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 5:00 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
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


I am glad you posted this and I agree, "no business case". On the flip slide, when Boeing does launch and if it is a "twin aisle" then we can be sure their engineering and market research has answered the above questions and the business case is solid.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:10 pm

Amiga500 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.


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.


Completely disagree on the CFRP weight savings. The panels can be made thinner just fine. And Boeing's production process is the equivalent of a unibody, whereas Airbus' is panel on frame, so Boeing achieves greater weight efficiency at the same strength, even if small. Plus, a short/medium-haul plane doesn't need the 6000' cabin pressure of the 787/A350/777X, so further weight savings can be achieved if they compromise to 7000 or go back up to 8000.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 566
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 5:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
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.


The problem is that even though the E-jets are too small to compete with the A223 they still have some value for regional airlines outside the US (or in the US when the scope would change).

For a absolute new design Boeing Brazil has not the facilities, the cash flow nor the know how in terms of mass production systems and large NB aircraft. They never did something bigger than the E195-E2.

To obtain such knowledge and capacities Boeing Brazil needs a lot of money and talent. Boeing can provide this but that means a brain drain for Boeing itself to transfer knowledge and also a lot of money. I do not say it is not possible but does Boeing really want to go from 0 to 100 in a short time and sacrifice the E2 on the way?

We see how painful it is to integrate the A220 for Airbus and bring it into profitability. Boeing will have an easier start (Embraer is profitable) but on the other hand a new product can turn this around quickly and I do not know if Boeing is willing to give "card blanche" to the new joint venture.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26784
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 5:16 pm

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


They had just invested a significant amount in launching the 737 Classic and they also had the arrogance of an entrenched supplier.


Revelation wrote:
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.


Even if MAX's EIS had been flawless, the 737 frame has reached the end of it's evolution so Boeing would have had to replace it by the 2030s, anyway. NMA's intent was to make the 737's replacement EIS as smooth as possible because of the importance of the model to Boeing Commercial's bottom line.

The real pressure point for Boeing is 200-240 seats and while the MAX can hold the 200 seat line very well against the A320, it is clearly failing against the A321 above 200 seats and cannot reach as far as the A321 (230 seats vs. 240). So Boeing will have to clean-sheet whether they want to or not because 200-240 seats is where the growth is and I am not sure Boeing wants to risk launching the 737 RS "cold" and hope they do not have the production ramp issues they had with the 787.

Having a single fuselage design would allow for significant production cost savings at the expense of higher weight for the smallest variants, but if your smallest variant is 40m / 200 seats, I think it would be doable. A wider fuselage would allow for 3+3 seating in the smallest variants (200 and 220 seats) with a wide aisle to provide quick turnarounds for the short-haul missions these frames would operate on with 2+2+2 seating for more comfort and better servicing of passengers on the largest variants which would likely be flying the longer routes where turnaround times would be greater. And it could still offer a 3+3 higher-density seating option for short-haul hub-to-hub services with the quick turnarounds necessary for such operations.

The below-40m / 200 seat market would be the domain of it's own optimized family of 2+3 models which could go lower (perhaps down to the 70 seats of US carrier scope clauses).


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


On this I am in agreement.
 
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 6:22 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Completely disagree on the CFRP weight savings. The panels can be made thinner just fine. And Boeing's production process is the equivalent of a unibody, whereas Airbus' is panel on frame, so Boeing achieves greater weight efficiency at the same strength, even if small. Plus, a short/medium-haul plane doesn't need the 6000' cabin pressure of the 787/A350/777X, so further weight savings can be achieved if they compromise to 7000 or go back up to 8000.


No. They can't.

Hoop stress on a fuselage is proportional to the diameter of that fuselage.

That means; in a widebody, pressure loading is typically the dominant problem, so it defines the layup requirements of the laminate.

Now, in a narrowbody, ideally that lower pressure loading would allow for weight saving. However, a certain depth of laminate is required to deal with impact damage, which pushes laminate thickness back up.

Cabin pressure is therefore largely immaterial to the problem - about the only benefit of a CFRP narrowbody fuselage is that they'd be able to run it at an even lower pressure altitude as it would already be thicker than ideal.



