User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9330
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:20 pm

The A322 will probably have the range of A321NEO +/- 5%. Not of the XLR.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:46 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems you assign strange assumptions to another a.netter, insult him and then tell them you had a good laugh.

No assumptions at all. Airbus and Boeing both have set seating density to determine brochure range. Fitting 178 seats onto the A322 to give an inflated brochure range is ridiculous and misleading. I am following the rules where as you make them up as you go.

I could go around saying the 787 has 8500nm range because it can fly that far with a passenger load below brochure spec. We all quote the brochure range on this forum. You were quoting a brochure range as you quoted the 4700nm A321XLR brochure range and then 3900nm A322 in the same sentence.

You are now trying to backpedal and say your 3900nm range estimate might be possible with a significantly reduced passenger load.

Brochure range for the A322 will be 3200nm at most. It will not be able fly transatlatic unless it has seating density much lower than what current tranatlantic narrowbody aircraft have.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 1:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
Could the 322 be effective in the winter or is a new wing with higher MTOW basically a given?

It seems really sensitive to seating counts.

3200nm range of the A322 is actually completely fine. There is no need for a new wing or MTOW bump. It does not make it a failure because it can not fly transatlantic for the vast majority of airlines.

The 737-10 and A321CEO both have similar range and they still have a large number of orders. The A322 will be extremely efficient with 250 seats and it will be great inside Europe, Asia and North America. The A322 will probably have 90+% commonality with the A321XLR so a mixed fleet allows the XLR to do the longer routes.

The reason why the A322 is very sensitive to seat count is because the fuel weight is only slightly higher than the passenger payload. A 25% increase in passenger load causes the fuel load to drop by nearly 20%. This causes a huge range hit.

The 787-9 to 787-10 simple stretch is a bit different. The fuel weight is more than twice that of the passenger payload. If you increase payload by the same 25% the fuel load then drops by around 10%. The range hit is then much smaller.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
3200nm range of the A322 is actually completely fine. There is no need for a new wing or MTOW bump. It does not make it a failure because it can not fly transatlantic for the vast majority of airlines.

The 737-10 and A321CEO both have similar range and they still have a large number of orders. The A322 will be extremely efficient with 250 seats and it will be great inside Europe, Asia and North America. The A322 will probably have 90+% commonality with the A321XLR so a mixed fleet allows the XLR to do the longer routes.

The reason why the A322 is very sensitive to seat count is because the fuel weight is only slightly higher than the passenger payload. A 25% increase in passenger load causes the fuel load to drop by nearly 20%. This causes a huge range hit.

The 787-9 to 787-10 simple stretch is a bit different. The fuel weight is more than twice that of the passenger payload. If you increase payload by the same 25% the fuel load then drops by around 10%. The range hit is then much smaller.

This again shows how the NMA proposal (NMA-6X was defined as a 228-passenger, 5,000 nmi (9,300 km) airliner and the NMA-7X would seat 267 in two classes over 4,200 nmi (7,800 km)) was in a different class than the A321 variants.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
planecane
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
One thing that keeps being mentioned that I don't understand why it is an issue is the statement that if Boeing launches the NMA then Airbus will re-wing the A321 and make an A322.

So what? If Boeing wants to have a full product line, they need to create something for this market segment and replace at least the upper end of the 737. They aren't trying to become a monopoly. As long as Airbus has to charge enough that Boeing can keep the price high enough to make a profit I don't see the issue.

If Boeing and Airbus each sell 3000 units in the "middle of market" segment over 20 years, it doesn't hurt Boeing if Airbus profits more on each A321NWO (new wing option) or A322 than Boeing does on each 7NMA7 as long as Boeing can charge enough to get the needed ROI.

Airbus will have the benefits of grandfathering with A321/A320/A319 to help sell the A322, such as commonality with spares, training of cabin and cockpit crews, etc. They will also have the advantage of reusing current manufacturing facilities and to a large degree the same techniques or ones perfected on other product lines.

By contrast Boeing will need to fund an all new design built on an all new manufacturing infrastructure and get it certified in an all new regulatory regime. Then customers will have to deal with an all new sim and all new training procedure to deal with the change in cockpit philosophy that Calhoun is suggesting may be required, purchase all new spares, etc.

It seems to me if they go with a 6W design they won't have an basis to ask for more money than Airbus gets for A322, since they will largely have the same wing and engine tech with no reason to expect more payload/range than A322 so no bump in income for the airline, but with all the negatives given above.

This will limit how much Boeing can charge for their product in this market segment. It's the same reason Boeing was so motivated to do MAX rather than NSA. It's tough to go up against an entrenched competitor even if when you had 50% market share like Boeing had in 2011. Now they will be comng to the party very late and all that will be left is table scraps.

IMO they are better off picking a different party to go to, or staying home.


Didn't the same situation sort of exist when Airbus first introduced the A320 series? Boeing responded (albeit 10 years later) with a re-winged, entrenched product with the same engine technology.

There is no other party for Boeing to go to. Their choice is to either launch an NMA or just keep selling a dwindling market share with the 737MAX (after RTS) being attacked from the top by the A321 and below by the A220. At some point their narrow body product line will be exclusively the 737MAX8 and they'll have 30% of the narrow body market if they are lucky.

Boeing may not need to charge a premium over the A321/A322 IF they can lower the manufacturing cost enough, which is supposedly what a large focus of the NMA project has been. They either need to launch something or essentially cede the narrowbody market completely.

The same argument you make can be applied to a smaller clean sheet. If Boeing did a true 737 replacement instead of going more after the A321XLR, Airbus will always be able to do an A220NEO and/or an A320NNEO(new new) with a re-wing for a much lower investment than Boeing's clean sheet.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13680
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:54 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Could the 322 be effective in the winter or is a new wing with higher MTOW basically a given?

It seems really sensitive to seating counts.

3200nm range of the A322 is actually completely fine. There is no need for a new wing or MTOW bump. It does not make it a failure because it can not fly transatlantic for the vast majority of airlines.

The 737-10 and A321CEO both have similar range and they still have a large number of orders. The A322 will be extremely efficient with 250 seats and it will be great inside Europe, Asia and North America. The A322 will probably have 90+% commonality with the A321XLR so a mixed fleet allows the XLR to do the longer routes.

The reason why the A322 is very sensitive to seat count is because the fuel weight is only slightly higher than the passenger payload. A 25% increase in passenger load causes the fuel load to drop by nearly 20%. This causes a huge range hit.

