing fuselage.


Checklist787 wrote:
You seem to indicate that you think it would be a pure widebody. What's more, an 787-9 / A330-900 size.


Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe a "pure widebody" using similar fuselage dimensions to the 767 would no be accepted by airlines. I believe Boeing should make NMA a long narrowbody, but with a fuselage slightly wider than the A321 to allow similar passenger comfort with better aisle comfort during embarking/disembarking/cabin service.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 23939
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
But still the question (like I said so often in the past) is: What would airlines buy if there is no MoM? Would all 797s become A321s, if yes does it mean that the 7 abreast is too big? If no, how many of those would be 787, which could also need sales to keep the line running at a high rate.

Like you said, operating a A321 or 787 on a route that is best served by NMA is a compromise, you are either flying a plane that is leaving payload behind or one that costs too much to operate for the available payload.

Consider again LH CEO saying A321 is a niche product and doesn't offer the level of comfort a widebody provides.

If we believe the market growth from A320/738 to A321 is a natural evolution, then won't NMA be in the right position ~seven years from now?

I think that if the 737-1000 is not a total dud (it does not seem to be if Ryanair wants it) Boeing should wait and only do a FSA for an EiS after 2030.

I think Boeing has no choice but try to capture whatever revenue the MAX can provide. The real question is do you wait and do nothing till a FSA is the right move, or do you try to insert NMA into the marketplace first?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
ILikeTrains
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
TObound wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

The 777-X has the same 17.2 "seats as the 787, It does not want to gain 2 cm as you claim.


Literally from an article pinned on Boeing's 777X page:

By redesigning the sidewalls and fitting thinner insulation, internal cabin width has been carved out from the 231in (587cm) of the B777-300ER, to 235in (597cm). Four inches may not sound like much, but it represents a significant engineering and design effort, and that extra width gives airlines more design flexibility and scope for expression – something that airline customers have indicated to Boeing that they want...

....that wide cabin enables 18in-wide seats at 10 abreast in economy.


https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternatio ... o-far.html

And that article is pinned on Boeing's 777X page.


The 787 has a cabin for 7-abreast Premium seat and not 8-abreast.


Depends on carrier. My point is that a passenger shouldn't have to pay W fares to get an 18" seat. Airbus has this as standard on every mainline carrier. Boeing should be able to pull it off.


Not a single airline has 8-abreast Premium economy in the 787 Dreamliner

Only JAL and ANA have offered 8-abreast economy, but NOT Premium ECONOMY.

In the Boeing ACAPS

The Triple 7-X is a 10-abreast with 17.2" seat width...

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/airpo ... nuals.page

2.5 Cross section
2.5.1


That 17.2” does go to ~17.9” when using a 0.5” narrower armrest (1.5 vs 2.0). Not in the ACAPS, but not exactly restricted from the airlines pursuing the option.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:02 pm

Stitch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.


True. And this was evidently said to be impacting it's interest with Asian operators. I am going to presume they felt that if they could not carry cargo, they might as well stick with narrowbodies.


seahawk wrote:
Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


Agreed, which is why I think Boeing should be making NMA a single aisle from 220-290 seats with up to 4000nm range so it can cover all of 1 and most of 2, with the 787 there for the remainder of 2 and all of 3.


Imho the next single aisle will grow in size anyway. A320/737-8 will be the smallest version, then A321/737-1000 and then one slightly below 753 size. I also do not believe we will see the range being reduced, as the flexibility of those planes is valued at airlines. Imho the next step up will be an 8 abreast wide body. The A300/310 shows us that this does not come with huge penalty in OEW, but it would cover many more needs than a 7 abreast using LD3/45s.

So in the future we will have imho:

1. 4/5 abreast up to 175 seats
2. 6 abreast up to 250 seats
3. 8 abreast 300-360
4. 9 abreast 350-4X0 seats
5. bigger..
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27090
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
Imho the next single aisle will grow in size anyway. A320/737-8 will be the smallest version, then A321/737-1000 and then one slightly below 753 size.


In general, I agree.

I believe NMA should be a wider narrowbody at 220-290 seats which would cover the 737-9, 737-10, A321-200, 757-200 and 757-300 market.

NSA would then be 200 seats and less, so 737-8 / A320-200 and smaller.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But still the question (like I said so often in the past) is: What would airlines buy if there is no MoM? Would all 797s become A321s, if yes does it mean that the 7 abreast is too big? If no, how many of those would be 787, which could also need sales to keep the line running at a high rate.

Like you said, operating a A321 or 787 on a route that is best served by NMA is a compromise, you are either flying a plane that is leaving payload behind or one that costs too much to operate for the available payload.

Consider again LH CEO saying A321 is a niche product and doesn't offer the level of comfort a widebody provides.

If we believe the market growth from A320/738 to A321 is a natural evolution, then won't NMA be in the right position ~seven years from now?

I think that if the 737-1000 is not a total dud (it does not seem to be if Ryanair wants it) Boeing should wait and only do a FSA for an EiS after 2030.

I think Boeing has no choice but try to capture whatever revenue the MAX can provide. The real question is do you wait and do nothing till a FSA is the right move, or do you try to insert NMA into the marketplace first?


The LH CEO said the A321XLR is a niche product, that is a big difference and imho a good argument against the MOM, as an optimized 7 abreast won´t offer much more comfort or carry more cargo than the XLR. Imho the hype about the LR/XLR is way too big and the biggest advantage of those models is that that they can be used like a normal A321 with very little penalty.

And while the A321 would leave payload behind and the 787 would be costly to operate, if you look at the fleet scheduling, it might mean that the 787 would be sitting idle on the ground, while the MoM would fly the sector. I still remember the A306 in the fleet, even in the last years it was making tons of money if you could put it on a suitable route, finding enough of those to get the utilisation up, that was the huge problem.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:23 pm

astuteman wrote:
scbriml wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch


I really can't see a 2-3 single-aisle plane growing to seat 200 pax. :shakehead:

At 40 seat rows, it'll be longer than a 737-10. To put that in perspective, it would be at least six rows of seats longer than an MD-90. That's going to be one very long, thin plane.


I think you could, hence all of the energy around an A220-500.
It would be about the same length as an A321
It's perhaps worth pointing out that the Embraer E2-195 is 4-abreast and only 3m shorter than an A321, so already has a finer aspect ratio

Rgds


A hypothetical 225 would probably have a lower fineness ratio than the E2-195. The latter is a pencil. And the 225 is supposed to be 160-175 seats in 30" all Y. It's not going to be a 200 seater.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:31 pm

Stitch wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.


