Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:20 pm

Okay, I am going Metric here because I prefer it and also using Airbus figures since they are considered the pinacle of passenger comfort.

A set of three seats on the A320 takes up 158cm. A set of two seats on the A330 takes up 107cm.

A standard aisle (2+4+2) on the A330 is 48cm. A narrow aisle (3+3+3) is 42cm. The "wide" aisle option on the A320 is 64cm and the standard is 48cm.

If we use A320 seats and an A320 "wide" aisle, we're looking at 380cm for a 3+3 configuration.

If we use A330 seats and an A330 normal aisle, we're looking at 417cm. If we shrink the aisles to the minimum ("A330 narrow"), we're looking at 405cm.

So for 2+2+2 you need a cabin width of between 405 and 417cm. The DC-XX had a fuselage diamater of 439cm. Figuring in a 25cm difference between fuselage width and cabin width (using the A320 as a baseline), that would mean the interior width would be 414cm so the aisles would need to be shrunk a bit from the A330 at 2+4+2, but would still be similar or equal to the A350 at 3+3+3. This would also allow a whopping 91cm aisle in a 3+3 configuration - almost twice as wide as a standard A320 aisle so passenger movement during loading/unloading and cabin service would be effectively unimpeded.

And since someone will ask, if we went 2+3+2 using A330 charter (3+3+3) seats and aisles, we'd need 423cm which would require a fuselage 448cm wide. But this would be 16.5" seats and aisles so I don't see it being a viable option.



I think a common 4.4m wide fuselage with up to four lengths (40m / 45m / 50m / 55m) in either 3+3 or 2+2+2 configuration (depending on stage length) and two wings (40m with folding tips and under 52m without) could allow Boeing to effectively cover 200 to 290 seats with a single family. Give it a similar 777X/787 cockpit for pilot training commonality and this would give Boeing the same overall family benefits with three families that Airbus has with the A320, A330 and A350 while also giving Boeing sole competitive edge in the 240-290 seat market that Airbus would not have at this time (as the A321 is too small and the A338 is too large).
 
IADCA
Posts: 2175
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:37 pm

DenverTed wrote:
IADCA wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


Or they could just do the sensible thing if they wanted those benefits, which would be to add just a little bit more extra width and go 2-3-2, which would generate essentially all the benefits (same number of aisle seats!) with minimal fuel penalty and significant efficiency gain. I don't like middle seats either, but you basically just took an idea that's already really fuel-inefficient on a per-seat basis and came up with a way to make it even worse.



By that logic, a 2-3 A220-500 is a bad idea, because compared to a 3-3 competitor, it has a worse aisle to seat ratio and wastes space on aisle.


I mean, in that respect it is a bad idea. It's just that the efficiency gains elsewhere compared to the current-generation 3-3 with the same seating capacity may still make it competitive for many missions. What's not a particularly good idea is adding a total of 18" fuselage diameter over a 737 and still not getting any extra seats out of it.
 
744SPX
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:41 pm

seahawk wrote:
No plane sold because of passenger comfort in the last 2 decades.


Well, that says more about the last 2 decades than anything else.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:04 pm

Stitch wrote:

I think a common 4.4m wide fuselage with up to four lengths (40m / 45m / 50m / 55m) in either 3+3 or 2+2+2 configuration (depending on stage length) and two wings (40m with folding tips and under 52m without) could allow Boeing to effectively cover 200 to 290 seats with a single family. Give it a similar 777X/787 cockpit for pilot training commonality and this would give Boeing the same overall family benefits with three families that Airbus has with the A320, A330 and A350 while also giving Boeing sole competitive edge in the 240-290 seat market that Airbus would not have at this time (as the A321 is too small and the A338 is too large).


But should Boeing not already have the competitive advantage in that market with the 787?
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:18 pm

One only needs “lean room”.... that is why a tight 6w, 7w with smallish seats is a good update.

Like I say, I am liking 6w more and more.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3327
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:44 pm

Why is 2x2x2 even a topic? The 7J7 did not have it, the rumored NLT does not have it, the NMA did not have it. And its nowhere in the AirCurrent article.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:55 pm

seahawk wrote:
Stitch wrote:

I think a common 4.4m wide fuselage with up to four lengths (40m / 45m / 50m / 55m) in either 3+3 or 2+2+2 configuration (depending on stage length) and two wings (40m with folding tips and under 52m without) could allow Boeing to effectively cover 200 to 290 seats with a single family. Give it a similar 777X/787 cockpit for pilot training commonality and this would give Boeing the same overall family benefits with three families that Airbus has with the A320, A330 and A350 while also giving Boeing sole competitive edge in the 240-290 seat market that Airbus would not have at this time (as the A321 is too small and the A338 is too large).


But should Boeing not already have the competitive advantage in that market with the 787?

If that were the case the those airlines operating the 757 / 767's would be buying more 787's, instead, Boeing is cutting output...
Note that he did say a family....
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:12 pm

seahawk wrote:
But should Boeing not already have the competitive advantage in that market with the 787?


My passenger figures are for single class, which for the 787-8 is 381 - well above the 295 of the 55m variant of my proposed "797" family.


william wrote:
Why is 2x2x2 even a topic? The 7J7 did not have it, the rumored NLT does not have it, the NMA did not have it. And its nowhere in the AirCurrent article.


The 7J7 studies had multiple seating options, including 1+2+1 and 2+1+2 premium cabins and 2+2+2 and 2+3+2 tourist cabins.

Boeing also studied various fuselage widths and lengths to accommodate these various seating configurations and passenger capacities including:

3+3 with 416cm width and 2738cm length seating 153
3+3 or 2+2+2 with 457cm width and 2743cm length seating 150 in 3+3 and 170 in 2+3+2
3+3 or 2+2+2 with 478cm width and 2672cm length seating 144 in 3+3 and 163 in 2+3+2
 
DenverTed
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:04 pm

What value would one put on a window seat, middle seat, and aisle seat? 1.1, 1.0, and 1.2? I know I choose carefully and fly on the E175 whenever possible. I think Delta made the right choice with the A330neo over the 787.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:33 pm

For the smarter regional carrier, I feel you could up sale the single seat side of the Jungle Jet pretty easily without too much complaint!

