FluidFlow
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:34 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:


You can't say the shape is suboptimal - it may be more Aero - no way until you get it into a tunnel.


True

The extra 1,000kg in Fuselage Weight should be offset by shorter cable runs and shorter gear (and possibly more than offset). One of the other posters was suggesting a tail 50% bigger. That seems rather extreme. There should be a difference but on an aircraft that is 130Tish MTOW a tail that is 10-20% bigger (totally guessing) shouldn't be more than a few hundred pounds more - not 3,500.


You wrote in you assumptions that are Quoted above that we have the same weight NB vs the WB. No one will build a 130tMTOW NB, so the NMA will be heavier? The 757-200 had around 115t. Airbus will build the XLR with the same capacity (almost) with 101t MTOW. Your NMA is 30% heavier than the A321 so it will need 30% more capacity (320) to have the same weight/pax ratio.

Then you have a wider body that might generate more lift/ meaning less wing.


Might but you assumed the same wing. Otherwise see your own quote:
You can't say the shape is suboptimal - it may be more Aero - no way until you get it into a tunnel.



We are getting into tiny margins and would the WB be as efficient - probably not - but it could be within very low single digits. Fuel is about 30% of costs - assume 3% less efficient - that is a .3% cost.


This will be entirely dependent on which MTOW you make your assumptions on, same as the NB as you assumed first or the 130MTOW you bring up later, that has to compete against a fictional 130MTOW NB...

The WB as it could fit a Wider container - even accounting for shorter length (i've done the calcs before in previous threads and don't feel like looking them up or finding them again) could carry 15-20% more Cargo by Volume providing additional revenue.


A different container that needs new handling facilities to every airport the NMA flies, vs the standard NB container every airport can already handle. I do not see this as an advantage at all. Just more complexity for everyone.

We are also ignoring the fact that the WB design will allow more room for Services (Lav's, Galleys) in the front and back meaning those could take less length of the fuselage shaving the WB disadvantage as well. Taking a meter off a 48M fuselage takes a few hundred KG's off. The WB could even with a bigger tail could weigh exactly the same.


So you are making the NMA even shorter if it competes on the same capacity vs the NB that you assume in the quote as being the same capacity.

Basically the margins are so close I don't think one could say one is better than the other by any significant amount.

However if you were an airline and both cost the same to buy and operate what would you rather have in your fleet? What do you think passengers would prefer?


The one that offers the cheaper fares so the lower cost per seat, as well as the one I can easier integrate into the fleet (commonality with crew, maintenance and container handling capability).


I was just throwing 130T out there - it might be less it might be more. If a NB seats 300 in Y that means it's bigger than an 753 with a lot more range (753 is 3,400Nm) . The 753 is 124T MTOW.

I 'm assuming same MTOW for both.

WB could be shorter in the front and back service areas as it's wider so you get the same square footage for the same length. You are serving the same number of passengers so storage/lav needs are the same.

I've always assumed that NMA and NSA are based on the same cross section so introducing a new container is no big deal. An LD3-45 will fit in there just fine for cross shipping. 737 Customers don't own any Containers or handling equipment right now anyways - so no big deal to adapt a new size.


Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?

There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.

All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.

So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:00 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:



True



You wrote in you assumptions that are Quoted above that we have the same weight NB vs the WB. No one will build a 130tMTOW NB, so the NMA will be heavier? The 757-200 had around 115t. Airbus will build the XLR with the same capacity (almost) with 101t MTOW. Your NMA is 30% heavier than the A321 so it will need 30% more capacity (320) to have the same weight/pax ratio.



Might but you assumed the same wing. Otherwise see your own quote:





This will be entirely dependent on which MTOW you make your assumptions on, same as the NB as you assumed first or the 130MTOW you bring up later, that has to compete against a fictional 130MTOW NB...



A different container that needs new handling facilities to every airport the NMA flies, vs the standard NB container every airport can already handle. I do not see this as an advantage at all. Just more complexity for everyone.



So you are making the NMA even shorter if it competes on the same capacity vs the NB that you assume in the quote as being the same capacity.



The one that offers the cheaper fares so the lower cost per seat, as well as the one I can easier integrate into the fleet (commonality with crew, maintenance and container handling capability).


I was just throwing 130T out there - it might be less it might be more. If a NB seats 300 in Y that means it's bigger than an 753 with a lot more range (753 is 3,400Nm) . The 753 is 124T MTOW.

I 'm assuming same MTOW for both.

WB could be shorter in the front and back service areas as it's wider so you get the same square footage for the same length. You are serving the same number of passengers so storage/lav needs are the same.

I've always assumed that NMA and NSA are based on the same cross section so introducing a new container is no big deal. An LD3-45 will fit in there just fine for cross shipping. 737 Customers don't own any Containers or handling equipment right now anyways - so no big deal to adapt a new size.


Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?

There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.

All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.

So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.


Some think we will see an 300 seat NB - I don't but some do. And BTW there is only an 1,000 KG difference in fuselage weight (maybe) at 300 Y seats. At smaller capacities the delta shrinks.

We are talking about NMA size aircraft at capacities above 321 - A rewing lengthened A321 won't be 101T.

At 101T an A321 LXR can only lift about 185 Passengers to about 3,500nm. We are talking about aircraft that can go beyond 4,500nm and above 200 passengers - probably much closer to 250. That's a whole different weight class than 101T.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:07 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
You cannot simply apply the doubt card and claim that no body knows. You may as well go down the route of philosophy and ask what is truth

Shorter? Don't they have to go across the cabin and between the engines too?

The gear length would be driven by engine sizing, the 753 would be the same size as the NBNMA so would only get easier from there with regards to having larger engines.

That was myself, you will see in the tech ops thread how the sizing formula has been modified to allow it to scale with regard to the narrowbody option. The update also included some errors I had made in the TOW

What do you base the "few hundred pounds" on? Please forgive if I am wrong but it seems to be from a place of what you would like it to be rather than what it is.

Fuselages are not a good place to get lift.