The 787-9 to 787-10 simple stretch is a bit different. The fuel weight is more than twice that of the passenger payload. If you increase payload by the same 25% the fuel load then drops by around 10%. The range hit is then much smaller.


Brochure seatcounts, standards, ranges are worthless. When I was real closely involved I cannot remember ever having looked at them. Boeing did create some special customized ones at my request (single class economy plus long haul) but usually our own engineers did all the cabin configurations.

Agree range of a A322 would not be focussed on trans Atlantic. maybe a few odd UK, Ireland, Iceland flights. Intra Europe, Intra Asia, Transcon is where the volumes are.

Soon a moderator will shoot us for dwingling away from the NMA topic. A better approach to help out Cahoun may be to focus on Airbus A220, A320 weakspots, inefficiencies and aging technology for 2025-2040.

Advocate of the guy with little horns:

- Late eighties wing and materials technology
- Hard to automate production, robotics
- No real lean 199 seater
- Too capable/ overweight for <3hr flights
- Slow (de-boarding, specially>150 seats)
- Sub par toilets in the rear galley's
- smallish windows
- first gen FBW
- no 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 aisle access options
- flights can be really bumpy
- taxi on engines wastes fuel
- shoulder rubbing / no armrests. Hate that
- standing up for neighbours going to lav's. Trains don't have it.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:31 pm

morrisond wrote:
Keesje - Your seat count sounds more than reasonable - however 3,900NM seams like a real stretch.

According to this article(posted earlier in this thread) Airbus seems to be using 90 KG per passenger including bags for it's range calc's when everyone else is using 100kg. It also seems like winter winds would take another 500NM off as well.

It looks like the Premium Configuration is about the same density you are using for your A322.

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Could the 322 be effective in the winter or is a new wing with higher MTOW basically a given?

It seems really sensitive to seating counts.


Airlines vs OEM calculations will be different as it would be airline and route dependent. I would guess the assumption on passenger weight on a flight from the EU to the US would be considerably less than EU to Asia where a lot of routes people carry more baggage. If an airline allows a 15kg free check in bag then I suspect most passengers would avail of only 15kg. If they charge for a check in bag but allow a 10kg carry-on then people may forgo the cost of a heavier bag and only travel with carry-on baggage on a EU to US flight.

I don't know if Airbus or Boeing lists their assumptions on passenger weights for the narrowbody aircraft. Airbus does use 95kg for the A350 calculation in their ACAPS. So I don't know what assumptions we are supposed to make regarding the weight per passenger as its not clear what assumptions the OEM's use or the Airlines.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:34 pm

planecane wrote:
Didn't the same situation sort of exist when Airbus first introduced the A320 series? Boeing responded (albeit 10 years later) with a re-winged, entrenched product with the same engine technology.

Not really, since NG was able to grandfather in the Jurassic customers via a common type rating, and A320 didn't have the kind of installed base and backlog it now has. Keep in mind all three of the US3 are now A320 family customers, back then it was hit or miss between the US6, with MD still a strong third player.

planecane wrote:
There is no other party for Boeing to go to. Their choice is to either launch an NMA or just keep selling a dwindling market share with the 737MAX (after RTS) being attacked from the top by the A321 and below by the A220.

I favor giving the NMA a go, or doing nothing. Unfortunately all the recent commentary suggests Calhoun is not buying in to the NMA story which I think that is why NMA is now shelved, and not very likely to be un-shelved.

planecane wrote:
At some point their narrow body product line will be exclusively the 737MAX8 and they'll have 30% of the narrow body market if they are lucky.

I don't see it that way. MAX10 will get more business, it hasn't even EIS'd yet. MAX7 is a true 150 seater and WN will take up hundreds as -700s age out.

planecane wrote:
Boeing may not need to charge a premium over the A321/A322 IF they can lower the manufacturing cost enough, which is supposedly what a large focus of the NMA project has been.

Boeing won't be able to charge a premium if they aren't offering any revenue benefits.

planecane wrote:
They either need to launch something or essentially cede the narrowbody market completely.

Some times you just have to play a poor hand for a generation and bounce back later. See A340 vs 777 for an example. Something will be launched. The real question is what and when.

planecane wrote:
The same argument you make can be applied to a smaller clean sheet. If Boeing did a true 737 replacement instead of going more after the A321XLR, Airbus will always be able to do an A220NEO and/or an A320NNEO(new new) with a re-wing for a much lower investment than Boeing's clean sheet.

What you need is some value add to make the A220NEO/A320NNEO less competitive. Usually that comes from technology that is hard for them to match without doing their own clean sheet.

Maybe we'll see the trussed wing approach with even higher bypass engines moved forward. Maybe we'll see higher levels of automation with single pilot cockpit enablers. We probably won't see this till the second half of the 2020s.

Doing a shrunken 787 adds no such value. BCA Marketing VP Mounir just said as much when asked about a 787-3 reboot. I see doing an A32x clone the same way.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
DenverTed
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:51 pm

keesje wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Could the 322 be effective in the winter or is a new wing with higher MTOW basically a given?

It seems really sensitive to seating counts.

3200nm range of the A322 is actually completely fine. There is no need for a new wing or MTOW bump. It does not make it a failure because it can not fly transatlantic for the vast majority of airlines.

The 737-10 and A321CEO both have similar range and they still have a large number of orders. The A322 will be extremely efficient with 250 seats and it will be great inside Europe, Asia and North America. The A322 will probably have 90+% commonality with the A321XLR so a mixed fleet allows the XLR to do the longer routes.

The reason why the A322 is very sensitive to seat count is because the fuel weight is only slightly higher than the passenger payload. A 25% increase in passenger load causes the fuel load to drop by nearly 20%. This causes a huge range hit.

The 787-9 to 787-10 simple stretch is a bit different. The fuel weight is more than twice that of the passenger payload. If you increase payload by the same 25% the fuel load then drops by around 10%. The range hit is then much smaller.


Brochure seatcounts, standards, ranges are worthless. When I was real closely involved I cannot remember ever having looked at them. Boeing did create some special customized ones at my request (single class economy plus long haul) but usually our own engineers did all the cabin configurations.

Agree range of a A322 would not be focussed on trans Atlantic. maybe a few odd UK, Ireland, Iceland flights. Intra Europe, Intra Asia, Transcon is where the volumes are.

Soon a moderator will shoot us for dwingling away from the NMA topic. A better approach to help out Cahoun may be to focus on Airbus A220, A320 weakspots, inefficiencies and aging technology for 2025-2040.