Now, in the future, Carbon NanoFibre infused resins will make composites much better at dealing with impacts without delamination - meaning that a CFRP fuselage on narrowbody may be more enticing. But we aren't there yet... and I've heard no noises that we are getting there either.
 
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 6:30 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.


They cheaped out when doing the NG.

For a model that sold thousands - it pointed Boeing down a highway they are struggling to find an off-ramp from.

The NG had new avionics, new wing, new engines, new undercarriage. If they had done a new fuselage that would have meant they could have changed the centre wingbox and from that the undercarriage height.

They should have realised when lipping the nacelle they were only storing up trouble.

That would have put them on a proper equal footing with the A320 and left them with room to expand in future.
 
TFawkes
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 6:50 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
TFawkes wrote:
Completely disagree on the CFRP weight savings. The panels can be made thinner just fine. And Boeing's production process is the equivalent of a unibody, whereas Airbus' is panel on frame, so Boeing achieves greater weight efficiency at the same strength, even if small. Plus, a short/medium-haul plane doesn't need the 6000' cabin pressure of the 787/A350/777X, so further weight savings can be achieved if they compromise to 7000 or go back up to 8000.


No. They can't.

Hoop stress on a fuselage is proportional to the diameter of that fuselage.

That means; in a widebody, pressure loading is typically the dominant problem, so it defines the layup requirements of the laminate.

Now, in a narrowbody, ideally that lower pressure loading would allow for weight saving. However, a certain depth of laminate is required to deal with impact damage, which pushes laminate thickness back up.

Cabin pressure is therefore largely immaterial to the problem - about the only benefit of a CFRP narrowbody fuselage is that they'd be able to run it at an even lower pressure altitude as it would already be thicker than ideal.



Now, in the future, Carbon NanoFibre infused resins will make composites much better at dealing with impacts without delamination - meaning that a CFRP fuselage on narrowbody may be more enticing. But we aren't there yet... and I've heard no noises that we are getting there either.

Or find a better way to weave the tape to prevent delamination at lower thickness... Mitsubishi's already working on this for a future MRJ. They're looking to cut 30% off the required thickness.

And instead of nanofibre, it would be nano ribbons, which it looks like Samsung will probably be the first to produce in mass at useful length. As for aircraft integration, that delay is unpredictable but assuredly going to be long in the tooth.
 
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 6:52 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Or find a better way to weave the tape to prevent delamination at lower thickness...


Good luck with that!


TFawkes wrote:
Mitsubishi's already working on this for a future MRJ. They're looking to cut 30% off the required thickness.


Having worked with Mitsubishi on MRJ - thankfully briefly - I'd advise you don't hold your breath.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2488
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 7:09 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

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.


The problem is that even though the E-jets are too small to compete with the A223 they still have some value for regional airlines outside the US (or in the US when the scope would change).

For a absolute new design Boeing Brazil has not the facilities, the cash flow nor the know how in terms of mass production systems and large NB aircraft. They never did something bigger than the E195-E2.

To obtain such knowledge and capacities Boeing Brazil needs a lot of money and talent. Boeing can provide this but that means a brain drain for Boeing itself to transfer knowledge and also a lot of money. I do not say it is not possible but does Boeing really want to go from 0 to 100 in a short time and sacrifice the E2 on the way?

We see how painful it is to integrate the A220 for Airbus and bring it into profitability. Boeing will have an easier start (Embraer is profitable) but on the other hand a new product can turn this around quickly and I do not know if Boeing is willing to give "card blanche" to the new joint venture.


They have to compete with an A220-500 most likely which will be hard for anything not 5W and optimized for less than 3,000 NM.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1073
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 7:13 pm

Stitch wrote:
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.


Well that's the billion dollar question isn't it?
Airbus already made their money on A321ceo, A321neo program long time ago. They could easily take a little bit more hit on their profit for A321XLR in 2025. Just like A330neo, A321XLR would have the advantages of taking in way smaller profit.

Now, the main problem gonna be, would the extra millions of dollars in discount that Airbus could provide in 2025 be smaller than the lower fuel burn and operating cost of the NSA? Because we are talking about A321 here. Unlike B787, they really could take a big hit for it in the future when the sales dried up.

As for MAX replacement. I agree. But as of NMA, I think creating a product that exclude smaller model with capacity of MAX8 would be a disaster.

