Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Have you looked at the predictions? More and more analysts expect air travel to not return to a normal state before 2022 and demand to not reach 2019 levels again before 2024-2027 and that only if there are no additional negative factors and if the virus is of no concern for the customers at the end of 2021. Which means a working vaccine would have to be applied world wide. New airliners are not needed at the moment. Corona was Black Swan event way worse than 9-11 and the financial crisis combined.

I think you are right. If airlines aren’t growing, they don’t need more planes, so they won’t buy new planes. They can use the airplanes that they have and retire the older or less efficient planes. I don’t see airlines buying new planes when the price on used airplanes is collapsing.

Research and development is paid for from profit. The doom and gloom crowd can say the ship is sailing and the end is near. Fortunately Boeing has military and space programs to keep them afloat. Those are the programs likely to want new products and thus money will probably go there.

I have my doubts that Airbus will debt fund development that will put Boeing too far behind. Boeing already leads widebodies. Airbus is working on stabilizing their production since the A220 is losing money (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html) , A321neo production is way behind schedule, and the A321XLR is still 3 years away. In general Airbus isn’t in a good financial position to launch a new airplane either after losing more money in 2019 than Boeing did, so Boeing taking time to see how the market changes probably makes sense. Airline consolidations could change what the next plane looks like.

I would not say gloom and doom, I would say uncertainty. the simple problem is that nobody knows when demand will pick-up again, how fast it will pick-up again and also how the demand will look. With cooperations investing serious amount of money into teleconferencing and their IT infrastructure to reduce the need to travel, it is more than likely that they will try to make use of that infrastructure after the virus crisis, so we can easily see less business demand. If countries make travelling harder (say VISAs and an up-to-date and negative Corona test result for entry) we would see even less travel and many regions might be fighting the virus a lot longer than others. Airlines will struggle for the next years and i can not really see any appetite to become the launch customer for a new plane that would be aiming at filling a gap, a gap airlines are widening in their fleets at the moment with early retirements of 757s and 767s.

RJMAZ wrote:

It can and it is already slightly more efficient than the Airbus model due to the slightly lighter/tighter fuselage. The crashes will be long forgotten after the market recovers. Most will be nervously listening out for any passenger coughing, the last thing in their mind will be the aircraft crashing.

If the 737 is slightly more efficient than the A320, why has it steadily been losing market share since the A320 was launched? Now you can point to the A321 as the reason, but long before the A321 was even thought about as matching A320 sales the A320 family was catching up the the 737.

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Absolutely. The 737-7 and 737-8 are optimized for that market.

Where the MAX starts to stumble is the 200-240 seats up to 3000NM market segment, but even there it can compete fairly well on the lower-end with the 737-9.

Orders for the 737-7 seemed non existent even before the Corona crisis. The 737-8 seems to have enough quality problems to ground the worldwide fleet for a year, stop production and fire the CEO.

The -9 didn't hold it's own, that's why the -10 was launched.

Altogether it wise to launch a plan B instead of getting caught in the headlights afterall.

The signals that we got was that Boeing indeed burried NMA and looks at a single aisles less capable aircraft. Realists might call that a 737 replacement.

Shrinks have fallen out of favor in every segment. See A221, A319, 787-8, A338, 778. As such, the situation of the 737-7 is not specific to the MAX platform. I agree with the lack luster performance on the top end of the MAX.

Realisticly, the only choice Boeing has now is to sit out the perfect storm and start investing when there is light at the end of the tunnel. Which probably means an commitment for $20-30B by 2025 with an EIS of 2033(earliest). Everybody wants to see new birds, but they do not come out of thin air and statistically bring most of the aircraft manufacturers in to huge financial trouble...

2033 EIS of a new FSA could very well mean a 6-7 NB production stop at Boeing.
Boeing may be happy to sell another 1000-1500 737MAX and produce them at 20-25 per month.
IMO the 737 situation is sinking in slowly.
Who can justify a big 25 yr investment in a MAX fleet to his stakeholders? Really..

enzo011 wrote:

If the 737 is slightly more efficient than the A320, why has it steadily been losing market share since the A320 was launched? Now you can point to the A321 as the reason, but long before the A321 was even thought about as matching A320 sales the A320 family was catching up the the 737.

The 737 IS more efficient. That is pretty common knowledge.

Some other reasons why the A320 might get purchased.

1) Price
2) Country of origin
3) Similar cockpit layout to the A330.
3) LD3-45 containers
3) Covers a larger size spectrum with one pilot pool.

keesje wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

Orders for the 737-7 seemed non existent even before the Corona crisis. The 737-8 seems to have enough quality problems to ground the worldwide fleet for a year, stop production and fire the CEO.

The -9 didn't hold it's own, that's why the -10 was launched.

Altogether it wise to launch a plan B instead of getting caught in the headlights afterall.

The signals that we got was that Boeing indeed burried NMA and looks at a single aisles less capable aircraft. Realists might call that a 737 replacement.

Shrinks have fallen out of favor in every segment. See A221, A319, 787-8, A338, 778. As such, the situation of the 737-7 is not specific to the MAX platform. I agree with the lack luster performance on the top end of the MAX.

Realisticly, the only choice Boeing has now is to sit out the perfect storm and start investing when there is light at the end of the tunnel. Which probably means an commitment for $20-30B by 2025 with an EIS of 2033(earliest). Everybody wants to see new birds, but they do not come out of thin air and statistically bring most of the aircraft manufacturers in to huge financial trouble...