With “nicely padded up-kept seats” direct aisle access, a sense of privacy, AND a window is pretty sweet.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:20 pm

DenverTed wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


I don't think all the benefits you stated really make sense for airlines. LD3-45 was used because of the fuselage size of the aircraft. Adding extra 10" inside the cabin would just make the unusable rooms around the cargo hold bigger, which means that more dead weight that the plane need to carry. There is no penalty for smaller fuselage diameter, the penalty would be if the fuselage is too big for LD3-45 container, not the opposite.

Aisle seat isn't an upsale, more legroom or seats in front of the aircraft for faster boarding/deboarding are the one that passengers would pay more. Adding more aisle seats doesn't make sense for upsale since 2/3 of the seats in 2-2-2 configurations are aisle seat.

Passengers satisfactions could be achieved by wider seats, wider aisle, and more seat pitch.
3-3 configuration with wider aisle (24"-26") would be more beneficial compared to 2-2-2 configurations with 2 tiny aisles.

Stretching narrow-body with Extremely long fuselage doesn't make sense either. Those tired old 3-3 configurations are efficient and good enough to be stretched to 50m.
Past that point, small widebody would work better in terms of comfort or efficiency.

As far as the container goes, the cabin floor would still be right over the container, so the gain of 10" would be in cabin height, but yes, a few more inches on the sides.
170" is nice, because it can be at 2-2-2, or 3-3-3. At 2" armrests and 6" from outside to center of outer armrest leaves 158" to work with. At 3-3 that is 19" wide seats and a 30" aisle, 20" wide seats and a 24" aisle, or 2-2-2 at 17.75" wide seats and aisles.


That's a bit unrealistic. The more realistic approach for 3-3 design would be 18" seat with 2" arm rest in between seats. and Aisle width between 20"-26". So that's 150" of usable space inside the cabin + 4" inches between the armrest and the cabin wall on each side which would totaled at 154" of interior diameter. . Providing 19" seat width and 30" aisle width would be too much for airlines to tolerate.
If Boeing came up with such wide seat and aisle, airlines would definitely prefer smaller seat and aisle width in return of greater fuel efficiency.

While the idea of 30" aisle might sounds great, it wouldn't really work for many airlines. Spending extra 10 minutes on the ground for slower boarding time would be cheaper compared to carrying extra weight during flight.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:57 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
But should Boeing not already have the competitive advantage in that market with the 787?


My passenger figures are for single class, which for the 787-8 is 381 - well above the 295 of the 55m variant of my proposed "797" family.


Yes, but still, in the current market what plane should airlines buy that find the A321 too small and too limited in range, which it is when you want to replace a 767-300ER or 767-400.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:44 am

seahawk wrote:
Yes, but still, in the current market what plane should airlines buy that find the A321 too small and too limited in range, which it is when you want to replace a 767-300ER or 767-400.


Well for the 767-400ER, you arguably want a 787-8 or A330-800. For the 767-300ER, your options are another 767-300ER or the A330-800 / 787-8. The former is old technology while the newer ones are larger (but do burn less trip fuel, regardless).

Which is why I like to think a 55m 3+3 / 2+2+2 would find a market here. It would be smaller than the 767-300ER (295 Exit Limit compared to 351), but also significantly lighter with much better aerodynamics (you could give the new wing the same 48m span as the 767-300ER or push out to the 52m limit) and more fuel efficient engines with less thrust required.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:46 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but still, in the current market what plane should airlines buy that find the A321 too small and too limited in range, which it is when you want to replace a 767-300ER or 767-400.


Well for the 767-400ER, you arguably want a 787-8 or A330-800. For the 767-300ER, your options are another 767-300ER or the A330-800 / 787-8. The former is old technology while the newer ones are larger (but do burn less trip fuel, regardless).

Which is why I like to think a 55m 3+3 / 2+2+2 would find a market here. It would be smaller than the 767-300ER (295 Exit Limit compared to 351), but also significantly lighter with much better aerodynamics (you could give the new wing the same 48m span as the 767-300ER or push out to the 52m limit) and more fuel efficient engines with less thrust required.


Yes, but what is in it for Boeing? If there is no 797/NMA airlines have the choice between A330NEO and 787, so Boeing should take 75% of that volume anyway.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:34 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but still, in the current market what plane should airlines buy that find the A321 too small and too limited in range, which it is when you want to replace a 767-300ER or 767-400.


Well for the 767-400ER, you arguably want a 787-8 or A330-800. For the 767-300ER, your options are another 767-300ER or the A330-800 / 787-8. The former is old technology while the newer ones are larger (but do burn less trip fuel, regardless).

Which is why I like to think a 55m 3+3 / 2+2+2 would find a market here. It would be smaller than the 767-300ER (295 Exit Limit compared to 351), but also significantly lighter with much better aerodynamics (you could give the new wing the same 48m span as the 767-300ER or push out to the 52m limit) and more fuel efficient engines with less thrust required.


As for B767-400ER, it has similar capacity to A330-800 and B787-8. So it's a 1:1 replacement already. For B767-300ER, it's gonna be upgrade (around 20-30 seats) to larger capacity to A330-800 and B787-8 as well.

Currently A321neo is certified to carry 240 passengers with 28" seat pitch. If we add 8 extra frames into the fuselage (totaled at 168"), this would bring the length of the plane to 48.78m. This would also add 6 extra rows with 36 extra seats. This change would bring the capacity to 276 seats. All they need to do now is finding more powerful engines and larger wings. They would also need to reduce 1 LD3-45 cargo for extra fuel tanks.

I say this is a more realistic offering rather than all new narrowbody with the length of 55m.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:41 am

seahawk wrote:
Yes, but what is in it for Boeing? If there is no 797/NMA airlines have the choice between A330NEO and 787, so Boeing should take 75% of that volume anyway.

Based on history, we know that Boeing clients have not been in a rush to replace all their 757 / 767 with 787's, we also know that Boeing was not upgrading the smaller 787-8 which is the replacement abuse a/c, they only decided to update after the AA order, I am talking about the improvements to the 787-9 that they are now porting to the 787-8. Next they are reducing production of the 787, so what is in it for Boeing if they want clients to abuse the 787 is to keep them as customers, maintain the high rate of production of the 787 which is allowing them to pay off the deferred cost of production, maybe expand their market share, ultimately make more money selling their product versus having a lack of product forcing their clients to the other OEM's product.