True. And this was evidently said to be impacting it's interest with Asian operators. I am going to presume they felt that if they could not carry cargo, they might as well stick with narrowbodies.


seahawk wrote:
Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


Agreed, which is why I think Boeing should be making NMA a single aisle from 220-290 seats with up to 4000nm range so it can cover all of 1 and most of 2, with the 787 there for the remainder of 2 and all of 3.


Stitch wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
The key to the concept is the reuse of a fuselage that appears to be made of aluminum, in this case an enlarged 757 or a 767 fuselage.


I'm not sure a new fuselage geometry can be considered a "re-use" of a pre-existing fuselage.


Checklist787 wrote:
You seem to indicate that you think it would be a pure widebody. What's more, an 787-9 / A330-900 size.


Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe a "pure widebody" using similar fuselage dimensions to the 767 would no be accepted by airlines. I believe Boeing should make NMA a long narrowbody, but with a fuselage slightly wider than the A321 to allow similar passenger comfort with better aisle comfort during embarking/disembarking/cabin service.


Bingo. This is where I'm at too. You don't need two 20 in aisles to speed up turns. A long single aisle is the only practical way to cover Seahawk's scenarios 1 and 2. Any widebody that pushes to Code E gates drives up operating costs. Everything from pilot pay to landing fees to gate fees. Whatever they can do to make the twin aisle efficient, they can do that on the wide single aisle and still fit it in a Code C gate. Boeing's goal should be to improve the productivity of every Code C gate in the world. Airbus is now doing that with the 321N.
Last edited by TObound on Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:38 pm

BaconButty wrote:
morrisond wrote:
To me the most likely way to take this is that FSA is the Future Brazil Project and NMA will take the core.


This is insanity. One thing we can be certain of is that the A320 and 737NG/MAX series cover the market sweet spot. 27,000 odd orders between them prove that. It may have moved slightly in capacity, from A319/A320 to A320/A321 but let's not overegg that by mistaking changes in the optimal airframe variant for changes in market demand. I'm certain that Boeing will not compromise the design, specifications or timing of it's 737 replacement to accommodate other smaller market segments. Calhoun intimated as much when he announced the moratorium on NMA development. He talked about the market split (between the Max and A320) being key - "But I wouldn't kid you if there were a reason that that share position didn't restore itself".

If the NMA does go ahead before the FSA (or whatever the current acronym is) I'm sure it will act to reduce risk on the FSA and there will be sharing of technology where appropriate, in the manner of the 757/767 programmes. But they will be very different aircraft optimised around different points, cruise speed, noise, average stage length, floorspace per passenger (particularly premium), cargo and carry on requirements etc etc. A 200 pax 5000nm (still air) range aircraft might look like a 200pax 3500nm aircraft, but when one is optimised around 700nm stage lengths, and the other 3000nm it's another matter. And there's no way on gods earth that Boeing will let the middle of market distraction compromise their bread and butter - let alone semi-outsource it to Boeing Brazil.

I think the key to whether the NMA happens is timing. The enabling tech for the FSA will mature to be ready for a 2030 or so EIS. So even if Boeing were to hit that, ramping production up to rate 60 or more is going to take years - probably 2035 if things go smoothly which they probably wont. So you could be looking at delivering Maxes into the second half of next decade. Feasible? Maybe, just. So can you squeeze another clean sheet program in before 2030? Given that it's on hold now? If not, how into the '30's are you willing to push back the 737 replacement? I guess that's the questions Calhoun is going to be asking.

TL;DR - the 737 replacement program trumps everything else - and it should. The NMA will only happen if it doesn't jeopardise that.


You are not interpreting my quote correctly. No FSA won't be the big Volume aircraft that will be NMA/NSA (I should have put NSA with NMA in that line). Yes MAX will probably be in production into the 2030's which I said above. They would do NMA first with NSA coming in the early 2030's as MAX wound down.

We will just ignore the fact that NSA back in 2011 was most likely going to be an 7W eliptical like fuselage. Boeing seems to have refined this with the Ostrower Toddler Shaped Double Circle making it even simpler to do now.

Yes 27,000 were bought in those sizes in the past. It now appears that new orders are running at least 50% in the 739/731/A321 sizes. Slots don't grow on trees and where will they magically come in the next twenty years with new Airports at least in developed markets nowhere to be seen and Air travel growth likely to double in that time frame?

Plus I would ask you to not refer to anyone's ideas as insane. That is very offensive.

My ideas have merit and it is a possible logical way to go forward. Your's is just as valid. Please present that vs trashing another user on the forums.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:40 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But still the question (like I said so often in the past) is: What would airlines buy if there is no MoM? Would all 797s become A321s, if yes does it mean that the 7 abreast is too big? If no, how many of those would be 787, which could also need sales to keep the line running at a high rate.

Like you said, operating a A321 or 787 on a route that is best served by NMA is a compromise, you are either flying a plane that is leaving payload behind or one that costs too much to operate for the available payload.

Consider again LH CEO saying A321 is a niche product and doesn't offer the level of comfort a widebody provides.

If we believe the market growth from A320/738 to A321 is a natural evolution, then won't NMA be in the right position ~seven years from now?

I think that if the 737-1000 is not a total dud (it does not seem to be if Ryanair wants it) Boeing should wait and only do a FSA for an EiS after 2030.

I think Boeing has no choice but try to capture whatever revenue the MAX can provide. The real question is do you wait and do nothing till a FSA is the right move, or do you try to insert NMA into the marketplace first?


The LH CEO said the A321XLR is a niche product, that is a big difference and imho a good argument against the MOM, as an optimized 7 abreast won´t offer much more comfort or carry more cargo than the XLR. Imho the hype about the LR/XLR is way too big and the biggest advantage of those models is that that they can be used like a normal A321 with very little penalty.


Agreed. But I'd argue niche for him doesn't make that true for everyone. And doesn't mean it won't sell. If he's not worried about EI will do with LR/XLRs in the North American markets, he should be. Imagine secondary airports like YOW and BDL going year-round daily with 321s and then widebodies subbed seasonally or even weekly as needed. That's the real power of the LR/XLR. It allows so many more routes to be year-round and more frequent. The question is whether a 225/275 seat could do the same thing for these carriers.

seahawk wrote:
And while the A321 would leave payload behind and the 787 would be costly to operate, if you look at the fleet scheduling, it might mean that the 787 would be sitting idle on the ground, while the MoM would fly the sector. I still remember the A306 in the fleet, even in the last years it was making tons of money if you could put it on a suitable route, finding enough of those to get the utilisation up, that was the huge problem.


