Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AvgWhiteGuy
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:44 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:23 pm

Stitch: "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."

Yes, sorry Stitch, I should have clarified that an 8 abreast MoM should be significantly shorter-ranged and hence lighter - giving it it's own market and not eating into 787 sales. "Potential" was too vague of a word, but anything Boeing builds that can seat ~275 people and have 8-10 hour range is not all that far from 787 territory. But yes, you are correct they are two different markets.

Now the questions, hopefully answered by carrying over from the excellent analysis by flipdewaf in the Tech/ops post, are: How light can Boeing make an 8ab 4,500 nmi plane? Will it just be competitive in CASM/CASK to a re-winged A321, because that is happening as soon as Boeing firms the configuration of anything of the sort, or beat it by 5% or more? As we know, B will have to recoup the ~5x higher development cost of an all new plane, so it can't just tie A321RW, it has to be better than it by upper single digits at least to justify the higher, less route flexible seating and pay off it's development costs.

I would really like to see a new plane incorporate canards and some area rule. Some real area rule, not the fairing induced type. Now that would be something to get excited about, but alas, it's almost certainly not going to happen.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:28 pm

Responding to the assertions from the previous page that the 7w tight light fuselage is some huge disadvantage.

By his own model the 787 Fuselage is only 1,000 KG heavier than a 6AB of the same capacity. And that is by assuming a lot of extra weight per meter more than may be necessary.

It has 3% less wetted area, and could use shorter gear and shorter control runs which could offset that 1,000kg disadvantage even if there is one.

It would not burn 15% more fuel.

It is not as clear cut as he makes it out to be. As I said it's complicated. But you would think Boeing who has been working on these non standard shapes for at least a decade will have figured it out by now.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:52 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
Yes, sorry Stitch, I should have clarified that an 8 abreast MoM should be significantly shorter-ranged and hence lighter - giving it it's own market and not eating into 787 sales. "Potential" was too vague of a word, but anything Boeing builds that can seat ~275 people and have 8-10 hour range is not all that far from 787 territory. But yes, you are correct they are two different markets.

The additional problem we have is that we can easily get the maximum figures of a/c performance and payload from the OEM's sites, and we then use them to place a/c in the same market with the potential to "eat sales" from other products in the portfolio.
Unfortunately, the number of airlines who actually operate their a/c at those extremes / maximums are close to nil, but we do not have easy access to such information, we need the Seat Guru experts to pull those figures together for us to have a good comparison.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 2:00 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
Stitch: "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."

Yes, sorry Stitch, I should have clarified that an 8 abreast MoM should be significantly shorter-ranged and hence lighter - giving it it's own market and not eating into 787 sales. "Potential" was too vague of a word, but anything Boeing builds that can seat ~275 people and have 8-10 hour range is not all that far from 787 territory. But yes, you are correct they are two different markets.

Now the questions, hopefully answered by carrying over from the excellent analysis by flipdewaf in the Tech/ops post, are: How light can Boeing make an 8ab 4,500 nmi plane? Will it just be competitive in CASM/CASK to a re-winged A321, because that is happening as soon as Boeing firms the configuration of anything of the sort, or beat it by 5% or more? As we know, B will have to recoup the ~5x higher development cost of an all new plane, so it can't just tie A321RW, it has to be better than it by upper single digits at least to justify the higher, less route flexible seating and pay off it's development costs.

I would really like to see a new plane incorporate canards and some area rule. Some real area rule, not the fairing induced type. Now that would be something to get excited about, but alas, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

The 787-10 can fly up to 13 hours.
The 787-9 can fly up to 17.5 hours
The 787-8 with the old wing and tail can fly up to 16 hours.
The 787-8 with the new wing and tail can fly up to 19 hours.

A 10-hour range maximum is anywhere from 23% less to 43-47.5% less range than the 787, and the 43-47.5% is on the low end of the 787's capacity, which is still 11% higher than the 270 proposed for the 797-7.

Where is this supposed overlap?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:07 pm

TFawkes wrote:
AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
Stitch: "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."

Yes, sorry Stitch, I should have clarified that an 8 abreast MoM should be significantly shorter-ranged and hence lighter - giving it it's own market and not eating into 787 sales. "Potential" was too vague of a word, but anything Boeing builds that can seat ~275 people and have 8-10 hour range is not all that far from 787 territory. But yes, you are correct they are two different markets.

Now the questions, hopefully answered by carrying over from the excellent analysis by flipdewaf in the Tech/ops post, are: How light can Boeing make an 8ab 4,500 nmi plane? Will it just be competitive in CASM/CASK to a re-winged A321, because that is happening as soon as Boeing firms the configuration of anything of the sort, or beat it by 5% or more? As we know, B will have to recoup the ~5x higher development cost of an all new plane, so it can't just tie A321RW, it has to be better than it by upper single digits at least to justify the higher, less route flexible seating and pay off it's development costs.

I would really like to see a new plane incorporate canards and some area rule. Some real area rule, not the fairing induced type. Now that would be something to get excited about, but alas, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

The 787-10 can fly up to 13 hours.
The 787-9 can fly up to 17.5 hours
The 787-8 with the old wing and tail can fly up to 16 hours.
The 787-8 with the new wing and tail can fly up to 19 hours.

A 10-hour range maximum is anywhere from 23% less to 43-47.5% less range than the 787, and the 43-47.5% is on the low end of the 787's capacity, which is still 11% higher than the 270 proposed for the 797-7.

