Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Noshow wrote:CSeries or E2 could have been the smaller market successors. Boeing did let this chance pass by TWO times. Any 200 seater will be the 737 follow on family. They will go up in size from it not down. Just look at Boeing's very recent CMO and how Important single aisles will be.
Waterbomber2 wrote:Might as well draw the NMA on a clean sheet of toilet paper.
2eng2efficient wrote:The WSJ article seems to infer that this will complement the MAX at 200-250 seats, not replace it. They included the David Calhoun quote that the MAX “will compete well for another generation.”
2eng2efficient wrote:The WSJ article seems to infer that this will complement the MAX at 200-250 seats, not replace it. They included the David Calhoun quote that the MAX “will compete well for another generation.”
2eng2efficient wrote:Also, if launched, Airbus would certainly be under pressure to do an “A322”
Noshow wrote:What improved engines might they be thinking about? So existing ones beefed up. Big diameter GTF? GE PIP something? Interesting.
frmrCapCadet wrote:I have doubts that a single aisle NMA with updated current engines will successfully compete with a neo and slightly improved 321 which will be able to sell at a lower price.
seahawk wrote:The plane needs engines and customers. I can not see an engine OEM committing to the project for at least the next 5 years or an airline signing a large order for a new plane in the next 5 years.
2eng2efficient wrote:
Also, if launched, Airbus would certainly be under pressure to do an “A322”
Faro wrote:Boeing's cash situation must be quite strained...not to talk of its indebtedness...is the NMA project actually still an ongoing endeavour or is it surviving on a skeleton staff...one would think that project milestones have all been deferred out to a rather distant future...
Anyone in the know?...
Faro
iamlucky13 wrote:Faro wrote:Boeing's cash situation must be quite strained...not to talk of its indebtedness...is the NMA project actually still an ongoing endeavour or is it surviving on a skeleton staff...one would think that project milestones have all been deferred out to a rather distant future...
Anyone in the know?...
Faro
The Seattle Times previously reported they laid off 12% of their engineers. That leaves a lot of engineers still available. I would think significantly more than are required to finish bringing the 777X into service, support 767 and the remaining 747 production, and support the MAX return to service.
I've opined in other threads that it makes some sense to keep at least slightly over-staffed through the worst of the trough in order to avoid being too short on experienced workers as demand starts to recover. This would be even more important on the engineering side than production.
The exception would be if the cash situation were so dire they have to cut to the bone to survive, at the expense of future efficiency and experience necessary to execute new programs effectively. I expect many people will have doubts about this, but based on the numbers reported at last quarter's earnings release, before most of their cost-saving efforts took effect, during what was probably their worst revenue quarter (even freighter deliveries were really low due to stay-at-home orders), I think they can afford to strategically retain a moderate excess over their minimum needs during the worst of the trough.
They'll want those engineers to be productive, so it makes sense for those not needed to support existing programs to work on whatever the next program might be.
The same should apply to the engine manufacturers, although I have not looked at their earnings reports. They may be in worse shape than Boeing, but whatever engineers they retain above the bare minimum to support existing programs can contribute to future engine programs.
chiad wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:
Also, if launched, Airbus would certainly be under pressure to do an “A322”
I think Airbus is just waiting for the right time to launch the A322 anyway.
As the A322 will be, IMO, a much cheaper product to bring to the market, this NMA would have to be exceptionally more efficient to compete.
DenverTed wrote:Noshow wrote:What improved engines might they be thinking about? So existing ones beefed up. Big diameter GTF? GE PIP something? Interesting.
What thrust range, 35K to 40K? I always thought this was the place to be for the next aircraft, more so than 50K.
workhorse wrote:chiad wrote:2eng2efficient wrote:
Also, if launched, Airbus would certainly be under pressure to do an “A322”
I think Airbus is just waiting for the right time to launch the A322 anyway.
As the A322 will be, IMO, a much cheaper product to bring to the market, this NMA would have to be exceptionally more efficient to compete.
The A322 (if done correctly) will need a new wing, new (taller) landing gear and new nose section (to fit the new taller nose landing gear), so it will probably be cheaper but not much cheaper.
Its main advantage will come not from its cost but from the ability to reuse the existing A320 family manufacturing infrastructure which will make the ramp-up much faster.
JonesNL wrote:workhorse wrote:The A322 (if done correctly) will need a new wing, new (taller) landing gear and new nose section (to fit the new taller nose landing gear), so it will probably be cheaper but not much cheaper.
Its main advantage will come not from its cost but from the ability to reuse the existing A320 family manufacturing infrastructure which will make the ramp-up much faster.
