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.

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.

There could be something there.
Airlines will have to rebuild from the lower part of the market. An A220 is much more interesting right now and in the coming couple of years than an A321.

But then it depends on how fast the market grows back. If this situation lingers on for another year, airlines will have to start digging trenches and plan for a new midterm reality.

How do you capitalise the situation as an OEM?
Allow customers to convert orders for big aircraft to smaller aircraft perhaps? I don't see any new sales in the near future.

Given the age of the 757s on the market, and the popularity of the 757 in the freight market, I could see Boeing considering a new single aisle airplane in the 757-200 size and range category (perhaps with a little more range) as an alternative to the NMA and also as an ultimate replacement for the 757 freighters. There will be a market for 250 757F replacements, and while the 737-10, A321neo, A321LR, and A321XLR will replace most of the current 757 passenger aircraft, there is a big gap between these and the 767-400ER/787-8/A330-200 size class.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Might as well draw the NMA on a clean sheet of toilet paper.

Thank you for your enlightened comment.

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.”

Meanwhile, FR and others are putting 200 into the 737-8.

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.”

MAX-8 should still do well and MAX-10 will likely be fine for 2000nm and below missions. Eventually Boeing will need to cover the 175-225 market with a new model and if NLT is the eventual 737RS (which it should be, IMO) then Boeing can scale it down later as they learn where they can pull the weight out to improve it's efficiency.

So NLT can start with the long-legged version as was the plan with NMA (which would cover all the "learning" necessary for a follow-on NSA) as this could be where the better demand curve is as international travel starts to recover, but at levels where 200-250 seats is a better fit than 300-350 seats as was the pre-2020 norm.

2eng2efficient wrote:

Also, if launched, Airbus would certainly be under pressure to do an “A322”

I think Airbus might punt until they are ready with an all-new family that can handle 175-250 seats to replace the A320neo and A321neo and grow up closer to the A338. The A321XLR will still sell on price, availability and commonality and will benefit from the massive industrial base already in place for the A321 family.

The Truss-Braced Wing could well be a narrowbody.

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.

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.

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.

An entirely new class with 2020 materials and design will be able to compete with the A32x-NEO very well. More importantly, if Boeing designs such a class with future upgrades in mind, this new class could span 3-4 decades of production, just as the 737, 747, 767, and now 777 have.

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.

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.

Which is why they’ve said it may never get off the PowerPoint

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 timing is actually good for planning this. Everett will lose the 787 and 747 lines so a NLT/NSA line can use those bays. Previously NSA development was punted and the MAX happened because there was no place to put a new NSA line and NSA would be too different to be built on the 737 lines in Renton. But now NSA can ramp up at Everett while MAX ramps down at Renton.

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

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.

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.

Thanks, much appreciated.


Faro

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.

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.

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.

Maybe an scaled down version of the GE GE9X? There were talks that they developed the engine with scaling down in mind...

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.

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 for the airliners can be a different game, although it is usually tied together. Only possibility I see is that the frame will be 20% cheaper in TCO(ex training, extra parts etc) for airliners than the A322. Boeing can eat the difference by selling the first 500 frames at a loss to gain critical volume, but not sure they can eat that on this scale.

DC-8-63 series was such an effective proposition for many airlines in contrast to the DC-10-10, i do believe there are lessons to be learned here.

Cargo carrying capabilities are more important than ever, and 6 abreast single aisle has its limits. A 767 composite fuselage barrel with a new super efficient wing should carve out a niche. However, this still leaves a need for a highly efficient 6 abreast international hub buster to supplement a 767 type.

The 757 and 767 were a bit niche types from the start. Maybe a super fuel efficient 27-57 and 27-67 are just what the Good Doctor orders for a MAX sick Boeing.

Going forward, Big Large A330, 777, and Jumbos and widebodies may be out of favor for a while and in the short term can always be pulled out of the desert until the next cycle of aircraft replacement resumes.