Where is this supposed overlap?


What new wing on the 788? I know about the 789 tail on the 788.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:14 pm

morrisond wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
Stitch: "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."

Yes, sorry Stitch, I should have clarified that an 8 abreast MoM should be significantly shorter-ranged and hence lighter - giving it it's own market and not eating into 787 sales. "Potential" was too vague of a word, but anything Boeing builds that can seat ~275 people and have 8-10 hour range is not all that far from 787 territory. But yes, you are correct they are two different markets.

Now the questions, hopefully answered by carrying over from the excellent analysis by flipdewaf in the Tech/ops post, are: How light can Boeing make an 8ab 4,500 nmi plane? Will it just be competitive in CASM/CASK to a re-winged A321, because that is happening as soon as Boeing firms the configuration of anything of the sort, or beat it by 5% or more? As we know, B will have to recoup the ~5x higher development cost of an all new plane, so it can't just tie A321RW, it has to be better than it by upper single digits at least to justify the higher, less route flexible seating and pay off it's development costs.

I would really like to see a new plane incorporate canards and some area rule. Some real area rule, not the fairing induced type. Now that would be something to get excited about, but alas, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

The 787-10 can fly up to 13 hours.
The 787-9 can fly up to 17.5 hours
The 787-8 with the old wing and tail can fly up to 16 hours.
The 787-8 with the new wing and tail can fly up to 19 hours.

A 10-hour range maximum is anywhere from 23% less to 43-47.5% less range than the 787, and the 43-47.5% is on the low end of the 787's capacity, which is still 11% higher than the 270 proposed for the 797-7.

Where is this supposed overlap?


What new wing on the 788? I know about the 789 tail on the 788.

The larger wing of the -9/10 is being integrated too as part of the commonality fixes. That'll bring the 788's range to around 15,000km from the added fuel and better aerodynamic performance.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27167
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:11 pm

TFawkes wrote:
The larger wing of the -9/10 is being integrated too as part of the commonality fixes. That'll bring the 788's range to around 15,000km from the added fuel and better aerodynamic performance.


All 787 models have the same wing geometry and dimensions (the -9/-10 have more strengthening to support the higher operating weights).

The -9/-10 were originally to have a longer span, but Boeing's analysis found that for most 787 missions, the extra span's aerodynamic improvements were negated by the extra structural weight so the decision was made to use the 787-8 wing on all the models.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
The larger wing of the -9/10 is being integrated too as part of the commonality fixes. That'll bring the 788's range to around 15,000km from the added fuel and better aerodynamic performance.


All 787 models have the same wing geometry and dimensions (the -9/-10 have more strengthening to support the higher operating weights).

The -9/-10 were originally to have a longer span, but Boeing's analysis found that for most 787 missions, the extra span's aerodynamic improvements were negated by the extra structural weight so the decision was made to use the 787-8 wing on all the models.

Nope, as evidenced by the lower fuel capacity of the 788. They're unifying the wing and wingbox and central fuel tank. There are also changes to the control surfaces on the -9/10 which improve their efficiency which are being brought in.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:42 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Stitch wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
The larger wing of the -9/10 is being integrated too as part of the commonality fixes. That'll bring the 788's range to around 15,000km from the added fuel and better aerodynamic performance.


All 787 models have the same wing geometry and dimensions (the -9/-10 have more strengthening to support the higher operating weights).

The -9/-10 were originally to have a longer span, but Boeing's analysis found that for most 787 missions, the extra span's aerodynamic improvements were negated by the extra structural weight so the decision was made to use the 787-8 wing on all the models.

Nope, as evidenced by the lower fuel capacity of the 788. They're unifying the wing and wingbox and central fuel tank. There are also changes to the control surfaces on the -9/10 which improve their efficiency which are being brought in.


That would be interesting if it turns out to be true - but even Wiki has them at the same area/wingspan.

Lower fuel Capacity can just mean they use less of the internal fuel volume which is a common practice.

Do you have a source for the 788 performance improvement?
 
Elementalism
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:45 pm

Eh Boeing says the -8 has the same wingspan as the -9 and -10.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/

Unless you have some other info?
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Stitch wrote:

All 787 models have the same wing geometry and dimensions (the -9/-10 have more strengthening to support the higher operating weights).

The -9/-10 were originally to have a longer span, but Boeing's analysis found that for most 787 missions, the extra span's aerodynamic improvements were negated by the extra structural weight so the decision was made to use the 787-8 wing on all the models.

Nope, as evidenced by the lower fuel capacity of the 788. They're unifying the wing and wingbox and central fuel tank. There are also changes to the control surfaces on the -9/10 which improve their efficiency which are being brought in.

That would be interesting if it turns out to be true - but even Wiki has them at the same area/wingspan.

Lower fuel Capacity can just mean they use less of the internal fuel volume which is a common practice.

Do you have a source for the 788 performance improvement?

No public sources (but I do have private confirmation). The laminar tail section is the only part mentioned publicly, but given the commonality was a measly 40% and that the commonality problems are a focus at Boeing right now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're fixing as much as they can at once in the presence of a large order. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

American ordered 20 new -8 frames, and delivery is starting this year.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:51 pm

Elementalism wrote:
Eh Boeing says the -8 has the same wingspan as the -9 and -10.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/

Unless you have some other info?