, we certainly are not.

.... you sure?

600mm wider, wasn't the premise oft his aircraft to use the current standard narrow body container?

? Not if you look at it objectively and don't hamstring an over optimised design.

You can, read the tech ops thread.


And if my aunt had a penis she'd be my uncle.

The one that has the smaller number next to the destination on the internet.

Fred


Fred - The only way to settle this is to set the weights the same, same engines, same wing and see how much of a penalty the bigger tail is.

Would the only meaningful comparison between the 779x and A350 have to assume the same weight?
morrisond wrote:
I'm assuming you have done it and it doesn't look good for the NB

I haven’t done it. If I were to do it would you like it with the comparable NB in terms of cabin layout or the one with the 28” aisle?

morrisond wrote:
as it's not that big of a penalty.
If otherwise I'm sure you would have let us know by now instead of continuing to cripple the WB.

I’m not crippling the wide body, it’s doing that itself.
morrisond wrote:
But at this point I'm not sure I would trust your numbers as you goal seek to get the result you want.

Uh huh.

morrisond wrote:
For cable runs - Cockpit to tail is 20' longer. Cockpit to wing 10' longer. Wing to tail 10' longer. Yes they might be a little more to the seats right to left - but other than power a lot of that is now wireless.

One day these new things you trot out will will run out..the cabin services are taken care of in the fittings and furnishings.
morrisond wrote:

So why did the 787-10 have to use taller semi-levered gear (gear) to get more rotation angle? It's uses the same size Nacelle's as the 789.

How much extra did it weigh?
morrisond wrote:

All things being equal the NB would have heavier gear -

Except that the WB gear has to hold up the fundamentally heavier aircraft soooooo....
morrisond wrote:
maybe the same height but more complicated (semi-levered) to get the same rotation angle.



If you’d like to have a discussion of a technical nature, please feel free to post to the thread in tech ops.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


779X to A351 is not a valid comaprison at all as the 779X is much higher capacity.

You took the length of control cable runs into account into your model?

787-10 has same MTOW as 789 - the article I posted up thread talks about the heavier articulated gear needed to deal with the longer tail to get the proper rotation angle - just like the 737-10. Something tells me that gear weighs more than the 739.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:17 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I was just throwing 130T out there - it might be less it might be more. If a NB seats 300 in Y that means it's bigger than an 753 with a lot more range (753 is 3,400Nm) . The 753 is 124T MTOW.

I 'm assuming same MTOW for both.

WB could be shorter in the front and back service areas as it's wider so you get the same square footage for the same length. You are serving the same number of passengers so storage/lav needs are the same.

I've always assumed that NMA and NSA are based on the same cross section so introducing a new container is no big deal. An LD3-45 will fit in there just fine for cross shipping. 737 Customers don't own any Containers or handling equipment right now anyways - so no big deal to adapt a new size.


Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?

There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.

All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.

So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.


Some think we will see an 300 seat NB - I don't but some do.
A 295 seat capable narrow body already exists.

morrisond wrote:
And BTW there is only an 1,000 KG difference in fuselage weight (maybe) at 300 Y seats.

And a required MTOW difference of ~13+tons and an empty weight difference of 5+ tons, no need to give half truths. It’s only a short step from lying.

morrisond wrote:
At smaller capacities the delta shrinks.

Does it? Can you show that?
morrisond wrote:

We are talking about NMA size aircraft at capacities above 321 - A rewing lengthened A321 won't be 101T.

At 101T an A321 LXR can only lift about 185 Passengers to about 3,500nm.

Can it? I’m pretty sure it’s good for 4700nm still air. That assumes a staggering 96kt head wind. I’d suggest you need better route planning and not a new jet.
morrisond wrote:
We are talking about aircraft that can go beyond 4,500nm and above 200 passengers - probably much closer to 250.

That’s what you are taking about and hoping others are going down the rabbit hole with you. Fungibility my friend.
morrisond wrote:
That's a whole different weight class than 101T.


It certainly is if you want to hobble it with a heavy fuselage.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
oschkosch
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:22 pm

Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:31 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?

There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.

All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.

So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.


Some think we will see an 300 seat NB - I don't but some do.
A 295 seat capable narrow body already exists.

morrisond wrote:
And BTW there is only an 1,000 KG difference in fuselage weight (maybe) at 300 Y seats.

And a required MTOW difference of ~13+tons and an empty weight difference of 5+ tons, no need to give half truths. It’s only a short step from lying.

morrisond wrote:
At smaller capacities the delta shrinks.

Does it? Can you show that?
morrisond wrote:

We are talking about NMA size aircraft at capacities above 321 - A rewing lengthened A321 won't be 101T.

At 101T an A321 LXR can only lift about 185 Passengers to about 3,500nm.

Can it? I’m pretty sure it’s good for 4700nm still air. That assumes a staggering 96kt head wind. I’d suggest you need better route planning and not a new jet.
morrisond wrote:
We are talking about aircraft that can go beyond 4,500nm and above 200 passengers - probably much closer to 250.

That’s what you are taking about and hoping others are going down the rabbit hole with you. Fungibility my friend.
morrisond wrote:
That's a whole different weight class than 101T.


It certainly is if you want to hobble it with a heavy fuselage.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Maybe heavier fuselage - that's assuming a large increase in weight per Sq'in of cross section - you need to take another meter off the fuselage length of your WB to account for more space for galleys lavs in the ends. That would drop about 250KG in of itself taking the difference down to 750kg.

You didn't respond on control cables so take some more off for that.

No matter what you say you won't convince me the gear is heavier - it will be shorter or less complex to get the same rotation angle - but yes offset by slightly heavier tail.

Okay - so a bigger tail now requires 13T more take off weight.....

Keep putting your thumb on the scales.

The A321 range is from an article posted earlier in this thread - look it up.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:50 pm

oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:57 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Fred - The only way to settle this is to set the weights the same, same engines, same wing and see how much of a penalty the bigger tail is.