Advocate of the guy with little horns:

- Late eighties wing and materials technology
- Hard to automate production, robotics
- No real lean 199 seater
- Too capable/ overweight for <3hr flights
- Slow (de-boarding, specially>150 seats)
- Sub par toilets in the rear galley's
- smallish windows
- first gen FBW
- no 1-2-1 or 1-1-1 aisle access options
- flights can be really bumpy
- taxi on engines wastes fuel
- shoulder rubbing / no armrests. Hate that
- standing up for neighbours going to lav's. Trains don't have it.

I don't think it matters what the payload is on the A322 for 4K range, the question is what is the payload for 3K range? Then it is all aboard for JetBlue, Hawaiian, premium US transcon, the list is endless.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:43 pm

Revelation wrote:
Doing a shrunken 787 adds no such value. BCA Marketing VP Mounir just said as much when asked about a 787-3 reboot. I see doing an A32x clone the same way.


A 32x cross section clone is not the same as a A32x clone.

6W 170-200 single class low MTOW would have many advantages. Some of which would be:

Compared to the A220:
- Designed for low cost mass production
- 6W experience
- lower CASM
- Lot's of commonality with a later higher MTOW variant


Compared to the A32x:
- Designed for low cost mass production (A32x is mass produced as well, but there is only so much you economically do with an existing design).
- Weight optimized for the vast majority of mission (which Airbus can't as easily economically take out of the A32x and also helps with induced drag from the 36m limitation)


Higher MTOW variant would later, once technology evolution will sufficiently off set R&D cost disadvantage, have an wing (mission, span, fuel content) with better commonality compared to Airbus with the A220 and A32x.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:39 pm

[quote="Revelation"]This again shows how the NMA proposal (NMA-6X was defined as a 228-passenger, 5,000 nmi (9,300 km) airliner and the NMA-7X would seat 267 in two classes over 4,200 nmi (7,800 km)) was in a different class than the A321 variants.[/quote]
Yes it is a much bigger performance difference if we compare brochure spec. 25% more passengers travelling 7% further. The difference could be even greater. Boeing calculates the brochure spec of the widebody aircraft with a much lower seating density as they generally have twice the range. Boeing is simply giving an average cabin layout that it would see in service.

Now Airbus reduced their brochure seating density by 10% for the A321XLR because its range would see it used for longer flights. With the NMA-6X and NMA-7X 2 class seat official numbers most people have simply used the Boeings narrowbody seat density to determine the max seating capacity in a single class. If we reduce density by 10% like Airbus did for this range class then both NMA designs are even bigger.

228 and 267 seats using the standard 737 formula results in approx 255 and 300 seats in a single class. These are a row longer than both the 767-200 and 767-300.

If we reduce seating density by 10% like Airbus has done that means the NMA-6 and NMA-7 are 275 and 320 seats. The larger model has now hit the exact cabin size of the A300.

It is still a full size smaller than the 787-8. This NMA family actually fits perfectly underneith the 787 family with the same increment. 280/320/360/400/440 seats. So the NMA is sized like a 787-6 and 787-7 sitting perfectly under the 787-8.

This is why I always thought it was 8ab at the same fuselage length as the 767-200/300. Widen the 767 cross section 6inchs to squeeze in 8ab and you still retain LD2 containers in a tight full carbon package. Engine efficiency will allow the weights to return back to the non-ER MTOW. That 3900nm range should come up to 5000nm with a MTOW around 150t.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9292
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:57 am

seahawk wrote:
The A322 will probably have the range of A321NEO +/- 5%. Not of the XLR.


A321NEO already sells well. LR and XLR too find strong interest.
i.e. extensions in capacity and range while keeping/improving established NB economics
is the way demand can be expanded.

Thus:
A stretch extending the NB efficiency domain ( a slope improving with size) with similar range
probably would sell well too.

And:
it is a natural extension of the process seen with average per unit seating capacity growing
all the time for Airbus A320 family. Less so for 737. IMU the gravity of the 737 family
still centers on the -800 / -8MAX size.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:49 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Revelation wrote:
This again shows how the NMA proposal (NMA-6X was defined as a 228-passenger, 5,000 nmi (9,300 km) airliner and the NMA-7X would seat 267 in two classes over 4,200 nmi (7,800 km)) was in a different class than the A321 variants.

Yes it is a much bigger performance difference if we compare brochure spec. 25% more passengers travelling 7% further. The difference could be even greater. Boeing calculates the brochure spec of the widebody aircraft with a much lower seating density as they generally have twice the range. Boeing is simply giving an average cabin layout that it would see in service.

Now Airbus reduced their brochure seating density by 10% for the A321XLR because its range would see it used for longer flights. With the NMA-6X and NMA-7X 2 class seat official numbers most people have simply used the Boeings narrowbody seat density to determine the max seating capacity in a single class. If we reduce density by 10% like Airbus did for this range class then both NMA designs are even bigger.

228 and 267 seats using the standard 737 formula results in approx 255 and 300 seats in a single class. These are a row longer than both the 767-200 and 767-300.

If we reduce seating density by 10% like Airbus has done that means the NMA-6 and NMA-7 are 275 and 320 seats. The larger model has now hit the exact cabin size of the A300.

It is still a full size smaller than the 787-8. This NMA family actually fits perfectly underneith the 787 family with the same increment. 280/320/360/400/440 seats. So the NMA is sized like a 787-6 and 787-7 sitting perfectly under the 787-8.

This is why I always thought it was 8ab at the same fuselage length as the 767-200/300. Widen the 767 cross section 6inchs to squeeze in 8ab and you still retain LD2 containers in a tight full carbon package. Engine efficiency will allow the weights to return back to the non-ER MTOW. That 3900nm range should come up to 5000nm with a MTOW around 150t.


I did some analysis on the cross section/laayout you talked about and I had posted it here but seems more appropriate in the tech ops thread.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1440759&p=22025333#p22025333

Fred
Image
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

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

Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Unfortunately FG's editorial staff has no actual sway over events.

Isn't it fully sufficient to observe the constraints?


The real issue IMO is the new CEO wasn't comfortable with the product being developed.

Now they will kick around various ideas for a good year or two while MAX and 777X are the focus.

Thus they will stay on the pot and pee slowly, much to FG's discomfort.


Perhaps the airlines were not comfy with the product being developed.
I do understand Boeing's need to get the Max flying again. It's the cash cow, gotta have the dough to develop a new aircraft.
A slow leak is better than no leak at all. As was once said, if there is no clear way forward, the best thing is to do is nothing at all. Airbus caught Boeing with their pants around their ankles on this one and Boeing is really paying the price for it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:00 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.