It's not just the span you have to look at. The A350-900 and -1000 have the same span, but different wings too. The trailing edges and control services were improved for the -9 and -10, same as the A359 vs. A35K.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:55 pm

TFawkes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Nope, as evidenced by the lower fuel capacity of the 788. They're unifying the wing and wingbox and central fuel tank. There are also changes to the control surfaces on the -9/10 which improve their efficiency which are being brought in.

That would be interesting if it turns out to be true - but even Wiki has them at the same area/wingspan.

Lower fuel Capacity can just mean they use less of the internal fuel volume which is a common practice.

Do you have a source for the 788 performance improvement?

No public sources (but I do have private confirmation). The laminar tail section is the only part mentioned publicly, but given the commonality was a measly 40% and that the commonality problems are a focus at Boeing right now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're fixing as much as they can at once in the presence of a large order. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

American ordered 20 new -8 frames, and delivery is starting this year.


So if the 788 wing was the same size as the 789 and 781 before - all three are bigger now?

I understand they are making commonality changes - but there is no information it's a different wing shape that would allow a performance improvement like you are suggesting. Unless the new parts are radically lighter and I do mean radical - in terms of taking 789 designs and lightening them up for 788 takeoff weights using different laminations which would destroy the whole point of commonality.

Or are the 789 tail and wings that much lighter than 788?
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
That would be interesting if it turns out to be true - but even Wiki has them at the same area/wingspan.

Lower fuel Capacity can just mean they use less of the internal fuel volume which is a common practice.

Do you have a source for the 788 performance improvement?

No public sources (but I do have private confirmation). The laminar tail section is the only part mentioned publicly, but given the commonality was a measly 40% and that the commonality problems are a focus at Boeing right now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're fixing as much as they can at once in the presence of a large order. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

American ordered 20 new -8 frames, and delivery is starting this year.


So if the 788 wing was the same size as the 789 and 781 before - all three are bigger now?

I understand they are making commonality changes - but there is no information it's a different wing shape that would allow a performance improvement like you are suggesting. Unless the new parts are radically lighter and I do mean radical - in terms of taking 789 designs and lightening them up for 788 takeoff weights using different laminations which would destroy the whole point of commonality.

Or are the 789 tail and wings that much lighter than 788?

The 788 tail is non-laminar and heavier. As for the wings, did we all forget the 787-9 was basically called the 787 Mk. II??? Lots of rewiring and rerouting of the fuel systems was done to improve efficiency.

The latest 789s and 10s are also missing a lot of weight from the wings thanks to the removed inner copper foil and fastener caps, some where around 2 imperial tons, or 4000 lbs, which is a huge boost for payload.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:21 pm

TFawkes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
No public sources (but I do have private confirmation). The laminar tail section is the only part mentioned publicly, but given the commonality was a measly 40% and that the commonality problems are a focus at Boeing right now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they're fixing as much as they can at once in the presence of a large order. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/17/boein ... mmonality/

American ordered 20 new -8 frames, and delivery is starting this year.


So if the 788 wing was the same size as the 789 and 781 before - all three are bigger now?

I understand they are making commonality changes - but there is no information it's a different wing shape that would allow a performance improvement like you are suggesting. Unless the new parts are radically lighter and I do mean radical - in terms of taking 789 designs and lightening them up for 788 takeoff weights using different laminations which would destroy the whole point of commonality.

Or are the 789 tail and wings that much lighter than 788?

The 788 tail is non-laminar and heavier. As for the wings, did we all forget the 787-9 was basically called the 787 Mk. II??? Lots of rewiring and rerouting of the fuel systems was done to improve efficiency.

The latest 789s and 10s are also missing a lot of weight from the wings thanks to the removed inner copper foil and fastener caps, some where around 2 imperial tons, or 4000 lbs, which is a huge boost for payload.


Interesting. So not different shape just different weight.

I assume the fuselage skins could be thinner as well due to lower MTOW and that would not really affect commonality if the internal structure of the wing is the same.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:01 pm

So what happens after some lightning strike without the copper mesh? Wasn‘t it certified and tested with copper mesh? Why can it just be removed?
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:06 pm

Noshow wrote:
So what happens after some lightning strike without the copper mesh? Wasn‘t it certified and tested with copper mesh? Why can it just be removed?

Why can't it be? Boeing couldn't have found a sufficient, lighter-weight solution? The FAA approved it, and the EASA hasn't raised Hell over it.

The wing is already in the geometry of a Faraday Cage internally, so having electricity arc from the outside into the fuel tanks is essentially impossible even without the mesh. And the mesh doesn't protect from faults in the wiring anyway.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:36 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Noshow wrote:
So what happens after some lightning strike without the copper mesh? Wasn‘t it certified and tested with copper mesh? Why can it just be removed?

Why can't it be? Boeing couldn't have found a sufficient, lighter-weight solution? The FAA approved it, and the EASA hasn't raised Hell over it.

The wing is already in the geometry of a Faraday Cage internally, so having electricity arc from the outside into the fuel tanks is essentially impossible even without the mesh. And the mesh doesn't protect from faults in the wiring anyway.


Boeing made the change and 40 wing set were produced before the FAA management agreed against their own experts advise to certify the change. Without the the copper mesh there is no faraday cage.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:59 pm

Stitch wrote:
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.