Would the only meaningful comparison between the 779x and A350 have to assume the same weight?
morrisond wrote:
I'm assuming you have done it and it doesn't look good for the NB

I haven’t done it. If I were to do it would you like it with the comparable NB in terms of cabin layout or the one with the 28” aisle?

morrisond wrote:
as it's not that big of a penalty.
If otherwise I'm sure you would have let us know by now instead of continuing to cripple the WB.

I’m not crippling the wide body, it’s doing that itself.
morrisond wrote:
But at this point I'm not sure I would trust your numbers as you goal seek to get the result you want.

Uh huh.

morrisond wrote:
For cable runs - Cockpit to tail is 20' longer. Cockpit to wing 10' longer. Wing to tail 10' longer. Yes they might be a little more to the seats right to left - but other than power a lot of that is now wireless.

One day these new things you trot out will will run out..the cabin services are taken care of in the fittings and furnishings.
morrisond wrote:

So why did the 787-10 have to use taller semi-levered gear (gear) to get more rotation angle? It's uses the same size Nacelle's as the 789.

How much extra did it weigh?
morrisond wrote:

All things being equal the NB would have heavier gear -

Except that the WB gear has to hold up the fundamentally heavier aircraft soooooo....
morrisond wrote:
maybe the same height but more complicated (semi-levered) to get the same rotation angle.



If you’d like to have a discussion of a technical nature, please feel free to post to the thread in tech ops.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


779X to A351 is not a valid comaprison at all as the 779X is much higher capacity.

Strange, the idea of different sized models competing? Maybe we should set up some sort of analysis like that?
morrisond wrote:
You took the length of control cable runs into account into your model?

Not specifically. Like I say, go read up on the weight modelling methods, Stanford, raymer, torenbeek. You’ll see.
morrisond wrote:

787-10 has same MTOW as 789 - the article I posted up thread talks about the heavier articulated gear needed to deal with the longer tail to get the proper rotation angle - just like the 737-10. Something tells me that gear weighs more than the 739.
cool story, is that heavier or lighter than you would need for the higher weight of the WB?

Fred





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:04 pm

morrisond wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.

Here's another perspective, don't compete on mid-market, just compete on mid-capacity. 15.5' wide fuselage, 50m long, 41m wingspan, but only 3K range. How light can that aircraft be? Less MTOW, less thrust, less structural weight, less tail needed.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I was just throwing 130T out there - it might be less it might be more. If a NB seats 300 in Y that means it's bigger than an 753 with a lot more range (753 is 3,400Nm) . The 753 is 124T MTOW.

I 'm assuming same MTOW for both.

WB could be shorter in the front and back service areas as it's wider so you get the same square footage for the same length. You are serving the same number of passengers so storage/lav needs are the same.

I've always assumed that NMA and NSA are based on the same cross section so introducing a new container is no big deal. An LD3-45 will fit in there just fine for cross shipping. 737 Customers don't own any Containers or handling equipment right now anyways - so no big deal to adapt a new size.


Why do you force an argument with a 130t MTOW narrowbody? No one builds such a narrow body and no one will? Why should A or B do this? Just to fit your argument?

There is non and there will be non. Also why should they build a 300 Y narrow body? The last one build was not sold at all and led to the end of the programm. So either you just take it as it is, the NMA will be 100t MTOW to compare it to the 321 or you leave it at 130t and we have am aircraft that is 30% heavier and go from there. Then the airlines can decide.

All I really think is that a 100t MTOW wide body will be a really stupid decision.

So can a 130t WB beat a 100t NB on per seat costs on missions up to 5000nm and also be as flexible to be efficient on 1000nm missions? Thats what the struggle is for Boeing and that is why there is no NMA on sale, especially not a wide body one.


Some think we will see an 300 seat NB - I don't but some do. And BTW there is only an 1,000 KG difference in fuselage weight (maybe) at 300 Y seats. At smaller capacities the delta shrinks.

We are talking about NMA size aircraft at capacities above 321 - A rewing lengthened A321 won't be 101T.

At 101T an A321 LXR can only lift about 185 Passengers to about 3,500nm. We are talking about aircraft that can go beyond 4,500nm and above 200 passengers - probably much closer to 250. That's a whole different weight class than 101T.


A rewinged lengthened reengined A321 will prob be around 108-110t if they increase MTOW.

The OEW from 77W to 777-9 grew around 10 percent. Thats what we look for if we add 2.7m and massive carbon wings to the A321. That are 264 seats and probably 5000nm range with around 230 of them installed.

This is the competition for the NMA. 110t, 260-270 single class 5000nm range and a rate of 80+ deliveries per month (if they can have such a rate on the wings).
 
oschkosch
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.


How can it weigh the same if it is taller and wider?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:45 pm

oschkosch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.
Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.

How can it weigh the same if it is taller and wider?
Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Noooo! oschkosch you took the bait! please let the little fight between morrisond and everyone else just die.....

Keesje's 30" isle is interesting... but all of that really just to yield a 1+2+1 in an alternate 1st class / biz class arrangement? when it would use the same or smaller size 1st class / bizz class seats if it were a 2+2 arrangement? I could see Boeing's offering having a total fuselage width just tad wider than A321, but just inches for real shoulder comfort.... You make it any wider and you risk a design less optimized than A321. I just don't think an aisle 10" wider will yield turn around savings that won't get eaten up by the costs of more drag when airborne. People will take exception to you trying to pass around them in a 30" isle as well...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 498
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:54 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.

How can it weigh the same if it is taller and wider?
Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Noooo! oschkosch you took the bait! please let the little fight between morrisond and everyone else just die.....



ahh yes, because it is taller and wider, it will have less cable weight and thus less fuel burn! No, hang on a minute....



Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
AndyW35
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:54 pm

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:08 pm

There is an over burden of course in that any new plane produced by Boeing will have even more time spent on it by the FAA to certify it and add to costs.

FAA certification is a slight albatross going forward until people forget.

Boeing risked the company with the 747, they look like they might have to do so again with their next clean sheet design.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:08 pm

morrisond wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.