With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Apart from these 2, it's not a successful model. The smaller 240-seat B757-200 was the only winner.

At such high capacity, a smaller narrowbody like B767-200ER/-300ER or A300 would work better.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:27 pm

ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
No one in their right mind would want 300 passengers on a narrowbody. Aside from performance and operating issues, the freakin thing would take longer to board and deplane than the flight itself. You can forget about any sort of quick turnaround. You would have to allow at least an hour for deplaning and cleaning. Unless you're someone like a ULCC that doesn't bother with cleaning.

With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Apart from these 2, it's not a successful model. The smaller 240-seat B757-200 was the only winner.

At such high capacity, a smaller narrowbody like B767-200ER/-300ER or A300 would work better.

55 built, 54 in service after first entering service in 1999. I’d wager that if 9/11 hadn’t happened that the 753 would have sold significantly more.

767-200 pax in operation 13.

The relative low cost per seat in operation is what I imagine the airlines still love about the 753. Imagine if it could do TATL?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

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

Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:45 pm

Boeing

has plenty of data, sales results, and experience in terms of who buys and how the airlines operate / operated the 757 / 767 complimentary to one another in the same airline fleet.

Perhaps one needs to think about this again. 767 size operating at peak times, and on some routes the 757 size capturing the other traffic off peak and in association with the flagship 767 size aircraft.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
ewt340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:26 am

flipdewaf wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
With 5 more people than a 757-300?

United and delta use them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Apart from these 2, it's not a successful model. The smaller 240-seat B757-200 was the only winner.

At such high capacity, a smaller narrowbody like B767-200ER/-300ER or A300 would work better.

55 built, 54 in service after first entering service in 1999. I’d wager that if 9/11 hadn’t happened that the 753 would have sold significantly more.

767-200 pax in operation 13.

The relative low cost per seat in operation is what I imagine the airlines still love about the 753. Imagine if it could do TATL?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, that's the problem with B753 isn't it? If we look at the actual number, B757-200 and B767-300ER sold way more than B757-300.
There are also more B757-200 and B767-300ER still flying around today.

The main reason why many B757-300 is still around now is because majority of the operators, United, Delta and Condor tend to keep operating their aircraft until they are really old.
Secondly, Delta have 111 B757-200 still active. United have 51 B757-200 still active with some older model planned to be replaced.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:33 am

ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Apart from these 2, it's not a successful model. The smaller 240-seat B757-200 was the only winner.

At such high capacity, a smaller narrowbody like B767-200ER/-300ER or A300 would work better.

55 built, 54 in service after first entering service in 1999. I’d wager that if 9/11 hadn’t happened that the 753 would have sold significantly more.

767-200 pax in operation 13.

The relative low cost per seat in operation is what I imagine the airlines still love about the 753. Imagine if it could do TATL?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, that's the problem with B753 isn't it? If we look at the actual number, B757-200 and B767-300ER sold way more than B757-300.
There are also more B757-200 and B767-300ER still flying around today.

The main reason why many B757-300 is still around now is because majority of the operators, United, Delta and Condor tend to keep operating their aircraft until they are really old.
Secondly, Delta have 111 B757-200 still active. United have 51 B757-200 still active with some older model planned to be replaced.

So given the choice of equal tech level replacements they’d choose the one that had both higher weight per passenger, higher fuel burn per passenger and higher overall fuel burn? So likely a more expensive and less flexible option?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
ewt340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:39 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
55 built, 54 in service after first entering service in 1999. I’d wager that if 9/11 hadn’t happened that the 753 would have sold significantly more.

767-200 pax in operation 13.

The relative low cost per seat in operation is what I imagine the airlines still love about the 753. Imagine if it could do TATL?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, that's the problem with B753 isn't it? If we look at the actual number, B757-200 and B767-300ER sold way more than B757-300.
There are also more B757-200 and B767-300ER still flying around today.

The main reason why many B757-300 is still around now is because majority of the operators, United, Delta and Condor tend to keep operating their aircraft until they are really old.
Secondly, Delta have 111 B757-200 still active. United have 51 B757-200 still active with some older model planned to be replaced.

So given the choice of equal tech level replacements they’d choose the one that had both higher weight per passenger, higher fuel burn per passenger and higher overall fuel burn? So likely a more expensive and less flexible option?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Huh? They choose B757-200 or B767-300ER because those 2 plane have the "it" factor. The right size, the right range, the right price. Sure B757-300 might have lower fuel burn per passengers. But the lack of range provided way less flexibility to them. And the size stuck in between the "it" area.

It's too big for long-thin routes with small demands. Not enough range or too small for major medium long-haul routes.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:53 pm

ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
ewt340 wrote:

Yeah, that's the problem with B753 isn't it? If we look at the actual number, B757-200 and B767-300ER sold way more than B757-300.
There are also more B757-200 and B767-300ER still flying around today.

The main reason why many B757-300 is still around now is because majority of the operators, United, Delta and Condor tend to keep operating their aircraft until they are really old.
Secondly, Delta have 111 B757-200 still active. United have 51 B757-200 still active with some older model planned to be replaced.

So given the choice of equal tech level replacements they’d choose the one that had both higher weight per passenger, higher fuel burn per passenger and higher overall fuel burn? So likely a more expensive and less flexible option?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Huh? They choose B757-200 or B767-300ER because those 2 plane have the "it" factor. The right size, the right range, the right price. Sure B757-300 might have lower fuel burn per passengers. But the lack of range provided way less flexibility to them. And the size stuck in between the "it" area.

It's too big for long-thin routes with small demands. Not enough range or too small for major medium long-haul routes.


But in this instance we are only talking about equal capability (Read:payload/range performance), there are not fundamental reasons why the spec range cannot be specified at the design stage for both narrow and widebody, the inherent efficiency advantages of a narrowbody remain.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26781
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:42 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Passenger numbers given by the OEM are always in a three or two class configuration with generous leg room. A 300 seat plane would easily equate to about 335 at Delta and maybe 310 at United since they offer more premium class seats. God only knows what Ryanair would try.


The 55m model would have an Exit Limit of 295, assuming it used the same Exit Configuration of the 757-300: Two pair of Type C exits, one pair of Type B exits, one pair of Type I exits, and two pair of Type III exits.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:22 pm

Now Jon O from The Air Current suggests:

Singapore — At the beginning of 2011, Boeing wrestled with what to do next. Weighed down by the astronomical cost and pressure of the 787 development, history remembers a debate between an all-new single-aisle jet or a move to put new engines on the 737. Ultimately, the decision was made for Boeing when American Airlines placed its record airplane order with both U.S. and European manufacturers. The new airplane strategy was dead and the 737 Max was born.