At the end of the day, the game both OEM's like to play is that they want to be the end all for all your pax airline needs.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:58 am

par13del wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but what is in it for Boeing? If there is no 797/NMA airlines have the choice between A330NEO and 787, so Boeing should take 75% of that volume anyway.

Based on history, we know that Boeing clients have not been in a rush to replace all their 757 / 767 with 787's, we also know that Boeing was not upgrading the smaller 787-8 which is the replacement abuse a/c, they only decided to update after the AA order, I am talking about the improvements to the 787-9 that they are now porting to the 787-8. Next they are reducing production of the 787, so what is in it for Boeing if they want clients to abuse the 787 is to keep them as customers, maintain the high rate of production of the 787 which is allowing them to pay off the deferred cost of production, maybe expand their market share, ultimately make more money selling their product versus having a lack of product forcing their clients to the other OEM's product.

At the end of the day, the game both OEM's like to play is that they want to be the end all for all your pax airline needs.


Yes, but would the 797 not rather reduce 787 sales?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:26 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but still, in the current market what plane should airlines buy that find the A321 too small and too limited in range, which it is when you want to replace a 767-300ER or 767-400.


Well for the 767-400ER, you arguably want a 787-8 or A330-800. For the 767-300ER, your options are another 767-300ER or the A330-800 / 787-8. The former is old technology while the newer ones are larger (but do burn less trip fuel, regardless).

Which is why I like to think a 55m 3+3 / 2+2+2 would find a market here. It would be smaller than the 767-300ER (295 Exit Limit compared to 351), but also significantly lighter with much better aerodynamics (you could give the new wing the same 48m span as the 767-300ER or push out to the 52m limit) and more fuel efficient engines with less thrust required.


As for B767-400ER, it has similar capacity to A330-800 and B787-8. So it's a 1:1 replacement already. For B767-300ER, it's gonna be upgrade (around 20-30 seats) to larger capacity to A330-800 and B787-8 as well.

Currently A321neo is certified to carry 240 passengers with 28" seat pitch. If we add 8 extra frames into the fuselage (totaled at 168"), this would bring the length of the plane to 48.78m. This would also add 6 extra rows with 36 extra seats. This change would bring the capacity to 276 seats. All they need to do now is finding more powerful engines and larger wings. They would also need to reduce 1 LD3-45 cargo for extra fuel tanks.

I say this is a more realistic offering rather than all new narrowbody with the length of 55m.

Assuming an A321 stretch at about 49m is a given, what should Boeing do? WN and Ryanair may want an aircraft with shorter runway performance in the size of an A321/MAX10 or A322, so Boeing has an opening there.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:22 pm

seahawk wrote:
Yes, but what is in it for Boeing? If there is no 797/NMA airlines have the choice between A330NEO and 787, so Boeing should take 75% of that volume anyway.


I believe what is in it for Boeing is setting the foundation for a new family of narrowbody aircraft that can:

1) Continue the strength of the 737-8 as a flexible up-to-200 seat platform
2) Address the weakness of the 737-9 and 737-10 in the up-to-220-230 seat market
3) Allow Boeing to offer a narrowbody frame with more than 230 seats
4) Scale better than the A321 in the over-240 seat market, especially at the upper end (270-290)
5) Offer similar or better range at higher payload weights than the A321XLR can offer

Where I see the issue is that Boeing will arguably want to start with the 50m and 55m models with the longer span because that will be a smaller overall market so they can iron out the production process before moving to the 40m and 45m models with the 40m span (with folding wingtips to fit in 36m gates) which will be produced at much higher rates. The 737-8 is competitive enough to hold it's own during this period, but the A321neo is still going to be winning RFPs against the 737-9 and 737-10 until the 45m model is introduced.

But I don't really see Boeing having a choice if they do not wish to cede too much of the overall narrowbody market to Airbus over the next 10-20 years.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:36 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Currently A321neo is certified to carry 240 passengers with 28" seat pitch. If we add 8 extra frames into the fuselage (totaled at 168"), this would bring the length of the plane to 48.78m. This would also add 6 extra rows with 36 extra seats. This change would bring the capacity to 276 seats. All they need to do now is finding more powerful engines and larger wings. They would also need to reduce 1 LD3-45 cargo for extra fuel tanks.

I say this is a more realistic offering rather than all new narrowbody with the length of 55m.


well it is for Airbus, at least in theory. It depends on how much higher they can get the existing operating weights, otherwise this "A321-300" will be trading range for payload which will reduce it's flexibility by limiting it to short(er) stage lengths. It also depends on how much additional strengthening these stretches will take and how much additional weight that will add to the basic frame, which will also eat into the range at higher payload weights. I don't see such a frame, even with MTOW boosts, being able to utilize any more fuel capacity than what is already offered via the RCT.


seahawk wrote:
Yes, but would the 797 not rather reduce 787 sales?


I do not believe so. And even if it reduces a handful of 787-8 sales, if it also reduces significantly more A321 family sales (by winning RFPs that the 737-9/737-10 can't)...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:40 pm

I think this strategy is sound, but not yet imho. If you do a new plane it needs new engine imho and engines that bring enough improvement over the current ones, won´t be ready before 2030.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:57 pm

seahawk wrote:
I think this strategy is sound, but not yet imho. If you do a new plane it needs new engine imho and engines that bring enough improvement over the current ones, won´t be ready before 2030.


I agree Boeing needs to incorporate as much new technology as they can into the design, including structural, propulsion, systems and such. There is the risk that Boeing designs around a next-generation engine that does not pan out (like the A340 and the IAE SuperFan). But at this point, Boeing is looking at a late 2020s EIS for the first models, anyway, so in one way "time is on their side" as they can wait for the new technologies to arrive and in one way "time is not on their side" in that in the interim the 737-9 and 737-10 are not competitive with the A321 beyond a certain market segment so they will continue to lose RFPs.