1. It doesn’t weight the same.
Therefore
2. It doesn’t have the same wing
And therefore
3.it requires greater thrust
And so
3. It burns more fuel.

I’m not sure which airline is going for this 7w that weighs more, burns more fuel and is less comfortable than the 6w.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13585
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:44 pm

It think a significant wider aisle is required for up to 50 rows, 5000NM.

Purely from an area moment of inertia, stiffness, weight perspective of a very long fuselage (57m?).

Apart from that most passengers go to the lav during >5 hour flights and multiple catering rounds would be served from a single aisle. It helps sevices if 2 people, 2 trolleys can pass each other.

A single, narrow, no-pass aisle probably becomes a real irritator, stumbling block on long full flights.

For >6 hr flight business class, requirements are flat bed and direct aisle access. To be really interchangeable, common with widebodies of the operators it would be a big plus.

A wider aisle also creates a better space experience and/ or bigger bins, which make it more acceptable for longer flights.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:26 am

keesje wrote:
It think a significant wider aisle is required for up to 50 rows, 5000NM. .


Condor has 49 rows with B753 and no abnormal central aisle.
Image
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:18 am

oschkosch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
Gentlemen, as amusing as it is to read your little contest, it really is getting out of hand. I think physics and common sense should be put before enthusiasm.

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.


How can it weigh the same if it is taller and wider?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


20' Shorter
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:33 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Well the reality is just because an aircraft is 2" taller and 13" wider on each side and weighs about the same with the same engines and wing won't make it burn 15% more fuel.

How can it weigh the same if it is taller and wider?
Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk


Noooo! oschkosch you took the bait! please let the little fight between morrisond and everyone else just die.....

Keesje's 30" isle is interesting... but all of that really just to yield a 1+2+1 in an alternate 1st class / biz class arrangement? when it would use the same or smaller size 1st class / bizz class seats if it were a 2+2 arrangement? I could see Boeing's offering having a total fuselage width just tad wider than A321, but just inches for real shoulder comfort.... You make it any wider and you risk a design less optimized than A321. I just don't think an aisle 10" wider will yield turn around savings that won't get eaten up by the costs of more drag when airborne. People will take exception to you trying to pass around them in a 30" isle as well...


That's what you all said when you thought it was 8W - I was always - no it's 7W or 6W.

My debate with Fred is just how much of difference there is between 6W or 7W - it could be immaterial.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 1:42 am

keesje wrote:
It think a significant wider aisle is required for up to 50 rows, 5000NM.

Purely from an area moment of inertia, stiffness, weight perspective of a very long fuselage (57m?).

Apart from that most passengers go to the lav during >5 hour flights and multiple catering rounds would be served from a single aisle. It helps sevices if 2 people, 2 trolleys can pass each other.

A single, narrow, no-pass aisle probably becomes a real irritator, stumbling block on long full flights.

For >6 hr flight business class, requirements are flat bed and direct aisle access. To be really interchangeable, common with widebodies of the operators it would be a big plus.

A wider aisle also creates a better space experience and/ or bigger bins, which make it more acceptable for longer flights.


You make some good arguments in favor of the 30" isle in the NMA 250-300pax @ 5knm.. I guess the question is how much of a penalty is it at lower pax counts (200-225) at 3knm missions for my proposed NSA portion that's part of the NMA/NSA combo (note: NMA and NSA will have different wings/gear/engines)
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:42 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
keesje wrote:
It think a significant wider aisle is required for up to 50 rows, 5000NM.

Purely from an area moment of inertia, stiffness, weight perspective of a very long fuselage (57m?).

Apart from that most passengers go to the lav during >5 hour flights and multiple catering rounds would be served from a single aisle. It helps sevices if 2 people, 2 trolleys can pass each other.

A single, narrow, no-pass aisle probably becomes a real irritator, stumbling block on long full flights.

For >6 hr flight business class, requirements are flat bed and direct aisle access. To be really interchangeable, common with widebodies of the operators it would be a big plus.

A wider aisle also creates a better space experience and/ or bigger bins, which make it more acceptable for longer flights.


You make some good arguments in favor of the 30" isle in the NMA 250-300pax @ 5knm.. I guess the question is how much of a penalty is it at lower pax counts (200-225) at 3knm missions for my proposed NSA portion that's part of the NMA/NSA combo (note: NMA and NSA will have different wings/gear/engines)


It's actually not that big of a penalty - the difference in cross section between 737 and 320 is about 8% and it doesn't seem to hurt it so much so going to be a bigger cross section isn't a big cost.

Especially if you go just a little bit bigger to get one extra seat in width...
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:25 am

People do not always choose the lowest cost common denominator. Just look at what vehicles people drive. Give them a rational choice in pricing and they will take it. I'll always pay more for WN than ULCC or the majors choices. Give me 10% more legroom for 10% more ticket price and I would pay it every time. It's just that option doesn't exist. 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 are the SUVs of aircraft design. People and airlines can't buy them until they exist.
 
moa999
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:18 am

DenverTed wrote:
Give me 10% more legroom for 10% more ticket price and I would pay it every time..


10% of people might.
But if 80% don't and another 10% downgrade from Business/First because all they wanted was a bit more room, then net revenue is down.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 7:22 am

morrisond wrote:
My debate with Fred is just how much of difference there is between 6W or 7W - it could be immaterial.


It could be but it isn’t, it’s a ton. Just in the Fuselage structure. A 9% increase in that piece.

morrisond wrote:
It's actually not that big of a penalty - the difference in cross section between 737 and 320 is about 8% and it doesn't seem to hurt it so much so going to be a bigger cross section isn't a big cost.

Especially if you go just a little bit bigger to get one extra seat in width...


It is 16% the the more comfortable NB, and 23% wide than the apples to apples comparison with the same seat and aisle width.

You mention that it is shorter? It is 11.3% shorter...still panting the game of picking and choosing metrics to suit?