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.

I didn't look at the twitter feed.

Perhaps this article adds to it.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ ... airbus-wsj

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.

I have not seen many comments from officials about the possibility of requiring certificates to allow flying. The emphasis at all the levels I've been following discussions at has been infection rates.

Regardless, the vaccines are being produced in big quantities right now. Governments are funding production before regulatory approval in order to minimize the delay if and when any receive approval. UNICEF is expecting to have 500 million doses in their stockpile by the end of the year, and other agencies and companies are also building up an inventory.

So while nothing is set in stone, I think there is cause for hope that infection rates drop low enough around mid-2021 that flying starts to significantly pick up in many nations.

I don't expect any major new aircraft development effort to take place until there is a couple years of sustained recovery though. I assume Boeing would work at a slow pace and not start talking about a product launch until 2023 or so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Airbus can just bolt a new wing on the A321neo fuselage and has a cheap, fast, good enough solution

It won't be cheap. According to Airbus, a new wing would cost ~2 billion euros.
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.

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:

Airbus can just bolt a new wing on the A321neo fuselage and has a cheap, fast, good enough solution

It won't be cheap. According to Airbus, a new wing would cost ~2 billion euros.
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.

Begs the question really, if 2bn is to much for the market how does a clean sheet 757v2 of 15bn+ have a market?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the starting point is a 757-200 with a new carbon fiber wing designed to fly with the largest LEAP engine available and of course a new fly-by-wire cockpit.

Then you start the trades and see what makes sense and what the airlines would pay for - carbon fiber fuselage might be handy if you are planning on 757-300/DC-8-61 lengths, wider aisle for faster turns, cargo container capability, all electric systems for future hybrid/fuel cell upgrades.

Unless they get a new engine on board they will be fairly limited in MTOW.

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?

On it's own, it does not.

But if it is the first of a family of jets that will become Boeing's future single-aisle line-up, then the market is likely there.

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.

They will have plenty of unused space in Everett with 747 production winding down, 777X surge line not needed, 787 leaving and a very modern Wing/large scale composite manufacturing building just built behind it that can pump out the wings and probably fuselage sections if necessary. The Autoclaves are massive (to build 777X wings at line rates much higher than likely reality). I would guess a SA cross section would fit in no problem (or multiple SA wings) - if they need Autoclaves to cure the composites and don't go to new non-autoclave tech.

They already have the facilities.

Reusing 787 tech should make it not that an expensive a project. It would not be a moonshot - it sounds like the cheap (bad word to use with Boeing) and cheerful approach.

I suspect they have some agreement about the NSA or whatever it is called to be built at Everett as a trade in for the lost 787 line.

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.

My mistake. That is correct.

Vaccine production is underway ahead of approval, though, with big targets. Moderna, for example, is planning 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Johnson and Johnson indicated they plan 1 billion plus doses.

The US government has issued contracts to multiple companies with candidates undergoing trials to purchase 700 million doses, and they have options to buy up to 1.2 billion more. Two of the leading candidates are currently being produced at a rate of several million doses a month, and they plan to have 30 million doses of each stockpiled by sometime in January.

So to get back to the point, it is credible that if these vaccines receive approval, around springtime, the number of people comfortable with activities like flying could be growing by tens of millions per month.

Again, that's still speculative, but Boeing will need to see whatever the actual recovery trend ends up being to plan the timing of their next aircraft.

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?

A bunch of you guys post like the A32x family will be the last big narrowbody ever developed. Yeh, just like the A300 was the last widebody twin.

The big question to be answered before doing a new single aisle is: What will power aircraft in 2035 to 2045?

Jet engines. Very high bypass ones.

Using what fuel?

seahawk wrote:

Using what fuel?

Well, the EU wants to force the usage of hydrogen as it is pouring billions and billions in to the hydrogen industry. Which is no guarantee that the industry will be mature enough to power planes, but it does help a lot...