But again, I don't see how they can just sit on the MAX family for two decades and hope to maintain more than a minority stake in the 150-and-up narrowbody market at the end of it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9628
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:03 pm

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think this strategy is sound, but not yet imho. If you do a new plane it needs new engine imho and engines that bring enough improvement over the current ones, won´t be ready before 2030.


I agree Boeing needs to incorporate as much new technology as they can into the design, including structural, propulsion, systems and such. There is the risk that Boeing designs around a next-generation engine that does not pan out (like the A340 and the IAE SuperFan). But at this point, Boeing is looking at a late 2020s EIS for the first models, anyway, so in one way "time is on their side" as they can wait for the new technologies to arrive and in one way "time is not on their side" in that in the interim the 737-9 and 737-10 are not competitive with the A321 beyond a certain market segment so they will continue to lose RFPs.

But again, I don't see how they can just sit on the MAX family for two decades and hope to maintain more than a minority stake in the 150-and-up narrowbody market at the end of it.


Fully agree, I think they need to get new plane out of the door before 2035. They simply can not risk Airbus forcing their hand with a re-winged A320, like they did with the NEO.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:56 pm

DenverTed wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Well for the 767-400ER, you arguably want a 787-8 or A330-800. For the 767-300ER, your options are another 767-300ER or the A330-800 / 787-8. The former is old technology while the newer ones are larger (but do burn less trip fuel, regardless).

Which is why I like to think a 55m 3+3 / 2+2+2 would find a market here. It would be smaller than the 767-300ER (295 Exit Limit compared to 351), but also significantly lighter with much better aerodynamics (you could give the new wing the same 48m span as the 767-300ER or push out to the 52m limit) and more fuel efficient engines with less thrust required.


As for B767-400ER, it has similar capacity to A330-800 and B787-8. So it's a 1:1 replacement already. For B767-300ER, it's gonna be upgrade (around 20-30 seats) to larger capacity to A330-800 and B787-8 as well.

Currently A321neo is certified to carry 240 passengers with 28" seat pitch. If we add 8 extra frames into the fuselage (totaled at 168"), this would bring the length of the plane to 48.78m. This would also add 6 extra rows with 36 extra seats. This change would bring the capacity to 276 seats. All they need to do now is finding more powerful engines and larger wings. They would also need to reduce 1 LD3-45 cargo for extra fuel tanks.

I say this is a more realistic offering rather than all new narrowbody with the length of 55m.

Assuming an A321 stretch at about 49m is a given, what should Boeing do? WN and Ryanair may want an aircraft with shorter runway performance in the size of an A321/MAX10 or A322, so Boeing has an opening there.


The only Smart thing boeing could do right now is to actually start to replace MAX.They don't have to announce it to the public, they just need to start to work on it and have it ready by at least 2025 upwards.

Again, make a plane the size of B737-800 and B757-200. Combined them into a single family with 2 model. They should have range between 3,500nmi - 4,000nmi for the smaller model and 4,000nmi - 5,000nmi for the larger one. Let the E195-E2 take offer the B737-700 market.

This would help them gain control on the narrow-body market while simultaneously solved the lower range for the MoM.

They need bigger opening than that. Cause Ryanair and Southwest alone wouldn't help them pay off the 20-30 billions dollar development costs back. And these 2 airlines expect 40-50% discount for their massive orders. How are they gonna profit out of the program if their biggest loyal customers are such cheapskate?

They need better strategy. 1:1 replacement for B757 is a bad idea. 1:1 replacement for B737-800 and B757-200 in a single family is a great idea.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:01 pm

ewt340 wrote:
The only Smart thing boeing could do right now is to actually start to replace MAX.They don't have to announce it to the public, they just need to start to work on it and have it ready by at least 2025 upwards.


Well they have been studying a 737 replacement since 2000 with Project Yellowstone and created a formal 737 Replacement Study team in 2006 so they should arguably be able to launch something at will, but with the investment in the MAX and nothing to significantly differentiate a new model from the A320neo, I do not expect them to launch the smaller (200-220 seat) models anytime soon.

The opportunity market for Boeing right now is in the larger market - 240 seats (757-200) to 295 seats (757-300) with a design range of 5000nm for the 240-seat model and 4000nm for the 295 seat model. The A321 family maxes out at 240 seats and I do not believe the A321XLR can do 5000nm with that many people. And Boeing does need to offer a frame with more than 230 seats and ~3000nm design range (the 737-10) to increase their RFP win-rate against the A321 family and the "797-240" would get them back into that game with the "797-295" to win RFPs the A321XLR cannot compete in and protect the upper end of the market if and when Airbus does either launch an "A322" or their own clean-sheet A320 family replacement.

Then once the larger models have ironed out the production capacity, Boeing can launch the 200 and 220 seater models and retire the 737MAX line.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:18 pm

seahawk wrote:
Yes, but would the 797 not rather reduce 787 sales?

If it was not already being reduced Boeing would not be lowering production.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:39 pm

seahawk wrote:
I think this strategy is sound, but not yet imho. If you do a new plane it needs new engine imho and engines that bring enough improvement over the current ones, won´t be ready before 2030.

Except the existing engine technology has to be lowered by using a less than optimal fan size to be used by the existing 737 due to it design limitations, so.......
I would say that the design limitations of the existing 737 are more important.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:18 am

I don't think all the grand plans come to fruition, things change and the plans change, look at Y1,2,3. Boeing should just focus on one wing and what that will be. I think it is in their interest to build a bigger wing for a 100t to 125t aircraft first, and get as much mileage out of the 737 wing and MAX as possible. If they can rewing the fuselage later for a 75t to 100t MAX 8 replacement, so be it. But, maybe that aircraft will not need a container cargo hold, or single pilot will come along, or CFRP fuselage will be ready, or truss braced wings will be ready. So I think the design needs to be on two lengths of aircraft in the 100t to 125t range, be that single aisle or light twin aisle.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4972
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:50 am

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 seat width and seat pitch are a function of the airline, Not Boeing.
the Seat tracks will hold and seat row installed there from 2-3-2 to 3-4-3, to 3-5-3 in coach it's the airline that determines the economics of the cabin, and either you fly it? or you Don't!