But at the time there was another all-new airplane concept on Boeing’s drawing board. It was known as the New Light Twin or NLT. And nine years later, the 200 to 240-seat, small twin-aisle jet that never made it past PowerPoint is one that is very likely to get new life as Boeing re-focuses for a head-on challenge to the Airbus A321XLR.

Ref: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... h-a321xlr/

I guess one of Leahy's paper planes might be getting taken off the shelf?

A little Googling found https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/ which is Leeham's write up of NLT (757 size) and NSA (yep, 737 size) concepts.

For those of you who thought seven across 2x3x2 was a bad idea, get ready to throw rotten tomatoes at a 2x2x2.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26781
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
For those of you who thought seven across 2x3x2 was a bad idea, get ready to throw rotten tomatoes at a 2x2x2.


The McDonnell-Douglas DC-XX concept designed to take on the 757 would have seated 2+2+2 in "regular" configuration (with 18" seats?) and 2+3+2 in a "charter" configuration with 16.5" seats in a fuselage 4.39m wide (compared to 3.54m for the 757).
 
User avatar
msp747
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 6:42 pm

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

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
Now Jon O from The Air Current suggests:

Singapore — At the beginning of 2011, Boeing wrestled with what to do next. Weighed down by the astronomical cost and pressure of the 787 development, history remembers a debate between an all-new single-aisle jet or a move to put new engines on the 737. Ultimately, the decision was made for Boeing when American Airlines placed its record airplane order with both U.S. and European manufacturers. The new airplane strategy was dead and the 737 Max was born.

But at the time there was another all-new airplane concept on Boeing’s drawing board. It was known as the New Light Twin or NLT. And nine years later, the 200 to 240-seat, small twin-aisle jet that never made it past PowerPoint is one that is very likely to get new life as Boeing re-focuses for a head-on challenge to the Airbus A321XLR.

Ref: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... h-a321xlr/

I guess one of Leahy's paper planes might be getting taken off the shelf?

A little Googling found https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/ which is Leeham's write up of NLT (757 size) and NSA (yep, 737 size) concepts.

For those of you who thought seven across 2x3x2 was a bad idea, get ready to throw rotten tomatoes at a 2x2x2.

The Air Current article says it would be 2x3x2. However, it said that the fuselage would not be as wide or tall as the 767. I'm guessing it would be 18-inch wide seating (as opposed to 18.5 on the 767).
 
744SPX
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:17 pm

AKA Kermit Cruiser
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:08 am

2-2-2 :lol:

There is no chance Boeing is actually going to do that.

Refresh the 787-8 and just do a carbon copy A321 family.

Using the latest wing they'll be able to gain 2% aerodynamic advantage over the A321. With lithium and carbon they'll probaboy gain a 2% weight advantage.

So that means a 50t OEW and 95t MTOW to match the payload/range performance of the A321XLR at 101t MTOW. Short haul performance will be better due to the weight.

Production costs might be cheaper if it has high levels of automation.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:17 am

Revelation wrote:
Now Jon O from The Air Current suggests:

Singapore — At the beginning of 2011, Boeing wrestled with what to do next. Weighed down by the astronomical cost and pressure of the 787 development, history remembers a debate between an all-new single-aisle jet or a move to put new engines on the 737. Ultimately, the decision was made for Boeing when American Airlines placed its record airplane order with both U.S. and European manufacturers. The new airplane strategy was dead and the 737 Max was born.

But at the time there was another all-new airplane concept on Boeing’s drawing board. It was known as the New Light Twin or NLT. And nine years later, the 200 to 240-seat, small twin-aisle jet that never made it past PowerPoint is one that is very likely to get new life as Boeing re-focuses for a head-on challenge to the Airbus A321XLR.

Ref: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... h-a321xlr/

I guess one of Leahy's paper planes might be getting taken off the shelf?

A little Googling found https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/ which is Leeham's write up of NLT (757 size) and NSA (yep, 737 size) concepts.

For those of you who thought seven across 2x3x2 was a bad idea, get ready to throw rotten tomatoes at a 2x2x2.


When I read the article I was thinking Anet is going to explode. Shame it’s behind a paywall. :rotfl:
 
planecane
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
2-2-2 :lol:

There is no chance Boeing is actually going to do that.

Refresh the 787-8 and just do a carbon copy A321 family.

Using the latest wing they'll be able to gain 2% aerodynamic advantage over the A321. With lithium and carbon they'll probaboy gain a 2% weight advantage.

So that means a 50t OEW and 95t MTOW to match the payload/range performance of the A321XLR at 101t MTOW. Short haul performance will be better due to the weight.

Production costs might be cheaper if it has high levels of automation.


Problem is that a bunch of those advantages can be mitigated if Airbus does a new wing for the A321/322.

If (a big if) Boeing can design a 2-2-2 cabin and use their ovoid design to keep the wetted area and frontal area lower than normal AND keep the weight close to the A321 cross section, Airbus can't easily complete. They'd be in a position to have to go clean sheet or discuss I the A321.

A narrowbody with no middle seats would be very attractive to passengers and would be a differentiator for airlines that flew them.

That said, I think there is a better chance that Boeing doesn't do a clean sheet anything for the next 5 years then there is that they launch a 2-2-2 cross section.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:39 am

I think the sweet spot for 3-3 is 45m long, 2-2-2 is 50m, and 2-3-2 is 55m.
2-2-2 at 170" o.d. fuselage, 48m and 53m lengths 4,000nm and 3,500nm range, copy the nose section / windscreen of the 757 and scale it up 10%. End the tyranny of the middle seat.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:27 am

RJMAZ wrote:
2-2-2 :lol:

There is no chance Boeing is actually going to do that.

Refresh the 787-8 and just do a carbon copy A321 family.

Using the latest wing they'll be able to gain 2% aerodynamic advantage over the A321. With lithium and carbon they'll probaboy gain a 2% weight advantage.

So that means a 50t OEW and 95t MTOW to match the payload/range performance of the A321XLR at 101t MTOW. Short haul performance will be better due to the weight.

Production costs might be cheaper if it has high levels of automation.


