planecane wrote:

What Boeing needs (other than the MAX being recertified) is for one of the MAX models MAX 8 or higher to have an LR version that has true transatlantic range. Right now an airline that wishes to have a transatlantic narrowbody has only one choice. Once they choose the only choice for that mission, if they need a 200 seat narrowbody with less range they are likely to pick the A321NEO because they'll already have a very common aircraft in the fleet.

A transatlantic 737 MAX may not have the capacity of the A321XLR but it would at least give airlines an option. Even if they only get 30% of that market, that's still a bunch of airlines to whom a MAX 10 for high capacity and low range makes sense vs the A321NEO.

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

planecane wrote:

What Boeing needs (other than the MAX being recertified) is for one of the MAX models MAX 8 or higher to have an LR version that has true transatlantic range. Right now an airline that wishes to have a transatlantic narrowbody has only one choice. Once they choose the only choice for that mission, if they need a 200 seat narrowbody with less range they are likely to pick the A321NEO because they'll already have a very common aircraft in the fleet.

A transatlantic 737 MAX may not have the capacity of the A321XLR but it would at least give airlines an option. Even if they only get 30% of that market, that's still a bunch of airlines to whom a MAX 10 for high capacity and low range makes sense vs the A321NEO.

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Many airlines are using the A321 under 3000 milles. Sure the Max 8 is way better that the A321neo under 1000 miles. Though the A321 is very flexible in using short or long missions. Hence why the 321neo has over 3000 orders while the Max 8 has 2150 orders.

Opus99 wrote:

My take on this project. Boeing should give it a rest; focus on maximising the profitability of your existing portfolio. The 737 MAX will sell, clearly no where near as well as the a320neo and that is absolutely fine. Sell what you can. You have a very very good proposition with the 787 continue to push that jet. The 777X will have its day eventually just keep delivering for those who will take them as they arrive and work to continue to secure orders around the world; its a very good jet. Some times the best thing to do is actually focus on your own lane. Boeing is not in a position to be chasing airbus in circles. Begin to harness the talent you will need for the 2030s - the decade of new narrowbodies clearly. they have to bring themselves out of this whole. And in the 2030s release a killer jet that customers simply cannot refuse. They have done it with the 777, they have done it with the 787 (even with all the problems that plagued the aircraft) so they can do it again, they just need to refocus.

Also to Add: They also have a very strong cargo business, they are basically the only ones with a cargo business. Harness that; look into a 777XF if thats what customers want

You lose some, You win some. It is just sad that the loss just came from their absolute negligence as a Company.

Again, Boeing did give it a rest, the thread starter article talks about this concept in the past tense.

If we want know what Boeing leadership says they are currently doing:

Boeing continues working toward development of a new commercial aircraft, though chief executive David Calhoun has disclosed few details.

Calhoun mentioned the project during the company’s third-quarter earnings call on 28 October.

“We have some incredible underlying technologies that are going to support the point-design for that next airplane,” Calhoun says. “We are going to assess this market, based on everything that has happened in the last year, and probably the next year.”

That review will enable Boeing to “call out that point design, and pull these underlying technologies that we think will create a winning airplane”.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 51.article

So as boring as it sounds, we're still in the post-NMA holding pattern we've had for several months now and will probably be in all this year and next.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

planecane wrote:

What Boeing needs (other than the MAX being recertified) is for one of the MAX models MAX 8 or higher to have an LR version that has true transatlantic range. Right now an airline that wishes to have a transatlantic narrowbody has only one choice. Once they choose the only choice for that mission, if they need a 200 seat narrowbody with less range they are likely to pick the A321NEO because they'll already have a very common aircraft in the fleet.

A transatlantic 737 MAX may not have the capacity of the A321XLR but it would at least give airlines an option. Even if they only get 30% of that market, that's still a bunch of airlines to whom a MAX 10 for high capacity and low range makes sense vs the A321NEO.

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Simple; range sells.