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
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:09 am

DenverTed wrote:
Boeing should just focus on one wing and what that will be. I think it is in their interest to build a bigger wing for a 100t to 125t aircraft first, and get as much mileage out of the 737 wing and MAX as possible.

Lots of people mention having a big wing and small wing using the same cross section. With a 30% difference in MTOW there should only be 20-30% commonality between the two aircraft. Different landing gear, engines, wingbox, fuselage stringers, tail etc. Even the nose gear should be stronger.

If Boeing tried to boost commonality up to 50% it will result in the smaller wing aircraft using overbuilt parts. That adds weight and efficiency is reduced. Commonality is working against optimisation of the design.

Boeing has to plan for long term success. That means to cover the full spectrum from big to small. No bandaid solutions, no big gaps created in the market due to bad planning.

I assume the 787 would sit at the top in the long run.

Big - 260t MTOW code E wing
787-9NEO 8000nm
787-10NEO 7200nm
787-11NEO 6400nm

Medium - 150t MTOW code D wing 8ab
797-6 5200nm 270 seat
797-7 4500nm 320 seat
797-8 3800nm (787-8 cabin area, domestic widebody)

Small - 80t MTOW code C wing 6ab
NSA-8 4600nm (160 seat)
NSA-9 4000nm (200 seat)
NSA-10 3400nm (240 seat)
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:22 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think this strategy is sound, but not yet imho. If you do a new plane it needs new engine imho and engines that bring enough improvement over the current ones, won´t be ready before 2030.


I agree Boeing needs to incorporate as much new technology as they can into the design, including structural, propulsion, systems and such. There is the risk that Boeing designs around a next-generation engine that does not pan out (like the A340 and the IAE SuperFan). But at this point, Boeing is looking at a late 2020s EIS for the first models, anyway, so in one way "time is on their side" as they can wait for the new technologies to arrive and in one way "time is not on their side" in that in the interim the 737-9 and 737-10 are not competitive with the A321 beyond a certain market segment so they will continue to lose RFPs.

But again, I don't see how they can just sit on the MAX family for two decades and hope to maintain more than a minority stake in the 150-and-up narrowbody market at the end of it.


They can't sit on the MAX for any length of time. The 738 will still do well for a while, but every 20 years or so a next generation with new engines is needed. Well that is 2031, 11 years from now. Time to get rolling.


Needs to be a full digital design, like what is being done on the T-7, an architecture based on the 777x and 787, properly scaled for maximum efficiency. The control logic probably needs to basically fully automatic to be able to adapt to future single pilot or single pilot + remote co-pilot. The risk of bad piloting in today's world is too high but to essentially replace the pilots. I believe that 99% of pilots are excellent at their job, but are there 1 pilot in 100,000 that can't do checklists efficiently.

I see CFRP barrels as the only way. It is quite possible that for 10 years Aluminum could be cheaper, but 25 years from now unlikely mostly due to the ability to automate the production, barrel winding has huge flexibility on construction quite similar to 3D printing, it is something the machines can do. Same with CFRP wings. No longer is just the length the only easy variable to change but cross section in hulls and optimization in all dimensions the wings between units. Over a couple of decades there could be 3 pairs in the family, each pair including a range for payload stretch, two wings, and two cross sections. But at first just the first pair, the 2nd pair a decade later.

The easiest spot to enter the market is 1 step more capable than the A321, 30 -40 more passengers on the same range or 1,000 miles more range. Once production of the first model achieves rate 10, introduce a 2nd that can also do rate 10. Soon the same production facility can start the model that replaces the 737-10, and so forth until the new models replace the 738 in 10 to 15 years. The factory will be very different from today's.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

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

Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:19 am

RJMAZ wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Boeing should just focus on one wing and what that will be. I think it is in their interest to build a bigger wing for a 100t to 125t aircraft first, and get as much mileage out of the 737 wing and MAX as possible.

Lots of people mention having a big wing and small wing using the same cross section. With a 30% difference in MTOW there should only be 20-30% commonality between the two aircraft. Different landing gear, engines, wingbox, fuselage stringers, tail etc. Even the nose gear should be stronger.


Even if it were only 20-30% commonality in parts, that's still a valuable advantage too have. Apart from that you would have a single cockpit and some ability to adjust production rate allocation between the high and low MTOW model within a stable overall rate, based on the developments in the market, at your competitor and technological opportunities.

That said, I also think we will see a narrower than A330 widebody in the future, although more likely from Airbus and possibly a bit wider and more capable.


Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but what is in it for Boeing? If there is no 797/NMA airlines have the choice between A330NEO and 787, so Boeing should take 75% of that volume anyway.


I believe what is in it for Boeing is setting the foundation for a new family of narrowbody aircraft that can:

1) Continue the strength of the 737-8 as a flexible up-to-200 seat platform
2) Address the weakness of the 737-9 and 737-10 in the up-to-220-230 seat market
3) Allow Boeing to offer a narrowbody frame with more than 230 seats
4) Scale better than the A321 in the over-240 seat market, especially at the upper end (270-290)
5) Offer similar or better range at higher payload weights than the A321XLR can offer

Where I see the issue is that Boeing will arguably want to start with the 50m and 55m models with the longer span because that will be a smaller overall market so they can iron out the production process before moving to the 40m and 45m models with the 40m span (with folding wingtips to fit in 36m gates) which will be produced at much higher rates. The 737-8 is competitive enough to hold it's own during this period, but the A321neo is still going to be winning RFPs against the 737-9 and 737-10 until the 45m model is introduced.

But I don't really see Boeing having a choice if they do not wish to cede too much of the overall narrowbody market to Airbus over the next 10-20 years.



There are arguments for and against starting with the higher or low MTOW variant.