A big narrowbody with no commonality with smaller model for short domestic routes would be a useless product in a time when airlines are focusing on commonality and streamline fleet.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:18 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
And what do Boeing say?

Business Case Not Closing...



I see a lot of posts on what is easily possible by Boeing when the reality is seemingly as simple as you state. If it was possible for Boeing to do a widebody at narrowbody economics they would have launched it. If it was possible to easily design a model that is better than the competition and do it at cheaper than the competition to be competitive with sales, then the 'business case would have closed'.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2488
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 7:37 pm

It's going to be a very boring decade of Aircraft design. No new big widebodies and most likely just another boring round tube... Whop-pie...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:41 pm

TFawkes wrote:
Or find a better way to weave the tape to prevent delamination at lower thickness... Mitsubishi's already working on this for a future MRJ. They're looking to cut 30% off the required thickness.

Given their success with the current MRJ, I wouldn't expect a "future" MRJ for a few decades, if ever...
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:11 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.

A question, how does Boeing having those meetings help them to slow down the continued erosion of their market share in the A321 space? The MAX and MAX10 are not doing it, and meetings and talk about NMA / MOM etc are not preventing potential clients from ordering the A321 and its variants.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:13 pm

scbriml wrote:
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.

As more time goes by and more A321 sales rack up against MAX9 / 10 etc the question may need to be do they have a choice?
 
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 9:17 pm

par13del wrote:
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.

A question, how does Boeing having those meetings help them to slow down the continued erosion of their market share in the A321 space? The MAX and MAX10 are not doing it, and meetings and talk about NMA / MOM etc are not preventing potential clients from ordering the A321 and its variants.


Making sure Boeing comes out with the right product that is not only competitive today but tomorrow.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:16 pm

william wrote:
par13del wrote:
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.

A question, how does Boeing having those meetings help them to slow down the continued erosion of their market share in the A321 space? The MAX and MAX10 are not doing it, and meetings and talk about NMA / MOM etc are not preventing potential clients from ordering the A321 and its variants.


Making sure Boeing comes out with the right product that is not only competitive today but tomorrow.

Well they have been doing that for the last 5 years, and the current CEO says they are starting over, so how is that working out so far?

Look at it another way for Boeing, their clients and potential clients who want something more than the MAX8 and less than the 787-8 are not buying the MAX9 or 10 in any meaningful numbers, so can they build something better?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18518
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 10:18 pm

par13del wrote:
scbriml wrote:
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.

As more time goes by and more A321 sales rack up against MAX9 / 10 etc the question may need to be do they have a choice?


By the time a Boeing “A321” is available, Airbus may well have covered a significant part of the market. They’ll also be in a position to reduce the price of the A321 in order to compete for longer.
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.
 
744SPX
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:39 pm

Its possible Boeing's best option now will be to go for a "moonshot" say, with the Truss Braced Wing concept. Yes the technology is pretty cutting edge but at this point, what does Boeing have to lose? So it takes 8-10 years to EIS - but it will be a huge advance from an airframe efficiency standpoint (15% I believe) and there is pretty much no limit to the size of engine you can hang on it, be it Ultrafan or even open rotor (another 10-20%).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:45 pm

scbriml wrote:
par13del wrote:
scbriml wrote:
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.

As more time goes by and more A321 sales rack up against MAX9 / 10 etc the question may need to be do they have a choice?


By the time a Boeing “A321” is available, Airbus may well have covered a significant part of the market. They’ll also be in a position to reduce the price of the A321 in order to compete for longer.

Still leaves a gap in Boeing's lineup if a client needs something better than the MAX9 and possibly the 10.
So either Boeing leaves that gap alone in which case they should stop talking about it or they have to accept that this gap and the competitor does not allow sitting around waiting and planning for years and years. Products exist above and below so first mover in the gap has a distinct advantage and second mover may only thread water or at best break even.
Its the reason why some of us think the best option is to use the NMA or MOM to thrash out as much as they could for the ultimate 737 replacement.
So start the larger model first, sort out production and any technology they want to reuse in the smaller model so that when they do go with the model which will be the MAX replacement the ramp up will be easier.