2033 EIS of a new FSA could very well mean a 6-7 NB production stop at Boeing.
Boeing may be happy to sell another 1000-1500 737MAX and produce them at 20-25 per month.
IMO the 737 situation is sinking in slowly.
Who can justify a big 25 yr investment in a MAX fleet to his stakeholders? Really..

So what is the 737MAX situation exactly? You seem to have inside knowledge about the future of most current orders, so you would surely not mind providing us with details and proof for your assessment.

Independent of any other Manufacturers we can pretty sure assume the following things:

The Max is the last iteration of the 737 design. It is already an abomination pushed to the limits and there is no more margin in the frame to change.
There has to be a new narrow body design from Boeing at one point, that will feature no commonality with the 737.

In the long run who will buy and operate the Max. Actually there are a lot of airlines that will but some will inherently carry a massive risk by doing so:
1 cockpit type operators have to change from the 737 to another model at one point. With the max this decision can be pushed out 30-40 years, but in about 10-20 years, pure 737 operators will be on the back foot in the efficiency departement. Even though they only operate one cockpit and can save costs there, the more efficient the next generation aircraft is, the further this operators fall behind. It is a dead end in that direction and the 737 will start to lose massive value as soon as another NB will come into play, as only a handfull of operators will be willing to take on 737s after 2030.

Diversified fleet operators. Lets take AA as an example. The MAX will be very attractive for AA. They operate multiple NB cockpits and have a big base of 737 pilots. Until the very end, the 737 will be valuable, as there is no pressure to switch to other types, as they are already there and can be slowly integrated. (See Delta transition from MDs to A220s). There will be spares en masse and the 737s can stay up until 2040+ with no pressure to switch but to do it slowly. Even second hand MAX will be interesting to pick up.

Also ULCCs will run into trouble with the MAX. The imminent death of it (in 2030+) will lead to low values of the frames. The high turnover rate of aircraft to keep maintenance and fuel costs low will result in higher leasing prices (or higher depriciation if bought) as fewer and fewer airlines will want the second hand MAX but a lot of them will be available from many ULCCs. It will do its job for now and untill the mid 2030s but from 2025 on, every year the pressure to switch away from the 737s will increase just due to the fact, that there will be nothing afterwards and risk diversification will have to take place and it should be rather earlier than later. Ryanair and Southwest will have to add a second cockpit at one point or leave the stage together with the MAX in the 2040s.

So the quicker another NB will be available the faster the MAX will be retired. Luckily for Boeing the biggest chance of a second cockpit next to Airbus in the 150-200 seat market is another Boeing one. Only if the other manufacturers (Russia, China) can prove a reliable alternative to A&B until 2023-2025 Boeing will be in massive "Zugzwang" to deliver something ASAP. Otherwise B can drag out the new NB until 2033+ and slowly wind down the MAX. It is still a dead end but if there is only one other road it is not that bad in the next years.

Still I think the MOM is dead for now and will be for a long time. There is right now just not the money around for it and the next NB Boeing produces has to be a perfect fit. Luckily there is time for that but there will have to be massive R&D investment towards the perfect NB product and I project, that the costs will be in the 30-40B range if not more for that product. You do not want to get a cheap chuck to fight the biggest market in the world and the new product will have to last for 50+ years.

So the MAX is safe for a while (if Russia and China do not deliver a home run with their products and to be fair I cant see it) but pressure will mount over time from the airlines to deliver something in the MAX segment. Pressure in the NMA segment is not there, the 1000-1500 XLRs will be gone to Airbus but so what, the next Boeing NB has the potential to sell 25'000-50'000 over the span from 2030 to 2080 and can also put pressure on the second generation XLRs out there. The first generation will be missed but the second one has to have a contester from the Boeing corner. Thats where the money has to go in the next 10-15 years. Not a maybe this or that oval what ever MoM.

At this stage, giving your aging 737NG fleet another D-check, new seat cushions / lavatories / Sky interior / galley refresh, keep big money in your pocket is starting to look like responsible strategy. See how the situation is in 5-8 years, maybe order A321s, talk to your local CFM shop, strike a CFM56-7 deal.. Boeing knows but will Never ackowledge.

If your were a lessor with a fleet of 300 737NGs and 200 cancelable MAX orders, options. What would you do?

737MAX recertification can easily take another 6 months, international authorities are not letting Boeing off the hook on essential redundancies and unjustified previous exemptions. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... pWWEMgzZPY

Of course we need to look brave, avoid unconfimed predictions. But "MAX will be just fine" is the biggest unconfimed prediction of all. The MAX looks fine if you ignore a lot.

A Boeing plan B, a smart, easy to produce NB is no doubt been discussed in Seattle & Chicago as we speak. Not because they want to spend a lot of money, but because doing nothing will be worse. https://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/c ... s-canceled

Is it not beautiful to be a MAX customer. If you are lucky you do not get a new plane in during the peak of the crisis and you will get compensated for it by Boeing. Sure Boeing will bleed money, but they will bleed it anyway, regardless if they do a new frame quickly or not. If they do one, the MAX will perform even more poorly and the competition will be even better prepared to hurt the all new design in the next decade.

keesje wrote:

At this stage, giving your aging 737NG fleet another D-check, new seat cushions / lavatories / Sky interior / galley refresh, keep big money in your pocket is starting to look like responsible strategy. See how the situation is in 5-8 years, maybe order A321s, talk to your local CFM shop, strike a CFM56-7 deal.. Boeing knows but will Never ackowledge.

If your were a lessor with a fleet of 300 737NGs and 200 cancelable MAX orders, options. What would you do?