DenverTed wrote:
People do not always choose the lowest cost common denominator. Just look at what vehicles people drive. Give them a rational choice in pricing and they will take it. I'll always pay more for WN than ULCC or the majors choices. Give me 10% more legroom for 10% more ticket price and I would pay it every time. It's just that option doesn't exist. 2-2-2 and 2-3-2 are the SUVs of aircraft design. People and airlines can't buy them until they exist.


Cars and aircraft are not comparable as to how and why they are sold. Car purchases have a significant amount of emotion involved and people see them as more than tools, they are status symbols. How many stylised aircraft are there? It’s not a comparable purchase at all.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9225
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 12:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No, what changed that the MAX grounding did cost billions. If you want to keep the finacial performance at a high level, there is no money for new project at the moment. And I believe Calhoun is stock value driven in his decisions.

I don't see it that way.

Boeing had already two rounds of multi billion dollar write downs due to MAX while DM was still CEO and NMA was still moving forward, so it wasn't about the money it was about the leader. Within a week of Calhoun taking over the NMA team canceled meetings it was going to have with outside vendors and the start over orders were given.

Besides, as we all know all new Boeing projects are funded by taxpayer givebacks and any red ink accrued is spread out for decades to come so no actual money is needed, and starting another new airplane program is key to keeping the ponzi scheme going.

ILNFlyer wrote:
Nice opinion piece at flight global

https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 47.article

"Pee or get off the pot time at Boeing".

Unfortunately FG's editorial staff has no actual sway over events.


Imho DM could not kill his NMA project due to the MAX problem,s as it would only make his position worse. Calhoun on the other had could and when rumours are to believed, he was never a fan of the NMA. But nevertheless, imho the MAX grounding stacked the cards against Boeing launching a new plane with a difficult business case. Imho not only through the costs of the development, but also by the new ideas on working with the suppliers. The MAX showed that more revenue also comes with a lot more risk for Boeing.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13585
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 3:31 pm

The NB's carry 16% more AKH cargo containers / pallets than the 2-3-2 for the same seatcount : revenue potential. Unless you develop a unique new off standard wider ULD..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
planecane
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:03 pm

One thing that keeps being mentioned that I don't understand why it is an issue is the statement that if Boeing launches the NMA then Airbus will re-wing the A321 and make an A322.

So what? If Boeing wants to have a full product line, they need to create something for this market segment and replace at least the upper end of the 737. They aren't trying to become a monopoly. As long as Airbus has to charge enough that Boeing can keep the price high enough to make a profit I don't see the issue.

If Boeing and Airbus each sell 3000 units in the "middle of market" segment over 20 years, it doesn't hurt Boeing if Airbus profits more on each A321NWO (new wing option) or A322 than Boeing does on each 7NMA7 as long as Boeing can charge enough to get the needed ROI.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22685
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 4:24 pm

planecane wrote:
One thing that keeps being mentioned that I don't understand why it is an issue is the statement that if Boeing launches the NMA then Airbus will re-wing the A321 and make an A322.

So what? If Boeing wants to have a full product line, they need to create something for this market segment and replace at least the upper end of the 737. They aren't trying to become a monopoly. As long as Airbus has to charge enough that Boeing can keep the price high enough to make a profit I don't see the issue.

If Boeing and Airbus each sell 3000 units in the "middle of market" segment over 20 years, it doesn't hurt Boeing if Airbus profits more on each A321NWO (new wing option) or A322 than Boeing does on each 7NMA7 as long as Boeing can charge enough to get the needed ROI.

Airbus will have the benefits of grandfathering with A321/A320/A319 to help sell the A322, such as commonality with spares, training of cabin and cockpit crews, etc. They will also have the advantage of reusing current manufacturing facilities and to a large degree the same techniques or ones perfected on other product lines.

By contrast Boeing will need to fund an all new design built on an all new manufacturing infrastructure and get it certified in an all new regulatory regime. Then customers will have to deal with an all new sim and all new training procedure to deal with the change in cockpit philosophy that Calhoun is suggesting may be required, purchase all new spares, etc.

It seems to me if they go with a 6W design they won't have an basis to ask for more money than Airbus gets for A322, since they will largely have the same wing and engine tech with no reason to expect more payload/range than A322 so no bump in income for the airline, but with all the negatives given above.

This will limit how much Boeing can charge for their product in this market segment. It's the same reason Boeing was so motivated to do MAX rather than NSA. It's tough to go up against an entrenched competitor even if when you had 50% market share like Boeing had in 2011. Now they will be comng to the party very late and all that will be left is table scraps.

IMO they are better off picking a different party to go to, or staying home.
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
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
One thing that keeps being mentioned that I don't understand why it is an issue is the statement that if Boeing launches the NMA then Airbus will re-wing the A321 and make an A322.

So what? If Boeing wants to have a full product line, they need to create something for this market segment and replace at least the upper end of the 737. They aren't trying to become a monopoly. As long as Airbus has to charge enough that Boeing can keep the price high enough to make a profit I don't see the issue.

If Boeing and Airbus each sell 3000 units in the "middle of market" segment over 20 years, it doesn't hurt Boeing if Airbus profits more on each A321NWO (new wing option) or A322 than Boeing does on each 7NMA7 as long as Boeing can charge enough to get the needed ROI.

Airbus will have the benefits of grandfathering with A321/A320/A319 to help sell the A322, such as commonality with spares, training of cabin and cockpit crews, etc. They will also have the advantage of reusing current manufacturing facilities and to a large degree the same techniques or ones perfected on other product lines.

By contrast Boeing will need to fund an all new design built on an all new manufacturing infrastructure and get it certified in an all new regulatory regime. Then customers will have to deal with an all new sim and all new training procedure to deal with the change in cockpit philosophy that Calhoun is suggesting may be required, purchase all new spares, etc.

It seems to me if they go with a 6W design they won't have an basis to ask for more money than Airbus gets for A322, since they will largely have the same wing and engine tech with no reason to expect more payload/range than A322 so no bump in income for the airline, but with all the negatives given above.