One scenario that I find interesting is that Boeing does an all new kerosene based single aisle line up and Airbus bets on hydrogen. Who will get most orders in such a case?

The assumption of Airbus and others is that the price of Hydrogen will go down significantly and the efficiency of fuelcells will go up significantly. With the numbers in their presentation the fuel cost per trip would be cut in half(more or less), depending on a lot of innovations. But I do not believe that there will be many hydrogen ready airports over the world in 2040, let alone in 2035...

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.

I think the A321XLR, with it's bumped 101t MTOW and 4700NM range is the basis for a A322NEO, adding 4-5 rows. No new wings, landing gears required. The A321XLR modified wing, gears already provide what is needed, trading range for capacity.

A 3500-3700 NM range would be perfectly ok for almost all European, Asian and American airlines for such a real 250 seater. They have XLR's / 787s if range is needed. I can see the PW1100G and LEAPS getting uprated 8-10%.

Boeing engineers probably quickly concluded the same years ago, that's why the heavy, 7 abreast, oval MoM, NMA never took off.


keesje

I think for Boeing the NB market (120-250 seats ) can't be covered it 1 type, it would be too compromised on both ends of the spectrum. An entirely new, super efficient 150-200 seat, 2500NM optimized aircraft might be required, 10% lighter and more efficient than the NEO. But they can't say so, because of the MAX backlog, desert fleet.

It think the discussions it just and can't be done, technology isn't there, were largely driven by a desire to milk the 737 line, prevent investment and boost short term dividends and executive bonusses. That's were the $30B went over the last 8-10 years.

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.

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.

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.

Some CFRP wing would be something for the next family. They now would keep as much similar and common to the A320neo as possible now. Being fast and cheap and already established with the family is the secret now. Airbus asked suppliers for a rate increase in summer 21. Going up to 47. They might be behind the worst.

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.

So dual aisle could be possible with a "not so narrow" -body. Of course it would be a total discomfort, but hey - South-West and Ryan-Air could further cut down their turn-arounds and on short distance flights, it won't be as annoying as long distances in a 10 abreast 777.

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.

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 has telegraphed its next move:

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.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 76.article

TFA goes on to say they expect the evaluation to be done by early 2022. That's when the A321XLRs will begin shipping. Pretty much a point where the development team will need to have something else to do. Heck, if they're smart, they've already considered this new wing as they've been doing the XLR work.

The question becomes then to just keep milking the A320 line as is or get on with mastering a key technology for whatever they plan to do next. My vote is on the later. It'll be interesting to see how it goes down, though. They have a huge backlog of metal A321s to deliver. Would the be able to keep those customers in line if they release an even better A322? Those are rich man problems.

Then I guess we'll find out if this new Boeing VP of Strategy is asleep at the switch or not. The current NLT style proposal sounds like a CFRP 757-200 with current generation engines and systems. What customers are going to be happy to put money up to get one of those? The reward will have to be worth the risk. It's hard to see what could be added to the reward side to make a compelling case. At least NMA had a different cross section that could be helpful for quick turnarounds and longer flights. It seems our future will have a lot of "devil's bowling alleys" in it.

I think a slightly wider NB could have advances. Specially it possibly being used for shorthaul optimized 737 replacement, as well as suiting a larger NMA kind of cabin specification.

While it would still tapping into the standard AKH container infrastructure (Europe, Asia), NB efficiencies and offering a twin aisle premium option, and turn times a long A321 versions can't match with a easy pass 30 inch aisle and longer flight comfort seat width.


keesje

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.

Well depends what your "ultra-narrow" is. It would be around the aisle and seats measurements of a CRJ. There you already have an 41cm wide aisle and 43cm (17in) wide seats. Two of these aisles and 6 seats like that would then also fit into a 3.81m wide cabin for a 2-2-2 configuration.
I dont think that two 40cm aisles would have have a worse/longer handling than one @50cm.