Arguments for starting with the lower MTOW variant could be:

- Weaker competitor (A220, A319, A320), although Airbus seems to be addressing that with the Bombardier buy out.
- A 36m composite wing would suffice.
- Wing and engine technology leap would perhaps not yet be sufficiently large enough for the high MTOW variant to take on the A321XLR (and future variants), with it's extreme economies of scale and very low R&D cost. I could see Airbus doing a new wing(box) for the A321XLR (variants), but would they do the same for the A320 regular?
- You could keep the 737-8 going for now at a reduced rate because it would still attract orders with it's higher range (remember it's a production restrained market, a 90% perfect plane is better than no plane).
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4214
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Sat Feb 22, 2020 3:00 pm

Of the 500 largest companies in 1950, some 60 remain. There are a lot of reasons for Boeing to continue, but it is not foreordained. The 777X may have a larger niche than we think and be somewhat a success. The 787 serves its large niche well. After that things are in shambles. A successful 797 at this point even with low profit margins along with the MAX8 back in the air would give Boeing time to recover. They need to build planes airlines want, it may be time for stockholders to take a hit for the team (and in long term to their benefit)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:45 am

Stitch wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
The only Smart thing boeing could do right now is to actually start to replace MAX.They don't have to announce it to the public, they just need to start to work on it and have it ready by at least 2025 upwards.


Well they have been studying a 737 replacement since 2000 with Project Yellowstone and created a formal 737 Replacement Study team in 2006 so they should arguably be able to launch something at will, but with the investment in the MAX and nothing to significantly differentiate a new model from the A320neo, I do not expect them to launch the smaller (200-220 seat) models anytime soon.

The opportunity market for Boeing right now is in the larger market - 240 seats (757-200) to 295 seats (757-300) with a design range of 5000nm for the 240-seat model and 4000nm for the 295 seat model. The A321 family maxes out at 240 seats and I do not believe the A321XLR can do 5000nm with that many people. And Boeing does need to offer a frame with more than 230 seats and ~3000nm design range (the 737-10) to increase their RFP win-rate against the A321 family and the "797-240" would get them back into that game with the "797-295" to win RFPs the A321XLR cannot compete in and protect the upper end of the market if and when Airbus does either launch an "A322" or their own clean-sheet A320 family replacement.

Then once the larger models have ironed out the production capacity, Boeing can launch the 200 and 220 seater models and retire the 737MAX line.


Nah, I don't think they need that. What they need is 250-270 seats aircraft with range between 4,000nmi for the normal model and 5,000nmi for the ER model.
They also need commonality with smaller model. Without these aspect and flexibility, B797 would be moderately successful, but it won't make its development costs back.
With the smaller model, it would help replace MAX8 as well. This would help them makes their money back and win more diverse customers.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1599
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:01 am

I have a lot of respect for Boeing and it's technical capabilities but how could they end up in this situation having to look at the A321neo eating their lunch? And now the NMA is not happening after years of studies and promises? Time to get things going and come up with a true landmark design it seems.
Possibly the whole manufacturing process has become so much more important in the background and lessons have been learned from the 787 that changed the strategy to back to "in-house"? So the setup needs to be changed from the ground up to make the business case work?

Another thought: Who would design such a key program for BCA if it would be done again from the ground up? Could the design work be handed over to Embraer? Could this be the reason for the delay and restart?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:32 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Nah, I don't think they need that. What they need is 250-270 seats aircraft with range between 4,000nmi for the normal model and 5,000nmi for the ER model.
They also need commonality with smaller model. Without these aspect and flexibility, B797 would be moderately successful, but it won't make its development costs back.
With the smaller model, it would help replace MAX8 as well. This would help them makes their money back and win more diverse customers.


Exit Limit door configurations are going to play a role in the dimension of the frames and 240 is the natural limit for the bottom part (either three main doors and two overwing exits or four main doors) with 295 at the top (four main doors and two overwing exits).

Commonality is going to be a given - cockpits if nothing else, but I do think a common fuselage wide enough to offer 3+3 with an extra-wide aisle or 2+2+2 with two normal aisles has benefits. Yes it will be heavier than a narrower 3+3 fuselage, but modern alloys offer lighter weights and being able to use a single fuselage diameter for both models would lower production costs which would allow for a lower purchase price to offset the higher weight fuel burn penalty.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 pm

Noshow wrote:
I have a lot of respect for Boeing and it's technical capabilities but how could they end up in this situation having to look at the A321neo eating their lunch? And now the NMA is not happening after years of studies and promises?


Market fickleness - a decade ago, airlines were not willing to wait for an all-new 737 replacement with fuel prices skyrocketing so it was launch MAX or watch the 737NG became less and less competitive in a high fuel-price environment and lose more and more RFPs.

As for NMA, we're not sure why Boeing could not close the business case. Speculation runs the gamut: airlines did not believe Boeing could meet performance claims; Boeing could not meet airline performance guarantees; Boeing could not get the average sales price low enough for airlines; the A321XLR is "good enough" / "available enough" for the bottom end of the market; MAX's issues have pushed forward the replacement timeline for the model; etc...
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:52 pm

Stitch wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Nah, I don't think they need that. What they need is 250-270 seats aircraft with range between 4,000nmi for the normal model and 5,000nmi for the ER model.
They also need commonality with smaller model. Without these aspect and flexibility, B797 would be moderately successful, but it won't make its development costs back.
With the smaller model, it would help replace MAX8 as well. This would help them makes their money back and win more diverse customers.


Exit Limit door configurations are going to play a role in the dimension of the frames and 240 is the natural limit for the bottom part (either three main doors and two overwing exits or four main doors) with 295 at the top (four main doors and two overwing exits).

Commonality is going to be a given - cockpits if nothing else, but I do think a common fuselage wide enough to offer 3+3 with an extra-wide aisle or 2+2+2 with two normal aisles has benefits. Yes it will be heavier than a narrower 3+3 fuselage, but modern alloys offer lighter weights and being able to use a single fuselage diameter for both models would lower production costs which would allow for a lower purchase price to offset the higher weight fuel burn penalty.


As for the exit limits, it would depends on the configurations. Most airlines that uses B757-200 or A321XLR tend to fitted the aircraft with less than 240 seats. A321XLR tend to have business class seats. While some B757-200 did have all economy configurations and if I'm not mistaken they would need the 4 doors configs for those density.

Also, just because the plane certified to carry 295 seats, doesn't mean they need to have fuselage long enough to accommodate that many passengers. ie. B787-8.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:26 pm

Yes, I expect the majority of customers will be operating the frames in three classes (Business, Premium Economy and Economy) so they will not be hitting their Exit Limits, but some will probably use them in single-class configuration.