JonesNL wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

planecane wrote:

What Boeing needs (other than the MAX being recertified) is for one of the MAX models MAX 8 or higher to have an LR version that has true transatlantic range. Right now an airline that wishes to have a transatlantic narrowbody has only one choice. Once they choose the only choice for that mission, if they need a 200 seat narrowbody with less range they are likely to pick the A321NEO because they'll already have a very common aircraft in the fleet.

A transatlantic 737 MAX may not have the capacity of the A321XLR but it would at least give airlines an option. Even if they only get 30% of that market, that's still a bunch of airlines to whom a MAX 10 for high capacity and low range makes sense vs the A321NEO.

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Simple; range sells.

Not so simple, if this was the case the 777LR would have been the best selling airplane 777 ever, but the folks here know that is not true. or better said, the 757 would still be in production. We all seem to forget that at one time Boeing could not get airlines to buy the 757, which is why it was canceled.

It is a complex set of circumstances that are different for many buyers. For example, where are they located and what capacity they need for the 'typical' mission.
Yes, the majority of flights are less than 1000 but there are many missions over 1000 (ie transcon in the US and US-Europe crossings), but each of those may have different capacity needs.
Boeing and Airbus try to balance capacity to range to get what the airlines need.

oh, and to make it all harder to Boeing and Airbus, these trends change over time. In some cases they are a lucky with timing.

keesje wrote:

Oykie wrote:

william wrote:

If you look a bit wider you can see that a strategy sticking to an existing product lines, supply chains, jobs, mostly won over the last 50 years.

Protecting existing jobs, government contracts, milking cash cows, instead of renewing often won the day. Adding better engines, systems, cockpits was good enough.

I think it basically killed the once dominant US helicopter industry. Also programs like C130, F15, F16, F18, Black Hawk, Apache, Chinook are supported by local politicians via committees to stay in place as long as possible (40-60 years) and then some more. It protects jobs, avoids investment, creates cash cows, pork barrel contracts, however it is named. If you have competition working from a different environment and markets open up, things go South though.

We discussed a bigger more capable 737 years ago,https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339395, but Boeing was still entangled in their short term, stock value boosting period, keeping everybody happy successfully, with ambitious outlooks, MoM/NMA promises, record stock value and dividends. That had nothing to do with realistic long term portfolio management.

I think by now, it is sinking in the 737MAX is not good enough for 2020-2030 and a moon-shot (incl. conversion rights) 737 successor should be on the table. If not, things could get even uglier.

The sticking to existing product lines in aviation have also made the airplanes more reliable and actually safer. There is always a risk regarding a new product and you can see both Airbus, Boeing, rolls Royce, Pratt and GE struggling to make new tech reliable from day one. But I agree that Boeing need to show a roadmap for their NSA, NMA, MOM marketplace. The tricky part is, that if the more they invest into the 737MAX now, the longer it will take Boeing to fully replace the MAX. If they do the fifth generation as this article suggest that will push the EIS for a full replacement back to 2040 at the earliest.

JonesNL wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

planecane wrote:

What Boeing needs (other than the MAX being recertified) is for one of the MAX models MAX 8 or higher to have an LR version that has true transatlantic range. Right now an airline that wishes to have a transatlantic narrowbody has only one choice. Once they choose the only choice for that mission, if they need a 200 seat narrowbody with less range they are likely to pick the A321NEO because they'll already have a very common aircraft in the fleet.

A transatlantic 737 MAX may not have the capacity of the A321XLR but it would at least give airlines an option. Even if they only get 30% of that market, that's still a bunch of airlines to whom a MAX 10 for high capacity and low range makes sense vs the A321NEO.

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Simple; range sells.

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

Oykie wrote:

The sticking to existing product lines in aviation have also made the airplanes more reliable and actually safer. There is always a risk regarding a new product and you can see both Airbus, Boeing, rolls Royce, Pratt and GE struggling to make new tech reliable from day one. But I agree that Boeing need to show a roadmap for their NSA, NMA, MOM marketplace. The tricky part is, that if the more they invest into the 737MAX now, the longer it will take Boeing to fully replace the MAX. If they do the fifth generation as this article suggest that will push the EIS for a full replacement back to 2040 at the earliest.