Well, the main driver of costs in this industry is scale. Piggy backing on the A32x line will improve that proposition massively. Even if Boeing manages to produce 20/month and Airbus only 5/month of the A322, the A322 will win massively on costs. There is no competing against 80% commonality with the highest producing lines in the business on costs.
olle wrote:I think with Covid19 vaccine not coming in big quantities making it possible to demand a vaccine certificate before traveling before end of 2021 or 2022 aviation industry will be on life support until 2023.
iamlucky13 wrote:UNICEF is expecting to have 500 million doses in their stockpile by the end of the year,
workhorse wrote:JonesNL wrote:workhorse wrote:The A322 (if done correctly) will need a new wing, new (taller) landing gear and new nose section (to fit the new taller nose landing gear), so it will probably be cheaper but not much cheaper.
Its main advantage will come not from its cost but from the ability to reuse the existing A320 family manufacturing infrastructure which will make the ramp-up much faster.
Well, the main driver of costs in this industry is scale. Piggy backing on the A32x line will improve that proposition massively. Even if Boeing manages to produce 20/month and Airbus only 5/month of the A322, the A322 will win massively on costs. There is no competing against 80% commonality with the highest producing lines in the business on costs.
Cost of production, yes, of course. But the cost to develop the A322 (once again, if done properly) will be hardly less than for a new airplane. To be succesful the A322 will REALLY need taller landing gear to enable a good rotation angle and to fit future generations of engines, it will REALLY need a new state-of-the-art wing, etc etc etc. I think we are talking about costs quite similar to what Boeing will have to spend on a clean sheet design. However, Boeing will also have to build an all-new FAL and the supply chain while Airbis will habe a big part of this already in place with trained personnel, ironed-out logistics etc.
A300neo wrote:workhorse wrote:JonesNL wrote:
Well, the main driver of costs in this industry is scale. Piggy backing on the A32x line will improve that proposition massively. Even if Boeing manages to produce 20/month and Airbus only 5/month of the A322, the A322 will win massively on costs. There is no competing against 80% commonality with the highest producing lines in the business on costs.
Cost of production, yes, of course. But the cost to develop the A322 (once again, if done properly) will be hardly less than for a new airplane. To be succesful the A322 will REALLY need taller landing gear to enable a good rotation angle and to fit future generations of engines, it will REALLY need a new state-of-the-art wing, etc etc etc. I think we are talking about costs quite similar to what Boeing will have to spend on a clean sheet design. However, Boeing will also have to build an all-new FAL and the supply chain while Airbis will habe a big part of this already in place with trained personnel, ironed-out logistics etc.
I guess the A322 is dead by now. Boeing might get the 757 2.0 ready by maybe 2027-28. That is already close to the 2030s, which are supposed to be the area of wing body aircrafts, see e.g.. Airbus Maveric model aircraft. The needed investment of 2-3 billion dollar for new wings of an A322 would be better invested in the blended wingbody program.
william wrote:Or Airbus do not nothing and milk the near monopoly status cash cow A321NEO and variants. Repair balance sheet, and after four to five years, see where the market is at and then proceed, an A322 may not be necessary or advantageous.
It won't be cheap. According to Airbus, a new wing would cost ~2 billion euros.Airbus can just bolt a new wing on the A321neo fuselage and has a cheap, fast, good enough solution
A300neo wrote:william wrote:Or Airbus do not nothing and milk the near monopoly status cash cow A321NEO and variants. Repair balance sheet, and after four to five years, see where the market is at and then proceed, an A322 may not be necessary or advantageous.
Of course that's what they will do until Boeing delivers the 757 v2. In the meantime they play around with the Maveric model and design it further, no need to hurry.
@Noshow:It won't be cheap. According to Airbus, a new wing would cost ~2 billion euros.Airbus can just bolt a new wing on the A321neo fuselage and has a cheap, fast, good enough solution
Most of the market will be satisfied with the 321XLR, no need to design a brand new wing for a rather small market. Return on investment would be low.
flipdewaf wrote:Begs the question really, if 2bn is to much for the market how does a clean sheet 757v2 of 15bn+ have a market?
Noshow wrote:Airbus can just bolt a new wing on the A321neo fuselage and has a cheap, fast, good enough solution to cover the market above it. Boeing would need to compete with something entirely new to top them. Full CFRP, new final assembly site and such. That will take time and is expensive. And they'd need a custom tailored new engine generation that is not visible at least in the open yet.
Boeing missed the perfect moment to design their small 787 as 737 replacement in the past. Now it is only getting more costly to catch up against the A321neo success. Don't get me wrong they can design landmark airplanes if their investors let them. It would be good to see Boeing attacking again.