And a five meter spread between classes allows for capacity flexibility: 40m covers the A320-200/737-8, 45m covers the 737-10/A321-200, 50m covers the 757-200 and 55m covers the 757-300. And you could aways start with the 45m and 50m models, scaling down to the 45m model once the 737MAX winds down and scaling up to the 757-300 if market conditions warrant.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:12 pm

Stitch wrote:
Yes, I expect the majority of customers will be operating the frames in three classes (Business, Premium Economy and Economy) so they will not be hitting their Exit Limits, but some will probably use them in single-class configuration.

And a five meter spread between classes allows for capacity flexibility: 40m covers the A320-200/737-8, 45m covers the 737-10/A321-200, 50m covers the 757-200 and 55m covers the 757-300. And you could aways start with the 45m and 50m models, scaling down to the 45m model once the 737MAX winds down and scaling up to the 757-300 if market conditions warrant.


I think you don't realize that, even though A321 is around 2.79m shorter compared to B757-200. It carry 240 passengers in it's cabin, while B757-200 with the same seat pitch, doors and overwings exit numbers would only carry 247 seats. I think it comes down to the size of the non-usable cabin of these aircraft, B757 tend to be larger hence the small seat count.

So putting these different aircraft in a length base category would be out of the loop. Since we need to actually talk about seat counts rather than length. Although the length plays some parts on its design, nowhere it's the most important.

Also, shrink version always have worse fuel efficiency. The wings is too large, the wingbox is too big, the fuel tank is too big. They also need less powerful engines because the smaller model need less range and lower mtow.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:39 pm

ewt340 wrote:
I think you don't realize that, even though A321 is around 2.79m shorter compared to B757-200. It carry 240 passengers in it's cabin, while B757-200 with the same seat pitch, doors and overwings exit numbers would only carry 247 seats. I think it comes down to the size of the non-usable cabin of these aircraft, B757 tend to be larger hence the small seat count.


Sure, but all else being equal, every five meters of length is five more rows of Economy seats (30 passengers).

The difference between the A320 and A321 is ~7m, which equates to 45 more passengers. Boeing has been more conservative (either by choice or requirement), with a sub-3m stretch from the 737-8(00) to the 737-9(00) and now a 4m+ stretch from the 737-8 to 737-10. That translates to another 20 (-9) or 30 (-10) passengers.

The base model is going to ~40m to match the 200 seats in a single-class configuration of the 737-8(00). And it stands to reason Boeing is going to want to at least match the A321 at 240 seats since it is more cost-effective from a cabin crewing perspective than 220 or 230 seats. But 250 seats would be even more cost-effective from that angle, so Boeing could conceivably make the stretch that deep (4 pair of Type C and 1 pair of Type III exits would cover that) at around ~7 meters, as well. So you could go 40m, 47m and 54m which would seat 300 with four pairs of Type B exits and also maximize cabin crew efficiency.


ewt340 wrote:
Also, shrink version always have worse fuel efficiency. The wings is too large, the wingbox is too big, the fuel tank is too big. They also need less powerful engines because the smaller model need less range and lower mtow.


This is why I think two wings would be the answer - one at 36m/40m (folded/unfolded) to maximize narrowbody gate compatibility while still offering better aero than a pure 36m wing and another pushing out to a maximum of 52m for 757/767/A300 gate compatibility with maximum aero advantage.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 4:41 pm

Maybe Boeing should just design a NEW super efficient Trijet with Engines interchangeable with Airbus A321 and MAX aircraft.

CFM56-5B, 68.3 in (1.73 m) fan
IAE V2500A5, 63.5 in (1.61 m) fan

After all longer range is only a small part of most airline carriers fleet needs and interchangeable engines would cut down in spares costs.

Yes I know Trijets have fallen out of favor, but can a modern trijet be made to supplement the existing dominant fleet types? I cannot seem to find the trijet conversation which was on this forum recently.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
AvgWhiteGuy
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:44 pm

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:19 pm

FWIW, 20 year A.net obsessioner chiming in here...

As much as I would love to see a 7ab MoM plane come in and disrupt the status quo, I don't believe the extra fuselage weight and drag can be justified - which puts Boeing in a quandary because to
get the seating they want, 210-270, they have to go very long single-isle or 8ab, potentially eating 787 sales. I don't envy the BOD, the engineering teams and whomever at Boeing - they have to undo
20-30 years of corporate incompetence very quickly, and directly on the mark, or the company's commercial viability will be on shaky ground. This greatly limits the risks they are willing to take. So...

If I were Dave Calhoun, I would entertain a dual-cert (ala 75-767) 5ab and a wide 6ab duo, with Brasil possibly building the 5ab. But, make no mistake, I would bet Boeing's next plane is 6ab, 150-152"
across in the passenger cabin. It would have to differentiate itself from the A320 and A321 by having longer, folding wings, a slightly wider cabin - but not too wide - lower fuel burn than the current winged A32X (and just slightly beat a re-winged A32X series) and lower maintenance costs.

I believe Gary Kelly's remarks that Southwest is looking at larger aircraft, not smaller, is very telling and Boeing is likely listening to him very closely. They may even accommodate Mr. Kelly, as I also believe Mr. Kelly has probably given Boeing an ultimatum. Being that Southwest and Gary Kelly are both very conservative in how they do business, they may not been keen on a 7ab untried configuration that sacrifices some fuel burn for more comfort and/or very slightly quicker turn times. "Build us a proper 737 replacement, or we will take our business elsewhere." Yes, it would be ironic.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2715
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:05 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
FWIW, 20 year A.net obsessioner chiming in here...

As much as I would love to see a 7ab MoM plane come in and disrupt the status quo, I don't believe the extra fuselage weight and drag can be justified - which puts Boeing in a quandary because to
get the seating they want, 210-270, they have to go very long single-isle or 8ab, potentially eating 787 sales. I don't envy the BOD, the engineering teams and whomever at Boeing - they have to undo
20-30 years of corporate incompetence very quickly, and directly on the mark, or the company's commercial viability will be on shaky ground. This greatly limits the risks they are willing to take. So...