Actually this article talks about 5G in the past tense so they are not suggesting it will be done, they say the program has been shut down. It's already another paper airplane in Boeing's closet.

Antarius wrote:

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

That's well said. A321XLR's only real 'cost' is you are permanently dedicating 2 of 10 under deck cargo positions to fuel. The upside is that it's providing four ACTs worth of fuel in that space ( according to https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis-t ... 43.article ) with the weight of one ACT. So if you were going to fly around with two ACTs anyway or don't fill the cargo positions anyway it's a no brainer. If you were using one or no ACTs then you do have a small trade off to make, potential loss of cargo revenue. it's going to be interesting to see how the market ends up using them once they start being delivered.

I think 77L wasn't really a market fail since it was so closely tied to 77F which is still in demand to this day. It's main problem was that 77E was very capable and sold so well that its main market was saturated. Also 77L only had GE90 engine so some airlines would avoid it because they wanted other engines.

By saying the 5G would have needed an all new wing and FBW controls they are saying adding range to MAX is definitely not free. Airbus is lucky their tech base is from the 80s when FBW was feasible and started with CFM56 era tech as opposed to JT9. Boeing really has no option but to get whatever cash flow they can get from MAX and find a path to whatever is next.

Antarius wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Simple; range sells.

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

Agreed, the tail is quite different in the widebody segment. A350ULH will not sell in big numbers, but the A321 started becoming successful after it got TCON range. The 737-900ER was an bulls eye. A220-300 will probably get another range bump because airlines are asking for it. And most notably and recently the A321XLR. Airlines love the option of long range at low penalty.

JonesNL wrote:

Antarius wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Simple; range sells.

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

Agreed, the tail is quite different in the widebody segment. A350ULH will not sell in big numbers, but the A321 started becoming successful after it got TCON range. The 737-900ER was an bulls eye. A220-300 will probably get another range bump because airlines are asking for it. And most notably and recently the A321XLR. Airlines love the option of long range at low penalty.

I agree with this. There is a sweet spot where range does sell - TCON range makes the aircraft extremely versatile, especially when it doesn't take much of a penalty.

Antarius wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

You make a decent point.

The average flight for a 737 is just over 2 hours and 900-1000 miles. That market is 10,000+ airplanes. The market for transatlantic narrowbodies is only a few hundred. Having the most efficient and cheapest airplane covering 1-5 hour flights is what is going to matter most to the vast majority of airplanes.

I don’t know why this website has a fixation on 3000+ mile narrowbody routes. It’s a small market segment compared to 1000 miles.

Simple; range sells.

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

The A321XLR isn’t range without additional cost. Airbus charges about 10% more for the A321XLR than they do for an A321neo. It also weighs more which results in higher fuel burn, increased engine maintenance costs & landing fees, and has reduced cargo volume.

Revelation wrote:

Oykie wrote:

The sticking to existing product lines in aviation have also made the airplanes more reliable and actually safer. There is always a risk regarding a new product and you can see both Airbus, Boeing, rolls Royce, Pratt and GE struggling to make new tech reliable from day one. But I agree that Boeing need to show a roadmap for their NSA, NMA, MOM marketplace. The tricky part is, that if the more they invest into the 737MAX now, the longer it will take Boeing to fully replace the MAX. If they do the fifth generation as this article suggest that will push the EIS for a full replacement back to 2040 at the earliest.

Actually this article talks about 5G in the past tense so they are not suggesting it will be done, they say the program has been shut down. It's already another paper airplane in Boeing's closet.

I see that, and I really hope Boeing will use the tech they have in store for the NMA. As you said a few posts up, we're still in the post-NMA holding pattern we've had for several months now and will probably be in all this year and next. Then you linked to a Flightglobal article and I hope this is the path Boeing choose.

I found the article about the 737 5G from the OP interesting because it gives us some insight about all the possibilities Boeing are studying and have been studying. Boeing need to commit to something in the NSA/NMA space as a stepping stone to replace the 737MAX in 10-15 years.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Simple; range sells.

Within reason. The a345 and 77L flopped pretty spectacularly. The a338 has a mere 8 orders.