This will limit how much Boeing can charge for their product in this market segment. It's the same reason Boeing was so motivated to do MAX rather than NSA. It's tough to go up against an entrenched competitor even if when you had 50% market share like Boeing had in 2011. Now they will be comng to the party very late and all that will be left is table scraps.

IMO they are better off picking a different party to go to, or staying home.

Which is why a 170" fuselage provides some market differentiation to the 160" ave. diam. fuselage of the A320/MC-21.
That can do 3-3 with a wide aisle, or twin aisle 2-2-2 or 1-2-1. For many 737 airlines there is no benefit to A320 commonality, and I think the US majors and JetBlue would buy it anyway, because aisle seats sell.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22685
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:38 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Which is why a 170" fuselage provides some market differentiation to the 160" ave. diam. fuselage of the A320/MC-21.
That can do 3-3 with a wide aisle, or twin aisle 2-2-2 or 1-2-1. For many 737 airlines there is no benefit to A320 commonality, and I think the US majors and JetBlue would buy it anyway, because aisle seats sell.

As intriguing as a Boeing XWB would be, this thread and countless others are filled with statements asserting the direct linkage between frontal drag and wetted area with profits, along with the notion that Boeing is primarily driven by greed. Given all the other disadvantages Boeing will have compared to a grandfathered A322, I don't see this forum agreeing with the idea that an XWB provides enough advantage to overcome its disadvantages. Based on the comments of Boeing's CEO, It seems we will see a "me too" A321/A322 clone or we'll see the can kicked down the road.
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
 
JibberJim
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:56 pm

DenverTed wrote:
and I think the US majors and JetBlue would buy it anyway, because aisle seats sell.


This is an interesting question - Not so much for the above carriers where "sell" is just marketing, but for other airlines - a 3x3 aisle seats sell, because people will pay to avoid the middle seat, if the plane is 2x2x2 or 2x3x2 where the chance of an middle seat is so much lower, or families avoiding being split because of couples leaving single seats next to them, which wouldn't happen - will as many people then start paying to pre-select their seats or just chance it? Does the "better" layout actually reduce revenue options for the LCC's?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4063
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:04 pm

Revelation wrote:
Airbus will have the benefits of grandfathering with A321/A320/A319 to help sell the A322, such as commonality with spares, training of cabin and cockpit crews, etc. They will also have the advantage of reusing current manufacturing facilities and to a large degree the same techniques or ones perfected on other product lines.

By contrast Boeing will need to fund an all new design built on an all new manufacturing infrastructure and get it certified in an all new regulatory regime. Then customers will have to deal with an all new sim and all new training procedure to deal with the change in cockpit philosophy that Calhoun is suggesting may be required, purchase all new spares, etc.


Perhaps you just touched on another thing that might change the cards.

The Max saga may have set off a seismic shift in grandfathering philosophy with the regulators. Perhaps Boeing now start realising that Airbus might have to do quite a bit more work in terms of certification requirements to re-wing the A321?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4063
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:08 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Which is why a 170" fuselage provides some market differentiation to the 160" ave. diam. fuselage of the A320/MC-21.
That can do 3-3 with a wide aisle, or twin aisle 2-2-2 or 1-2-1. For many 737 airlines there is no benefit to A320 commonality, and I think the US majors and JetBlue would buy it anyway, because aisle seats sell.

What cross section does one need to get a decent 1-2-1 business (or even business-light so to speak, perhaps partially staggered)?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22685
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:21 pm

PW100 wrote:
Perhaps you just touched on another thing that might change the cards.

The Max saga may have set off a seismic shift in grandfathering philosophy with the regulators. Perhaps Boeing now start realising that Airbus might have to do quite a bit more work in terms of certification requirements to re-wing the A321?

Seattle Times reports Boeing is about to propose that the regulators not require MAX to comply with current regulations regarding wire separation because NG data shows no major issues after millions of hours of flight, and that changing the wiring might cause more problems than it would solve.

I think this will be a big test case.

I'm kind of surprised that Boeing was wiling to put this to the test because if they get rejected it will have impacts on all future derivatives of all future manufacturers.

I guess this shows how much money it would cost Boeing to make these changes: it's so much that they are willing to push this issue even if it does change the rules going forward.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:42 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-airshow-boeing-tinseth/jet-market-oracle-tinseth-bows-out-with-boeing-at-crossroads-idUSKBN2071MR tells us that Boeing VP of marketing Randy Tinseth is retiring after 38 years of working for Boeing.

The timing could be reflective of a new CEO wanting his own person in the job, or it could be a coincidence.

Relevant to this thread, the article says:

Tinseth declined to be drawn into a discussion on the mid-sized airliner situation. “The dynamic has changed. I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

My inference is that the new Boeing CEO Calhoun and/or the new BCA President Deal are not fans of the NMA concept.

This is something Scott Hamilton has written on leehamnews.com.

In turn this supports the idea that they want someone who shares their thinking as head of marketing.

I don't think the XLR sales are what has turned things around.

It's been clear from 2011 that A321NEO would have better payload/range than MAX could achieve and once the XLR concept became viable it was clear that XLR would capture the 757 replacement market.

I think what has changed is that DM and McAllister are gone and Calhoun and Deal are in.


No, what changed that the MAX grounding did cost billions. If you want to keep the finacial performance at a high level, there is no money for new project at the moment. And I believe Calhoun is stock value driven in his decisions.


"Reorganizing is a Wonderful Method for Creating the Illusion of Progress while Actually Producing Confusion, Inefficiency, and Demoralization"

- Gaius Petronius Arbiter, Rome A.D. 60
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22685
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:46 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
"Reorganizing is a Wonderful Method for Creating the Illusion of Progress while Actually Producing Confusion, Inefficiency, and Demoralization"

- Gaius Petronius Arbiter, Rome A.D. 60

That's definitely one possible scenario, or it could just be that a guy who is in his 60s and has worked for the same company for 38 years realizes it's time to start enjoying the fruits of his labors and let a younger guy who is more in tune with the new CEO take over.