737MAX recertification can easily take another 6 months, international authorities are not letting Boeing off the hook on essential redundancies and unjustified previous exemptions. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... pWWEMgzZPY

Of course we need to look brave, avoid unconfimed predictions. But "MAX will be just fine" is the biggest unconfimed prediction of all. The MAX looks fine if you ignore a lot.

A Boeing plan B, a smart, easy to produce NB is no doubt been discussed in Seattle & Chicago as we speak. Not because they want to spend a lot of money, but because doing nothing will be worse. https://www.intelligent-aerospace.com/c ... s-canceled

You are quite possibly right. We wanted Sonic Cruiser (Oval 7W NMA/NSA) and will end up with a shrunk 787 (6W) in all shape and form using same tech just with updates in terms of being cheaper to produce and an evolution of the tech/cockpit.

The Goal Posts will barely moved forward.

30 pages of posts ago, Seattle Times quoted Boeing CEO Calhoun:

The delay in launching the NMA means Boeing must now think even further ahead, taking account of developing Chinese competition.

“Things have changed a bit. The competitive playing field is a bit different. We have to plan for China,” Calhoun said. “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper again.”

And he indicated that the lessons learned from the MAX accidents, especially the change in thinking about how flight crews handle emergencies, could have a profound impact on that next new airplane design.

“We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,” he said. “We’ve always favored airplanes that required more pilot flying than maybe our competitor did. We are all going to have to get our heads around exactly what we want” in future.

It's clear Boeing is back to the requirements phase for whatever they do next. The impact of the MAX crisis is that the regulators are expecting a cockpit that advances the state of the art, and they now have the power to block any new aircraft without such.

All of this was before COVID-19 took away the revenues of all the airline customers who could be considering an all new design, and before customers began to ask both A and B to postpone orders in droves.

Boeing has no demand for a new aircraft and no money to build a new aircraft and knows they will need to impress the regulators or find their project caught in regulator hell.

None of this lines up with the suggestion that Boeing will do a "me too" narrowbody as quickly as possible with at best small percent efficiency gains over the competition.

I think it will be at least 1-2 years before Boeing has a clear idea of what it wants to do next, and if/how to go about it.

This means that MAX will have to be their narrow body product for the 2020s, and Boeing's statements are quite consistent with that.

From the same interview:

The MAX, though, is here to stay. Calhoun said he expects it to eventually reach parity with the Airbus A320neo. He dismissed a suggestion that the MAX may never fly again, or will be renamed to disguise its history, and said passengers’ confidence in the airplane will be restored.

“I believe in this airplane,” he said. “I’m all in on it and the company’s all in on it.”

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/

Revelation wrote:

30 pages of posts ago, Seattle Times quoted Boeing CEO Calhoun:

The delay in launching the NMA means Boeing must now think even further ahead, taking account of developing Chinese competition.

“Things have changed a bit. The competitive playing field is a bit different. We have to plan for China,” Calhoun said. “We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper again.”

And he indicated that the lessons learned from the MAX accidents, especially the change in thinking about how flight crews handle emergencies, could have a profound impact on that next new airplane design.

“We might have to start with the flight control philosophy before we actually get to the airplane,” he said. “We’ve always favored airplanes that required more pilot flying than maybe our competitor did. We are all going to have to get our heads around exactly what we want” in future.

It's clear Boeing is back to the requirements phase for whatever they do next. The impact of the MAX crisis is that the regulators are expecting a cockpit that advances the state of the art, and they now have the power to block any new aircraft without such.

All of this was before COVID-19 took away the revenues of all the airline customers who could be considering an all new design, and before customers began to ask both A and B to postpone orders in droves.

Boeing has no demand for a new aircraft and no money to build a new aircraft and knows they will need to impress the regulators or find their project caught in regulator hell.

None of this lines up with the suggestion that Boeing will do a "me too" narrowbody as quickly as possible with at best small percent efficiency gains over the competition.

I think it will be at least 1-2 years before Boeing has a clear idea of what it wants to do next, and if/how to go about it.

This means that MAX will have to be their narrow body product for the 2020s, and Boeing's statements are quite consistent with that.

From the same interview:

The MAX, though, is here to stay. Calhoun said he expects it to eventually reach parity with the Airbus A320neo. He dismissed a suggestion that the MAX may never fly again, or will be renamed to disguise its history, and said passengers’ confidence in the airplane will be restored.

“I believe in this airplane,” he said. “I’m all in on it and the company’s all in on it.”

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... estore-it/

This could be true as well - however for it to reach parity they will need ER versions of the -8 and -10. The -8 is really easy as you can just use -9 and -10 parts and MTOW to get a lot more range. -10 would probably need a thrust bump and MTOW extension like originally envisioned.

A lot cheaper than a clean sheet and the -8ER could be available within 2-3 years.

Engineered right they could remove the need for MCAS as COG could move backwards with XLR like fuel tankage (and increase in weight for those systems) - 8ER would probably have heavier rear gear as well which would help.

I think people need to replace the "5" in the 5000 737 MAX orders, by a "2" and chew on it for a while.


Source: https://airlinestravel.ro/nl/boeing-pre ... -2019.html

At what range will the -8 be fuel limited and has to carry additional fuel tanks in the hold to get more range for an ER? And would the 777X wing really be benefitial at all for anything shorter than 3000nm? It is unnecessary heavy due to the folding wing tip.

morrisond wrote:

This could be true as well - however for it to reach parity they will need ER versions of the -8 and -10. The -8 is really easy as you can just use -9 and -10 parts and MTOW to get a lot more range. -10 would probably need a thrust bump and MTOW extension like originally envisioned.