Range without additional cost sells. But aiming for the long range market and trying to scale down never works. Its why the 787-3 was stillborn.

The A321XLR isn’t range without additional cost. Airbus charges about 10% more for the A321XLR than they do for an A321neo. It also weighs more which results in higher fuel burn, increased engine maintenance costs & landing fees, and has reduced cargo volume.

Correct. But the a321neo doesn't carry the weight penalty and lost cargo volume etc. Meaning that Airbus built a great plane that hits the 90% use case, then extended it to hit the rest, as opposed to building a plane for the 1% and then trying to make it fit for everything else.

Therefore, the a321neo family as a whole doesn't suffer from the cost penalty.

keesje wrote:

Oykie wrote:

william wrote:

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/all-new-boeing-jet-is-vaporware-but-5g-max-revamp-comes-to-light/

Clean sheet off the table but nip and tuck to the 737-10 to make it at least viable against the A321. A plane customers actually want instead of a laughable bargaining chip in A321 negotiations.

Code name 5G

"The technology isn’t available to justify a $10 billion to $15 billion all-new moonshot development today. However, as Boeing watches Airbus and the A321neo and incoming A321XLR tilt single-aisle market share in favor of the European plane maker, an ambitious, but less costly effort to rethink the struggling 737 Max 10 — known internally as the 5G — was being actively studied by Boeing just prior to the onset of the pandemic, The Air Current has learned."

While it seem to be too much of an update, I have been thinking a lot about how Boeing best can get out of the troubles they have had with the grounding of the MAX and make their portfolio more competitive versus Airbus and the A320. I am sure everyone reading end posting here, has thought a lot about this and there has also been many ideas from just getting the 737MAX back in the air to building an NSA, NMA or MOM. And then there is the occasional 757MAX.

Very short term the 737MAX has been deemed safe enough to to RTS and will do so in a small scale within a few weeks. I will have no worry about flying the 737MAX and must admit I look forward to being a passenger.

Personally I would like Boeing to make a plastic NMA with a lot of crew commonality with the 787. Making the plane more electric and digital will help with reliability and safety. The 737 is a stand alone product in a portfolio. While there are so many of them this is a weak spot in the Boeing portfolio. The 777/777X and 787 are much more similar. But this would be a higher risk than just letting the 737 return to service and do nothing.

But there is some risk to do nothing. While the 737MAX is deemed safe to return to service, its main computers have the same processing technology as the Super Nintendo. The big scrutiny it has been through has shown that those Super Nintendo Computers are making the workload during emergencies very high. The 737-10 is required to have a third AoA sensor before EIS. The A32LR and A321XLR have a bigger MTOW than the 737.

That has made me think about the 737-200 advanced. It was a big improvement over the original 737-200 and I have been thinking if something similar would be the best approach for Boeing. Could Boeing do something about the workload for pilots, add third AoA sensor and increase MTOW to close the gap between the 737 MAX 10 and the A321? A 737 Max 10 advanced. Is it even possible to replace the Super Nintendo processors?

If you look a bit wider you can see that a strategy sticking to an existing product lines, supply chains, jobs, mostly won over the last 50 years.

Protecting existing jobs, government contracts, milking cash cows, instead of renewing often won the day. Adding better engines, systems, cockpits was good enough.

I think it basically killed the once dominant US helicopter industry. Also programs like C130, F15, F16, F18, Black Hawk, Apache, Chinook are supported by local politicians via committees to stay in place as long as possible (40-60 years) and then some more. It protects jobs, avoids investment, creates cash cows, pork barrel contracts, however it is named. If you have competition working from a different environment and markets open up, things go South though.

We discussed a bigger more capable 737 years ago,https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339395, but Boeing was still entangled in their short term, stock value boosting period, keeping everybody happy successfully, with ambitious outlooks, MoM/NMA promises, record stock value and dividends. That had nothing to do with realistic long term portfolio management.

I think by now, it is sinking in the 737MAX is not good enough for 2020-2030 and a moon-shot (incl. conversion rights) 737 successor should be on the table. If not, things could get even uglier.