Like it or not, the 737 is limited in relation to larger fan engines, if they were to redesign the core body of the a/c to accommodate longer gear it will be enclosed in which case with all the other wing / body changes, they may as well do a clean sheet.
If Airbus does not update the A320 for another 20 years the gap in market share will only get larger and larger, heck, they can probably push for 80 per month by 2021 and watch the order book full up.
 
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 11:00 pm

par13del wrote:
william wrote:
par13del wrote:
A question, how does Boeing having those meetings help them to slow down the continued erosion of their market share in the A321 space? The MAX and MAX10 are not doing it, and meetings and talk about NMA / MOM etc are not preventing potential clients from ordering the A321 and its variants.


Making sure Boeing comes out with the right product that is not only competitive today but tomorrow.

Well they have been doing that for the last 5 years, and the current CEO says they are starting over, so how is that working out so far?

Look at it another way for Boeing, their clients and potential clients who want something more than the MAX8 and less than the 787-8 are not buying the MAX9 or 10 in any meaningful numbers, so can they build something better?


Or rush something out there to placate "critics" of not doing "something". If you are going do drop 10-12 Billion , you better make sure its going be competitive 10-20 years from now. For years Airbus watched as the 777 dominated its segment of the market until it had a proper response that will relegate the retiring 777s to Victorville or flying packages. Maybe you have forgotten A350 mk1.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:32 pm

william wrote:

Or rush something out there to placate "critics" of not doing "something".

Over 5 years of talking is rushing....ok.
william wrote:
If you are going do drop 10-12 Billion , you better make sure its going be competitive 10-20 years from now. For years Airbus watched as the 777 dominated its segment of the market until it had a proper response that will relegate the retiring 777s to Victorville or flying packages. Maybe you have forgotten A350 mk1.

At least Airbus did put out a product in the 777 space, which was the multiple versions of the A340, they did more than talk and attempted something.
Well there are folks who still say the MK1 should have gone ahead, but in terms of this debate, it was offered to clients, what has Boeing offered?
 
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 11:59 pm

par13del wrote:
william wrote:

Or rush something out there to placate "critics" of not doing "something".

Over 5 years of talking is rushing....ok.
william wrote:
If you are going do drop 10-12 Billion , you better make sure its going be competitive 10-20 years from now. For years Airbus watched as the 777 dominated its segment of the market until it had a proper response that will relegate the retiring 777s to Victorville or flying packages. Maybe you have forgotten A350 mk1.

At least Airbus did put out a product in the 777 space, which was the multiple versions of the A340, they did more than talk and attempted something.
Well there are folks who still say the MK1 should have gone ahead, but in terms of this debate, it was offered to clients, what has Boeing offered?


Ask the DL CEO, he seemed giddy about the proposal but did not pass Boeing’s business plan. Again better to get it right than wrong. Will be interesting to what they come up with. The air current article is interesting.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26784
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:30 am

par13del wrote:
At least Airbus did put out a product in the 777 space, which was the multiple versions of the A340, they did more than talk and attempted something.
Well there are folks who still say the MK1 should have gone ahead, but in terms of this debate, it was offered to clients, what has Boeing offered?


While NMA never had formal Authority to Offer, Boeing still would have been shopping it to potential clients. If too few showed interest (or interest at a price Boeing needed), then the Board would not have approved ATO so it never had a chance to be formally offered.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:43 am

william wrote:
Ask the DL CEO, he seemed giddy about the proposal but did not pass Boeing’s business plan. Again better to get it right than wrong. Will be interesting to what they come up with. The air current article is interesting.

That is the interesting part of this entire thing, we have two sets of customers who were interested in buying what Boeing was proposing, the big difference was whether it took more or less cargo and range, potential DL and un-named Asian carriers. Now in the MAX threads we are told that a major part of the Boeing failures is due to greed, so it is possible that even though there are customers for their paper plane they did not want to close the business case because their profit numbers are too high. At this stage we know that the Boeing desire to do a "moon shot" financially is above competing in the limited market space above the MAX9 and the 787-8.
Lowering production rate of the 787 also says to me that they cannot get more clients to take 787-8's over A321's, which does make me wonder if they are only porting 787-9 upgrades to the 787-8 for AA and no one else. Unless their sales team is not up to snuff, if they were pushing the -8 to more 767 clients at a better price, who knows?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9335
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:38 am

We had big public support at the time Boeing talked about "widebody at single aisle costs" from then on the public support became less vocal imho. The other part was the change in relationship between the suppliers and Boeing, which Boeing aiming to take more of the after sales revenues. This model might have no longer been acceptable once the MAX grounding took hold, because the grounding reminded all parties that things can actually go very wrong.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18518
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:46 am

par13del wrote:
Still leaves a gap in Boeing's lineup if a client needs something better than the MAX9 and possibly the 10.


That gap has been there since passenger sales of 767s dried up. If such a client is in need of a MOMmy plane before the latter part of the decade then they have two options - buy A321XLRs or ‘abuse’ A330s and 787s (just like airlines have been for years).
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: 1073
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 9:10 am

seahawk wrote:
We had big public support at the time Boeing talked about "widebody at single aisle costs" from then on the public support became less vocal imho. The other part was the change in relationship between the suppliers and Boeing, which Boeing aiming to take more of the after sales revenues. This model might have no longer been acceptable once the MAX grounding took hold, because the grounding reminded all parties that things can actually go very wrong.


That's a pretty weird slogan isn't it. Maybe they should make a better one like "Long-haul at narrow-body costs" or "narrow-body at turboprop costs"

Some smaller suppliers are going down right now aren't they?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 11:40 am

scbriml wrote:
par13del wrote:
Still leaves a gap in Boeing's lineup if a client needs something better than the MAX9 and possibly the 10.


That gap has been there since passenger sales of 767s dried up. If such a client is in need of a MOMmy plane before the latter part of the decade then they have two options - buy A321XLRs or ‘abuse’ A330s and 787s (just like airlines have been for years).

Which is the issue, the A321XLR's never existed when the gap initial appeared, it has been a steady improvement of a frame as more and more clients needed something in the gap, the fact that its sales are growing against the A330 also shows that more clients are not willing to abuse A330 and 787's.
In Boeing's case, the clients willing to abuse the 787-8 is getting lower and lower and lower, I don't regard talking as doing something, so they shoudl probably just shut up about MOM and NMA.
 
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"

Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:11 pm

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... mment-1191

For those who do not subscribe to Air Current here is a summation on SimpleFlying.com. Excuse the writer's editorializing but you can get the picture. Or just google Boeing NLT.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-nlt/

Leeham had an article on it 6 years ago.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/

For us oldtime Anetters, its sounding more and more like a 7J7. Like a comment on Air Current stated, looks like Boeing is going after the A321 market, domestic and international. Fixes Boeing's weak 737-10 problem and keeps the hope to be flying soon 737-8 cash cow going for a number of years.

My question is how hard is it for CFM or P/W to scale up to 37K pounds of thrust engines, or RR to scale down to 37K?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2488
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:22 pm

william wrote:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/decade-old-boeing-concept-may-get-new-life-in-dogfight-with-a321xlr/?unapproved=1191&moderation-hash=5d4e417117d6b79fb37a859f00c6e08e#comment-1191

For those who do not subscribe to Air Current here is a summation on SimpleFlying.com. Excuse the writer's editorializing but you can get the picture. Or just google Boeing NLT.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-nlt/

Leeham had an article on it 6 years ago.
https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/02/boein ... -airplane/

For us oldtime Anetters, its sounding more and more like a 7J7. Like a comment on Air Current stated, looks like Boeing is going after the A321 market, domestic and international. Fixes Boeing's weak 737-10 problem and keeps the hope to be flying soon 737-8 cash cow going for a number of years.

My question is how hard is it for CFM or P/W to scale up to 37K pounds of thrust engines, or RR to scale down to 37K?


So basically then a cut down 7W NMA with a smaller wing. Makes sense but doesn't cover the market under 180 seats. Cue 5W Brazil project...
 
744SPX
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:04 pm

william wrote:
https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/decade-old-boeing-concept-may-get-new-life-in-dogfight-with-a321xlr/?unapproved=1191&moderation-hash=5d4e417117d6b79fb37a859f00c6e08e#comment-1191


My question is how hard is it for CFM or P/W to scale up to 37K pounds of thrust engines, or RR to scale down to 37K?


I don't think it would be difficult at all for CFM or P/W as the P/W is already at 35K. Worst case scenario is increase the fan diameter by maybe 2 inches to 83" for the P/W and to 80" for the CFM while keeping the same core. Not sure about Ultrafan.
 
744SPX
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:08 pm

I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:48 pm

seahawk wrote:
We had big public support at the time Boeing talked about "widebody at single aisle costs" from then on the public support became less vocal imho. The other part was the change in relationship between the suppliers and Boeing, which Boeing aiming to take more of the after sales revenues. This model might have no longer been acceptable once the MAX grounding took hold, because the grounding reminded all parties that things can actually go very wrong.

The key thing is Boeing realizes it has to generate value somewhere because it can't show up with a "me too" product against an entrenched competitor and expect to make headway when it has to pay for a clean sheet effort with no backwards compatibility in terms of training, spares, etc.

The NMA plan was to go bigger than A321 with better payload/range and quicker turn around times while as you say using advances in manufacturing and doing more vertical integration.

Now we see NMA is on the shelf and we shall be waiting 1-2 years to see what is next.

Jon's suggestion that NLT is the new plan seems pretty speculative, but nature abhors a vacuum.
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
 
IADCA
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:50 pm

744SPX wrote:
I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.


2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?
 
DenverTed
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 4:58 pm

IADCA wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.


2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?

The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:03 pm

744SPX wrote:
I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.

Once the width is known, it should be obvious what their plans are. 170" o.d. is 2-2-2. 180" o.d. is 16.5" wide seats at 2-3-2.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9335
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
We had big public support at the time Boeing talked about "widebody at single aisle costs" from then on the public support became less vocal imho. The other part was the change in relationship between the suppliers and Boeing, which Boeing aiming to take more of the after sales revenues. This model might have no longer been acceptable once the MAX grounding took hold, because the grounding reminded all parties that things can actually go very wrong.

The key thing is Boeing realizes it has to generate value somewhere because it can't show up with a "me too" product against an entrenched competitor and expect to make headway when it has to pay for a clean sheet effort with no backwards compatibility in terms of training, spares, etc.

The NMA plan was to go bigger than A321 with better payload/range and quicker turn around times while as you say using advances in manufacturing and doing more vertical integration.

Now we see NMA is on the shelf and we shall be waiting 1-2 years to see what is next.

Jon's suggestion that NLT is the new plan seems pretty speculative, but nature abhors a vacuum.


I personally believe that the MAX grounding ended the negotiations about Boeing getting a higher share of the after sales profits. I think may OEMs were not willing to sign up for the new business plan. Even before you could hear rumours in the industry about the suppliers being rather unhappy with the idea of giving up revenue and keeping a similar risk level and financial exposure in the program.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1073
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:14 pm

DenverTed wrote:
IADCA wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.


2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?

The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


I don't think all the benefits you stated really make sense for airlines. LD3-45 was used because of the fuselage size of the aircraft. Adding extra 10" inside the cabin would just make the unusable rooms around the cargo hold bigger, which means that more dead weight that the plane need to carry. There is no penalty for smaller fuselage diameter, the penalty would be if the fuselage is too big for LD3-45 container, not the opposite.

Aisle seat isn't an upsale, more legroom or seats in front of the aircraft for faster boarding/deboarding are the one that passengers would pay more. Adding more aisle seats doesn't make sense for upsale since 2/3 of the seats in 2-2-2 configurations are aisle seat.

Passengers satisfactions could be achieved by wider seats, wider aisle, and more seat pitch.
3-3 configuration with wider aisle (24"-26") would be more beneficial compared to 2-2-2 configurations with 2 tiny aisles.

Stretching narrow-body with Extremely long fuselage doesn't make sense either. Those tired old 3-3 configurations are efficient and good enough to be stretched to 50m.
Past that point, small widebody would work better in terms of comfort or efficiency.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9335
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:16 pm

No plane sold because of passenger comfort in the last 2 decades.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:18 pm

par13del wrote:
I don't regard talking as doing something, so they shoudl probably just shut up about MOM and NMA.


Here, here! Until Boeing shows real courage like they did with 787 (of course they'll avoid so much of the outsourcing next time around), all of these discussions are discussions about paper airplanes.All these discussions are getting boring.

I hope Embraer stays free of Boeing and embarks on a turbo-prop program again.

As of late, I'm finding myself more fascinated by ATR-42 and ATR-72 expansions among LoganAir and SilverAirways, the CapeAir adoption of the P2012 Traveller and what's new with JetSuiteX and their used ERJs.

Nevertheless par13del, I always enjoy your contributions to threads.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9955
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
The NMA plan was to go bigger than A321 with better payload/range and quicker turn around times while as you say using advances in manufacturing and doing more vertical integration.
.

Which may still be the best strategy, it just does not have the support of the current CEO, so obviously the CEO is the key and not the plan initial proposed which they were trying to close the case for so as to present to the board.

So more years of talking, thankfully, the a/c like the 767 / 757 are not standing still and they are getting older and will need replacement, so they more than the opinion of the CEO may be the final straw that breaks this camels back.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 22983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
I personally believe that the MAX grounding ended the negotiations about Boeing getting a higher share of the after sales profits. I think may OEMs were not willing to sign up for the new business plan. Even before you could hear rumours in the industry about the suppliers being rather unhappy with the idea of giving up revenue and keeping a similar risk level and financial exposure in the program.

Well yes, no company is happy to surrender profits. Boeing was always going to have to find a way to force the issue. Now we see Boeing has its own avionics division and according to its CEO needs to change its cockpit philosophy. It'll be interesting to see where that all ends up.
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
 
AleksW
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:30 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Stretching narrow-body with Extremely long fuselage doesn't make sense either. Those tired old 3-3 configurations are efficient and good enough to be stretched to 50m. Past that point, small widebody would work better in terms of comfort or efficiency.
I think slightly wider aisle and smart placement of galleys / lavs + what you have just said about pitch, seats etc can really make a NB long haul quite nice. From aerodynamics point of view, shorter fuselage will need taller / larger fins and will have higher drag.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:37 pm

DenverTed wrote:
IADCA wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I really hope they go 2-2-2 with no option for 2-3-2. No. Middle. Seats. For anyone.


2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?

The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


Or they could just do the sensible thing if they wanted those benefits, which would be to add just a little bit more extra width and go 2-3-2, which would generate essentially all the benefits (same number of aisle seats!) with minimal fuel penalty and significant efficiency gain. I don't like middle seats either, but you basically just took an idea that's already really fuel-inefficient on a per-seat basis and came up with a way to make it even worse.
 
AleksW
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:18 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:42 pm

IADCA wrote:
Or they could just do the sensible thing if they wanted those benefits, which would be to add just a little bit more extra width and go 2-3-2, which would generate essentially all the benefits (same number of aisle seats!) with minimal fuel penalty and significant efficiency gain.

Well, a 767-400X with new wings and engines? But it looks bigger than MOM.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:46 pm

AleksW wrote:
IADCA wrote:
Or they could just do the sensible thing if they wanted those benefits, which would be to add just a little bit more extra width and go 2-3-2, which would generate essentially all the benefits (same number of aisle seats!) with minimal fuel penalty and significant efficiency gain.

Well, a 767-400X with new wings and engines? But it looks bigger than MOM.


That was sorta the point. The 767 is no great champion of efficiency due to its inefficient cross-section, and now we have people suggesting something that would be significantly less efficient. It's just not realistic.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:59 pm

IADCA wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
IADCA wrote:

2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?

The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


Or they could just do the sensible thing if they wanted those benefits, which would be to add just a little bit more extra width and go 2-3-2, which would generate essentially all the benefits (same number of aisle seats!) with minimal fuel penalty and significant efficiency gain. I don't like middle seats either, but you basically just took an idea that's already really fuel-inefficient on a per-seat basis and came up with a way to make it even worse.

By that logic, a 2-3 A220-500 is a bad idea, because compared to a 3-3 competitor, it has a worse aisle to seat ratio and wastes space on aisle.
If the A320 is perfectly competitive with 8" more than the 737, ten 10" more for a 2-2-2 should not be a deal breaker. But yes, a 2-3-2 is an option at 200 seats at 32" pitch. Maybe they can get it down to 43m length. There are pros and cons versus 2-2-2, more frontal area, more taper, bigger tail for the same seating. Maybe the pro is shorter gear or better rotation angles.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:09 pm

ewt340 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
IADCA wrote:

2-2-2 is a non-starter. Why would an airline buy a plane configured 2-2-2 when they could get the same number of seats in a 3-3 narrowbody with the same fuselage length?

The penalty of an LD-3-45 container means the fuslelage is driven by that up to an average diam of 160" on the A320 and MC-21. For 10" more 1/2 an aisle or seat width, they can go 2-2-2 at 170", get better circulation, upsell more aisle seats, get better passenger satisfaction, and stretch it past 50m. All things with are a non-starter with a tired old 3-3, the cramped tube of yore on the 707 and DC-8.


I don't think all the benefits you stated really make sense for airlines. LD3-45 was used because of the fuselage size of the aircraft. Adding extra 10" inside the cabin would just make the unusable rooms around the cargo hold bigger, which means that more dead weight that the plane need to carry. There is no penalty for smaller fuselage diameter, the penalty would be if the fuselage is too big for LD3-45 container, not the opposite.

Aisle seat isn't an upsale, more legroom or seats in front of the aircraft for faster boarding/deboarding are the one that passengers would pay more. Adding more aisle seats doesn't make sense for upsale since 2/3 of the seats in 2-2-2 configurations are aisle seat.

Passengers satisfactions could be achieved by wider seats, wider aisle, and more seat pitch.
3-3 configuration with wider aisle (24"-26") would be more beneficial compared to 2-2-2 configurations with 2 tiny aisles.

Stretching narrow-body with Extremely long fuselage doesn't make sense either. Those tired old 3-3 configurations are efficient and good enough to be stretched to 50m.
Past that point, small widebody would work better in terms of comfort or efficiency.

As far as the container goes, the cabin floor would still be right over the container, so the gain of 10" would be in cabin height, but yes, a few more inches on the sides.
170" is nice, because it can be at 2-2-2, or 3-3-3. At 2" armrests and 6" from outside to center of outer armrest leaves 158" to work with. At 3-3 that is 19" wide seats and a 30" aisle, 20" wide seats and a 24" aisle, or 2-2-2 at 17.75" wide seats and aisles.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26784
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu Feb 20, 2020 6:20 pm

Okay, I am going Metric here because I prefer it and also using Airbus figures since they are considered the pinacle of passenger comfort.

A set of three seats on the A320 takes up 158cm. A set of two seats on the A330 takes up 107cm.

A standard aisle (2+4+2) on the A330 is 48cm. A narrow aisle (3+3+3) is 42cm. The "wide" aisle option on the A320 is 64cm and the standard is 48cm.

If we use A320 seats and an A320 "wide" aisle, we're looking at 380cm for a 3+3 configuration.

If we use A330 seats and an A330 normal aisle, we're looking at 417cm. If we shrink the aisles to the minimum ("A330 narrow"), we're looking at 405cm.

So for 2+2+2 you need a cabin width of between 405 and 417cm. The DC-XX had a fuselage diamater of 439cm. Figuring in a 25cm difference between fuselage width and cabin width (using the A320 as a baseline), that would mean the interior width would be 414cm so the aisles would need to be shrunk a bit from the A330 at 2+4+2, but would still be similar or equal to the A350 at 3+3+3. This would also allow a whopping 91cm aisle in a 3+3 configuration - almost twice as wide as a standard A320 aisle so passenger movement during loading/unloading and cabin service would be effectively unimpeded.

And since someone will ask, if we went 2+3+2 using A330 charter (3+3+3) seats and aisles, we'd need 423cm which would require a fuselage 448cm wide. But this would be 16.5" seats and aisles so I don't see it being a viable option.



I think a common 4.4m wide fuselage with up to four lengths (40m / 45m / 50m / 55m) in either 3+3 or 2+2+2 configuration (depending on stage length) and two wings (40m with folding tips and under 52m without) could allow Boeing to effectively cover 200 to 290 seats with a single family. Give it a similar 777X/787 cockpit for pilot training commonality and this would give Boeing the same overall family benefits with three families that Airbus has with the A320, A330 and A350 while also giving Boeing sole competitive edge in the 240-290 seat market that Airbus would not have at this time (as the A321 is too small and the A338 is too large).

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