If I were Dave Calhoun, I would entertain a dual-cert (ala 75-767) 5ab and a wide 6ab duo, with Brasil possibly building the 5ab. But, make no mistake, I would bet Boeing's next plane is 6ab, 150-152"
across in the passenger cabin. It would have to differentiate itself from the A320 and A321 by having longer, folding wings, a slightly wider cabin - but not too wide - lower fuel burn than the current winged A32X (and just slightly beat a re-winged A32X series) and lower maintenance costs.

I believe Gary Kelly's remarks that Southwest is looking at larger aircraft, not smaller, is very telling and Boeing is likely listening to him very closely. They may even accommodate Mr. Kelly, as I also believe Mr. Kelly has probably given Boeing an ultimatum. Being that Southwest and Gary Kelly are both very conservative in how they do business, they may not been keen on a 7ab untried configuration that sacrifices some fuel burn for more comfort and/or very slightly quicker turn times. "Build us a proper 737 replacement, or we will take our business elsewhere." Yes, it would be ironic.


Not bad thoughts. They do need two cross sections to go from A220-300 to sub 787, and if one is 8AB the volumes won't justify the investment

However the 7AB would be maybe 1,000kg heavier for the same capacity as a 6AB (but use shorter great) and have about 3% less wetted area. It's not that clearcut of a disadvantage to go 7AB.

It's a complicated piece of Math in terms of what to do.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:07 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
FWIW, 20 year A.net obsessioner chiming in here...

As much as I would love to see a 7ab MoM plane come in and disrupt the status quo, I don't believe the extra fuselage weight and drag can be justified - which puts Boeing in a quandary because to
get the seating they want, 210-270, they have to go very long single-isle or 8ab, potentially eating 787 sales. I don't envy the BOD, the engineering teams and whomever at Boeing - they have to undo
20-30 years of corporate incompetence very quickly, and directly on the mark, or the company's commercial viability will be on shaky ground. This greatly limits the risks they are willing to take. So...

If I were Dave Calhoun, I would entertain a dual-cert (ala 75-767) 5ab and a wide 6ab duo, with Brasil possibly building the 5ab. But, make no mistake, I would bet Boeing's next plane is 6ab, 150-152"
across in the passenger cabin. It would have to differentiate itself from the A320 and A321 by having longer, folding wings, a slightly wider cabin - but not too wide - lower fuel burn than the current winged A32X (and just slightly beat a re-winged A32X series) and lower maintenance costs.

I believe Gary Kelly's remarks that Southwest is looking at larger aircraft, not smaller, is very telling and Boeing is likely listening to him very closely. They may even accommodate Mr. Kelly, as I also believe Mr. Kelly has probably given Boeing an ultimatum. Being that Southwest and Gary Kelly are both very conservative in how they do business, they may not been keen on a 7ab untried configuration that sacrifices some fuel burn for more comfort and/or very slightly quicker turn times. "Build us a proper 737 replacement, or we will take our business elsewhere." Yes, it would be ironic.

As far as Southwest goes, what are the constraints for Chicago Midway? Would an A321 work there? Is 45m too long for the gates? What field length is required? Could Boeing build a 42m long 2-3-2 (200 pax) with good field performance for MIdway and similar airports.
What about 2-3? What's the logic there? If 2-3-2 is a no mans land, then maybe 2-3 is no mans land between 2-2 and 3-3. It's asymetrical, which is not a preferrred layout for some reason pobably related to human perception. Not that I don't like the A220, but I"m not convinced that 3-3 isn't the better answer down to 150 seats.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10325
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:09 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
get the seating they want, 210-270, they have to go very long single-isle or 8ab, potentially eating 787 sales.

Boeing is reducing production of the 787, so unless their PR campaign is working on their clients..........
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:43 pm

Duplicate
Last edited by flipdewaf on Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
 
car4041
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:12 am

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:26 pm

DenverTed wrote:
What about 2-3? What's the logic there? If 2-3-2 is a no mans land, then maybe 2-3 is no mans land between 2-2 and 3-3.


Apples and oranges. 2-3-2 is a no-man's land because you're adding a whole extra aisle but only gaining a single seat. 2-2, 2-3, and 3-3 all share the same quantity of aisles, so the same issue doesn't arise.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27160
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:33 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
As much as I would love to see a 7ab MoM plane come in and disrupt the status quo, I don't believe the extra fuselage weight and drag can be justified - which puts Boeing in a quandary because to get the seating they want, 210-270, they have to go very long single-isle or 8ab, potentially eating 787 sales.


With respect, I think we all need to not worry about NSA/NMA/NLT "poaching" sales from the 787. The two frames are going to play in very different leagues and when we are discussing single-class / Exit Limits, NSA/NMA/NLT is going to max out at 300 seats whereas the 787-8 maxes out at 381. And the 787-8 is really just in top-up order mode now, as the significantly majority of new orders are for the 787-9 and 787-10.


AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
If I were Dave Calhoun, I would entertain a dual-cert (ala 75-767) 5ab and a wide 6ab duo, with Brasil possibly building the 5ab.


I know Embraer shot themselves in the foot with the E175-E2 as it applies to US carriers due to Scope Clauses and the US is a major market for these frames. But the E195-E2 is of a similar size and operating weight to the A220 family and those do not appear to be constrained by scope clauses. So I can see Boeing Brasil looking on a new family of 5AB airframes to cover the 100-200 seat market and push cockpit and cabin commonality with the NSA/NMA/NLT, but I don't see that as a near-term item since the MAX-7 and E2 family are so young.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:55 pm

car4041 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
What about 2-3? What's the logic there? If 2-3-2 is a no mans land, then maybe 2-3 is no mans land between 2-2 and 3-3.


Apples and oranges. 2-3-2 is a no-man's land because you're adding a whole extra aisle but only gaining a single seat. 2-2, 2-3, and 3-3 all share the same quantity of aisles, so the same issue doesn't arise.

At 150 pax, 5x is 30 rows x 6 = a surface area and fuselage weight of 180 versus 6x is 25 x 7 = 175, shouldn't 6x be better?
Comparing an LD-3-45 3-3 at 162" to a 2-3-2 at 186", at 240 seats, is 40x162 = 6480 versus 34.3x186 = 6380. So 2-3-2 is less, plus two aisles, plus two more aisle seats, it's a no brainer at 240 seats 32" pitch that 2-3-2 rules.

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