Ey? The difference between A3210 and A321 is ~7m yes, but there's 2 extra pair of doors. Also, aircraft are stretched by adding frames, each aircraft have different size for its frames. I do believe A320s and B737s uses the 21" frames. So when they stretched it, they tend to stick with those formula (while the doors tend to be different width).

5 meters stretch would resulted in 7 rows of economy class at 28" seat pitch. Not 5 rows. So that's 42 extra seats.

The size of the doors doesn't equate to the room it needed for its size, they need way more room compared to the size of the actual doors. They need to take account the space between the door and the seats, partition and other interior details.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Noshow wrote:
So what happens after some lightning strike without the copper mesh? Wasn‘t it certified and tested with copper mesh? Why can it just be removed?

Why can't it be? Boeing couldn't have found a sufficient, lighter-weight solution? The FAA approved it, and the EASA hasn't raised Hell over it.

The wing is already in the geometry of a Faraday Cage internally, so having electricity arc from the outside into the fuel tanks is essentially impossible even without the mesh. And the mesh doesn't protect from faults in the wiring anyway.


Boeing made the change and 40 wing set were produced before the FAA management agreed against their own experts advise to certify the change. Without the the copper mesh there is no faraday cage.

Not true on the no Faraday Cage. You do not need to make a FC out of metal. Don't believe me? Crack open an electrostatics textbook. Boeing figured out how to make the CFRP behave as one without it. As usual, regulators are behind.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:08 pm

TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Why can't it be? Boeing couldn't have found a sufficient, lighter-weight solution? The FAA approved it, and the EASA hasn't raised Hell over it.

The wing is already in the geometry of a Faraday Cage internally, so having electricity arc from the outside into the fuel tanks is essentially impossible even without the mesh. And the mesh doesn't protect from faults in the wiring anyway.


Boeing made the change and 40 wing set were produced before the FAA management agreed against their own experts advise to certify the change. Without the the copper mesh there is no faraday cage.

Not true on the no Faraday Cage. You do not need to make a FC out of metal. Don't believe me? Crack open an electrostatics textbook. Boeing figured out how to make the CFRP behave as one without it. As usual, regulators are behind.


The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.
 
2175301
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:36 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.


And silicone is an insulator; yet we have had integrated circuits made of silicone for many decades.... Doped silicone layers.

I am sure that it is possible to find a way to dope the resin for the CFRP structures so that the resin is conductive, even if the fibers are not.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27167
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:44 pm

Reading The Seattle Times article, it sounds more like Boeing felt that the insulating caps and copper mesh were unnecessary as the fasteners were encased in a sealant that was designed to prevent sparking from a lightning strike and the nitrogen inerting system made the fuel vapors non-flammable. So the caps and mesh were likely seen as redundant.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:21 am

mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Boeing made the change and 40 wing set were produced before the FAA management agreed against their own experts advise to certify the change. Without the the copper mesh there is no faraday cage.

Not true on the no Faraday Cage. You do not need to make a FC out of metal. Don't believe me? Crack open an electrostatics textbook. Boeing figured out how to make the CFRP behave as one without it. As usual, regulators are behind.


The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.

Incorrect. It just has to be more conductive than the material inside, and it must be able to form an electrical field under charge with such topology as to have a potential of 0 inside its internal volume.

Honestly that's Physics 101/102 territory.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:23 am

2175301 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.


And silicone is an insulator; yet we have had integrated circuits made of silicone for many decades.... Doped silicone layers.

I am sure that it is possible to find a way to dope the resin for the CFRP structures so that the resin is conductive, even if the fibers are not.

Have a great day,

Silicon*

Silicone is a complex molecule and is not a semiconductor.

And it's not so much doping as it is proving the carbon tape's conducting paths cancel electrical potential within the cavity of the wing.
 
User avatar
brianK73
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:47 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:24 am

2175301 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.


And silicone is an insulator; yet we have had integrated circuits made of silicone for many decades.... Doped silicone layers.

I am sure that it is possible to find a way to dope the resin for the CFRP structures so that the resin is conductive, even if the fibers are not.

Have a great day,


Actually, as everyone learns in Electricity 101, silicon is not an insulator.
To quote Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/semiconductor
WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Semiconductor, any of a class of crystalline solids intermediate in electrical conductivity between a conductor and an insulator. Semiconductors are employed in the manufacture of various kinds of electronic devices, including diodes, transistors, and integrated circuits.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:38 am

TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Not true on the no Faraday Cage. You do not need to make a FC out of metal. Don't believe me? Crack open an electrostatics textbook. Boeing figured out how to make the CFRP behave as one without it. As usual, regulators are behind.


The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.

Incorrect. It just has to be more conductive than the material inside, and it must be able to form an electrical field under charge with such topology as to have a potential of 0 inside its internal volume.

Honestly that's Physics 101/102 territory.


What material more conductive than what material? CFRP more conductive than CFRP?
When the copper mesh was removed the conductive material was removed.
The argument from Boeing was about the probability of lightnings striking the wing, not about what would happen when a lightning would strike the wing.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:09 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

The material to make a faraday cage must be electrical conductive. CFRP is an electrical isolator. Perhaps you crack a textbook.

Incorrect. It just has to be more conductive than the material inside, and it must be able to form an electrical field under charge with such topology as to have a potential of 0 inside its internal volume.

Honestly that's Physics 101/102 territory.