And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

That, I think is the conundrum for Boeing here

Rgds
 
ewt340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:54 am

flipdewaf wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
So given the choice of equal tech level replacements they’d choose the one that had both higher weight per passenger, higher fuel burn per passenger and higher overall fuel burn? So likely a more expensive and less flexible option?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Huh? They choose B757-200 or B767-300ER because those 2 plane have the "it" factor. The right size, the right range, the right price. Sure B757-300 might have lower fuel burn per passengers. But the lack of range provided way less flexibility to them. And the size stuck in between the "it" area.

It's too big for long-thin routes with small demands. Not enough range or too small for major medium long-haul routes.


But in this instance we are only talking about equal capability (Read:payload/range performance), there are not fundamental reasons why the spec range cannot be specified at the design stage for both narrow and widebody, the inherent efficiency advantages of a narrowbody remain.

Fred


I do see the reasoning for it. But, it seems like aircraft the size of B757-200 or B767-300ER have proven to do better compared to B757-300 with higher mtow and increased range.

Maybe a model with the size between B757-200 and B757-300 (with length around 50m) and range around 5,000nmi.

But as for B757-300 size, it's not really fit in into any market right now.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:39 am

astuteman wrote:
And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

I doubt that.

The Boeing NSA carbon/lithium fuselage tube and tail would be 1000kg lighter than the A321. That has a big knock-on effect. You run the optimising loop and as everything else can be scaled down by a couple percent it will result in 2000+kg of total empty weight saved. The MTOW can then be 3000-4000kg lighter while offering the same payload range. A rewinged A321 can not make up for that.

The second problem is the code C gate limit. As soon as you exceed 90t MTOW the aspect ratio has to reduce to get enough wing area. Add folding wing tips and you'll probably lose most of the gain on anything but the longest flights. The Airbus wing would need a couple metres of extra span to make up for that slightly heavier fuselage tube and tail. A new wing on the A321 will probably still have it flying below 30,000ft on routes longer than 4000nm.

The third problem is the next round of 15:1 bypass ratio engines might struggle to fit the A321NEO. The Boeing cleansheet will the ground clearance baked in. The A321 will be forced to run lower bypass ratio engines just like the 737MAX. The 737MAX however could make up for that with a lighter and skinnier fuselage tube. The A321 would not have the same weight advantage over the Boeing cleansheet NSA. So the A321 would be heavier and also have lower bypass ratio engines which will cost it many percentage points of efficiency.

The narrowbody market would probably go from 60/40 in Airbus favour to 60/40 in Boeing favour. Airbus would not have a good response besides initial availability and they'll have to cut their profit margin.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18510
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:33 am

RJMAZ wrote:
2-2-2 :lol:

There is no chance Boeing is actually going to do that.

Refresh the 787-8 and just do a carbon copy A321 family.

Using the latest wing they'll be able to gain 2% aerodynamic advantage over the A321. With lithium and carbon they'll probaboy gain a 2% weight advantage.

So that means a 50t OEW and 95t MTOW to match the payload/range performance of the A321XLR at 101t MTOW. Short haul performance will be better due to the weight.

Production costs might be cheaper if it has high levels of automation.


So you think Boeing should spend $12-15billion to make something that's slightly better than today's A321 for EIS around late 2020s? Right.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:47 am

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

I doubt that.

The Boeing NSA carbon/lithium fuselage tube and tail would be 1000kg lighter than the A321. That has a big knock-on effect. You run the optimising loop and as everything else can be scaled down by a couple percent it will result in 2000+kg of total empty weight saved. The MTOW can then be 3000-4000kg lighter while offering the same payload range. A rewinged A321 can not make up for that.

The second problem is the code C gate limit. As soon as you exceed 90t MTOW the aspect ratio has to reduce to get enough wing area. Add folding wing tips and you'll probably lose most of the gain on anything but the longest flights. The Airbus wing would need a couple metres of extra span to make up for that slightly heavier fuselage tube and tail. A new wing on the A321 will probably still have it flying below 30,000ft on routes longer than 4000nm.

The third problem is the next round of 15:1 bypass ratio engines might struggle to fit the A321NEO. The Boeing cleansheet will the ground clearance baked in. The A321 will be forced to run lower bypass ratio engines just like the 737MAX. The 737MAX however could make up for that with a lighter and skinnier fuselage tube. The A321 would not have the same weight advantage over the Boeing cleansheet NSA. So the A321 would be heavier and also have lower bypass ratio engines which will cost it many percentage points of efficiency.

The narrowbody market would probably go from 60/40 in Airbus favour to 60/40 in Boeing favour. Airbus would not have a good response besides initial availability and they'll have to cut their profit margin.


Now, let's say Boeing newest products gonna be more fuel efficient and have better range and payload compared to A321XLR.

The first question would be: Would it be significantly cheaper to purchase compared to A321XLR.
The 2nd one would be: What about the commonality for A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR that made them really attractive. What would boeing offer with their new clean-sheet products that would be available in at least 5-8 years from now? Commonality with MAX?
The 3d one would be: What happen when airbus make A322neo? It would have better fuel efficiency than A321XLR. Higher capacity, probability for higher mtow and range. Better wings. And cheaper purchase price and commonality with A320neo and A321neo. This would close the gap even further.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:09 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

I doubt that.

The Boeing NSA carbon/lithium fuselage tube and tail would be 1000kg lighter than the A321.


Disagree there with that assumption.

1. They won't build a CFRP fuselage. Impact considerations forcing panel thickness mean the weight saving isn't there w.r.t metallic - it'd be heavier, not lighter.
2. Al-Li has great material properties. Not so good cost characteristics - both in material cost and manufacturing cost. Put like this - the only manufacturer of a narrowbody currently made with an Al-Li fuselage is looking to see if they can use Al2024 instead. Its possible that a simple circular fuselage would be easier to manufacture than one with triple compound curvature, but if not - then the best solution might still be Al2024.
Last edited by Amiga500 on Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:09 pm

ewt340 wrote:
What would boeing offer with their new clean-sheet products that would be available in at least 5-8 years from now? Commonality with MAX?

In the short term there would be no commonality. That is usually the case with any new product. But the fleet size would grow extremely quick providing economy of scale.

ewt340 wrote:
The 3d one would be: What happen when airbus make A322neo?

The reduced OEW and MTOW advantage will carry over to any fuselage length. It Airbus creates an A322NEO with a 101t MTOW and approximately 3200nm range then Boeing can also have a 3200nm NSA of equal length with a 95t MTOW.

Members here are obsessed with long range narrowbody aircraft. If you optimise for a shorter maximum range then the aircraft gains efficiency on shorter routes. Not needing to carry so much fuel results in huge weight savings in the structure to carry that extra fuel. A lower MTOW means a lighter landing gear and smaller engines. With less thrust the tail can also be smaller.