He seems to be the sensible type and presumably has been well paid so he should be all set financially.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 6:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
"Reorganizing is a Wonderful Method for Creating the Illusion of Progress while Actually Producing Confusion, Inefficiency, and Demoralization"

- Gaius Petronius Arbiter, Rome A.D. 60

That's definitely one possible scenario, or it could just be that a guy who is in his 60s and has worked for the same company for 38 years realizes it's time to start enjoying the fruits of his labors and let a younger guy who is more in tune with the new CEO take over.

He seems to be the sensible type and presumably has been well paid so he should be all set financially.


I agree. It was just a witty quote meaning things haven't changed that much in 2000 years. :)

I think some new blood and reshuffling at Boeing is a good thing. Tinseth needs replacement. What I don't like is that Calhoun seems to be one of the old guard, and definately not new blood. And he seems indecisive. His "restarting with a blank sheet" project could delay any progress at Boeing for years.

Boeing has become very "trigger shy". They need Dirty Harry right now, not Columbo. But I understand not everyone would agree.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4063
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Perhaps you just touched on another thing that might change the cards.

The Max saga may have set off a seismic shift in grandfathering philosophy with the regulators. Perhaps Boeing now start realising that Airbus might have to do quite a bit more work in terms of certification requirements to re-wing the A321?

Seattle Times reports Boeing is about to propose that the regulators not require MAX to comply with current regulations regarding wire separation because NG data shows no major issues after millions of hours of flight, and that changing the wiring might cause more problems than it would solve.

I think this will be a big test case.

I'm kind of surprised that Boeing was wiling to put this to the test because if they get rejected it will have impacts on all future derivatives of all future manufacturers.

I guess this shows how much money it would cost Boeing to make these changes: it's so much that they are willing to push this issue even if it does change the rules going forward.


The dynamics are becoming interesting.

Let's turn that around: if EASA (never mind FAA) wouldn't want to accept something that has been working with no apparent issues for over 200 million flights (!!!), I'd say team USA are in a rather strong position not to accept re-winged A321 under ammended TC / STC . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
planecane
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:33 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
Revelation wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Which is why a 170" fuselage provides some market differentiation to the 160" ave. diam. fuselage of the A320/MC-21.
That can do 3-3 with a wide aisle, or twin aisle 2-2-2 or 1-2-1. For many 737 airlines there is no benefit to A320 commonality, and I think the US majors and JetBlue would buy it anyway, because aisle seats sell.

As intriguing as a Boeing XWB would be, this thread and countless others are filled with statements asserting the direct linkage between frontal drag and wetted area with profits, along with the notion that Boeing is primarily driven by greed. Given all the other disadvantages Boeing will have compared to a grandfathered A322, I don't see this forum agreeing with the idea that an XWB provides enough advantage to overcome its disadvantages. Based on the comments of Boeing's CEO, It seems we will see a "me too" A321/A322 clone or we'll see the can kicked down the road.

Driven by profits and driven by greed are not the same thing.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:38 pm

No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:41 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.

With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1916
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:52 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.

With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Passenger numbers given by the OEM are always in a three or two class configuration with generous leg room. A 300 seat plane would easily equate to about 335 at Delta and maybe 310 at United since they offer more premium class seats. God only knows what Ryanair would try.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 8:55 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.

With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Passenger numbers given by the OEM are always in a three or two class configuration with generous leg room. A 300 seat plane would easily equate to about 335 at Delta and maybe 310 at United since they offer more premium class seats. God only knows what Ryanair would try.

Sounds like you need a 787 or a330 to me.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
AleksW
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 9:27 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody.

I'd say 300 passengers indeed looks a bit too much for a NB, however, the term "narrowbody" is getting a bit vague at this point. There's already 1 example (although it's not flying with passengers yet) with slightly wider aisle and cabin, which looks wide enough to pass 2 trolleys or a passenger and a trolley. I think the level of comfort in such plane will also depend on lavatory / galley placement, pitch etc.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 10:25 pm

PW100 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Airbus will have the benefits of grandfathering with A321/A320/A319 to help sell the A322, such as commonality with spares, training of cabin and cockpit crews, etc. They will also have the advantage of reusing current manufacturing facilities and to a large degree the same techniques or ones perfected on other product lines.

By contrast Boeing will need to fund an all new design built on an all new manufacturing infrastructure and get it certified in an all new regulatory regime. Then customers will have to deal with an all new sim and all new training procedure to deal with the change in cockpit philosophy that Calhoun is suggesting may be required, purchase all new spares, etc.


Perhaps you just touched on another thing that might change the cards.

The Max saga may have set off a seismic shift in grandfathering philosophy with the regulators. Perhaps Boeing now start realising that Airbus might have to do quite a bit more work in terms of certification requirements to re-wing the A321?

Figuring 6" from outside skin to center of armrest, that is 158"/8 = 19.75, so 17.75 seats and aisles with 2" armrests. 3/2 x 19.75 = 29.625"cc, so 27 5/8" wide seats with 2" armrests, or some type of shell.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:01 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the XLR provides the base for a 4-5m "simple" stretch. Same MTOW, wing, engines, landing gear ~3900 range.

You often get these calculations really wrong.

Range of a simple stretch A322 will be around 3200nm for a 4m stretch or 3000nm for a 5m stretch. The A322 would have no chance of flying transatlantic with a realistic payload.

Step 1 increased drag: 4-5% increase in fuel burn due to extra skin drag and increased average flying weight. The XLR starts at 4700nm with 180 passengers. So range drops down to 4400-4500nm.

Step 2 increased OEW: 500kg per metre of fuselage weight. That is 2000-2500kg of extra OEW. That is 40-50 minutes of fuel or another 350-400nm reduction. Range is now at 4000-4150nm.

Step 3 increased payload: We have an extra 50-60 passengers. This is the big one as that is 5000-6000kg fuel that needs to be reduced. 110-130 minutes of fuel. So range is reduced a further 850-1000nm.