A lot cheaper than a clean sheet and the -8ER could be available within 2-3 years.

Engineered right they could remove the need for MCAS as COG could move backwards with XLR like fuel tankage (and increase in weight for those systems) - 8ER would probably have heavier rear gear as well which would help.

I like to think in terms of return on investment.

Is there enough new business to justify the engineering and flight test hours to improve the MAX?

Of course everything is secondary to MAX RTS, and after that, MAX-10 EIS.

Then the question becomes should you use engineers to develop incremental MAX improvements or have them focus on the eventual MAX replacement?

Is CFM willing to put more money into a LEAP thrust bump when so many LEAPs are sitting on undelivered MAXes?

keesje wrote:

At this stage, giving your aging 737NG fleet another D-check, new seat cushions / lavatories / Sky interior / galley refresh, keep big money in your pocket is starting to look like responsible strategy.

It's an equally responsible strategy for those with aging A320ceo fleets rather then spend billions (or tens of billions) on A320neos that will be parked on delivery or fly with one passenger per every three rows.

keesje wrote:

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

Can the 737MAX cover the (huge) 150-200 seats up to 3000NM "bread and butter" market segment the coming 10-15 years?

Absolutely. The 737-7 and 737-8 are optimized for that market.

Where the MAX starts to stumble is the 200-240 seats up to 3000NM market segment, but even there it can compete fairly well on the lower-end with the 737-9.

Orders for the 737-7 seemed non existent even before the Corona crisis. The 737-8 seems to have enough quality problems to ground the worldwide fleet for a year, stop production and fire the CEO.

The -9 didn't hold it's own, that's why the -10 was launched.

Altogether it wise to launch a plan B instead of getting caught in the headlights afterall.

The signals that we got was that Boeing indeed burried NMA and looks at a single aisles less capable aircraft. Realists might call that a 737 replacement.

If the "797" office is closed then all other design offices are closed as well due to the COVID-19 crisis.

In nearly 60 days the 737MAX should be re-certified.

A replacement 737MAX would only arrive after 2030...

seahawk wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Have you looked at the predictions? More and more analysts expect air travel to not return to a normal state before 2022 and demand to not reach 2019 levels again before 2024-2027 and that only if there are no additional negative factors and if the virus is of no concern for the customers at the end of 2021. Which means a working vaccine would have to be applied world wide. New airliners are not needed at the moment. Corona was Black Swan event way worse than 9-11 and the financial crisis combined.

I think you are right. If airlines aren’t growing, they don’t need more planes, so they won’t buy new planes. They can use the airplanes that they have and retire the older or less efficient planes. I don’t see airlines buying new planes when the price on used airplanes is collapsing.

Research and development is paid for from profit. The doom and gloom crowd can say the ship is sailing and the end is near. Fortunately Boeing has military and space programs to keep them afloat. Those are the programs likely to want new products and thus money will probably go there.

I have my doubts that Airbus will debt fund development that will put Boeing too far behind. Boeing already leads widebodies. Airbus is working on stabilizing their production since the A220 is losing money (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html) , A321neo production is way behind schedule, and the A321XLR is still 3 years away. In general Airbus isn’t in a good financial position to launch a new airplane either after losing more money in 2019 than Boeing did, so Boeing taking time to see how the market changes probably makes sense. Airline consolidations could change what the next plane looks like.

I would not say gloom and doom, I would say uncertainty. the simple problem is that nobody knows when demand will pick-up again, how fast it will pick-up again and also how the demand will look. With cooperations investing serious amount of money into teleconferencing and their IT infrastructure to reduce the need to travel, it is more than likely that they will try to make use of that infrastructure after the virus crisis, so we can easily see less business demand. If countries make travelling harder (say VISAs and an up-to-date and negative Corona test result for entry) we would see even less travel and many regions might be fighting the virus a lot longer than others. Airlines will struggle for the next years and i can not really see any appetite to become the launch customer for a new plane that would be aiming at filling a gap, a gap airlines are widening in their fleets at the moment with early retirements of 757s and 767s.

Yes uncertainty, the gloom and doom have already arrived. In a couple of months we will be out of the deep bottom we are experiencing, and the slow climb out will begin. As long as CV remains quite contagious, we will see individual areas reopen, but travel between areas will be quite limited. I'm talking about say Atlanta getting back opening, but travel from there to Florida or New York will be restricted. A relapse in one area really cannot cause the next area to relapse. Slowly, travel within Asia, America, or the EU will grow, but only months later will international travel will return, and quite slowly.

The Disneyworld's, exotic resorts, Cruises, and tourism will be VERY SLOW to come back. I got incredible prices on the cruise 18 months after 9-11 as the industry was still on its knees. Today, the Cruise industry is flat out in a coma, it will be years to get to its knees. No one wants to be crammed together in a ship to visit locations where where is either unrest or CV prevalent. I'm about to retire and I was planning to travel a lot, now a trip to Minneapolis to see my son next summer seems out of the question. A month long tour of Wuhan is certainly not on the horizon.

It will be years before air travel hits 75% of the pre Covid level means that 25% of the seats can be retired without a single new plane. If OEM production is at 50% of current capacity, there will need to be still more retirements. Slowly the industry will recover, but it will be a couple of years before what a new plane model should be comes into focus.

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

This could be true as well - however for it to reach parity they will need ER versions of the -8 and -10. The -8 is really easy as you can just use -9 and -10 parts and MTOW to get a lot more range. -10 would probably need a thrust bump and MTOW extension like originally envisioned.