What material more conductive than what material? CFRP more conductive than CFRP?
When the copper mesh was removed the conductive material was removed.
The argument from Boeing was about the probability of lightnings striking the wing, not about what would happen when a lightning would strike the wing.

Incorrect. Boeing's argument was about an electrical spark entering the fuel tanks as a result of a lightning strike. And the CFRP has to be more conductive than the air in the tank to be able to act as a Faraday Cage. It's only if you achieve superheated air in the presence of atomized Jet 1-A that you achieve a fire. You can't just set kerosene ablaze easily. So, if the CFRP remains more conductive than air in a suitable topology, the copper foil is redundant. That was Boeing's argument.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:40 pm

TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Incorrect. It just has to be more conductive than the material inside, and it must be able to form an electrical field under charge with such topology as to have a potential of 0 inside its internal volume.

Honestly that's Physics 101/102 territory.


What material more conductive than what material? CFRP more conductive than CFRP?
When the copper mesh was removed the conductive material was removed.
The argument from Boeing was about the probability of lightnings striking the wing, not about what would happen when a lightning would strike the wing.

Incorrect. Boeing's argument was about an electrical spark entering the fuel tanks as a result of a lightning strike. And the CFRP has to be more conductive than the air in the tank to be able to act as a Faraday Cage. It's only if you achieve superheated air in the presence of atomized Jet 1-A that you achieve a fire. You can't just set kerosene ablaze easily. So, if the CFRP remains more conductive than air in a suitable topology, the copper foil is redundant. That was Boeing's argument.

Atomization of a fuel is when the liquid fuel is broken into small droplets; it is not the only condition to ignite a fuel, evaporation of said fuel is an even surer way of doing it (since it'll become a gas).
Jet fuel is rarely (if ever) atomized in the fuel tanks; it usually happens in the combustion chambers of the engine

Jet fuel has a flash point of 38°C (100° F); that means, anytime the fuel above that temperature, a spark would ignite said fuel.
Lighting striking a CFRP wing without electrical conductor mesh could easily create such conditions.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

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

Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:42 pm

TFawkes wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Incorrect. It just has to be more conductive than the material inside, and it must be able to form an electrical field under charge with such topology as to have a potential of 0 inside its internal volume.

Honestly that's Physics 101/102 territory.


What material more conductive than what material? CFRP more conductive than CFRP?
When the copper mesh was removed the conductive material was removed.
The argument from Boeing was about the probability of lightnings striking the wing, not about what would happen when a lightning would strike the wing.


Incorrect. Boeing's argument was about an electrical spark entering the fuel tanks as a result of a lightning strike. And the CFRP has to be more conductive than the air in the tank to be able to act as a Faraday Cage. It's only if you achieve superheated air in the presence of atomized Jet 1-A that you achieve a fire. You can't just set kerosene ablaze easily. So, if the CFRP remains more conductive than air in a suitable topology, the copper foil is redundant. That was Boeing's argument.


https://www.aerotime.aero/rytis.beresne ... -objection
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... rt-2019-12?
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -measures/

The article from the Seattle times describes how the lightning zones were redrawn by Boeing.

The experts at the FAA do not agree with you, only the managers did. Boeing put a lot of pressure on the FAA by producing 40 wing sets without the copper mesh before the change was certified. Other lightning protections in regards to the tanks was also reduced. The argument by Boeing was, as so often, that huge amounts of money were in jeopardy, if the changes were not accepted. The FAA managers fell over.

I advise you to read the article in the Seattle times.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Feb 29, 2020 5:27 pm

I think my post viewtopic.php?p=22054291#p22052723 in the AirAsiaX thread may have some relevance:

Revelation wrote:
The gist of the article is:
  • They originally ordered 100 A330neo and 30 A321XLR
  • This had already been reduced to 78 A330neo and 30 A321XLR
  • They now operate 28 A330ceo
  • They announce that they will defer the 78 A330neo with no duration provided
  • They might sell two A330ceo to raise cash
  • They are trying to negotiate a 30% cut in lease rates (good luck!)
  • Going forward they plan to use A321XLR rather than A330 for routes less than 4-6 hours
About 30% of their capacity is targeted to China, so CV is causing them a lot of problems.

One interesting quote:

"We believe advanced aircraft technology has changed business dynamics as we can now fly narrow body aircraft longer," AirAsia X Malaysia CEO Benyamin Ismail said in a statement.

So it seems A321XLR is undermining the A330neo business case.

I feel the events are showing that the market chose to not "abuse" A330/787/A350 on shorter routes and Boeing must do something in the "middle of the market". The idea that 787 needs protection doesn't hold water in my mind. Either Boeing produces a MOM or we shall see even more A321s sold, the market will not buy 788s to use in the MOM market. It seems even more dire for A330, one of its few big customers is telling the world that A321 is a better product than A330 for MOM, and events like CV are showing the risk in speculatively buying bigger airplanes in anticipation of the market.
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
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:19 am

Revelation wrote:
It seems even more dire for A330, one of its few big customers is telling the world that A321 is a better product than A330 for MOM, and events like CV are showing the risk in speculatively buying bigger airplanes in anticipation of the market.


I thought they were saying A321 is a better product than A330 for 4-6 hour flights.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 2:58 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It seems even more dire for A330, one of its few big customers is telling the world that A321 is a better product than A330 for MOM, and events like CV are showing the risk in speculatively buying bigger airplanes in anticipation of the market.