Remember the A321XLR started with only 180 passengers and multiple rows of business class seats. The extra 50-60 passengers puts the A322 load at 230 passengers for the 4m stretch and 240 passengers with the 5m stretch. This would still have a couple rows of business seats up front.

If you went full economy it would seat 250-260 with 32inch pitch. Range drops to like 2700-2900nm. This is getting close to the original A321-100 that couldn't fly JFK-LAX as it had 2300nm range.

But I do agree the A321XLR does provide the basis for the A322 but with a range closer to 3000nm. Jetstar fits 220 passengers on their A321 so a stretch to allow 5 extra rows brings it up to 250. That is a perfect number and a 4m stretch will be all that is required. A 5m stretch would tempt a few low cost airlines to squeeze in 260-270 seats.

Personally I would go with a 3.5m stretch to allow transatlantic with 2 class cabins and airlines should still be able to fit 250 passengers with 30inch pitch.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:07 pm

Don’t typical traditional network airlines typically have 10% of their seats in a first class configuration.

And roughly another 20% in business, or “more space coach?”
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
Noshow
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:07 pm

The wing would need to be changed to some bigger one, if the A321neo is again set to become heavier. But this is possible and "cheap" compared to any NMA clean sheet Boeing might intend. I see this as the reason why the NMA as we knew it did not materialize yet.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13585
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:26 am

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think the XLR provides the base for a 4-5m "simple" stretch. Same MTOW, wing, engines, landing gear ~3900 range.

You often get these calculations really wrong.

Range of a simple stretch A322 will be around 3200nm for a 4m stretch or 3000nm for a 5m stretch. The A322 would have no chance of flying transatlantic with a realistic payload.

Step 1 increased drag: 4-5% increase in fuel burn due to extra skin drag and increased average flying weight. The XLR starts at 4700nm with 180 passengers. So range drops down to 4400-4500nm.

Step 2 increased OEW: 500kg per metre of fuselage weight. That is 2000-2500kg of extra OEW. That is 40-50 minutes of fuel or another 350-400nm reduction. Range is now at 4000-4150nm.

Step 3 increased payload: We have an extra 50-60 passengers. This is the big one as that is 5000-6000kg fuel that needs to be reduced. 110-130 minutes of fuel. So range is reduced a further 850-1000nm.

Remember the A321XLR started with only 180 passengers and multiple rows of business class seats. The extra 50-60 passengers puts the A322 load at 230 passengers for the 4m stretch and 240 passengers with the 5m stretch. This would still have a couple rows of business seats up front.

If you went full economy it would seat 250-260 with 32inch pitch. Range drops to like 2700-2900nm. This is getting close to the original A321-100 that couldn't fly JFK-LAX as it had 2300nm range.

But I do agree the A321XLR does provide the basis for the A322 but with a range closer to 3000nm. Jetstar fits 220 passengers on their A321 so a stretch to allow 5 extra rows brings it up to 250. That is a perfect number and a 4m stretch will be all that is required. A 5m stretch would tempt a few low cost airlines to squeeze in 260-270 seats.

Personally I would go with a 3.5m stretch to allow transatlantic with 2 class cabins and airlines should still be able to fit 250 passengers with 30inch pitch.


A stretch will add ~3-4t to OEW (based on A319 A320-321OEW differences), a A321NEO burns around 2.5t per hour. 2t extra payload, MTOW and fuel capacity the same. That's how I estimate a 700-800NM range reduction for an A322 compared to the A321XLR.

Step1. Adding 5% skin drag based on lenght was debunked by a 737-700&-800 pilot here last week,

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
Re: skin friction drag. When I ran the numbers in my airline's "OPC" for both 700's and 800's at identical weights, altitudes, speeds, temperatures, bleed configuration and wingtip device configuration, the cruise fuel flow was always identical for the same weight, regardless of whether it was a 700 or 800. Not trusting the numbers, I ran them probably a dozen times when bored at cruise and I contacted the person who works with Boeing on our aircraft performance and he said the effect of skin friction drag was "negligible." I wouldn't put too much emphasis on skin friction drag on stretches of an otherwise identical fuselage.


Step 3.. 50-60 extra passengers on a A322, 10 rows?! really?.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1828
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:36 am

keesje wrote:
A stretch will add ~3-4t to OEW (based on A319 A320-321OEW differences), a A321NEO burns around 2.5t per hour. 2t extra payload, MTOW and fuel capacity the same. That's how I estimate a 700-800NM range reduction for an A322 compared to the A321XLR.

That sounds like how a high school student would calculate it.

40% of the A321XLR's extra range came from reduced the passenger count. The A321LR range figure is with 206 seats. The A321XLR range is with below 190 seats. That is 300nm of range gained for free that should instantly be taken away.

So an apple to apple comparison with the A321LR vs A321XLR the range is 4000nm vs 4400nm.

keesje wrote:
Step1. Adding 5% skin drag based on lenght was debunked by a 737-700&-800 pilot here last week,

You conveniently missed where I said "increased average flying weight".

Aircraft fuel burn improves as it becomes lighter and can fly higher. Your fuel burn per hour figure is an average across the flight. If both the A321XLR and A322 take off at 101t the A322 will land more than 10% heavier at the end of the flight. This is due to more passengers and extra fuselage weight that doesn't get burned off. This is where the extra 4-5% fuel burn per hour comes from.

keesje wrote:
Step 3.. 50-60 extra passengers on a A322, 10 rows?! really?.

We are starting with the A321XLR that has an artifically low seat count of below 190. 20-30 seats are required just to get it back to the normal A321 brochure seat count number. So the A322 really only has 20-30 extra seats.

Your original range estimate for the A322 actually gave me a laugh.

It is actually acceptable for Airbus to reduce seat count as range of an aircraft design increases. The average flight length will increase and airlines on average will run lower seating density. The shorter range A322 will need to go back to 737/A320 seating density.

Who is online

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