A lot cheaper than a clean sheet and the -8ER could be available within 2-3 years.

Engineered right they could remove the need for MCAS as COG could move backwards with XLR like fuel tankage (and increase in weight for those systems) - 8ER would probably have heavier rear gear as well which would help.

I like to think in terms of return on investment.

Is there enough new business to justify the engineering and flight test hours to improve the MAX?

Of course everything is secondary to MAX RTS, and after that, MAX-10 EIS.

Then the question becomes should you use engineers to develop incremental MAX improvements or have them focus on the eventual MAX replacement?

Is CFM willing to put more money into a LEAP thrust bump when so many LEAPs are sitting on undelivered MAXes?

If they need to keep the line going to 2030+ before a replacement is available then yes they need to continually improve it to keep production at reasonable levels.

It would not be a large Capital Investment relatively speaking and probably more than offset the additional capital.

They could basically assemble an 8ER tomorrow from parts and engines they already have, excepting of course if they are going to add XLR like fuel tanks.

That may be #1 in 2-3 years and an -10 ER for 2024-2025. Unless of course they go very basic clean sheet which could show up by 2027-2028 which would negate any need for new investment in the MAX.

It really depends on when the clean sheet is expected and how much they have to extend MAX production.

Boeing would be insane to not use this opportunity to get a basic clean-sheet designed and built as quickly as possible. It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

744SPX wrote:

Boeing would be insane to not use this opportunity to get a basic clean-sheet designed and built as quickly as possible. It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

There's very little evidence to support "It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO".

Higher BPR is not a panacea, a higher BPR brings higher weight and more frontal drag.

Any improvements could presumably be moved to an A320neo+ quite easily.

Any new aircraft will mean a long and expensive development and test cycle along with new factories and new tools.

Your 10% number is given with no reference to feasibility nor no consideration of cost.

744SPX wrote:

Boeing would be insane to not use this opportunity to get a basic clean-sheet designed and built as quickly as possible. It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

If was that easy...

a) Boeing would have done it instead of MAX
b) Airlines would have waited for it instead of forcing MAX

Stitch wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Boeing would be insane to not use this opportunity to get a basic clean-sheet designed and built as quickly as possible. It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

If was that easy...

a) Boeing would have done it instead of MAX
b) Airlines would have waited for it instead of forcing MAX

Boeing has been teaching all anything better than the current product was highly unlikely and NMA was the next big thing.
Greed, free cash flow for buying stock, paying dividents, boosting excutive salaries likely played a role.


https://leehamnews.com/2012/05/29/the-m ... -737-game/

That's how the 747-8i, 737MAX, 777X where born and promoted.
It was the only right, sensible way. Now is the moment to put question marks around some mantras

If not 5000 but 2000 is the market for 737MAX, 800 already build, how would the second half of this decade look?
How many P-8's are needed, really? Lack of decisiveless, wait & see can be devastating..
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 25.article

I think a serious strategy / management refresher is needed. Old dogma's still domitate.

Waiting until the 737 MAX certification is solved, COVID-19 is under control seems a high risk scenario.
Stakeholders (customers, suppliers, competitors) will move on regardless.

Boeing were caught napping by the NEO. AA, CFM, Pratt & Qantas moved on, and it can happen again.
E.g. 2021-2022:

- Southwest committing to 250 A220s
- United ordering more A321s, even A220s
- Comac throwing a lifeline at Embraer
- MHI striking a deal with Spirit and Collins
- GE expanding their playing field
- Airlines pushing out 777x 4-5 years

can only become suprises, if they were looking the other way.

I think Boeing better strike a deal with Trump & do an excellent "me too" NB ASAP, iso a NMA.
That's what the airlines want. Competition, convert MAX to something better, instead of outright cancelling.

.

FluidFlow wrote:

At what range will the -8 be fuel limited and has to carry additional fuel tanks in the hold to get more range for an ER?

3600nm would see the standard fuel tanks hit capacity. One ACT would do 4000nm. Two ACT would do 4400nm.

But it is a little more complex than this. The Boeing 3550nm range figure for the 737-8 is with 162 seats. With 200 seats the range figure drops to 2700nm. The MAX200 would benefit most from a MTOW increase with an additional 800nm and not require an ACT.

Adding an ACT and increasing the MTOW of the 737-8 by 6000kg will easily increase the empty weight by over 1000kg. A 3% increase in empty weight will reduce efficiency compared to a standard 737-8. This is mainly why the current 737-8 is more efficient than the Airbus offerings, an ER model will lose that advantage.

People are overvaluing the segment over 4000nm. I think the light 737-8 is perfect for the market once the MCAS problem is fixed. It will still be produced in 20 years time

Revelation wrote:

744SPX wrote:

Boeing would be insane to not use this opportunity to get a basic clean-sheet designed and built as quickly as possible. It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

There's very little evidence to support "It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO".

Higher BPR is not a panacea, a higher BPR brings higher weight and more frontal drag.

Any improvements could presumably be moved to an A320neo+ quite easily.

Any new aircraft will mean a long and expensive development and test cycle along with new factories and new tools.

Your 10% number is given with no reference to feasibility nor no consideration of cost.

Feasibility? We are talking about an airframe/wing design 35 years newer than the A320 series. 7% just from the airframe and 3% from the engines certainly isn't a stretch.

744SPX wrote:

It would take very little to design and build an aircraft 10% more efficient than the NEO. New airframe, wings and a larger BPR on even current gen engine designs would be enough to accomplish that.