You have to over time take the pain that will spend more money then needed in the short term to refresh products different markets have different refresh demands, regional market seems to take around two emb 110/120 refreshed as emb 135/140/145 competing with the brand new crj100/200 refreshed as the crj700/900/1000 competing with the brand new e170/175/190/195 who will likely compete with mitsubishi new product with a refreshed E175-E2 which may run into scope problems but thats the clear market dynamic. Mainline narrowbodies seem to take a lot more refreshing but 3-4 refreshes seem to be where it caps out dc-9, md-88, md-90, 717 ended. 737 Jurassic. classic, ng, max. So yes I would expect airbus to refresh the a320 series in 10-15 years when new engines are available and if market dynamics hold it will be boeings turn to launch a new product but that product conception has to be fixed within say the next 5 years, given how long these things take to launch (5 year launches are a lie and basically everyone knows that at this point for new products.)

Imho Boeing needs to stop it. The MAX (in the form of the -8 and -10) is still competitive to the A320 series and it would really do wonders for the plane if Boeing would show a bit more confidence into it.

The fact is that Boeing has a department that all it does is look at options to modify existing aircraft and if it would work out. There is nothing unusual about this study - it answered the question of could we significantly improve the 737-10; at what cost, and is there sufficient market to make it worthwhile compared to other options. The answer was that with the FBW controls and possibly new wing it would require an new type certification; and not worth it (at this point).

Airbus has a similar department.

Have a great day,

So would we be wrong to say the article and as a result this thread is click bait, or are we having a meaningful discussion of something that Boeing rejected by evaluating their decision making process?

as much as I love the 737? The Design has run it's course .. they need to go to the 757 platform and start there. the 737-10 might be around for a while but it's run the Race already and Boeing is beating a dead Horse to go further. Have you looked at all that "Monkey motion" on that Main Landing Gear? That's going to be a Maintenance headache! what is it 5 separate actuators to raise lower and Stow the gear? Are you kidding me? One actuator fails and you're SOL in "Bum Screw" Egypt!! It's time for a NEW Airplane and to put this "OLD Girl" out to pasture,,

strfyr51 wrote:

as much as I love the 737? The Design has run it's course .. they need to go to the 757 platform and start there. the 737-10 might be around for a while but it's run the Race already and Boeing is beating a dead Horse to go further. Have you looked at all that "Monkey motion" on that Main Landing Gear? That's going to be a Maintenance headache! what is it 5 separate actuators to raise lower and Stow the gear? Are you kidding me? One actuator fails and you're SOL in "Bum Screw" Egypt!! It's time for a NEW Airplane and to put this "OLD Girl" out to pasture,,

The 757 production line is gone as is the supply chain if your going to start their your probably 80% of the cost of a new airframe so might as well just start with a clean sheet

If airlines were to put 5 abreast on the MAX, at this Covid epoch time.... passengers would love even the middle seat and even if it was renamed the “it might get you there MAX.” There are two types of travelers,

• the discretionary leisure traveler and
• the urban intercity air bussed traveler.

Being shoved in the same row during Covid has proved this air travel thing with the COUGHING masses is just not working any more for many.

People go on about comfort levels in long haul narrowbodies and then advocate a return to the 757! This was based on the 707/727/737 fuselages, all of which have less width than the A320/321. It's not a big difference but some folk notice. Any 737/757 based solution will be at a competitive disadvantage, one that will become increasingly apparent as sector lengths increase.

dstblj52 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

as much as I love the 737? The Design has run it's course .. they need to go to the 757 platform and start there. the 737-10 might be around for a while but it's run the Race already and Boeing is beating a dead Horse to go further. Have you looked at all that "Monkey motion" on that Main Landing Gear? That's going to be a Maintenance headache! what is it 5 separate actuators to raise lower and Stow the gear? Are you kidding me? One actuator fails and you're SOL in "Bum Screw" Egypt!! It's time for a NEW Airplane and to put this "OLD Girl" out to pasture,,

The 757 production line is gone as is the supply chain if your going to start their your probably 80% of the cost of a new airframe so might as well just start with a clean sheet