I don't see it like that. See the same scenario as above. Let's say LH gets the 321XLR. They swap their seasonal YOW-FRA service with daily year-round XLR. Is cargo really problematic? They aren't running year-round cargo to YOW now. They send it YUL and truck it by land. They would do the same thing if YOW-FRA was a year-round daily XLR.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3510
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:42 pm

seahawk wrote:
[
Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


[waffle]
I agree, I think that by looking at the numbers how you have presented them here (not criticising) lacks the depth in how the aircraft are operated. If we show the overlapping payload range charts for each type then we would see the size of the market where the option 2 covers and if we were then to overlay a third dimension on the chart of a representative cost metric you'd see that the area where jet 2 was the most cost efficient would have a smaller area to make the increased profit over the others. Then if we add the fourth dimension of time to the chart and play out increasing airframe and engine efficiency over time and my guess is you'd see that a number of smaller niches would have in the past made sense but as time marches on the number reduces as the payload range charts of each 'category' spread mostly to the right but also slightly to the left.

Effectively the slope of the weight limited portion of the payload range charts reduces and the MZFW inflection point moves to the right rendering the more capable bigger brother somewhat redundant. Now one could argue that this should happen all the way up the family and simply knock the biggest most capable jet off the top but the reduction in slope means that the additional costs for the smaller aircraft to fill that niche is less than the on-cost for developing the larger aircraft is eroded. What is found is that the "family" set up will erode the niches at the ends of the spectrum where the next size up or down can now be abused for less expense and intermediate niches are removed.

Now after all that waffle.... An A321XLR is happy to do TATL all year round and we can see from BA that so is the A351, the A351 is also capable of SYD-LHR, The feasible ranges of these aircraft are already overlapping, Whilst there might be a gap in the middle, my sense is that the writing is on the wall and that gap is shrinking, it used to contain the 757, 767, A300 and A310. We might miss their presence when they all go but I'm not sure the airlines will care much.

[/waffle]

Fred
Image
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:24 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
The key to the concept is the reuse of a fuselage that appears to be made of aluminum, in this case an enlarged 757 or a 767 fuselage.


Stitch wrote:
I'm not sure a new fuselage geometry can be considered a "re-use" of a pre-existing fuselage.


Indeed, not all parts of the fuselage but certain parts

Checklist787 wrote:
You seem to indicate that you think it would be a pure widebody. What's more, an 787-9 / A330-900 size.


Stitch wrote:
Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe a "pure widebody" using similar fuselage dimensions to the 767 would no be accepted by airlines. I believe Boeing should make NMA a long narrowbody, but with a fuselage slightly wider than the A321 to allow similar passenger comfort with better aisle comfort during embarking/disembarking/cabin service.


Normally I would agree with you. Only problem is that Boeing seems to firmly believe in a twin aisle. No doubt Boeing will have evaluated what another 757 proxy would be in the form of Narrowbody A322-X Concept or other concept of wider narrowbody with a wider aisle ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27090
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:34 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Normally I would agree with you. Only problem is that Boeing seems to firmly believe in a twin aisle. No doubt Boeing will have evaluated what another 757 proxy would be in the form of Narrowbody A322-X Concept or other concept of wider narrowbody with a wider aisle ...


Well they certainly did believe in the twin-aisle, but airlines appear to have not shared that belief.

Now that Boeing says they are starting over, I believe a long, wider narrowbody could be the solution they settle on.
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:34 pm

Nobody in this thread seems to be talking about infrastructure. Are there enough widebody gates to effectively shift traffic that might be on narrowbodies over to widebody gates? It's one thing to modify a gate or two to accommodate an A380 or 747-8. And it's another to have your airport development plan fall apart because all the carriers at your airport are buying way more widebodies and fewer narrowbodies. Not a trivial issue. This is why I think fitting in a Code C gate has to be a driver.....

And I really wonder
 
DenverTed
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:55 pm

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Stitch wrote:

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

I am inclined to think the target market in terms of passenger capacity is 230 to 295 seats (Exit Limit) which would be a length between 45m on the low end and 55m on the upper end. So either two models (45m/55m) or three models (45m/50m/55m) with a common wing between 36m and 52m. I'm guessing that with folding wingtips it could hit 40m, which would be 2m more than the 757, but still able to fit inside a 36m Code C gate with tips folded.

Going with a 4.4m fuselage diameter would allow the wider seats and wider aisles plus would support the 55m stretch. Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.


Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


Scott Hamilton on Leeham is Pontificating again today. https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/03/pontifications-4/

This quote of his was the one that provokes the most thought I believe.

"What LNA has been told (subsequent to the earnings call) is that the NMA isn’t truly off the table. Neither is pursuing a single-aisle future small airplane (FSA). The restart, with, as Calhoun put it, a clean sheet obviously will look at all options"

To me the most likely way to take this is that FSA is the Future Brazil Project and NMA will take the core.

If Boeing does a large 6W tube to cover NSA/NMA it will just be too large to cover off the 150-200 all Y seat market that the 220 looks like a hell of a competitor on. Boeing should do something in response and a 5W Brazil project with it's base size (most eficient) is A320 Capacity but a lot lower Range - call it 3,000NM Max for ultra efficiency on the Majority of SA routes. Eventually it's done in three tube lengths 150,175 and 200 all Y 30" seat pitch.

So if Boeing does go the Brazil 5W route then it does not make sense to do two more tube sizes to cover NSA/NMA (say an 6W and 8W and then they also have 787 9W and 777 10W - way to many) it's either a wide 6W or tight 7W.

To me it makes more sense to do the tight 7W as we have to remember that this cross section will probably be in production for at least 25 years - which would put it past 2050 easily. Air travel demand over the next 30-40 years should increase significantly.

It seems like the sweet spot in Commercial aircraft size is now about A321 size (call it 220 Seats all Y 30" pitch). By 2030 it should be A322 size 240 Seats. By 2040 potentially a lot bigger - it may not make much sense to stretch an 6W beyond say 753 size (260 Y seats). 300-320 Y seats may be the ultimate large size of NMA vs 360 for 788 and 400 for 789 and 781 - 440 all Y.

So Boeing's future lineup:

FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch, Ranges of 3,200/2,900/2,600 respectively, Entry into Service 2028/2029.

NMA - 7W with with New Control System and Automation 240/270/300 All Y 30" Pitch, Ranges of 5,500 NM, 5,000 NM, 4,500NM respectively - 270 Seat comes first followed closely by 240 EIS 2027/2028. 300 may wait until Later with a further stretched 320 seater when Gen 2 engines available.

NSA (737 MAX replacement) - Using NMA 7W tube/systems cockpit - new smaller wing, wingbox, gear tail 200/240 All Y seat capacity - Range 4,000/3,700 NM - EIS 2031/2032.

FLA (Future Large Airplane) Stretched rengined possibly upwinged higher MTOW 787 in 787-9, 787-10 and 11 lengths - sometime around early 2030's

This assumes 777X passenger versions die after 2030, and it becomes the only Big freighter as 747 shuts down as well about 2025 and factory space used for NMA.