Efficiency is linked to the design range. I doubt Boeing could beat the A321XLR by more than 5% if they had the same design range.

Take a 6ab 200 seat fuselage tube and optimise three aircraft with three different ranges. The approximate MTOW weights would be as follows

3000nm range = 80t MTOW
4000nm range = 90t MTOW
5000nm range = 100t MTOW

Now with the same technology used for all three aircraft we would have more than 10% efficiency difference between the three. As empty weight is usually around half of the MTOW it means the 3000nm aircraft would be approximately 10t lighter or 20% less than the 5000nm aircraft.

This is why the one size fits all aircraft is not always the best option. The 737MAX family on average is lighter and has less range than the Airbus family. This is where the short haul advantage comes from.

With so many short routes under 1000nm Boeing would be quite well off keeping the light 737MAX. The 737MAX will easily last 10+ years. The next aircraft for Boeing should then be the heavier 5000nm to cover the growing point to point market and the trend of downgauging widebody routes.

After that aircraft is in service and with that medium range market perfectly covered Boeing can then start designing the short range, light weight 737 replacement. We've seen the trussed wing designs that will give turboprop efficiency with the speed of a jet. This was the plan for the last few years. The rumours that Boeing has changed plans are exactly that, rumours.

keesje wrote:

If not 5000 but 2000 is the market for 737MAX, 800 already build, how would the second half of this decade look?

Since your example shows it's OK to just make stuff up, I'll say we're more likely to see frames built end up closer to 8000 by the end of the run rather than 2000.

And.. neither case, 2000 or 8000, matters much, because it won't impact what Boeing does for the next year or two either way.

Why?

1) Boeing still has to do whatever it can to get MAX to RTS in the near future, it's the only way to get revenue and to keep customers and partners in the near/mid term.

2) Boeing still doesn't know what they want to build next.

3) There's so much uncertainty in the short to mid term due to covid, it makes no sense to invest $billions based on what you are thinking at the trough of (the ffirst wave of?) of the pandemic.

How do I know this?

See the first few posts of this thread for the first two, it's exactly what Calhoun is saying. I even repeated it above. The third should be obvious.

keesje wrote:

.

I think Boeing better strike a deal with Trump & do an excellent "me too" NB ASAP, iso a NMA.

.

"excellent me too" does not mean anything. It's either "me too aircraft" or "not me too aircraft" ...

And the chances of seeing a Boeing "me too aircraft" is 0.000001%

In any case, the chances of seeing a replacement for 737MAX diminish since the recertification of the 737MAX is approaching...

keesje wrote:

I think people need to replace the "5" in the 5000 737 MAX orders, by a "2" and chew on it for a while.


Source: https://airlinestravel.ro/nl/boeing-pre ... -2019.html

My initial prediction was 16,000 MAX delivered through 2040. My prediction now is 2,000 to 5,000 MAX delivered through 2030. I think fate conspired against it, a little bad luck, a few lost years. The GTF on the Spacejet, E195E2, and A220 will capture some of the market, the A320/321 some more, and part of the market will hold off for a new airplane from Boeing.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

If not 5000 but 2000 is the market for 737MAX, 800 already build, how would the second half of this decade look?

Since your example shows it's OK to just make stuff up, I'll say we're more likely to see frames built end up closer to 8000 by the end of the run rather than 2000.

And.. neither case, 2000 or 8000, matters much, because it won't impact what Boeing does for the next year or two either way.

Why?

1) Boeing still has to do whatever it can to get MAX to RTS in the near future, it's the only way to get revenue and to keep customers and partners in the near/mid term.

2) Boeing still doesn't know what they want to build next.

3) There's so much uncertainty in the short to mid term due to covid, it makes no sense to invest $billions based on what you are thinking at the trough of (the ffirst wave of?) of the pandemic.

How do I know this?

See the first few posts of this thread for the first two, it's exactly what Calhoun is saying. I even repeated it above. The third should be obvious.

Well, there should be no uncertainty of what Boeing needs to build next. The only things that they could do from now on are to re-engine the 787 when the tech is available and build a new narrow body jet. If you were looking at a new product, the latter is the only thing that makes sense.

Checklist787 wrote:

In any case, the chances of seeing a replacement for 737MAX diminish since the recertification of the 737MAX is approaching...

Approaching? Really? Where? When? I haven't seen it peeking round any corners lately....

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..
- https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=boein ... s&ei=UTF-8
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN21W247

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Airbus is working on stabilizing their production since the A220 is losing money (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html) , A321neo production is way behind schedule, and the A321XLR is still 3 years away. In general Airbus isn’t in a good financial position to launch a new airplane either after losing more money in 2019 than Boeing did, so Boeing taking time to see how the market changes probably makes sense. Airline consolidations could change what the next plane looks like.

I don't suppose the A321NEO being "behind schedule" is even remotely a problem now, given a 33% reduction in production output.

Also, I'd be careful of using Airbus's headline loss figure as a true reflection of their financial status.

Airbus Commercial had an underlying E6.358Bn ($7Bn) Operating profit in 2019, eroded primarily by a E3.6Bn adjustment for bribery penalties, and a large tax bill.

I'm pretty sure their underlying profit in 2019 was higher than Boeing Commercial was.
I suspect their cash position was better, too

Rgds

oschkosch wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

In any case, the chances of seeing a replacement for 737MAX diminish since the recertification of the 737MAX is approaching...

Approaching? Really? Where? When? I haven't seen it peeking round any corners lately....