I did not take his comment to mean restarting 757 production, he said take that platform and start there for the new a/c.
So and a/c as tall as the 757, definitely not as heavy, CFRP wings, FBW, like Boeing wanted but no one was willing to wait for, a clean sheet a/c.
Unfortunately what the MAX does show is that if the OEM had stuck to its plan and made the clean sheet and say lost AA and UA, it would still have been cheaper than where they are now, we have to include the crashes, groundings, modifications, fines and groundings in the cost analysis. At times you do have to build it before they come or do what they did with the 787, so much hype that folks buy in even when their common sense tells them its a bridge too far...

par13del wrote:

Unfortunately what the MAX does show is that if the OEM had stuck to its plan and made the clean sheet and say lost AA and UA, it would still have been cheaper than where they are now, we have to include the crashes, groundings, modifications, fines and groundings in the cost analysis..

It does not say that, because you have no way of knowing the replacement program could not have had just as serious a fault as MAX did along with similar number of fatalities. Then you would have lost your customer base and massive amounts of money too.

There was nothing intrinsically difficult about MCAS, Boeing just stuffed it up and are suffering the consequences of it.

Revelation wrote:

par13del wrote:

Unfortunately what the MAX does show is that if the OEM had stuck to its plan and made the clean sheet and say lost AA and UA, it would still have been cheaper than where they are now, we have to include the crashes, groundings, modifications, fines and groundings in the cost analysis..

It does not say that, because you have no way of knowing the replacement program could not have had just as serious a fault as MAX did along with similar number of fatalities. Then you would have lost your customer base and massive amounts of money too.

There was nothing intrinsically difficult about MCAS, Boeing just stuffed it up and are suffering the consequences of it.

Well in terms of probability, what we know so far is that when Boeing decided to re-engine B737NG. It lead to the creation of MAX which of course lead to the massive problems they have now.
In other timeline, there would be 2 outcome that would probably happen, the B737 replacement would succeeded or a design flaw would cause the aircraft to be grounded (similar to MAX).

Either way, the option of designing a new aircraft for B737NG replacement sounds like a better choice now. Because there would be 50/50 chance of it to succeeded.
While the current situation suggest that re-engine B737NG is a bad choice.

ewt340 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Well in terms of probability, what we know so far is that when Boeing decided to re-engine B737NG. It lead to the creation of MAX which of course lead to the massive problems they have now.
In other timeline, there would be 2 outcome that would probably happen, the B737 replacement would succeeded or a design flaw would cause the aircraft to be grounded (similar to MAX).

Either way, the option of designing a new aircraft for B737NG replacement sounds like a better choice now. Because there would be 50/50 chance of it to succeeded.
While the current situation suggest that re-engine B737NG is a bad choice.

The problem is the people making the decisions back in 2011 didn't have the information you have now. The alternate to the MAX was spending $billions and losing 4+ years of the market to get an all new plane that would be incompatible for air and ground crew and be at risk of developmental screw ups ( 787, Starliner, KC46, 747-8, et al ) since the scope of work was so big, or trust engineers to not screw up a much smaller program, MAX, and get most of the benefit for a lot smaller spend and a lot less risk.

If we consider probability, the probability of Boeing's engineers screwing up a relatively simple control law change called MCAS is the one thing the management probably would not have bet on back then.

Your 50/50 scenario makes it look like all things are equal when they are not. It is not considering things like development cost, time to market, market acceptance, and risk, all of which are much higher for a clean sheet.

There was a very real risk many customers may have said "we won't wait four+ years for a Boeing clean sheet and deal with the risk and the teething pains, we'll order A320neo since Boeing is making us retrain our crews and making us buy all new spares anyway".

Of course those A320neo customers who ordered GTF had a rough ride, but that too wasn't something anyone would have predicted. The gear was supposed to be the difficult part.

At this point, with the MAX fiasco and the pandemic, the Boeing alternative to the A321XLR is lost.

The 767-300ERs are all being retired from passenger service. The 767-400ERs are few and will fade over this decade. A330-200s are being retired, and many A330-300s are older and will not last in fleets past 2030.

The remaining market opportunity for new B787-8 and A330-800neo is so small these two aircraft don't have much left in them.