NameOmitted wrote:iamlucky13 wrote:UNICEF is expecting to have 500 million doses in their stockpile by the end of the year,
Point of order, UNICEF is expecting to have 500 million syringes, not doses, by the end of the year.
flipdewaf wrote:Begs the question really, if 2bn is to much for the market how does a clean sheet 757v2 of 15bn+ have a market?
seahawk wrote:Using what fuel?
william wrote:A300neo wrote:workhorse wrote:
Cost of production, yes, of course. But the cost to develop the A322 (once again, if done properly) will be hardly less than for a new airplane. To be succesful the A322 will REALLY need taller landing gear to enable a good rotation angle and to fit future generations of engines, it will REALLY need a new state-of-the-art wing, etc etc etc. I think we are talking about costs quite similar to what Boeing will have to spend on a clean sheet design. However, Boeing will also have to build an all-new FAL and the supply chain while Airbis will habe a big part of this already in place with trained personnel, ironed-out logistics etc.
I guess the A322 is dead by now. Boeing might get the 757 2.0 ready by maybe 2027-28. That is already close to the 2030s, which are supposed to be the area of wing body aircrafts, see e.g.. Airbus Maveric model aircraft. The needed investment of 2-3 billion dollar for new wings of an A322 would be better invested in the blended wingbody program.
Or Airbus do not nothing and milk the near monopoly status cash cow A321NEO and variants. Repair balance sheet, and after four to five years, see where the market is at and then proceed, an A322 may not be necessary or advantageous.
Noshow wrote:Below 200 seats will be a separate business. 200 to 250-300 will be the segment to cover. Not sure myself if six abreast would be the optimum diameter for those bigger narrow bodies.
It's interesting to see Airbus range go down with size increases for mainline use but the tiny A220 has extreme range being some "regional" jet.
I see Airbus needing a new wing for A322 and A323. And yes two billion IS cheap.
Noshow wrote:Below 200 seats will be a separate business. 200 to 250-300 will be the segment to cover. Not sure myself if six abreast would be the optimum diameter for those bigger narrow bodies.
A300neo wrote:Noshow wrote:Below 200 seats will be a separate business. 200 to 250-300 will be the segment to cover. Not sure myself if six abreast would be the optimum diameter for those bigger narrow bodies.
Well, Boeing could copy the diameter of the Russian MS-21, it's cabin is 3.81 m (12.5 ft) wide. These additional width in comparison to the A32x (3.7 m (12 ft 2 in)) could be sufficient for a very narrow 2-2-2 seating, featuring very narrow LCC-seats. For a further comparison, the B737 has only 3.54m (11 ft 5in) cabin width.
JonesNL wrote:I think Airbus is waiting to see what Boeing will propose. Based on that they will decide if they need a new wing or not. They might want to do an CFRP wing to start of the production lines so they can learn and scale it up later for other single aisle offerings.
Airbus will in June (ed: 2019) begin assembly of the first structure under its Wing of Tomorrow technology demonstrator programme, aimed at developing a composite wing manufacturing concept for a next-generation single-aisle aircraft. The 5m (16ft) part is an initial test article ahead of the planned assembly in 2020 of three full-scale demonstrators at a newly built research centre next to Airbus’s UK wing factory in Broughton, Flintshire.
Although Airbus has not yet launched a replacement for its A320 family, the manufacturer appears keen to employ a carbonfibre wing on any future single-aisle aircraft. Sue Partridge, head of the Wing of Tomorrow programme, told FlightGlobal in April that the goal is for the primary wing structure to be made from carbonfibre, while individual components may be manufactured from advanced metallic or thermoplastic composite materials.
mxaxai wrote:A300neo wrote:Noshow wrote:Below 200 seats will be a separate business. 200 to 250-300 will be the segment to cover. Not sure myself if six abreast would be the optimum diameter for those bigger narrow bodies.
Well, Boeing could copy the diameter of the Russian MS-21, it's cabin is 3.81 m (12.5 ft) wide. These additional width in comparison to the A32x (3.7 m (12 ft 2 in)) could be sufficient for a very narrow 2-2-2 seating, featuring very narrow LCC-seats. For a further comparison, the B737 has only 3.54m (11 ft 5in) cabin width.
That's pointless. You'd sacrifice a whole lot of comfort for almost no gain. Larger diameter may be required to support the long fuselage but even then a wide aisle in 3-3 configuration improves ground handling and in-flight service more than two ultra-narrow aisles in 2-2-2 configuration.