I invite you to search for yourself ...

keesje wrote:

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..
- https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=boein ... s&ei=UTF-8
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN21W247

Have those who canceled gone to competition? I do not believe. Recertification will be for the month of May it was to occur for this month but due to the COVID-19 crisis it has been postponed by a Month ...

Canceled orders everywhere comes soon.


People getting laid off, no income, no spending on flights, airlines no make money, flights dropped, jets parked.

Everyone is in the suffering.

Checklist787 wrote:

oschkosch wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

In any case, the chances of seeing a replacement for 737MAX diminish since the recertification of the 737MAX is approaching...

Approaching? Really? Where? When? I haven't seen it peeking round any corners lately....

I invite you to search for yourself ...

Checklist787 wrote:

keesje wrote:

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..
- https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=boein ... s&ei=UTF-8
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN21W247

Have those who canceled gone to competition? I do not believe. Recertification will be for the month of May it was to occur for this month but due to the COVID-19 crisis it has been postponed by a Month ...

Take some time to read this. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... pbFiMgzaUl

If a company (and their boosters) have been promising you 20 times things that didn't materialize, you might allow yourself to ignore their next promise and have a good independent look, think yourself.

The FAA can approve anything, if EASA, Canada and China don't, nobody will fly / board it. We are waiting for fully compliant trim wheels, stall recovery with MCAS pulled, HR compliant emergency warning systems, powerfull processors and convincing redundancy solutions. The times Boeing could push through half baked patches seems over.

keesje wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

oschkosch wrote:

Approaching? Really? Where? When? I haven't seen it peeking round any corners lately....

I invite you to search for yourself ...

Checklist787 wrote:

keesje wrote:

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..
- https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=boein ... s&ei=UTF-8
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN21W247

Have those who canceled gone to competition? I do not believe. Recertification will be for the month of May it was to occur for this month but due to the COVID-19 crisis it has been postponed by a Month ...

Take some time to read this. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/articl ... pbFiMgzaUl

If a company (and their boosters) have been promising you 20 times things that didn't materialize, you might allow yourself to ignore their next promise and have a good independent look, think yourself.

The FAA can approve anything, if EASA, Canada and China don't, nobody will fly / board it. We are waiting for fully compliant trim wheels, stall recovery with MCAS pulled, HR compliant emergency warning systems, powerfull processors and convincing redundancy solutions. The times Boeing could push through half baked patches seems over.

According to some analysts, (in France)

the reopening of the FAL witnesses the recertification...

In this video, (7:50) Xavier Tytelman explains in French that several delegations from around the world are invited by Boeing for the re-certification of the 737MAX

https://youtu.be/e9PYyrcnL0M

keesje wrote:

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..

Maybe strong resistance because it is a false narrative.

You seem to want Boeing to fail at every hurdle. With so few cancellations during a 12 month grounding shows how valuable the 737MAX must be to airlines.

The recocery from COVID19 is the biggest problem for both manufacturers. France has 3 times as many deaths per head of population as the US. The Airbus delivery centre is in Spain for all aircraft except the A380. Spain has 5 times as many deaths per head of population compared to the US. Airbus will take much longer to restore production.

This virus will not only cause passengers to forget about the 737MAX problems but it will hurt Airbus many times worse than Boeing.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

There seems to be a strong resistance to the concept of airlines no longer going after 737MAX fleets and it already started way before COVID-19..

Maybe strong resistance because it is a false narrative.

You seem to want Boeing to fail at every hurdle. With so few cancellations during a 12 month grounding shows how valuable the 737MAX must be to airlines.

The recocery from COVID19 is the biggest problem for both manufacturers. France has 3 times as many deaths per head of population as the US. The Airbus delivery centre is in Spain for all aircraft except the A380. Spain has 5 times as many deaths per head of population compared to the US. Airbus will take much longer to restore production.

This virus will not only cause passengers to forget about the 737MAX problems but it will hurt Airbus many times worse than Boeing.

Unfortunately, this is not true.

Airbus had better cash than Boeing before COVID19 crisis.

What you are saying is not realistic. Airbus is better off than Boeing because of the 737MAX grounding who lost a lot of money.

But I tend to agree with you, About the
preserved interest of the 737MAX from customers...

RJMAZ wrote:

The Airbus delivery centre is in Spain for all aircraft except the A380.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. All Airbus civilian planes are delivered from Toulouse, Hamburg, Tianjin and Mobile. None from Spain.

If Boeing does not fully fix the MAX, they do not even need to think about offering a new design. Or do you believe that any sane airline would be interested to sign a contract for the new plane in that case? "Look friendly airline CEO, we totally messed up the refreshed version of our old 737 and we could not fix it. Would you now please order a huge number of our new 797 which will be an all new design, with a new cockpit design, new production technologies and much superior efficiency and be ready in 5 years. We are sure you would not mind flying the 737NG in the meantime and not order any Airbuses,, mkay. "

RJMAZ wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Unfortunately, this is not true.

What isn't true?

That Europe is way more deaths per head?
Lack of 737MAX cancellations?
That Airbus assembly lines are in infected areas?


"Getafe, located in central Spain, specialises in aeronautical component engineering, design, production and assembly. The plant is the delivery centre for final assembly lines in Toulouse and Hamburg for all the programs with the exception of the A380"

https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/how-is- ... ction.html

Nearly 200 MAX cancellations so far in 2020. Hardly a lack.

The text you quoted isn't particularly well worded - it's talking about Getafe building components and delivering them to the production lines. Airbus civilian planes are not delivered from Getafe. Airbus's main delivery centre is at Toulouse (clearly visible on Google Earth), but planes are also delivered directly from Hamburg as well as Tianjin and Mobile.