I thought they were saying A321 is a better product than A330 for 4-6 hour flights.

Yes, yet it wasn't very long ago where they ordered 100 A330neo largely to cover those 4-6 hour flights.
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
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:54 pm

Revelation wrote:
Yes, yet it wasn't very long ago where they ordered 100 A330neo largely to cover those 4-6 hour flights.


Air Asia X placed original order for the A330neo in December 2014
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2014/12/airasia-x-places-firm-order-for-55-a330neo.html

News of the original LR version of the A321 was just announced in October 2014
https://leehamnews.com/2014/10/21/exclusive-airbus-launches-a321neolr-long-range-to-replace-757-200w/

Airbus must have known that the LR and XLR would have some sales impact on sales of their cheapest widebodies.

It's sort of like pointing out that the Dreamliner does not have the payload capability of the bestselling 777-300ER. That fact is obviously true, but it delivers the same range in a much cheaper jet. It doesn't replace the -300ER, but it is still going to have an impact on sales
B777-300ER MTOW: 775,000 lb Range 7,370 nmi
B787-9 MTOW: 502,500 lb Range 7,635 nmi
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:57 pm

All of this NMA discussion seems rather amusing when reading it within the context of current events. World airlines are not quite as anxious for Boeing to launch NMA as they were a couple of months ago.

Even though nobody really knows how severely the world's largest economies will be affected, it is already pretty clear that this has pushed demand for NMA down the road. Boeing has now been given even more breathing room to revisit the concept. Hopefully, the end result will be that everyone comes out the other side even more strongly convinced that they have gotten it right this time. The market for the NMA has now been delayed a bit, but it's not going to disappear. It will reemerge in a couple of years time, with airlines wanting to take deliveries in 2027-28.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:09 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Yes, yet it wasn't very long ago where they ordered 100 A330neo largely to cover those 4-6 hour flights.


Air Asia X placed original order for the A330neo in December 2014
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2014/12/airasia-x-places-firm-order-for-55-a330neo.html

News of the original LR version of the A321 was just announced in October 2014
https://leehamnews.com/2014/10/21/exclusive-airbus-launches-a321neolr-long-range-to-replace-757-200w/

Airbus must have known that the LR and XLR would have some sales impact on sales of their cheapest widebodies.

It's sort of like pointing out that the Dreamliner does not have the payload capability of the bestselling 777-300ER. That fact is obviously true, but it delivers the same range in a much cheaper jet. It doesn't replace the -300ER, but it is still going to have an impact on sales
B777-300ER MTOW: 775,000 lb Range 7,370 nmi
B787-9 MTOW: 502,500 lb Range 7,635 nmi

Thanks for your well researched post.

I think you perhaps should reconsider the earlier quote:

"We believe advanced aircraft technology has changed business dynamics as we can now fly narrow body aircraft longer," AirAsia X Malaysia CEO Benyamin Ismail said in a statement.

The AAX CEO is telling us their perception of what they can use an A321 for versus an A330 is changed, in favor of deferring A330 while keeping A321.

And yes, many customers also discovered they could use Dreamliners to do what they thought they needed 777 or 747 to do.

And interestingly enough the decision to launch 777x was made in November 2013 and probably won't EIS till 2021 or even 2022.

This all shows how difficult it is to chose how to invest $billions on what can only be built 6+ years in the future.

Personally I think NMA-6 and NMA-7 were about the right payload/range targets, but the current leadership team probably feels pressured to do an A321 clone and to get the MAX rebooted before making any big decisions.
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
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:19 pm

DL747400 wrote:
All of this NMA discussion seems rather amusing when reading it within the context of current events. World airlines are not quite as anxious for Boeing to launch NMA as they were a couple of months ago.

Even though nobody really knows how severely the world's largest economies will be affected, it is already pretty clear that this has pushed demand for NMA down the road. Boeing has now been given even more breathing room to revisit the concept. Hopefully, the end result will be that everyone comes out the other side even more strongly convinced that they have gotten it right this time. The market for the NMA has now been delayed a bit, but it's not going to disappear. It will reemerge in a couple of years time, with airlines wanting to take deliveries in 2027-28.

Yet if what Bloomberg reported about FAA's pilot evaluation is not an exaggeration, Boeing will need the time to meet some very raised expectations with regard to cockpit design and man-machine interface. It seems to me the only way to meet the expectations for a new airplane will be to engineer the human element out, to a degree beyond current 777/787 levels of automation, not to mention MAX's level of automation. It also dove tails with the issue of the cost of pilot training. It seems the way forward for a new airplane will be to require far less of it.
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
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:46 am

Revelation wrote:
And yes, many customers also discovered they could use Dreamliners to do what they thought they needed 777 or 747 to do.


This whole question about when does an airline go with the smallest and cheapest jet that can do the range they are interested in is very interesting.
Take Southwest for example since they had a limited number of models.

In June 1971 they basically had two choices. The established delivery base of the B737-200 was about 200 jets, while the DC-9 had about 600 jets active.
Presumably, WN went with the cheaper jet and configured it with 112 seats.
Then they were the launch customer for the B737-300, B737-500, and B737-700.
Then Southwest made a clear executive decision to stick with the -700 model even though AA,UA, DL and AS all decided it was more efficient to purchase the longer stretches -800 primarily and then -900ER at a later date. Southwest waited 9.5 years between their first order of -700 and their first order for a -800 model
I wonder what changed that made them decide to upgauge after a decade?

All of the US-3 purchased the B777, presumably partly because it was the only twin engine jet with the long ranges. Now none of them seems even remotely interested in the B777x, eschewing the larger heavier jet for lighter cheaper competitors. But in many ways business is more robust than it has been in decades.

United is the only US airline flying a configuration with more than 306 seats. It is unknown how many seats HA is going to configure for their Dreamliners. It was believed back in the 1970s that large jets were the secret to making air travel affordable.

What will it take to make one of the US-3 interested in the B777x?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:45 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I wonder what changed that made them decide to upgauge after a decade?

Some factors:
  • Reduction of the US6 to the US3 in the first decade of this century made more pax per flight available to WN. I think most of us observe domestic load factors are higher than ever.
  • WN's unions have negotiated far better terms and conditions so they need more revenue per flight
  • WN's business model had been mostly leisure travelers between outlying airports but now is much more about business travel to central airports which mean higher fees per flight. A lot of this happened because the US6->US3 transition made gates available at low prices at central airports.

It's interesting to note that WN had the ex-Airtran 717 fleet in house and ended up paying DL to take it off their hands, and high cost DL is seeming to make money using those planes. It's a vivid example of how WN can't make a second fleet of small planes work for it. Personally I think if WN is going to add a second fleet it would be larger rather than smaller planes. I can see them wanting them for some of their more popular routes. I know my favorite flight fills up pretty early so I need to book it weeks ahead of time. I could see something like NMA-6 working just fine for them. Better capacity for packed coastal flights, better fuel efficiency, quicker turn around times, payload/range to do stuff like DEN-Hawaii would all be great positives.
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
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:10 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
It was believed back in the 1970s that large jets were the secret to making air travel affordable.


DC-10s and 747s on domestic routes in the ealry 70s were fine, so long as the CAB set prices (a cost-plush mentality). After deregulation (and the early 80s recession) it quickly became clear that 747s at 45% load factors were not the key to making money, particularly with fuel price increases from the 1973 and 1979 Oil Shocks. Too many seats chasing too few passengers.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:52 pm

Boeing 787-9 configuration: 35+309=344 seats Norwegian Air (2 class).

MIflyer12 wrote:
Too many seats chasing too few passengers.


Hawaiian Airlines has 10 B787-9s on order. Do you think they will mimic Norwegian and go with a similar high-density configuration ~344 seats? Or will HA stick with a triple class configuration?

Who would have predicted a decade ago that HA might have the 3rd highest seat configuration of any US airline?

United Airlines over 300 seats
19 Boeing 777-200 28+102+234=364 seats (average age over 20 years)
22 Boeing 777-300ER 24+62+204=350 seats
13 Boeing 787-10 21+54+199=318 seats
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:51 am

QANTAS want the people mover with two ailes do faster turn around at busy airports. Boeing have to make design compromises which have to satisfy the majority of customers. What those compromises will be is the hard part.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 8:59 am

Revelation wrote:
Personally I think if WN is going to add a second fleet it would be larger rather than smaller planes. I can see them wanting them for some of their more popular routes. I know my favorite flight fills up pretty early so I need to book it weeks ahead of time.

I could see something like NMA-6 working just fine for them. Better capacity for packed coastal flights, better fuel efficiency, quicker turn around times, payload/range to do stuff like DEN-Hawaii would all be great positives.


Thank you for your lucid answer.

If you think WNs potential second fleet would be larger rather than smaller planes the first possibility would be the A321. But it seems like Southwest is unlikely to want to squander a half century relationship with Boeing just to get in a seven year queue for the most popular jet in the world. Is it a possibility that Southwest could run a small fleet of twenty single class Dreamliners out of their newly expanded DEN operation?
 
Lukas757
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 11:59 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:36 am

PacoMartin wrote:
22 Boeing 777-300ER 24+62+204=350 seats
13 Boeing 787-10 21+54+199=318 seats


There is something wrong here with the maths.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:58 am

Lukas757 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
22 Boeing 777-300ER 24+62+204=350 seats
13 Boeing 787-10 21+54+199=318 seats


There is something wrong here with the maths.

Sorry, these are four class configurations. I forgot the Polaris class
22 Boeing 777-300ER 60+24+62+204=350 seats
13 Boeing 787-10 44+21+54+199=318 seats
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:11 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
QANTAS want the people mover with two ailes do faster turn around at busy airports. Boeing have to make design compromises which have to satisfy the majority of customers. What those compromises will be is the hard part.


I think that is the reason we do not have an NMA until now and probably will not have one for another long time. As long as every customer is only willing to pay more for one specific feature there is no compromise to satisfy everyone leading to no market to sell the NMA to.

1. Qantas wants maximum capacity with narrow body turn around times (so a twin aisle)
2. US carriers want a 757/767-hybrid replacement that is good at TATL and domestic routes (what means a light twin aisle with no cargo capacity)
3. China seems to want a true 767 style modern airliner with cargo capacity (which is not what US carriers want)

All three seem to have a problem right now: the average cost per seat is higher than that of a narrow body, while not showing enough benefits to justify the investment.
On top of that Boeings philosophy of human/machine interaction seems to be outdated and needs a review and a redesign.