Boeing could easily optimise the NSA to have 80% of the range of the A320 family and it would easily result in a 10% fuel burn advantage. If the NSA with the A321 cabin length had only 3700nm it would still out range the current 737MAX. The OEW and MTOW would probably be closer to 45t and 90t respectively.

If Boeing has the smallest and most efficient widebody available then it allows them to optimise the NSA for a shorter range. This is why the NMA has many advantages and stops Boeing from creating an overweight NSA. A majorly updated 787-8 would reduce the MOM gap significantly but it might tempt Boeing to create a long range narrowbody.

Trying to create a large long range narrowbody which would effectively be a cleansheet 757 would be a very bad idea. It could never be as efficient as the 737MAX on the vast majority of flights.
 
AleksW
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 1:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Trying to create a large long range narrowbody which would effectively be a cleansheet 757 would be a very bad idea. It could never be as efficient as the 737MAX on the vast majority of flights.

It could be a "narrowbody" aircraft with multiple fuselage lengths and 2 different wings, optimized for a bigger modern engines.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:20 pm

astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
2-2-2 :lol:

There is no chance Boeing is actually going to do that.

Refresh the 787-8 and just do a carbon copy A321 family.

Using the latest wing they'll be able to gain 2% aerodynamic advantage over the A321. With lithium and carbon they'll probaboy gain a 2% weight advantage.

So that means a 50t OEW and 95t MTOW to match the payload/range performance of the A321XLR at 101t MTOW. Short haul performance will be better due to the weight.

Production costs might be cheaper if it has high levels of automation.


And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

That, I think is the conundrum for Boeing here

Rgds


Yeah, I am sure Boeing has not run that scenario through their computers. I am sure Boeing doesn't read AW, Flight Global, etc.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:29 pm

ewt340 wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
astuteman wrote:
And bang a fancy new CFRP wing on the A321 and it claws both of those 2% increments back again, whilst still retaining huge commonality with the massive stock of existing A321's....

I doubt that.

The Boeing NSA carbon/lithium fuselage tube and tail would be 1000kg lighter than the A321. That has a big knock-on effect. You run the optimising loop and as everything else can be scaled down by a couple percent it will result in 2000+kg of total empty weight saved. The MTOW can then be 3000-4000kg lighter while offering the same payload range. A rewinged A321 can not make up for that.

The second problem is the code C gate limit. As soon as you exceed 90t MTOW the aspect ratio has to reduce to get enough wing area. Add folding wing tips and you'll probably lose most of the gain on anything but the longest flights. The Airbus wing would need a couple metres of extra span to make up for that slightly heavier fuselage tube and tail. A new wing on the A321 will probably still have it flying below 30,000ft on routes longer than 4000nm.

The third problem is the next round of 15:1 bypass ratio engines might struggle to fit the A321NEO. The Boeing cleansheet will the ground clearance baked in. The A321 will be forced to run lower bypass ratio engines just like the 737MAX. The 737MAX however could make up for that with a lighter and skinnier fuselage tube. The A321 would not have the same weight advantage over the Boeing cleansheet NSA. So the A321 would be heavier and also have lower bypass ratio engines which will cost it many percentage points of efficiency.

The narrowbody market would probably go from 60/40 in Airbus favour to 60/40 in Boeing favour. Airbus would not have a good response besides initial availability and they'll have to cut their profit margin.


Now, let's say Boeing newest products gonna be more fuel efficient and have better range and payload compared to A321XLR.

The first question would be: Would it be significantly cheaper to purchase compared to A321XLR.
The 2nd one would be: What about the commonality for A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR that made them really attractive. What would boeing offer with their new clean-sheet products that would be available in at least 5-8 years from now? Commonality with MAX?
The 3d one would be: What happen when airbus make A322neo? It would have better fuel efficiency than A321XLR. Higher capacity, probability for higher mtow and range. Better wings. And cheaper purchase price and commonality with A320neo and A321neo. This would close the gap even further.


Do we think Boeing has not asked these questions? I bet you Boeing knows more about the mythical A322 and it capabilities more so than Anet. I am sure Boeing has had more meetings on the competitor's response to this aircraft than Keejse Anet threads on the A322 or wide aisle NMA.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:39 pm

william wrote:

Do we think Boeing has not asked these questions? I bet you Boeing knows more about the mythical A322 and it capabilities more so than Anet. I am sure Boeing has had more meetings on the competitor's response to this aircraft than Keejse Anet threads on the A322 or wide aisle NMA.


I would hope Boeing are indeed asking these questions and I'm pretty sure they do know more about the mythical A322 than we possibly could.. I am sure Boeing not only have meeting about it but have a whole team studying the thing and making more reports and more calculations than All keesjes threads combined.

And what do Boeing say?

Business Case Not Closing...

Fred
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:06 pm

It really seems like whatever they do they need two tubes to fight from A220-300 up to 757-300 an possibly a little bit bigger due to passenger growth.

FSA - Brazil made 5W and NSA/NMA 6W or 7W.

One cross section just isn't going to cut it. A super sized 6W is too big for 150 Seats at average mission lengths of 1,000NM and you can't really stretch an A320 size tube (minimum for LD3-45) to 300+ Y seats.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that it won't be 2x2x2 - there is little to no cost to go to 2x3x2.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Airbus is basically forcing Boeing to do something in response to A220 and the 6XW Tube (extra wide) won't cut it. It's just whether or not Boeing forces Airbus to respond by going to 7W for NMA/NSA. If Boeing goes 6W Airbus can stick with A320 tube.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22960
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:20 pm

morrisond wrote:
Airbus is basically forcing Boeing to do something in response to A220 and the 6XW Tube (extra wide) won't cut it. It's just whether or not Boeing forces Airbus to respond by going to 7W for NMA/NSA. If Boeing goes 6W Airbus can stick with A320 tube.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

If it worked this way Boeing would have responded to A320 back in 1987 with a clean sheet, but they did not.

I have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to do two clean sheets, just after a new CEO came in and shut down the one clean sheet they were already working on.

I doubt we'll hear about anything new till after 777X has EIS which seems to be at best early 2021.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Airbus is basically forcing Boeing to do something in response to A220 and the 6XW Tube (extra wide) won't cut it. It's just whether or not Boeing forces Airbus to respond by going to 7W for NMA/NSA. If Boeing goes 6W Airbus can stick with A320 tube.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

If it worked this way Boeing would have responded to A320 back in 1987 with a clean sheet, but they did not.