RJMAZ wrote:

Airbus will take much longer to restore production.

This virus will not only cause passengers to forget about the 737MAX problems but it will hurt Airbus many times worse than Boeing.

I think you are a tad premature to be drawing such conclusions. There are hundreds of factors in all this.

Let's not try to divert from the topic. The 737 Backlog has started to drop.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 73.article

The NMA is shelved. Boeing needs a new NB for the second half of this decade, if the 737MAX recovers.

If not: even more.

Compared to the 737MAX an all new FSA should feature
- AKH cargo options
- a versions up to 250 seats realistically
- a version that can do up to 4500NM realistically
- an ultra efficient 199 seat single class < 4hrs version
- engine choice
- future higher BPR ready configuration
- fully fly by wire
- beating latests flight safety & redundancy requirements by a healthy margin
- modular production, assembly that can be spread out globally
- a few strong USP's setting it apart from the A321.


Source: keesje / Boeing

keesje wrote:

Let's not try to divert from the topic. The 737 Backlog has started to drop.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 73.article

The NMA is shelved. Boeing needs a new NB for the second half of this decade, if the 737MAX recovers.

If not: even more.

Compared to the 737MAX an all new FSA should feature
- AKH cargo options
- a versions up to 250 seats realistically
- a version that can do up to 4500NM realistically
- an ultra efficient 199 seat single class < 4hrs version
- engine choice
- future higher BPR ready configuration
- fully fly by wire
- beating latests flight safety & redundancy requirements by a healthy margin
- modular production, assembly that can be spread out globally
- a few strong USP's setting it apart from the A321.


Source: keesje / Boeing

Your photo is of a NASA concept truss wing from 2016.



https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight ... ed-design/

The airliner, currently unnamed, has truss-braced wings, the need for which wind-tunnel testing made evident. In addition to the cut fuel consumption, the plane "would also be at least six times quieter and cut emissions by 80 percent" compared to an Airbus 320 or Boeing 737, says Nateri Madavan, a project manager of NASA's air transport technology division. The design was co-developed by Boeing, and has been a work in progress for roughly 7 years.

Madavan explains that this "revolutionary plane" owes it's insane boost in fuel efficiency to incredibly slender wings. The slenderness of the plane's wings increases the jet's aerodynamical properties—cutting down on drag—while the truss keeps those flimsy wings from snapping clean off.

A truss braced wing could be the next narrowbody since it would allow more slender wings and reduce drag. Since it would fly a little slower, it certainly wouldn’t be a 4500nm airplane. It also is conceptually a 150 seat plane, not a 250 seat plane.

It's a commercial airliner with some very strange wings, which NASA hopes could replace the Airbus 320 or Boeing 737 by 2030. It could carry 150 passengers and travel at 75 percent of the speed of sound.

If an airline wants to fly 250 passengers 4500nm, the 787 is probably the beat choice. United’s average 787-9 flight was 4700nm and has a capacity of 252 seats.

Why did you credit yourself with the image? Are you working on that project?

keesje wrote:

Let's not try to divert from the topic. The 737 Backlog has started to drop.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 73.article

The NMA is shelved. Boeing needs a new NB for the second half of this decade, if the 737MAX recovers.

If not: even more.

Compared to the 737MAX an all new FSA should feature
- AKH cargo options
- a versions up to 250 seats realistically
- a version that can do up to 4500NM realistically
- an ultra efficient 199 seat single class < 4hrs version
- engine choice
- future higher BPR ready configuration
- fully fly by wire
- beating latests flight safety & redundancy requirements by a healthy margin
- modular production, assembly that can be spread out globally
- a few strong USP's setting it apart from the A321.


Source: keesje / Boeing

Do you mean with “full fly by wire” that it cannot be overridden by the pilots? It should also have side sticks. But “beating latests flight safety & redundancy requirements by a healthy margin” sounds VERY UNREALISTIC when you look at current Boeing management in my opinion. I’m not so sure if Calhoun will change the culture at Boeing from greed to innovation.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Your photo is of a NASA concept truss wing from 2016.

[img]https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/07/3200x1600/landscape-1455901118-img-8248.JPG?resize=480:*[/img

It’s the Boeing TTBW. Not a NASA aircraft.

Keesje concept is nice but I think the ROI will be difficult to achieve : a 30b USD programme to be delivered from 2025/2030 which would cost $$$ for airlines to buy with no breakthrough technology at a time where all suppliers are cutting their R&D expenses and airlines will need to rebuild their cash.
I think the business case is weak. Even if fuel price goes up.

Aither wrote:

Keesje concept is nice but I think the ROI will be difficult to achieve : a 30b USD programme to be delivered from 2025/2030 which would cost $$$ for airlines to buy with no breakthrough technology at a time where all suppliers are cutting their R&D expenses and airlines will need to rebuild their cash.
I think the business case is weak. Even if fuel price goes up.

It is not Keesje’s concept. It is a joint Boeing and NASA research project

Here is an article from 2019

Boeing revealed the newest Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW), which researchers say will fly higher and faster than the previous TTBW concepts. The new configuration is designed to offer unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency while flying at Mach 0.80, which is consistent with the speed of many of today’s jetliners.

From end-to-end, the folding wings measure 170 feet. The high wingspan is made possible by the presence of a truss, which supports the extended length of the ultra-thin wing.

https://www.boeing.com/features/2019/01 ... 01-19.page