Yes Boeing would have the cash flow to do this - they just have to redirect it from Share repurchases to Product Development.

Which is the optimum clean sheet design for a 174 seat aircraft? a 5x 35 row or a 6x 29 row? I suppose with engine fans getting larger, the aircraft has to sit higher off the ground, so rotation is not an issue. 5x has a less frontal cross section, so less air to displace and less width to taper at the back of the aircraft for all that is worth.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:17 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Normally I would agree with you. Only problem is that Boeing seems to firmly believe in a twin aisle. No doubt Boeing will have evaluated what another 757 proxy would be in the form of Narrowbody A322-X Concept or other concept of wider narrowbody with a wider aisle ...



Stitch wrote:
Well they certainly did believe in the twin-aisle, but airlines appear to have not shared that belief.

Now that Boeing says they are starting over, I believe a long, wider narrowbody could be the solution they settle on.


I am not yet convinced and I explain why,

1.Airlines like Qantas, Delta and others were convinced until Paris Air Show'19. At that time the launch of the A321 NeoXLR "changed things" ...

2. If we admit that you are right, Boeing would not come back to the second iteration of the NMA.

Instead of that, Boeing would have launched this wider narrowbody right now and as it was said by many, "more efficient" and de-risked aircraft Boeing would have executed. But no, Boeing is obviously happy to be closed in its vision of NMA which seems to be characterized only as a twin aisle concept.

3. Finally, the 737MAX replacement
(around 2030) may be a NMA fuselage with smaller wings If that is successful.

In fact, Boeing seems to want to gain experience to make a decision for the future with medium and small aircrafts, just like the 707 gave birth to the 727 and 737 of the same fuselage.
I concede that this could work very well with a Wider Narrowbody.

But Boeing seems possessed by the "widebody comfort with narrobody economics" philosophy,

If the largest FSA is a 2-class 140-150 seater, then the replacement for the 737MAX-8 could logically be a twin aisle 2-class 160-170 seater around 2030 ...:)

Rgrds
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27090
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:26 pm

TObound wrote:
Nobody in this thread seems to be talking about infrastructure.


Can't speak for others, but I have been presuming the plane would use folding wingtips to fit into existing narrowbody (Code C) gates. I'm guessing a 40m wingspan extended, with 36m folded.


Checklist787 wrote:
I am not yet convinced and I explain why,..


I'm going to guess the A321XLR "changed things" in that it offered the lower-end of NMA capacity and range in a lighter, cheaper package that leveraged their existing investment in the A320 family.

IMO, that means Boeing's idea of "widebody comfort with narrowbody economics" was not panning out - either in general, or specifically against the A321XLR. So airlines that were ready to order the NMA before the launch of the A321XLR changed their minds when the A321XLR launched. It is also possible the issues with the 787 and the MAX impacted their trust in Boeing being able to execute NMA to planned schedule whereas they knew the A321XLR would EIS when Airbus said it would.

So taken in total, the A321XLR was seen as the "safe bet" and even perhaps the "sure bet" compared to the widebody NMA concept Boeing had committed to launching. And they switched their plans from ordering NMA to ordering the A321XLR, which meant Boeing no longer had (enough) launch customers to get the Board to approve putting the program into formal development and production.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:50 pm

Stitch wrote:
I'm going to guess the A321XLR "changed things" in that it offered the lower-end of NMA capacity and range in a lighter, cheaper package that leveraged their existing investment in the A320 family.

IMO, that means Boeing's idea of "widebody comfort with narrowbody economics" was not panning out - either in general, or specifically against the A321XLR. So airlines that were ready to order the NMA before the launch of the A321XLR changed their minds when the A321XLR launched. It is also possible the issues with the 787 and the MAX impacted their trust in Boeing being able to execute NMA to planned schedule whereas they knew the A321XLR would EIS when Airbus said it would.

So taken in total, the A321XLR was seen as the "safe bet" and even perhaps the "sure bet" compared to the widebody NMA concept Boeing had committed to launching. And they switched their plans from ordering NMA to ordering the A321XLR, which meant Boeing no longer had (enough) launch customers to get the Board to approve putting the program into formal development and production.


That's it,

But to detail things.

The 550 XLR's order still represent a niche market. In fact, the -XLR has usurped only a small share of the NMA-6 market.

Potentially, there would have been 200 NMA-6 and 300 NMA-7 at launch.

I bet the - XLR will stagnate in terms of sales while Ryan air is about to complete an order for the new little chick 737MAX-10 which last sold already at +550 aircaft.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1440317

Boeing wants to return to the drawing board so that the NMA is a solid plan for the NMA-MK2-6 and NMA-MK2-7 ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:56 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I'm going to guess the A321XLR "changed things" in that it offered the lower-end of NMA capacity and range in a lighter, cheaper package that leveraged their existing investment in the A320 family.

IMO, that means Boeing's idea of "widebody comfort with narrowbody economics" was not panning out - either in general, or specifically against the A321XLR. So airlines that were ready to order the NMA before the launch of the A321XLR changed their minds when the A321XLR launched. It is also possible the issues with the 787 and the MAX impacted their trust in Boeing being able to execute NMA to planned schedule whereas they knew the A321XLR would EIS when Airbus said it would.

So taken in total, the A321XLR was seen as the "safe bet" and even perhaps the "sure bet" compared to the widebody NMA concept Boeing had committed to launching. And they switched their plans from ordering NMA to ordering the A321XLR, which meant Boeing no longer had (enough) launch customers to get the Board to approve putting the program into formal development and production.


That's it,

But to detail things.

The 550 XLR's order still represent a niche market. In fact, the -XLR has usurped only a small share of the NMA-6 market.

Potentially, there would have been 200 NMA-6 and 300 NMA-7 at launch.

I bet the - XLR will stagnate in terms of sales while Ryan air is about to complete an order for the new little chick 737MAX-10 which last sold already at +550 aircaft.
Boeing wants to return to the drawing board so that the NMA is a solid plan for the NMA-MK2-6 and NMA-MK2-7 ...

Why do you keep comparing the A321XLR with the 737 MAX 10? One (A321XLR) is a "special-mission" variant of the A321neo (which includes the "standard" A321neo, the A321LR and the A321XLR), itself a fuselage length variant of the A320neoFamily, with the whole 737 MAX 10, itself a fuselage variant of the 737 MAX???

If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the A321neo (including the LR & the XLR) with the 737 MAX 10; not a variant of a variant (2 levels down from a top family) and a variant (1 level down from a top family).

Thing is, the A321XLR has indeed eaten away at part of the NMA market, while the remaining A321neo have eaten away a good chunk of the 737 MAX 10 market...
 
Motorhussy
Posts: 3669
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:49 am

New middle of the market widebody.

Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:03 pm

Given everything that’s going on with the two main aircraft manufacturers - corruption, losses, safety issues etc - which of them is going to be the first to address the middle of the market gap with a new widebody aircraft?

Which has the design and engineering expertise freed up at this point in time and the capital to spend?

And where is the market opportunity, an aircraft that covers the A330-200/767-400 and 767–300/A300 space?

And if so, what’s the likely timeframe? Boeing’s new chief has talked about a clean sheet. Airbus has the market just below it with the A321 family.

Thoughts?
come visit the south pacific
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:18 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
I'm going to guess the A321XLR "changed things" in that it offered the lower-end of NMA capacity and range in a lighter, cheaper package that leveraged their existing investment in the A320 family.

IMO, that means Boeing's idea of "widebody comfort with narrowbody economics" was not panning out - either in general, or specifically against the A321XLR. So airlines that were ready to order the NMA before the launch of the A321XLR changed their minds when the A321XLR launched. It is also possible the issues with the 787 and the MAX impacted their trust in Boeing being able to execute NMA to planned schedule whereas they knew the A321XLR would EIS when Airbus said it would.

So taken in total, the A321XLR was seen as the "safe bet" and even perhaps the "sure bet" compared to the widebody NMA concept Boeing had committed to launching. And they switched their plans from ordering NMA to ordering the A321XLR, which meant Boeing no longer had (enough) launch customers to get the Board to approve putting the program into formal development and production.


That's it,

But to detail things.

The 550 XLR's order still represent a niche market. In fact, the -XLR has usurped only a small share of the NMA-6 market.

Potentially, there would have been 200 NMA-6 and 300 NMA-7 at launch.

I bet the - XLR will stagnate in terms of sales while Ryan air is about to complete an order for the new little chick 737MAX-10 which last sold already at +550 aircaft.
Boeing wants to return to the drawing board so that the NMA is a solid plan for the NMA-MK2-6 and NMA-MK2-7 ...

Why do you keep comparing the A321XLR with the 737 MAX 10? One (A321XLR) is a "special-mission" variant of the A321neo (which includes the "standard" A321neo, the A321LR and the A321XLR), itself a fuselage length variant of the A320neoFamily, with the whole 737 MAX 10, itself a fuselage variant of the 737 MAX???

If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the A321neo (including the LR & the XLR) with the 737 MAX 10; not a variant of a variant (2 levels down from a top family) and a variant (1 level down from a top family).

Thing is, the A321XLR has indeed eaten away at part of the NMA market, while the remaining A321neo have eaten away a good chunk of the 737 MAX 10 market...


1.This is exactly what I was saying. The NMA-6 was braked by the A321NeoXLR!

2. If I compare the A321NeoXLR and the 737MAX-10 it is because they are both derivatives launched in the near time.

Many have seen the 737MAX-10 as a lame duck when in fact it is a chick. It's only a matter of time for orders.

Theoretically, the 737MAX-10 came from the 737MAX-9 which was limited by its length. It's no wonder there was a lot of conversion to the 737MAX-10 when it launched. The 737MAX-10 will finally allow REALLY to come into the competition being a more "serious" derivative.

Indeed, the 737MAX9 was not a real game changing having ONLY 18 seats more than the 737MAX8. (162 vs 180 pax)

This expressed the poverty of the MAX-9 orders and many considered it sufficient to acquire the MAX-8.
Now there is a real game changing (162-200 pax)

With the new MAX-10 derivative, the game will finally be able to start ...

Image
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:36 pm

I think with the difficulty satisfying the new certification requirements that from now on all designs shall the 100% certified to never crash even if the fuel runs out, but certainly safe from any pilot error. But still we will need 2 pilots for far into the future.

As that is nearly impossible, Boeing will decide to not provide any new models from here on out and the Airbus A220, A320, and A321 will have the full narrowbody market.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:40 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

That's it,

But to detail things.

The 550 XLR's order still represent a niche market. In fact, the -XLR has usurped only a small share of the NMA-6 market.

Potentially, there would have been 200 NMA-6 and 300 NMA-7 at launch.

I bet the - XLR will stagnate in terms of sales while Ryan air is about to complete an order for the new little chick 737MAX-10 which last sold already at +550 aircaft.
Boeing wants to return to the drawing board so that the NMA is a solid plan for the NMA-MK2-6 and NMA-MK2-7 ...

Why do you keep comparing the A321XLR with the 737 MAX 10? One (A321XLR) is a "special-mission" variant of the A321neo (which includes the "standard" A321neo, the A321LR and the A321XLR), itself a fuselage length variant of the A320neoFamily, with the whole 737 MAX 10, itself a fuselage variant of the 737 MAX???

If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the A321neo (including the LR & the XLR) with the 737 MAX 10; not a variant of a variant (2 levels down from a top family) and a variant (1 level down from a top family).

Thing is, the A321XLR has indeed eaten away at part of the NMA market, while the remaining A321neo have eaten away a good chunk of the 737 MAX 10 market...


1.This is exactly what I was saying. The NMA-6 was braked by the A321NeoXLR!

2. If I compare the A321NeoXLR and the 737MAX-10 it is because they are both derivatives launched in the near time.

Many have seen the 737MAX-10 as a lame duck when in fact it is a chick. It's only a matter of time for orders.

Theoretically, the 737MAX-10 came from the 737MAX-9 which was limited by its length. It's no wonder there was a lot of conversion to the 737MAX-10 when it launched. The 737MAX-10 will finally allow REALLY to come into the competition being a more "serious" derivative.

Indeed, the 737MAX9 was not a real game changing having ONLY 18 seats more than the 737MAX8. (162 vs 180 pax)

This expressed the poverty of the MAX-9 orders and many considered it sufficient to acquire the MAX-8.
Now there is a real game changing (162-200 pax)

With the new MAX-10 derivative, the game will finally be able to start ...

Image

You seem to not understand that, fuselage-length wise A321neo = A321LR = A321XLR; so, all things interior-wise being equal, they all carry the same passenger count.
Fuselage-length wise, 737 MAX 10 = 737 MAX 9 + 5 ft 4 in (1.64 m); so, all things interior-wise being equal (same seats & seat pitch), the 737 MAX 10 carries more passengers (around 10 per Wikipedia).

You cannot isolate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family, and compare it to the 737 MAX 10 as a whole.
Maybe you can round up 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10 together, and compare them to the A321neo Family (and that's somehow skewed); but isolating the A321XLR doesn't make sense.

By the way, and this is not the first time you're told this: there is no such thing as the A321neoXLR. The A321XLR is automatically an A321neo engine-wise (since it was developed from the neo platform)
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:01 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Why do you keep comparing the A321XLR with the 737 MAX 10? One (A321XLR) is a "special-mission" variant of the A321neo (which includes the "standard" A321neo, the A321LR and the A321XLR), itself a fuselage length variant of the A320neoFamily, with the whole 737 MAX 10, itself a fuselage variant of the 737 MAX???

If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the A321neo (including the LR & the XLR) with the 737 MAX 10; not a variant of a variant (2 levels down from a top family) and a variant (1 level down from a top family).

Thing is, the A321XLR has indeed eaten away at part of the NMA market, while the remaining A321neo have eaten away a good chunk of the 737 MAX 10 market...


1.This is exactly what I was saying. The NMA-6 was braked by the A321NeoXLR!

2. If I compare the A321NeoXLR and the 737MAX-10 it is because they are both derivatives launched in the near time.

Many have seen the 737MAX-10 as a lame duck when in fact it is a chick. It's only a matter of time for orders.

Theoretically, the 737MAX-10 came from the 737MAX-9 which was limited by its length. It's no wonder there was a lot of conversion to the 737MAX-10 when it launched. The 737MAX-10 will finally allow REALLY to come into the competition being a more "serious" derivative.

Indeed, the 737MAX9 was not a real game changing having ONLY 18 seats more than the 737MAX8. (162 vs 180 pax)

This expressed the poverty of the MAX-9 orders and many considered it sufficient to acquire the MAX-8.
Now there is a real game changing (162-200 pax)

With the new MAX-10 derivative, the game will finally be able to start ...

Image

You seem to not understand that, fuselage-length wise A321neo = A321LR = A321XLR; so, all things interior-wise being equal, they all carry the same passenger count.
Fuselage-length wise, 737 MAX 10 = 737 MAX 9 + 5 ft 4 in (1.64 m); so, all things interior-wise being equal (same seats & seat pitch), the 737 MAX 10 carries more passengers (around 10 per Wikipedia).

You cannot isolate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family, and compare it to the 737 MAX 10 as a whole.
Maybe you can round up 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10 together, and compare them to the A321neo Family (and that's somehow skewed); but isolating the A321XLR doesn't make sense.

By the way, and this is not the first time you're told this: there is no such thing as the A321neoXLR. The A321XLR is automatically an A321neo engine-wise (since it was developed from the neo platform)


Please take the time to read my explanations, I will explain everything. Indeed we could group the 737MAX9 and MAX10. But I also explain that the MA8 is a fairly large aircraft since it is a 162 seater and that the MAX9 only had a difference of 18 seats. So, if you approved that we could total the MAX9 and MAX10, there may still be orders for the MAX10 but also a possibility to change still from MAX8 / -9 to MAX-10 in the futur...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
TObound
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
TObound wrote:
Nobody in this thread seems to be talking about infrastructure.


Can't speak for others, but I have been presuming the plane would use folding wingtips to fit into existing narrowbody (Code C) gates. I'm guessing a 40m wingspan extended, with 36m folded.


The reliability and maintenance cost of such a feature is going to very different on an aircraft doing 5-6 turns per day as opposed to a widebody doing two turns per day. Would be very interesting to see their studies on that.

Stitch wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
I am not yet convinced and I explain why,..


I'm going to guess the A321XLR "changed things" in that it offered the lower-end of NMA capacity and range in a lighter, cheaper package that leveraged their existing investment in the A320 family.

IMO, that means Boeing's idea of "widebody comfort with narrowbody economics" was not panning out - either in general, or specifically against the A321XLR. So airlines that were ready to order the NMA before the launch of the A321XLR changed their minds when the A321XLR launched. It is also possible the issues with the 787 and the MAX impacted their trust in Boeing being able to execute NMA to planned schedule whereas they knew the A321XLR would EIS when Airbus said it would.

So taken in total, the A321XLR was seen as the "safe bet" and even perhaps the "sure bet" compared to the widebody NMA concept Boeing had committed to launching. And they switched their plans from ordering NMA to ordering the A321XLR, which meant Boeing no longer had (enough) launch customers to get the Board to approve putting the program into formal development and production.


Really looks like the customers that want the NMA aren't so much interested in a MOM airplane as they are a discount widebody. DL and QF want a 767 replacement and aren't willing to pony up for a 788. Is selling discount widebodies a great strategy for Boeing? The NMA looks more like a 787 gross margin compression tool than an A321XLR killer. I suspect this is why "the business case is hard to close". They know this thing might hurt them just as much as it does Airbus.

I also suspect that a lot of their claims on operating costs are based on the 275 seat airplane. The gap is probably narrower between the 225 seat version and the the XLR. And that means a narrower business case with new type, new pilot pool, etc. Also, marginally less risky to fill 170-200 seats year round than 225.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 1:47 am

Checklist787 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:

1.This is exactly what I was saying. The NMA-6 was braked by the A321NeoXLR!

2. If I compare the A321NeoXLR and the 737MAX-10 it is because they are both derivatives launched in the near time.

Many have seen the 737MAX-10 as a lame duck when in fact it is a chick. It's only a matter of time for orders.

Theoretically, the 737MAX-10 came from the 737MAX-9 which was limited by its length. It's no wonder there was a lot of conversion to the 737MAX-10 when it launched. The 737MAX-10 will finally allow REALLY to come into the competition being a more "serious" derivative.

Indeed, the 737MAX9 was not a real game changing having ONLY 18 seats more than the 737MAX8. (162 vs 180 pax)

This expressed the poverty of the MAX-9 orders and many considered it sufficient to acquire the MAX-8.
Now there is a real game changing (162-200 pax)

With the new MAX-10 derivative, the game will finally be able to start ...

Image

You seem to not understand that, fuselage-length wise A321neo = A321LR = A321XLR; so, all things interior-wise being equal, they all carry the same passenger count.
Fuselage-length wise, 737 MAX 10 = 737 MAX 9 + 5 ft 4 in (1.64 m); so, all things interior-wise being equal (same seats & seat pitch), the 737 MAX 10 carries more passengers (around 10 per Wikipedia).

You cannot isolate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family, and compare it to the 737 MAX 10 as a whole.
Maybe you can round up 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10 together, and compare them to the A321neo Family (and that's somehow skewed); but isolating the A321XLR doesn't make sense.

By the way, and this is not the first time you're told this: there is no such thing as the A321neoXLR. The A321XLR is automatically an A321neo engine-wise (since it was developed from the neo platform)


Please take the time to read my explanations, I will explain everything. Indeed we could group the 737MAX9 and MAX10. But I also explain that the MA8 is a fairly large aircraft since it is a 162 seater and that the MAX9 only had a difference of 18 seats. So, if you approved that we could total the MAX9 and MAX10, there may still be orders for the MAX10 but also a possibility to change still from MAX8 / -9 to MAX-10 in the futur...

But, why oh why would you want to isolate the A321XLR from the rest of the A321neo Family orders (A321neo Family = A321neo + A321LR + A321XLR)???
I see only ONE reason: to prove your point that the A321XLR is not that much of a game changer and that the 737 MAX 10 is as good.

Let's lump together the 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10: that's 995 sales (respectively 474 & 521) to 3,255 A321neo Family. Even if you add 100% of the 1,409 orders for the unspecified variants of the 737 MAX, the A321neo Family sold much better than the 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10.
Now, the 737 MAX 8 has sold 3,221 copies to 3,896 A320neo; given the head start of the A320neo Family and the "halt" in 737 MAX sales, the 737 MAX 8 will most likely sell more than the A320neo.
Maybe that "combo" (737-800 or 737 MAX 8 for the "smaller" size and A321 for the bigger size) is actually the correct one. Maybe that's why AA has almost no A320 and only A319/A321/A321neo along with 737-800 & 737 MAX 8?

Again, I do not understand the need to separate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family order, yet compare it to the 737 MAX 10; just doesn't make sense.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:23 am

DenverTed wrote:
morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.


Scott Hamilton on Leeham is Pontificating again today. https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/03/pontifications-4/

This quote of his was the one that provokes the most thought I believe.

"What LNA has been told (subsequent to the earnings call) is that the NMA isn’t truly off the table. Neither is pursuing a single-aisle future small airplane (FSA). The restart, with, as Calhoun put it, a clean sheet obviously will look at all options"

To me the most likely way to take this is that FSA is the Future Brazil Project and NMA will take the core.

If Boeing does a large 6W tube to cover NSA/NMA it will just be too large to cover off the 150-200 all Y seat market that the 220 looks like a hell of a competitor on. Boeing should do something in response and a 5W Brazil project with it's base size (most eficient) is A320 Capacity but a lot lower Range - call it 3,000NM Max for ultra efficiency on the Majority of SA routes. Eventually it's done in three tube lengths 150,175 and 200 all Y 30" seat pitch.

So if Boeing does go the Brazil 5W route then it does not make sense to do two more tube sizes to cover NSA/NMA (say an 6W and 8W and then they also have 787 9W and 777 10W - way to many) it's either a wide 6W or tight 7W.

To me it makes more sense to do the tight 7W as we have to remember that this cross section will probably be in production for at least 25 years - which would put it past 2050 easily. Air travel demand over the next 30-40 years should increase significantly.

It seems like the sweet spot in Commercial aircraft size is now about A321 size (call it 220 Seats all Y 30" pitch). By 2030 it should be A322 size 240 Seats. By 2040 potentially a lot bigger - it may not make much sense to stretch an 6W beyond say 753 size (260 Y seats). 300-320 Y seats may be the ultimate large size of NMA vs 360 for 788 and 400 for 789 and 781 - 440 all Y.

So Boeing's future lineup:

FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch, Ranges of 3,200/2,900/2,600 respectively, Entry into Service 2028/2029.

NMA - 7W with with New Control System and Automation 240/270/300 All Y 30" Pitch, Ranges of 5,500 NM, 5,000 NM, 4,500NM respectively - 270 Seat comes first followed closely by 240 EIS 2027/2028. 300 may wait until Later with a further stretched 320 seater when Gen 2 engines available.

NSA (737 MAX replacement) - Using NMA 7W tube/systems cockpit - new smaller wing, wingbox, gear tail 200/240 All Y seat capacity - Range 4,000/3,700 NM - EIS 2031/2032.

FLA (Future Large Airplane) Stretched rengined possibly upwinged higher MTOW 787 in 787-9, 787-10 and 11 lengths - sometime around early 2030's

This assumes 777X passenger versions die after 2030, and it becomes the only Big freighter as 747 shuts down as well about 2025 and factory space used for NMA.

Yes Boeing would have the cash flow to do this - they just have to redirect it from Share repurchases to Product Development.

Which is the optimum clean sheet design for a 174 seat aircraft? a 5x 35 row or a 6x 29 row? I suppose with engine fans getting larger, the aircraft has to sit higher off the ground, so rotation is not an issue. 5x has a less frontal cross section, so less air to displace and less width to taper at the back of the aircraft for all that is worth.


I think it is 5W as you are right - Big Engines allow longer airplanes as Rotation angles aren't as big an issue. Building a structure that long doesn't really seem to be a problem from a weight standpoint.

It kind of depends on range - but no reason you couldn't give a 5W 5,000NM range, although I don't know why one would do that.

I think the tell is how efficient a potential 175 Seat (A320 Size) A225 could be. It won't have A320/738 range - but it could still be good for 2,700-2,800 NM range which covers what 90-95% of Single aisle routes?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: New middle of the market widebody.

Tue Feb 04, 2020 4:29 am

Motorhussy wrote:
which of them is going to be the first to address the middle of the market gap with a new widebody aircraft?


Perhaps no one will. Markets will remain the same. For instance there are only flights to Scotland on a year round basis from JFK and EWR. In the summer tourist season those two routes are supplemented with 6 other routes

Given a fuel efficient MOM jet perhaps routes from ATL,CLT or even Texas could develop. But if the plane is never developed then similar routes will simply never be developed.

Edinburgh
American Airlines Seasonal: Philadelphia
Delta Air Lines New York–JFK Seasonal: Boston
United Airlines Newark Seasonal: Chicago–O'Hare, Washington–Dulles

Glasgow
Delta Air Lines Seasonal:New York–JFK
United Airlines Seasonal:Newark
 
B764er
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: New middle of the market widebody.

Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:20 am

What happened with the 787-3?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: New middle of the market widebody.

Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:38 am

B764er wrote:
What happened with the 787-3?



The 787-3 was designed specifically for the Japanese market, it would have carried 290–330 passengers in two-class over 2,500–3,050 nmi range, limited by a (165 tonnes ) MTOW. In contrast the 787-8 has a MTOW of 228 tonnes. Basically the -3 was much larger than the nominal specifications for the NMA, and also more limited in range .

In December 2010, the same month the A320neo program was launched, Boeing withdrew the 787-3 model as it struggled to produce the 787-8 after program delays of three years.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:15 am

WayexTDI wrote:
Checklist787 wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
You seem to not understand that, fuselage-length wise A321neo = A321LR = A321XLR; so, all things interior-wise being equal, they all carry the same passenger count.
Fuselage-length wise, 737 MAX 10 = 737 MAX 9 + 5 ft 4 in (1.64 m); so, all things interior-wise being equal (same seats & seat pitch), the 737 MAX 10 carries more passengers (around 10 per Wikipedia).

You cannot isolate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family, and compare it to the 737 MAX 10 as a whole.
Maybe you can round up 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10 together, and compare them to the A321neo Family (and that's somehow skewed); but isolating the A321XLR doesn't make sense.

By the way, and this is not the first time you're told this: there is no such thing as the A321neoXLR. The A321XLR is automatically an A321neo engine-wise (since it was developed from the neo platform)


Please take the time to read my explanations, I will explain everything. Indeed we could group the 737MAX9 and MAX10. But I also explain that the MA8 is a fairly large aircraft since it is a 162 seater and that the MAX9 only had a difference of 18 seats. So, if you approved that we could total the MAX9 and MAX10, there may still be orders for the MAX10 but also a possibility to change still from MAX8 / -9 to MAX-10 in the futur...

But, why oh why would you want to isolate the A321XLR from the rest of the A321neo Family orders (A321neo Family = A321neo + A321LR + A321XLR)???
I see only ONE reason: to prove your point that the A321XLR is not that much of a game changer and that the 737 MAX 10 is as good.

Let's lump together the 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10: that's 995 sales (respectively 474 & 521) to 3,255 A321neo Family. Even if you add 100% of the 1,409 orders for the unspecified variants of the 737 MAX, the A321neo Family sold much better than the 737 MAX 9 & MAX 10.
Now, the 737 MAX 8 has sold 3,221 copies to 3,896 A320neo; given the head start of the A320neo Family and the "halt" in 737 MAX sales, the 737 MAX 8 will most likely sell more than the A320neo.
Maybe that "combo" (737-800 or 737 MAX 8 for the "smaller" size and A321 for the bigger size) is actually the correct one. Maybe that's why AA has almost no A320 and only A319/A321/A321neo along with 737-800 & 737 MAX 8?

Again, I do not understand the need to separate the A321XLR from the A321neo Family order, yet compare it to the 737 MAX 10; just doesn't make sense.


I'm not isolating the A321NeoXLR, I was just saying that it filled a niche market. And that the 737MAX-10 is a chick that has the future ahead of it.

ULR's aircraft have always been isolated in any case (777-200LR, A350ULR etc.)

As for you, how is it that you condemned the 737MAX-10 through figures out of context. The A321neo was launched in 2010 and the real competitive 737MAX-10, launched only in 2018?

A few days ago I said that the 737MAX-10 was a chick and that orders were coming ...

What else?...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:41 am

I also think Boeing should wait to see how the 10 does compared to the A321 before embarking on the NMA. If the 10 gets 40% of the market, that is enough. And I see no reason why it should not do so.
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:30 am

seahawk wrote:
I also think Boeing should wait to see how the 10 does compared to the A321 before embarking on the NMA. If the 10 gets 40% of the market, that is enough. And I see no reason why it should not do so.


:checkmark:

I even think that 30-40% of market share is enough for the MAX-10 if it is reinforced by an NMA-6 size "fairly quickly".
Anyway, if the replacement 737 (the 808-X) is launched 2 years after the NMA in 2024, the first 808-8X will enter to service, in 2032 as planned...
Airbus to follow in 2034. :)

Anyway, Toulouse will lose its "20-year symbolic technology gap " between the A320 (80's) over the 737 (60's)...
Last edited by Checklist787 on Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:54 am, edited 7 times in total.
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:34 am

Revelation wrote:
Like you said, operating a A321 or 787 on a route that is best served by NMA is a compromise, you are either flying a plane that is leaving payload behind or one that costs too much to operate for the available payload.


up front:
Remember the the topography of elemental stable islands in the periodic table?
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-superheav ... ility.html


First order that is true. Have the right sized ( capacity, range ) plane available for each task.
As a shape that would be a flat table surface Optimax at all points.

intermission1:
for cross section efficiency we have a sharp optimum at 3+3 and
then a softer one around various two aisle arrangements from 8 to 10 across
beyond 10 a double deck solution seems to show an even softer efficiency bulge.

intermission2:
efficiencies of scale intrinsicially provide more range for larger airframes.
better engines lighter materials change the slope but not the mechanism.

Now you have to fold that with actual design efficiencies for each solving domain.
We have a strong optimax for 3+3 seating in the 160 to 240 pax domain for ranges 2000 to 4000 nm
We have a lesser optimum for 2+3 or 2+2 in the domain below 160 seats and lower range.
(see size scaling )

The task set is to design an intermediary cross section that reaches or tops the "stable islands"
left and right of the MOM abyss. I haven't seen a useful solution yet.
all offers invariably depend on exclusive use of better materials for this MOM design
( and some mental curlicues to have it appear as a "quantum leap" solution.)
In reality the same materials are available for all domains.
What brings the MOM design into the region of current offers left and right will
move those up well beyond what the MOM design with the same improvements is capable of.

to close: MOM is the aircraft equivalent to something like the uncanny valley in robotics.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:07 am

Revelation wrote:
Like you said, operating a A321 or 787 on a route that is best served by NMA is a compromise, you are either flying a plane that is leaving payload behind or one that costs too much to operate for the available payload.

:checkmark:

No doubt the NMA will be a game changer for the market.

Many of the largest narrowbody operators olds 737-900NG, A321CEO (757 proxies) but also operators of old 767's and A330-200's will find their account there with a new 757 proxy, 25% larger, with comfort of the widebody
and narrowbody economies
Delta and Chinese airlines at the front now! :)

WIederling wrote:
up front:
Remember the the topography of elemental stable islands in the periodic table?
https://phys.org/news/2009-09-superheav ... ility.html


First order that is true. Have the right sized ( capacity, range ) plane available for each task.
As a shape that would be a flat table surface Optimax at all points.

intermission1:
for cross section efficiency we have a sharp optimum at 3+3 and
then a softer one around various two aisle arrangements from 8 to 10 across
beyond 10 a double deck solution seems to show an even softer efficiency bulge.

intermission2:
efficiencies of scale intrinsicially provide more range for larger airframes.
better engines lighter materials change the slope but not the mechanism.

Now you have to fold that with actual design efficiencies for each solving domain.
We have a strong optimax for 3+3 seating in the 160 to 240 pax domain for ranges 2000 to 4000 nm
We have a lesser optimum for 2+3 or 2+2 in the domain below 160 seats and lower range.
(see size scaling )

The task set is to design an intermediary cross section that reaches or tops the "stable islands"
left and right of the MOM abyss. I haven't seen a useful solution yet.
all offers invariably depend on exclusive use of better materials for this MOM design
( and some mental curlicues to have it appear as a "quantum leap" solution.)
In reality the same materials are available for all domains.
What brings the MOM design into the region of current offers left and right will
move those up well beyond what the MOM design with the same improvements is capable of.

to close: MOM is the aircraft equivalent to something like the uncanny valley in robotics.


Good post and good (only) theory ...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...

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