I have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to do two clean sheets, just after a new CEO came in and shut down the one clean sheet they were already working on.

I doubt we'll hear about anything new till after 777X has EIS which seems to be at best early 2021.


I have a hard time seeing them to decide to do 2 clean sheets as well. They won't be brave enough.

Hence I think whatever they do will be a big compromise and they will be suffering for a long time.

There response will be too narrow and not broad enough in scope or scale. They would have the cash flow to do both (especially if both use same tech base/control systems, etc..).

Right now they need vision and the current CEO is not the guy.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:56 pm

If Boeing and WN were designing an optimized 200 seat aircraft for Midway Airport, would it be a copy of the A321 but a meter shorter? What would the weight be? Hopefully they could make some improvement on the A321. Would they want to go 2-2-2 or 2-3-2,? Could they stretch this aircraft 5 rows for longer runways?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 561
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:30 pm

morrisond wrote:

FSA - Brazil made 5W and NSA/NMA 6W or 7W.



How should Brazil make a 5W in the next 10 years? Will Boeing pump 20B+ into Boeing Brazil just to kill off the E2 series?

Right now Embraer just finished their upgraded E-jets and before Embraer (and soon Boeing Brazil)( can afford developing a new jet the E2s have to generate cash. Then there will be PIPs to the E2s. Than it is 2030 and there was no new jet developed. I can not see how this joint venture will become profitable for Boeing if Boeing has to pump money in with no outlook of return.

There is return if Boeing can use the JV with Embraer to make the E2 more competitive and then down the road launch a new jet but this is at least 10+ years away, with EIS 15+ years.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2481
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:35 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

FSA - Brazil made 5W and NSA/NMA 6W or 7W.



How should Brazil make a 5W in the next 10 years? Will Boeing pump 20B+ into Boeing Brazil just to kill off the E2 series?

Right now Embraer just finished their upgraded E-jets and before Embraer (and soon Boeing Brazil)( can afford developing a new jet the E2s have to generate cash. Then there will be PIPs to the E2s. Than it is 2030 and there was no new jet developed. I can not see how this joint venture will become profitable for Boeing if Boeing has to pump money in with no outlook of return.

There is return if Boeing can use the JV with Embraer to make the E2 more competitive and then down the road launch a new jet but this is at least 10+ years away, with EIS 15+ years.


At this point in time with the new regulatory regime a clean sheet will probably take at least 8-10 years anyways. With Boeing not deciding what to do for a year or two - that takes us into the early 2030's before anything is coming off the lines in volume.

The E-jets are just too small.
 
planecane
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:37 pm

morrisond wrote:
Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Airbus is basically forcing Boeing to do something in response to A220 and the 6XW Tube (extra wide) won't cut it. It's just whether or not Boeing forces Airbus to respond by going to 7W for NMA/NSA. If Boeing goes 6W Airbus can stick with A320 tube.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

If it worked this way Boeing would have responded to A320 back in 1987 with a clean sheet, but they did not.

I have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to do two clean sheets, just after a new CEO came in and shut down the one clean sheet they were already working on.

I doubt we'll hear about anything new till after 777X has EIS which seems to be at best early 2021.


I have a hard time seeing them to decide to do 2 clean sheets as well. They won't be brave enough.

Hence I think whatever they do will be a big compromise and they will be suffering for a long time.

There response will be too narrow and not broad enough in scope or scale. They would have the cash flow to do both (especially if both use same tech base/control systems, etc..).

Right now they need vision and the current CEO is not the guy.


What I could see is a clean sheet to go after the A321, 757-200 and 757-300 sized airframe market with "regional" range. Then keeping on producing the 737MAX 8-10 for the next 15 years to cover the portion of the market that needs lower capacity and doesn't need the transatlantic range.

I would expect that something will be developed by Boeing Brazil Commercial (either an "E3" or a clean sheet) to compete with the A220 up to the MAX 7 size.

The 737 replacement would be launched sometime towards the end of the decade with a 2034 or so EIS.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26781
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:56 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Now, let's say Boeing newest products gonna be more fuel efficient and have better range and payload compared to A321XLR.

The first question would be: Would it be significantly cheaper to purchase compared to A321XLR.


If it's cash operating costs are lower and/or it's revenue generation capabilities are greater, that will offset the higher purchase price.


ewt340 wrote:
The 2nd one would be: What about the commonality for A320neo, A321neo and A321XLR that made them really attractive. What would boeing offer with their new clean-sheet products that would be available in at least 5-8 years from now? Commonality with MAX?


Boeing would have had to replace MAX by the 2030s, regardless of current events. Current events just might force their hand a bit earlier than planned. So Boeing will be offering probably two families scaling from 100 to 300 seats whereas Airbus would be offering two different families without the same level of commonality due to one of them (the A220) being inherited from a different supplier.


ewt340 wrote:
The 3d one would be: What happen when airbus make A322neo? It would have better fuel efficiency than A321XLR. Higher capacity, probability for higher mtow and range. Better wings. And cheaper purchase price and commonality with A320neo and A321neo. This would close the gap even further.


This presumes amending existing type certificates will remain as they are today.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9330
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 4:59 pm

planecane wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I don't think it's as simple as that.

If it worked this way Boeing would have responded to A320 back in 1987 with a clean sheet, but they did not.

I have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to do two clean sheets, just after a new CEO came in and shut down the one clean sheet they were already working on.

I doubt we'll hear about anything new till after 777X has EIS which seems to be at best early 2021.


I have a hard time seeing them to decide to do 2 clean sheets as well. They won't be brave enough.

Hence I think whatever they do will be a big compromise and they will be suffering for a long time.

There response will be too narrow and not broad enough in scope or scale. They would have the cash flow to do both (especially if both use same tech base/control systems, etc..).

Right now they need vision and the current CEO is not the guy.


What I could see is a clean sheet to go after the A321, 757-200 and 757-300 sized airframe market with "regional" range. Then keeping on producing the 737MAX 8-10 for the next 15 years to cover the portion of the market that needs lower capacity and doesn't need the transatlantic range.

I would expect that something will be developed by Boeing Brazil Commercial (either an "E3" or a clean sheet) to compete with the A220 up to the MAX 7 size.

The 737 replacement would be launched sometime towards the end of the decade with a 2034 or so EIS.


Is this even a real market segment, or where the 757 and now the A321 used because they could sent back to normal shorter missions whenever required and where available.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos