Airliners.net

scbriml wrote:

Has anything we’ve learned about NMA come directly from Boeing?

I'd say we have something, at the conceptual level, directly from Boeing at Paris Air Show 2017

A rendering:



A bunch of concepts/goals with a similar but different rendering in the background:



A vague schedule:



Some verbiage about hybrid cross section and single aisle economics:

Perhaps the most intriguing design aspect of the NMA is the fuselage geometry. Boeing's early design studies have focused on optimising the cross-section to accommodate passengers, at the expense of creating space below-deck to carry bulk cargo pallets or containers.

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

"It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort," says Delaney.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 25.article

https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 88.article is from 2019 with the new VP of marketing also at PAS:

"When you talk about the NMA value proposition, that is not a value proposition that addresses just the 757," said Boeing vice-president of commercial sales and marketing Ihssane Mounir at the Paris air show today. "It is a much broader proposition than the 757, in terms of market space, in terms of the capacity and the range it will address."

In any case, he argues, the A321XLR "addresses a sliver of that middle-of-the-market, and it addresses it with a single-aisle technology, with a single-aisle comfort, with a growth in weight of the platform that has been there for a while".

Mounir contrasts that with Boeing's vision of providing "twin-aisle comfort with single-aisle economics, leveraging new technologies, bringing a whole new airplane into the space". He draws an analogy with "the paradigm shift" that he says the US airframer achieved with its Dreamliner.

Seems the message did not change much from 2017 to 2019.

As I said, we also have interviews from airline executives given after they had been briefed by Boeing, so it's second hand info, but I think it's pretty trustworthy.

We don't know exactly what they were told, but we do know the DL CEO said he wanted to be the launch customer.

Looks like the 777 was originally designed for 17" seats and aisles and 2" armrests at 3-4-3, with a 1/2" armrest to sidewall. Using that formula, a 2-2-2 could be done at 19"x 8 + 3" is 155" inside and 164" outside (8" wider than the A320). Or at 3-3, that is 18.3" seats with a 30" aisle.

TObound wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Can you show us how you made the difference with a 17.2 "seat and an 18" seat?

Unless you're a tiny Asian woman, the likelihood of you noticing the difference between a 17.2" wide seat and an 18" wide seat is high. Try sitting three average sized American males on a three seat bench in a 737 and see how that fits. It's always great to literally rub shoulders with dudes I don't know for hours on end.

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Checklist787 wrote:

It seems strange how many here agree that the A350-900 and A330-900 is a magnificent combo.
When it comes to Boeing with the NMA and the 787-8 it's a cannibalization.

TObound wrote:

There's not many carriers that have ordered the 339 and the 359. It largely seems to be about airlines that don't want to buy a 788 or think a 789/359 is too much for medium haul. It works to keep one pilot pool though, particularly if they operate A320s. The real value of the 339 to Airbus is that keeps sales away from Boeing. I doubt it's actually very profitable at all. It's not an efficient airframe. But it is cheap to make and they can keep selling it and stealing 788 orders with discounting.

Not always, remember that A330 customers have been going to the 787 in recent years, such as Hawaian ... For the case of Emirates to the A330, I already expressed my opinion, but that's not the subject

Checklist787 wrote:

You seem to be using my argument as well as, the Streched A322X concept would cannibalize the A321neo. It is true if it is extended to only 3 meters, but, beyond, the more you stretched a narrowbody, DEEPER the HELL will be
for the embarkation / disembarkation.

TObound wrote:

Nobody gives a damn about disembarkation unless the time saved can gain an extra turn. And that is a very marginal situation for most carriers. Probably not enough of the cases to make a business case.

And yes the 322 would cannibalize lost of 321 sales. But why should Airbus care when it's literally on the same production line? This is like arguing that the 321 cannibalizes 320 sales.

The NMA advantage is not only the embarkation / debarkation, but also the comfort of the widebody and economy of the narrowbody

Revelation wrote:

Some verbiage about hybrid cross section and single aisle economics:

Perhaps the most intriguing design aspect of the NMA is the fuselage geometry. Boeing's early design studies have focused on optimising the cross-section to accommodate passengers, at the expense of creating space below-deck to carry bulk cargo pallets or containers.

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

"It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort," says Delaney.

What is the definition of "hybrid cross section"? It could be non circular, or it could be that the cabin floor is just set lower in the circle, giving more percentage of section to passengers than cargo, compared to previous designs.

Checklist787 wrote:

TObound wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Can you show us how you made the difference with a 17.2 "seat and an 18" seat?

Unless you're a tiny Asian woman, the likelihood of you noticing the difference between a 17.2" wide seat and an 18" wide seat is high. Try sitting three average sized American males on a three seat bench in a 737 and see how that fits. It's always great to literally rub shoulders with dudes I don't know for hours on end.

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

pasen wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

TObound wrote:

Unless you're a tiny Asian woman, the likelihood of you noticing the difference between a 17.2" wide seat and an 18" wide seat is high. Try sitting three average sized American males on a three seat bench in a 737 and see how that fits. It's always great to literally rub shoulders with dudes I don't know for hours on end.

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

Checklist787 wrote:

pasen wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

Don't need a premium seat. Just fly an airline that is mostly Airbus. Maybe that's why Delta's execs are reporting actually higher yields than their competitors.

Also, while it's 2 cm, it's 2 cm on each side, in an era when most people are getting bigger. And I'm a rather average sized male. Not tall. Not overweight. I can only imagine how folks bigger than me feel.

There's no way to sugarcoat it. The 17" seats suck. Combined with 30" seat pitch now standard on even most mainline carriers in the US and Europe, this whole experience on most Boeing planes is a borderline LCC experience you have to tolerate. I definitely go out of my way to avoid it when I can.

Checklist787 wrote:

Not always, remember that A330 customers have been going to the 787 in recent years, such as Hawaian ...

There is this single case of 10 787-9 ( 788 does not have the range?) order that displaced an A330-800NEO order of 6. ( That is press talk. Was it cost neutral for HA? :- )
Apparently hiding under the shield of US dumping law protection. It got similar "a*s wiping attention to the Emirates 787-10 "replacement" order that was not firmed.

No further inroads seem to have been made by Boeing. The "pushing 787" campaign seems to have sputtered to a stop.

Resulting lack of interest forces a 787 production reduction on Boeing to initially 12
and now a further adjustment to 10 per month for 2021.

Not that the A330-800 is a sprightly chick @15 open orders
but did the 788 actually get significant orders in the last 5..6 years?

WIederling wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Not always, remember that A330 customers have been going to the 787 in recent years, such as Hawaian ...

There is this single case of 10 787-9 ( 788 does not have the range?) order that displaced an A330-800NEO order of 6. ( That is press talk. Was it cost neutral for HA? :- )
Apparently hiding under the shield of US dumping law protection. It got similar "a*s wiping attention to the Emirates 787-10 "replacement" order that was not firmed.

No further inroads seem to have been made by Boeing. The "pushing 787" campaign seems to have sputtered to a stop.

Resulting lack of interest forces a 787 production reduction on Boeing to initially 12
and now a further adjustment to 10 per month for 2021.

Not that the A330-800 is a sprightly chick @15 open orders
but did the 788 actually get significant orders in the last 5..6 years?

22 788's is not trifling
https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 34.article

Checklist787 wrote:

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Do you have experience moving from a A330 to an 777? I have and can tell you that while it seems like those few cm's is so tiny as to be hardly perceptible, they are. You can actually do this experiment yourself, if you have a comfortable pair of pants you use a belt on, see the difference between the holes and if they are about 2cm's then walk around with it tightened one up from what you are used to. See how you feel after a while and if it is hardly perceptible'.

Checklist787 wrote:

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

If the poor want more food they have to earn more money. Life is so simple with simple solutions, it's like thinking a real estate developer could solve the situation in the Middle East.

16.5" seats are an option for future designs. It would be Eco- and would help to push the yields in Eco and Eco+.

JayinKitsap wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Not always, remember that A330 customers have been going to the 787 in recent years, such as Hawaian ...

There is this single case of 10 787-9 ( 788 does not have the range?) order that displaced an A330-800NEO order of 6. ( That is press talk. Was it cost neutral for HA? :- )
Apparently hiding under the shield of US dumping law protection. It got similar "a*s wiping attention to the Emirates 787-10 "replacement" order that was not firmed.

No further inroads seem to have been made by Boeing. The "pushing 787" campaign seems to have sputtered to a stop.

Resulting lack of interest forces a 787 production reduction on Boeing to initially 12
and now a further adjustment to 10 per month for 2021.

Not that the A330-800 is a sprightly chick @15 open orders
but did the 788 actually get significant orders in the last 5..6 years?

22 788's is not trifling
https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 34.article

forgot those.
Back to back to the Hawaiian Airlines runoff. part of the same Boeing campaign, I'd guess.

Checklist787 wrote:

pasen wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

0.80 inch = 2.03 cm in waist. Unless the magic A350 seat is 7 or 8 centimeters wider, then yes the 3 obese Americans will feel pretty much better in an A350 / A330 seat, but that's not the case. The difference is hardly perceptible.

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Listen, when you got tons of space on an aircraft, losing 2-3 inches wouldn't really bother you at all. But when you only got 18" of seat width, and 31" seat pitch, reducing even 1" of pitch or seat width would be noticable. God damnit, I can't believe I have to explain this thing to people on this forum....

TObound wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

pasen wrote:

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

Don't need a premium seat. Just fly an airline that is mostly Airbus. Maybe that's why Delta's execs are reporting actually higher yields than their competitors.

Also, while it's 2 cm, it's 2 cm on each side, in an era when most people are getting bigger. And I'm a rather average sized male. Not tall. Not overweight. I can only imagine how folks bigger than me feel...

There's no way to sugarcoat it. The 17" seats suck. Combined with 30" seat pitch now standard on even most mainline carriers in the US and Europe, this whole experience on most Boeing planes is a borderline LCC experience you have to tolerate. I definitely go out of my way to avoid it when I can.

there's one .flaw in that Logic. At Boeing all the interior is customer option United's ceo said they had gone as slim on the seats as they were going. The slimline seat is ok for 5 hours, But on a long haul flight? The Economy seat Sucks and No amount of Legroom in "Economy Plus" is going to make it feel any better. it's just easier to get out of the row to go to the Can during flight they need to stop at an 18" seat width period and adjust the cabin width accordingly. with 2-2-2 in Business class and 3-3-3 in coach.

JayinKitsap wrote:

22 788's is not trifling
https://www.flightglobal.com/orders-and ... 34.article

WIederling wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

Not always, remember that A330 customers have been going to the 787 in recent years, such as Hawaian ...

There is this single case of 10 787-9 ( 788 does not have the range?) order that displaced an A330-800NEO order of 6. ( That is press talk. Was it cost neutral for HA? :- )
Apparently hiding under the shield of US dumping law protection. It got similar "a*s wiping attention to the Emirates 787-10 "replacement" order that was not firmed.

That is press talk...

WIederling wrote:

No further inroads seem to have been made by Boeing. The "pushing 787" campaign seems to have sputtered to a stop.

You need to deepen your thinking and further substantiate your evidence...

WIederling wrote:

Resulting lack of interest forces a 787 production reduction on Boeing to initially 12
and now a further adjustment to 10 per month for 2021.

Others will say that Boeing has severely innovated the market for the past 15 years.

Etihad, Qatar Airways, Emirates in 2008, Hawaian in 2016, Lufthansa in 2013/ 2019, and many others did not even know what a 777 and 787 was.

(ME3's didn't even know what a Boeing widebody, nor a 747, nor a 767, nothing, but know the A330s, A340's, A380)

At this rush, if Boeing calm the game, it is not a problem unless you consider that 10 A350 by a month, is one...

WIederling wrote:

Not that the A330-800 is a sprightly chick @15 open orders
but did the 788 actually get significant orders in the last 5..6 years?

15 orders by whom?
Anyway, it is very poor next to 22,787-8's order of American Airlines in 2018 ...

seahawk wrote:

16.5" seats are an option for future designs. It would be Eco- and would help to push the yields in Eco and Eco+.

Already here.. and not with Boeing. While Airbus often provides more room, they do have squeeze configs too

A number of mostly LCC airlines using 3-3-3 in the 330 and 330neo.
AirAsia X, Cebu Pacific and a number of charter operators

Air Caribes has 3-4-3 in the A350.

I've flown AirAsiaX a few times as a 6"3' 220lbs gent, and can confirm the seat is damm tight.

A small 16.3 type seat would not be much of an issue.

1x3x2
1 seat side... obviously for the solo traveler
3 seat unit a family or a couple and a single
2 seat a couple traveling together or two solos

The aisle gives the shoulder room the tight seating needs!

Now on the 4 seat unit on an 8 abreast 767 it is excessively tight. As two couples or two solos are forced on top of one another in the very middle seats.

moa999 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

16.5" seats are an option for future designs. It would be Eco- and would help to push the yields in Eco and Eco+.

Already here.. and not with Boeing. While Airbus often provides more room, they do have squeeze configs too

A number of mostly LCC airlines using 3-3-3 in the 330 and 330neo.
AirAsia X, Cebu Pacific and a number of charter operators

Air Caribes has 3-4-3 in the A350.

I've flown AirAsiaX a few times as a 6"3' 220lbs gent, and can confirm the seat is damm tight.

I never said it was limited to one manufacturer. A 9 abreast A339 will become more common, at least for a part of the economy class cabin.

I laugh when people talk about a 1-3-2 cabin and how it would be nice for families, couples or single travellers, when in reality it would only be nice for the airline as reserving the seats will be costly and without paying a family of 3 will end up in the middle seat of the 3 seats section in 3 different rows. The rest means that only the middle seat of the 3 row part will come at the normal fee for reserving a seat. The outer seats of the 3 seat part and the 2 seat section will cost double and the single seat 4 times the fee.

seahawk wrote:

moa999 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

16.5" seats are an option for future designs. It would be Eco- and would help to push the yields in Eco and Eco+.

Already here.. and not with Boeing. While Airbus often provides more room, they do have squeeze configs too

A number of mostly LCC airlines using 3-3-3 in the 330 and 330neo.
AirAsia X, Cebu Pacific and a number of charter operators

Air Caribes has 3-4-3 in the A350.

I've flown AirAsiaX a few times as a 6"3' 220lbs gent, and can confirm the seat is damm tight.

I never said it was limited to one manufacturer. A 9 abreast A339 will become more common, at least for a part of the economy class cabin.

I laugh when people talk about a 1-3-2 cabin and how it would be nice for families, couples or single travellers, when in reality it would only be nice for the airline as reserving the seats will be costly and without paying a family of 3 will end up in the middle seat of the 3 seats section in 3 different rows. The rest means that only the middle seat of the 3 row part will come at the normal fee for reserving a seat. The outer seats of the 3 seat part and the 2 seat section will cost double and the single seat 4 times the fee.

Very true!
[smirks]
And of course allied to that is that there is always an equal number of 2 party groups, single people on business (you know, the ones not in the suit needing to be fully refreshed ready to sign the big deal who need to be in the pointy end drinking champagne) and families of 3. Families of 3+ need not go on holiday or simply choose their favourite child. [/smirk]

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since the seat discussion is in the context of a clean sheet design, is it possible that Boeing could work out the oxygen mask issues of a herringbone design in coach?

ewt340 wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

pasen wrote:

Based on that logic, Boeing could also just reduce seat width from 17.2 to to 16.4 inch, because that "difference is hardly perceptible".

Reality is, in such already very limited spaces, even minor differences in seat width or pitch can make a big difference in comfort.

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Listen, when you got tons of space on an aircraft, losing 2-3 inches wouldn't really bother you at all. But when you only got 18" of seat width, and 31" seat pitch, reducing even 1" of pitch or seat width would be noticable. God damnit, I can't believe I have to explain this thing to people on this forum....

Most premium economy seats these days on a 787 are 8ab 19" wide. Airlines getting away with charging a ton for that extra 1.8" total or .9" on both sides. If it's "only" 2 cm on both sides, why are premium economy seats so expensive and why do airlines use them to reward loyal customers?

I stand by what I said. 17" seats suck. Sure Airbus has 9ab 330s and 10ab 350s. But those aren't at any mainline and aren't close to the norm for those types. It's rare to end up on a high density 330 or 350. On the other hand, 9ab 787 and 10ab 777 is the rule. Not the exception. This is why the Boeing experience tends to be subpar because after the 767, they've gone out of their way to enable 17" wide seats in Y.

Even Boeing knows it sucks. It's funny how some here think that extra 0.8" isn't a big deal, while Boeing is going out of their way to carve out sidewalls on their 777x to try and get 18" seats on that airplane. If it's "only" 1cm why do they care?

My concern with the NMA? I doubt they can make 7ab twin aisles with wide seats. 17" wide seats will be the default. From a Y pax perspective, the 321N might just be more comfortable.

seahawk wrote:

moa999 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

16.5" seats are an option for future designs. It would be Eco- and would help to push the yields in Eco and Eco+.

Already here.. and not with Boeing. While Airbus often provides more room, they do have squeeze configs too

A number of mostly LCC airlines using 3-3-3 in the 330 and 330neo.
AirAsia X, Cebu Pacific and a number of charter operators

Air Caribes has 3-4-3 in the A350.

I've flown AirAsiaX a few times as a 6"3' 220lbs gent, and can confirm the seat is damm tight.

I never said it was limited to one manufacturer. A 9 abreast A339 will become more common, at least for a part of the economy class cabin.

9ab 330 has been around for a long time. There's been no legacy/mainline carriers who have taken that up. It's universally been used exclusively by LCC/ULCC. On the other hand 9ab 787 and 10ab 777 are almost universal. Their actual design configurations are so rare. How many 8ab 787 and 9ab 777 carriers are there? You can probably count them on one hand.

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Has anything we’ve learned about NMA come directly from Boeing?

I'd say we have something, at the conceptual level, directly from Boeing at Paris Air Show 2017

A rendering:



A bunch of concepts/goals with a similar but different rendering in the background:



A vague schedule:



Some verbiage about hybrid cross section and single aisle economics:

Perhaps the most intriguing design aspect of the NMA is the fuselage geometry. Boeing's early design studies have focused on optimising the cross-section to accommodate passengers, at the expense of creating space below-deck to carry bulk cargo pallets or containers.

The result is a hybrid cross-section for the fuselage, blending the passenger comfort of a twin-aisle on the main deck and the cargo compartment of a single-aisle below deck.

"It is a geometry that enables single aisle economics and twin-aisle comfort," says Delaney.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 25.article

https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes ... 88.article is from 2019 with the new VP of marketing also at PAS:

"When you talk about the NMA value proposition, that is not a value proposition that addresses just the 757," said Boeing vice-president of commercial sales and marketing Ihssane Mounir at the Paris air show today. "It is a much broader proposition than the 757, in terms of market space, in terms of the capacity and the range it will address."

In any case, he argues, the A321XLR "addresses a sliver of that middle-of-the-market, and it addresses it with a single-aisle technology, with a single-aisle comfort, with a growth in weight of the platform that has been there for a while".

Mounir contrasts that with Boeing's vision of providing "twin-aisle comfort with single-aisle economics, leveraging new technologies, bringing a whole new airplane into the space". He draws an analogy with "the paradigm shift" that he says the US airframer achieved with its Dreamliner.

Seems the message did not change much from 2017 to 2019.

As I said, we also have interviews from airline executives given after they had been briefed by Boeing, so it's second hand info, but I think it's pretty trustworthy.

We don't know exactly what they were told, but we do know the DL CEO said he wanted to be the launch customer.

Great post. But so much has changed since 2017. Most notably Rolls Royce publicly saying the market was too small and dropping out of the engine competition.

Rolls and Boeing to some extent both say 2000-4000. For a program in the tens of billions which has to charge a lot less than other widebodies, that is a tough business case.

At the end of the day, the volume market is where the 321 is. Thousands sold already. And room to sell thousands more.

Whatever they decide, they need to do it quick. Analysis paralysis is killing them. Every day they dither, Airbus adds to the 321XLR count cutting their market. Sure the NMA could be great. But if it's too late for the 757 and 767 replacement waves, many airlines may just decide to live with the 321XLR, 789, 339 and 359.

Wing mounted or tail mounted big fan engines regardless of the fuselage width!

Seems like the width debate can make one blue in the face!

(;

n5u wrote:

Stitch wrote:

When it comes to embarkation/disembarkation, is two narrow aisles any better than one wider one?

As much as we complain about how McD has "ruined" Boeing since the merger, I think their AMTR/DC-XX concept from the early 1980s to compete with the 757 is the way to go for NSA/NMA. In its final form, AMTR had a fuselage diameter of 439cm compared to 395cm of the A320 and 376cm of the 737. This wider fuselage should also improve structural rigidity to support longer lengths.

So with an 25 inches of width over the 737, that would allow not only for 18" seats in 3+3 Economy, but also an aisle twice as wide (~40 inches) to allow people to move past each other during embarkation/disembarkation and possibly even during trolley service (or at least keep the trolley from bumping into people).It would also allow for larger and more elaborate premium cabin suites.

I personally don't think McDonald Douglas "ruined Boeing" I think that is was the money they spent on the merger maybe. I think it was the thought train of " we're the only ones no competition" not realizing the importance of commercial air travel was going to play in the next 30. I think the thought they were going to get fat off the government tit as the military contractor

Mc Donnel Douglas was the lame duck. It cost them dearly to do nothing.

At the time, they had improved the DC10 to MD11, the DC8 to MD8 and the latter had become Boeing 717.

In the meantime several interesting concepts including the MD-XX, AMTR, MD12, an MD11 twin engine have never been launched. Is it because Boeing had launched a big twin engine before them? (Triple 7), the A380 before the MD12? (in reality, it was canceled)

Didn't he have the opportunity to launch their Narrowbody (3-3) during or just after the design of the A320 to counter their loss of market share in the medium and long term?

Boeing already had "the old" 737, Airbus "the new narrowbody".

The MD-9 was a 2-3 like the A220. Wasn't Airbus more courageous than MC Donnel Douglas to let him die slowly?...

Please stick to discussing the topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

Back in the 'golden age' of jet travel (think 'I'm leaving on a Jet Plane), 17 inch seats, 35 inch pitch and well cushioned. The flight was often a highlight of the trip.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Back in the 'golden age' of jet travel (think 'I'm leaving on a Jet Plane), 17 inch seats, 35 inch pitch and well cushioned. The flight was often a highlight of the trip.

What were the options?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TObound wrote:

Rolls and Boeing to some extent both say 2000-4000. For a program in the tens of billions which has to charge a lot less than other widebodies, that is a tough business case.

At the end of the day, the volume market is where the 321 is. Thousands sold already. And room to sell thousands more.

Whatever they decide, they need to do it quick. Analysis paralysis is killing them. Every day they dither, Airbus adds to the 321XLR count cutting their market. Sure the NMA could be great. But if it's too late for the 757 and 767 replacement waves, many airlines may just decide to live with the 321XLR, 789, 339 and 359.

I don't think 2,000-4,000 on its own is a tough case.

• 757: 1,050 produced
• 767: 1,176 produced
• 777: 1,627 produced

Personally I think trying to take A321 and its installed base head on is a tougher business case. You may end up with incrementally better tech but you will lose on price.

Boeing has no choice but dither till the MAX has its RTS and all the associated issues with ungrounding are sorted.

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

Revelation wrote:

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

I am inclined to think the target market in terms of passenger capacity is 230 to 295 seats (Exit Limit) which would be a length between 45m on the low end and 55m on the upper end. So either two models (45m/55m) or three models (45m/50m/55m) with a common wing between 36m and 52m. I'm guessing that with folding wingtips it could hit 40m, which would be 2m more than the 757, but still able to fit inside a 36m Code C gate with tips folded.

Going with a 4.4m fuselage diameter would allow the wider seats and wider aisles plus would support the 55m stretch. Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

TObound wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

In this logic it is a descent comfort. If travelers want more comfort there is the Premium seat...

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Listen, when you got tons of space on an aircraft, losing 2-3 inches wouldn't really bother you at all. But when you only got 18" of seat width, and 31" seat pitch, reducing even 1" of pitch or seat width would be noticable. God damnit, I can't believe I have to explain this thing to people on this forum....

Most premium economy seats these days on a 787 are 8ab 19" wide. Airlines getting away with charging a ton for that extra 1.8" total or .9" on both sides. If it's "only" 2 cm on both sides, why are premium economy seats so expensive and why do airlines use them to reward loyal customers?

I stand by what I said. 17" seats suck. Sure Airbus has 9ab 330s and 10ab 350s. But those aren't at any mainline and aren't close to the norm for those types. It's rare to end up on a high density 330 or 350. On the other hand, 9ab 787 and 10ab 777 is the rule. Not the exception. This is why the Boeing experience tends to be subpar because after the 767, they've gone out of their way to enable 17" wide seats in Y.

Even Boeing knows it sucks. It's funny how some here think that extra 0.8" isn't a big deal, while Boeing is going out of their way to carve out sidewalls on their 777x to try and get 18" seats on that airplane. If it's "only" 1cm why do they care?

My concern with the NMA? I doubt they can make 7ab twin aisles with wide seats. 17" wide seats will be the default. From a Y pax perspective, the 321N might just be more comfortable.

The 777-X has the same 17.2 "seats as the 787, It does not want to gain 2 cm as you claim.

The 787 has a cabin for 7-abreast Premium seat and not 8-abreast.

It may even be that the NMA would be 7-abreast with 17.2 "wide seats and 5-abreast Premium seats ...

DenverTed wrote:

Looks like the 777 was originally designed for 17" seats and aisles and 2" armrests at 3-4-3, with a 1/2" armrest to sidewall.

Perhaps, though it was marketed to both airlines and the public in the far-more-common 2x5x2 configuration, and all the inherent attributes that go with that capacity, for the first half-decade or so of its existence.

TObound wrote:

Don't need a premium seat. Just fly an airline that is mostly Airbus.

Like Air Asia X? Air Caraibes? Cebu Pacific? Air Transat? Philippine Airlines?

It's not a manufacturer thing. At any point, any airline can choose to make an Airbus even more miserable than a 777 in 3x4x3 is purported to be.

That relatively few of them have currently chosen to do so, doesn't change the fact that the choice to do is still there for them to make at any time, with still the possibility of a trend developing.

ewt340 wrote:

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Like it or not, you just described life in Western Capitalism in a nutshell.
You get what you pay for, and if you can't, then don't have much choice but to suck it up.

Stitch wrote:

Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

Similar thoughts, though I'm wondering if that's an Achilles' Heel for sales, or even this market category in as a whole, seeing as how relatively poorly the 757 and (to a lesser extent) 767 did within the Asian market.

Checklist787 wrote:

TObound wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Listen, when you got tons of space on an aircraft, losing 2-3 inches wouldn't really bother you at all. But when you only got 18" of seat width, and 31" seat pitch, reducing even 1" of pitch or seat width would be noticable. God damnit, I can't believe I have to explain this thing to people on this forum....

Most premium economy seats these days on a 787 are 8ab 19" wide. Airlines getting away with charging a ton for that extra 1.8" total or .9" on both sides. If it's "only" 2 cm on both sides, why are premium economy seats so expensive and why do airlines use them to reward loyal customers?

I stand by what I said. 17" seats suck. Sure Airbus has 9ab 330s and 10ab 350s. But those aren't at any mainline and aren't close to the norm for those types. It's rare to end up on a high density 330 or 350. On the other hand, 9ab 787 and 10ab 777 is the rule. Not the exception. This is why the Boeing experience tends to be subpar because after the 767, they've gone out of their way to enable 17" wide seats in Y.

Even Boeing knows it sucks. It's funny how some here think that extra 0.8" isn't a big deal, while Boeing is going out of their way to carve out sidewalls on their 777x to try and get 18" seats on that airplane. If it's "only" 1cm why do they care?

My concern with the NMA? I doubt they can make 7ab twin aisles with wide seats. 17" wide seats will be the default. From a Y pax perspective, the 321N might just be more comfortable.

The 777-X has the same 17.2 "seats as the 787, It does not want to gain 2 cm as you claim.

The 787 has a cabin for 7-abreast Premium seat and not 8-abreast.

It may even be that the NMA would be 7-abreast with 17.2 "wide seats and 5-abreast Premium seats ...

Yes, in an apples to apples comparison, I subtract 1.5" on each side for sidewall to center of armrest.
787 is 216-3" is 213/11 is 19.36" cc seats and aisles. With 2" armrests would be 17.36" seats and aisles.
777x is 235-3 is 232/12 is 19.33" cc seats and aisles.
So, I give Boeing credit for creating a consistent product in coach, but I think 20" cc should be the minimum.

Stitch wrote:

Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

LAX772LR wrote:

Similar thoughts, though I'm wondering if that's an Achilles' Heel for sales, or even this market category in as a whole, seeing as how relatively poorly the 757 and (to a lesser extent) 767 did within the Asian market.

Well Asia is absorbing a shedload of A321s (and to a lesser, extent, 737-9s and 737-10s) so I such a model of NMA is, in general, viable, for that market. And I think it would do very well for TATL.

But I do think there may be a "minimum size" for a true dual-aisle/widebody and that seems to be the 787/A330 in general, and the 787-9 / A330-900 specifically. Anything smaller just does not seem to have the overall operating economics to compete, even if can outperform in one particular area (like OEW).

So trying to design around an A300/A310/767-sized model seems to be a non-starter.

LAX772LR wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Looks like the 777 was originally designed for 17" seats and aisles and 2" armrests at 3-4-3, with a 1/2" armrest to sidewall.

Perhaps, though it was marketed to both airlines and the public in the far-more-common 2x5x2 configuration, and all the inherent attributes that go with that capacity, for the first half-decade or so of its existence.

TObound wrote:

Don't need a premium seat. Just fly an airline that is mostly Airbus.

Like Air Asia X? Air Caraibes? Cebu Pacific? Air Transat? Philippine Airlines?

It's not a manufacturer thing. At any point, any airline can choose to make an Airbus even more miserable than a 777 in 3x4x3 is purported to be.

That relatively few of them have currently chosen to do so, doesn't change the fact that the choice to do is still there for them to make at any time, with still the possibility of a trend developing.

ewt340 wrote:

I'm sorry but that is soo stupid on many levels. You are basically saying: "Oh, just spend a thousand dollar more for that 7" extra pitch for your next flight, how hard is that to spent that much money you poor b*st*rd!"

Like it or not, you just described life in Western Capitalism in a nutshell.
You get what you pay for, and if you can't, then don't have much choice but to suck it up.

Stitch wrote:

Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

Similar thoughts, though I'm wondering if that's an Achilles' Heel for sales, or even this market category in as a whole, seeing as how relatively poorly the 757 and (to a lesser extent) 767 did within the Asian market.

The 767 seems to be the NMA.

I don't see anything other than an LD2 container. Larger than the LD3-45W and also allowing pallets for the Asian market in the first place, the rest of the world, after ?

Anyway, they have a plan for the 7-abreast, but the shape of the hold will depend on the lowest cost for manufacturing and assembly...

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

We are re-hashing a lot from past threads on the subject, but one thing I think still holds is that as the market has grown, Boeing is limited by the core of the 737, which is how low it is to the ground, that it is not FBW (until the MAX) has not prevented it from being safe, reliable and making money for airlines.

So rather than thinking short term on a successful project think long term and start the 737 replacement project with the NMA, whether it is the production process, risk sharing or core design elements use the larger frame to flesh out the process and reuse as much as possible for the eventual 737 replacement.

If they adopt that approach, the driving factor will be Boeing's future product needs versus this project being widely successful, if this board and management were around then, the 767-400 would have never been built. Different situation but I think Boeing needs some of that aggressiveness to address the gap in its line up. When the 757 sales ceased closing down the line and using the 737 to maintain was fine, but as the market continued to move to the 757 space the limitations of the 737 just grew and grew, regard it as as loss leader even if it does not loose money.

The NMA is needed and in my mind the current head talking about back to the drawing board means more wasted time, forget the money that does not seem to be a motivating factor, heck they even had the engine vendors sorted out, as well as one section of the globe against the other in terms of cargo / range, so pick one and lets go, I would say go with the less cargo as this side seems more certain even if less volume. The volume is gong to the the 737 replacement.

If they are going to borrow billions at least show everyone they are investing in some new project, the company is large enough, the wins in the military sector (trainer) do not roll over to commercial and the 777X is almost done.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

I am inclined to think the target market in terms of passenger capacity is 230 to 295 seats (Exit Limit) which would be a length between 45m on the low end and 55m on the upper end. So either two models (45m/55m) or three models (45m/50m/55m) with a common wing between 36m and 52m. I'm guessing that with folding wingtips it could hit 40m, which would be 2m more than the 757, but still able to fit inside a 36m Code C gate with tips folded.

Going with a 4.4m fuselage diameter would allow the wider seats and wider aisles plus would support the 55m stretch. Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

The A300 seated around 235 - 240 passengers in today’s Big 3 seating arrangements. Couldn’t Boeing build an 8 abreast with an EOW of around 170,000 lbs with a 5,000 nm range? The A300-600 weighs in at 195,000 lbs. Granted new engines would be 7,000 lbs or 8,500 lbs more for larger fans, but with an all composite wing, newer alloys or composite barrels, electric architecture, etc....should be within the realm, no?

I guess I don’t see the benefits of 7 across when 8 across seems to fit that 225 - 250 - 275 passenger NMA more efficiently. Otherwise, it’s a standard 3 x 3 seating narrow body.

Checklist787 wrote:

The 767 seems to be the NMA.

I just don't see a 767-sized frame being able to compete with the A330-900 and 787-9.

Checklist787 wrote:

I don't see anything other than an LD2 container.

I think the LD-2 is a non-starter for non-US operators. Airlines that carry underfloor pallets want to use PMC/96x125" widthwise and you cannot do that with a 767 (they have to be used lengthwise).

par13del wrote:

So rather than thinking short term on a successful project think long term and start the 737 replacement project with the NMA, whether it is the production process, risk sharing or core design elements use the larger frame to flesh out the process and reuse as much as possible for the eventual 737 replacement...When the 757 sales ceased closing down the line and using the 737 to maintain was fine, but as the market continued to move to the 757 space the limitations of the 737 just grew and grew, regard it as as loss leader even if it does not loose money.

I believe the market's move into the 757's space is still pretty limited and tentative, but I also believe there is growth potential in the future so it is a market Boeing will want to be in. And I agree with you that what is hurting the 737 most is it's basic design philosophy. Being so low to the ground is a benefit for bulk-loading, but is a detriment to field performance and engine growth.

NMA being a large narrowbody can still be a way to "de-risk" the NSA/737RS, which would be a smaller narrowbody, through the sharing of engine and systems technologies as well as production processes. You could arguably make NSA with the same fuselage structure as NMA, just shorter, but that might make NSA too heavy (lighter CFRP or aluminum alloys might compensate, however).

SanDiegoLover wrote:

The A300 seated around 235 - 240 passengers in today’s Big 3 seating arrangements. Couldn’t Boeing build an 8 abreast with an EOW of around 170,000 lbs with a 5,000 nm range? The A300-600 weighs in at 195,000 lbs. Granted new engines would be 7,000 lbs or 8,500 lbs more for larger fans, but with an all composite wing, newer alloys or composite barrels, electric architecture, etc....should be within the realm, no?

With seating to US3 domestic standard? (Recliners in First). Or international standard with a mix of lie-flat J and Premium Economy?

I assume Airbus would try to stick with the current alloy fuselage if they could (and basically A330 systems). The real weight savings from use of composites would have to come from switching to composite wing box and wing, and possibly lighter gear for the reduced MTOW.

Stitch wrote:

Checklist787 wrote:

The 767 seems to be the NMA.

I just don't see a 767-sized frame being able to compete with the A330-900 and 787-9.

Checklist787 wrote:

I don't see anything other than an LD2 container.

I think the LD-2 is a non-starter for non-US operators. Airlines that carry underfloor pallets want to use PMC/96x125" widthwise and you cannot do that with a 767 (they have to be used lengthwise).

par13del wrote:

So rather than thinking short term on a successful project think long term and start the 737 replacement project with the NMA, whether it is the production process, risk sharing or core design elements use the larger frame to flesh out the process and reuse as much as possible for the eventual 737 replacement...When the 757 sales ceased closing down the line and using the 737 to maintain was fine, but as the market continued to move to the 757 space the limitations of the 737 just grew and grew, regard it as as loss leader even if it does not loose money.

I believe the market's move into the 757's space is still pretty limited and tentative, but I also believe there is growth potential in the future so it is a market Boeing will want to be in. And I agree with you that what is hurting the 737 most is it's basic design philosophy. Being so low to the ground is a benefit for bulk-loading, but is a detriment to field performance and engine growth.

NMA being a large narrowbody can still be a way to "de-risk" the NSA/737RS, which would be a smaller narrowbody, through the sharing of engine and systems technologies as well as production processes. You could arguably make NSA with the same fuselage structure as NMA, just shorter, but that might make NSA too heavy (lighter CFRP or aluminum alloys might compensate, however).

In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

I am inclined to think the target market in terms of passenger capacity is 230 to 295 seats (Exit Limit) which would be a length between 45m on the low end and 55m on the upper end. So either two models (45m/55m) or three models (45m/50m/55m) with a common wing between 36m and 52m. I'm guessing that with folding wingtips it could hit 40m, which would be 2m more than the 757, but still able to fit inside a 36m Code C gate with tips folded.

Going with a 4.4m fuselage diameter would allow the wider seats and wider aisles plus would support the 55m stretch. Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.

Checklist787 wrote:

The 767 seems to be the NMA.

Stitch wrote:

I just don't see a 767-sized frame being able to compete with the A330-900 and 787-9.

I think the LD-2 is a non-starter for non-US operators. Airlines that carry underfloor pallets want to use PMC/96x125" widthwise and you cannot do that with a 767 (they have to be used lengthwise).

Why that?

1. The key to the concept is the reuse of a fuselage that appears to be made of aluminum, in this case an enlarged 757 or a 767 fuselage.

2. You seem to indicate that you think it would be a pure widebody. What's more, an 787-9 / A330-900 size,
I don't see it as big

par13del wrote:

So rather than thinking short term on a successful project think long term and start the 737 replacement project with the NMA, whether it is the production process, risk sharing or core design elements use the larger frame to flesh out the process and reuse as much as possible for the eventual 737 replacement...When the 757 sales ceased closing down the line and using the 737 to maintain was fine, but as the market continued to move to the 757 space the limitations of the 737 just grew and grew, regard it as as loss leader even if it does not loose money.

I believe the market's move into the 757's space is still pretty limited and tentative, but I also believe there is growth potential in the future so it is a market Boeing will want to be in. And I agree with you that what is hurting the 737 most is it's basic design philosophy. Being so low to the ground is a benefit for bulk-loading, but is a detriment to field performance and engine growth.

Yes, the 737 has very low ground clearance...

It was designed when its only competitor, was the DC-8 had very low ground clearance too, and it seems a characteristic at the time...

As the new Boeing CEO Calhoun would say about the "NMA-MK2" ,

"... things have changed a little bit".

He would probably say about the 737,

...."things have changed a lot".

Anyway, I understand that for the future of a 737 replacement, They absolutely must go through the NMA first!

Stitch wrote:

NMA being a large narrowbody can still be a way to "de-risk" the NSA/737RS, which would be a smaller narrowbody, through the sharing of engine and systems technologies as well as production processes. You could arguably make NSA with the same fuselage structure as NMA, just shorter, but that might make NSA too heavy (lighter CFRP or aluminum alloys might compensate, however).

Indeed, this is the key to the concept.

RickNRoll wrote:

In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.

I agree. In theory, the NMA should have very little hold cargo volume.
Which made it look in like a small body in a horizontal view...

http://infoaeroquebec.net/wp-content/up ... ng-NMA.png

Checklist787 wrote:

Yes, the 737 has very low ground clearance...

It was designed when its only competitor, was the DC-8 had very low ground clearance too, and it seems a characteristic at the time...

DC-8 is a 4 engine contemporary to the 707.
You mean the DC-9 ?

737 and 747 are ~~contemporary designs. High bypass engines were definitely on the horizon.
Joe Sutter was moved from 737 to 747 development.

RickNRoll wrote:

In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.

Well from all the chatter that was being "leaked" there were two competing theories, the East wanted cargo and the West wanted a people mover with limited cargo capability.
I guess some may say that is another reason adding to the difficulty of closing the business case.

par13del wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

In theory the NMA wasn't going to be any good at carrying cargo by design.

Well from all the chatter that was being "leaked" there were two competing theories, the East wanted cargo and the West wanted a people mover with limited cargo capability.
I guess some may say that is another reason adding to the difficulty of closing the business case.

And now the A321neo and XLR are eating into the people mover market and as Calhoun stated, they have to look for China. Might be a hint, that the new version of the NMA will include belly cargo and full FBW with maximum automation to acknowledge the pilot shortage in Asia and therefore the different training approach.

Looking down the line a bit - with the focus on environment only growing ever sharper - if people are not willing to sacrifice the convenience of flights, they may be much more amenable to accepting increased delivery times.

i.e. air cargo could become a somewhat endangered species in a decade or two.

Relatively easy target for the politicians.

seahawk wrote:

Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.

I prefer to say that just because there is a gap, an interpolation is not the right way to fill it. An aircraft line up should not be planned in a way that every model fits neatly on an increasing line of both range and capacity. That is the NMA mistake.

Same capacity (or just a little more) as the XLR but significantly more range opens up an array of new markets.

Same range (or just a little less) as the XLR but significantly more capacity makes for an unbeatable cost per seat.

Blend those two in and we get a mediocre aircraft with an envelope entirely contained within the 787's.

Revelation wrote:

A bunch of concepts/goals with a similar but different rendering in the background:

2nd Century digital architecture? Hadrian approves.

And it's still an improvement on MCAS.

seahawk wrote:

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.

I think this ignore the fact that Boeing's competitor is deeply entrenched in category 1 and has driven the market for category 1 deeply towards saturation. A "me too" aircraft is going to have a hard time making a positive ROI. Many airlines don't see a need for category 2 but we've had supportive statements from airlines such as DL and QF saying they want such an aircraft, and they would be in the right position to benefit from customers who grow out of category 1 just as NMA becomes a mature category 2 product.

seahawk wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I still see room between A321XLR and 789.

As do I, but I can understand the difficulty in trying to appeal to the broadest cross-section of airlines in terms of passengers and cargo.

I am inclined to think the target market in terms of passenger capacity is 230 to 295 seats (Exit Limit) which would be a length between 45m on the low end and 55m on the upper end. So either two models (45m/55m) or three models (45m/50m/55m) with a common wing between 36m and 52m. I'm guessing that with folding wingtips it could hit 40m, which would be 2m more than the 757, but still able to fit inside a 36m Code C gate with tips folded.

Going with a 4.4m fuselage diameter would allow the wider seats and wider aisles plus would support the 55m stretch. Underfloor cargo would remain LD3-45, which I know would displease the Asian operators who want to use pallets, but you can't have everything.

Just because there is a gap does not mean it needs to be filled.

Say you have

1. single aisle 220-240 seats up to 4000nm range
2. twin aisle 250-290 seats up to 5500nm range
3. twin aisle 330-380 seats 7000+nm range

Most airlines will need option 1 and 3 for their route network - option 2 can be covered by 1 and 3 with some compromise.

Scott Hamilton on Leeham is Pontificating again today. https://leehamnews.com/2020/02/03/pontifications-4/

This quote of his was the one that provokes the most thought I believe.

"What LNA has been told (subsequent to the earnings call) is that the NMA isn’t truly off the table. Neither is pursuing a single-aisle future small airplane (FSA). The restart, with, as Calhoun put it, a clean sheet obviously will look at all options"

To me the most likely way to take this is that FSA is the Future Brazil Project and NMA will take the core.

If Boeing does a large 6W tube to cover NSA/NMA it will just be too large to cover off the 150-200 all Y seat market that the 220 looks like a hell of a competitor on. Boeing should do something in response and a 5W Brazil project with it's base size (most eficient) is A320 Capacity but a lot lower Range - call it 3,000NM Max for ultra efficiency on the Majority of SA routes. Eventually it's done in three tube lengths 150,175 and 200 all Y 30" seat pitch.

So if Boeing does go the Brazil 5W route then it does not make sense to do two more tube sizes to cover NSA/NMA (say an 6W and 8W and then they also have 787 9W and 777 10W - way to many) it's either a wide 6W or tight 7W.

To me it makes more sense to do the tight 7W as we have to remember that this cross section will probably be in production for at least 25 years - which would put it past 2050 easily. Air travel demand over the next 30-40 years should increase significantly.

It seems like the sweet spot in Commercial aircraft size is now about A321 size (call it 220 Seats all Y 30" pitch). By 2030 it should be A322 size 240 Seats. By 2040 potentially a lot bigger - it may not make much sense to stretch an 6W beyond say 753 size (260 Y seats). 300-320 Y seats may be the ultimate large size of NMA vs 360 for 788 and 400 for 789 and 781 - 440 all Y.

So Boeing's future lineup:

FSA - 5W Boeing Brazil Project using NMA control design/Automation 150/175/200 All Y 30" seat pitch, Ranges of 3,200/2,900/2,600 respectively, Entry into Service 2028/2029.

NMA - 7W with with New Control System and Automation 240/270/300 All Y 30" Pitch, Ranges of 5,500 NM, 5,000 NM, 4,500NM respectively - 270 Seat comes first followed closely by 240 EIS 2027/2028. 300 may wait until Later with a further stretched 320 seater when Gen 2 engines available.

NSA (737 MAX replacement) - Using NMA 7W tube/systems cockpit - new smaller wing, wingbox, gear tail 200/240 All Y seat capacity - Range 4,000/3,700 NM - EIS 2031/2032.

FLA (Future Large Airplane) Stretched rengined possibly upwinged higher MTOW 787 in 787-9, 787-10 and 11 lengths - sometime around early 2030's

This assumes 777X passenger versions die after 2030, and it becomes the only Big freighter as 747 shuts down as well about 2025 and factory space used for NMA.

Yes Boeing would have the cash flow to do this - they just have to redirect it from Share repurchases to Product Development.