All this points (and probably many more) increase the risk of a new development into a segment that might not exist anymore in 5-10 years (it might also be bigger but it is a moon shot).

On the other hand there is also the need to develop a successor for the 737 that is ready in and around 2030. Couple this with the fundamental reason of a freely traded company that needs to maximize returns for shareholders. This results in the strategy of low risk decisions. The path with the lowest risk is the one of a 737 replacement that challenges the A320/321 combination without any fancy, new and expensive ideas. Just a solid product in a market that will be there for sure.
 
planecane
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:29 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.


By the same token, you get more seats per aisle with 3-3 than 2-2 or 2-3 so the same issue sort of exists. For equivalent capacity, you would conclude that 3-3 is always optimal based on the same arguments that 2-3-2 is always sub optimal to 3-3. Obviously, this isn't the case and there are other factors involved. Otherwise, 2-2 and 2-3 (and 1-2) would not exist.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:01 pm

planecane wrote:
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.


By the same token, you get more seats per aisle with 3-3 than 2-2 or 2-3 so the same issue sort of exists. For equivalent capacity, you would conclude that 3-3 is always optimal based on the same arguments that 2-3-2 is always sub optimal to 3-3. Obviously, this isn't the case and there are other factors involved. Otherwise, 2-2 and 2-3 (and 1-2) would not exist.


Just divide the amount of aisles by the amount of seats:

1-1: 0.5
1-2: 0.33
2-3-2: 0.29
2-2: 0.25
2-4-2: 0.25
3-3-3: 0.22
2-3: 0.2
3-4-3: 0.2
3-3: 0.17

Now lets compare a bit, which Y-layout do carriers tend to choose on the 777? 3-4-3, because it uses the given floor space most efficiently, and all the added payload is able to generate revenue.

When you go from 3-3 to 2-3-2 (keeping the same overall capacity) you add more payload (dead floor area) without adding more revenue. To offset this the 2-3-2 aircraft has to be more efficient. If we assume Boeing can decide to build a 3-3 and a 2-3-2 with the exact same technology and the same price, then the 2-3-2 is less efficient as it has to carry more payload without generating more revenue. To make the 2-3-2 more viable it needs a feature to generate more revenue. This might be possible with a more revenue generating J product. That is just a bad seller for every airline that wants to use the NMA on relatively short missions hauling people (China, LCCs, ULCCs). So you lose 2/3s of the market to a 3-3 aircraft.

The 3-3 design has the most revenue generating area compared to dead area.

This whole thing here takes equal capacity into account. Of course physics will at one point decide if the aircraft has to become wider or thinner but in the core markets (180-240 single pax) the 3-3 wins over the 2-3 and the 2-3-2. In the step above the 2-4-2 clearly outshines the 2-3-2 by a mile but can never compete against the 3-3-3 or the 3-4-3. We actually observe this in the market. It just seems that with a 3-4-3 layout you reach point where yield starts to drop due to overcapacity so you choose a smaller aircraft for most routes (787/A350).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 24364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:38 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Thank you for your lucid answer.

If you think WNs potential second fleet would be larger rather than smaller planes the first possibility would be the A321. But it seems like Southwest is unlikely to want to squander a half century relationship with Boeing just to get in a seven year queue for the most popular jet in the world. Is it a possibility that Southwest could run a small fleet of twenty single class Dreamliners out of their newly expanded DEN operation?

Personally, I think that is too big a bump in capacity. Depending on which models you decide to compare, Dreamliner could be doubling the range and doubling the number of pax relative to MAX. Dreamliner is built to lift a lot of fuel to support the long range missions and so it's heavier than one might imagine. This rules out use on many of the airports WN services. It'd not be viable for DAL, HOU, LGA, MDW, etc. Then since it is a new fleet type WN would have a lot of costs to absorb for training and spares. Honestly if it needed a sub-fleet mostly for DEN it almost would be better off hiring a charter operator, but their union would not allow it. The smaller NMA would have been a better fit in terms of payload/range. We never got details on its field characteristics so we don't know how it would do at smaller airports. We do know it would have had new training and spares requirements, but WN will have to cross that bridge at some point. It just seems to me 787 would be the wrong reason to cross the bridge.
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
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8060
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:56 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Boeing 787-9 configuration: 35+309=344 seats Norwegian Air (2 class).

MIflyer12 wrote:
Too many seats chasing too few passengers.


Hawaiian Airlines has 10 B787-9s on order. Do you think they will mimic Norwegian and go with a similar high-density configuration ~344 seats? Or will HA stick with a triple class configuration?

Who would have predicted a decade ago that HA might have the 3rd highest seat configuration of any US airline?

United Airlines over 300 seats
19 Boeing 777-200 28+102+234=364 seats (average age over 20 years)
22 Boeing 777-300ER 24+62+204=350 seats
13 Boeing 787-10 21+54+199=318 seats


There are tens (tens!) of U.S. widebodies on domestic routes (pre-COVID-19, anyway) in contrast to the hundreds of 747s, DC-10s and L-1011s of the late 70s in a domestic market that was less than 1/3 the current size. (267 million, cited in 'Air Transportation: A Management Perspective')

HA's 767s (264 seats 2-class) and A332s (278 with Y+) have been pretty high density, at least compared to AA/DL/UA. I expect the HA 789s will have a lie-flat J/Y+/Y layout. I don't see a seat count mentioned in the HA press release of March '18.

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