The 787-9 and A330-900neo represent the next logical step up in passenger capacity and range from the A321XLR. That leaves a huge gap, from roughly 170 passengers in a 2-class international configuration (business lie-flat, economy) up to 280 passenger 3-class international configuration (business lie-flat, premium economy, economy).

The "range gap", between the 4,500nm range of the A321XLR and the 5,500nm to 6,000nm ranges of the 767-400ER, A330-300, and 767-300ER is also significant.

Boeing should look at a clean sheet of paper design to fit in the 200-270 passenger 3-class international range, targeting the latter part of this decade. They cannot afford to do it now, but they really need to go to the mat on this market from a design standpoint. New design composite fuselage, like the 787, new design composite wing, like the 787 and 777X, and a new, large geared turbofan in the 12:1 bypass ratio range to maximize efficiency. A 5,000nm range minimum should be targeted (preferably 5,500nm), so it can cover all of the transatlantic market even westbound against winter headwinds.

In other words, target the big gaps in passenger capacity and range that will open up as the 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs, A330-200s, and A330-300s are retired. Think post-COVID world, with a return of more point-to-point air travel.

I would also say they should strongly consider something with a twin-aisle fuselage in the 767's size range, in order to maximize the cargo potential later in the aircraft's production life. A long, single-aisle 757-300/DC-8-63 type fuselage might work, but would be less flexible from a seating options and cargo standpoint.

If I were Airbus I would be looking at the same market. The A330-800neo is not the right airplane for today's market. They should also take a hard look at the market between the A321XLR and A330-900neo.

meh130 wrote:

At this point, with the MAX fiasco and the pandemic, the Boeing alternative to the A321XLR is lost.

The 767-300ERs are all being retired from passenger service. The 767-400ERs are few and will fade over this decade. A330-200s are being retired, and many A330-300s are older and will not last in fleets past 2030.

The remaining market opportunity for new B787-8 and A330-800neo is so small these two aircraft don't have much left in them.

The 787-9 and A330-900neo represent the next logical step up in passenger capacity and range from the A321XLR. That leaves a huge gap, from roughly 170 passengers in a 2-class international configuration (business lie-flat, economy) up to 280 passenger 3-class international configuration (business lie-flat, premium economy, economy).

The "range gap", between the 4,500nm range of the A321XLR and the 5,500nm to 6,000nm ranges of the 767-400ER, A330-300, and 767-300ER is also significant.

Boeing should look at a clean sheet of paper design to fit in the 200-270 passenger 3-class international range, targeting the latter part of this decade. They cannot afford to do it now, but they really need to go to the mat on this market from a design standpoint. New design composite fuselage, like the 787, new design composite wing, like the 787 and 777X, and a new, large geared turbofan in the 12:1 bypass ratio range to maximize efficiency. A 5,000nm range minimum should be targeted (preferably 5,500nm), so it can cover all of the transatlantic market even westbound against winter headwinds.

In other words, target the big gaps in passenger capacity and range that will open up as the 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs, A330-200s, and A330-300s are retired. Think post-COVID world, with a return of more point-to-point air travel.

I would also say they should strongly consider something with a twin-aisle fuselage in the 767's size range, in order to maximize the cargo potential later in the aircraft's production life. A long, single-aisle 757-300/DC-8-63 type fuselage might work, but would be less flexible from a seating options and cargo standpoint.

If I were Airbus I would be looking at the same market. The A330-800neo is not the right airplane for today's market. They should also take a hard look at the market between the A321XLR and A330-900neo.

A330s for FSC have around 230-240 seats(LX for example). If you switch J to only 4 per row and keep 44 seats plus 7 abbreast Y+ it will be hard to get 280 into a a339. Most will probably be around 250 for a FSC with 32‘ in Y.

avier wrote:

Everytime I read a Boeing development thread, like this one, I read it as : "Boeing can't figure out what to do" =)

Me too. It's a heart-breaker. Boeing is going the way of the Big3 (Ford, GMC, Chrysler). Lots of birds being built elsewhere now.

Revelation wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Well in terms of probability, what we know so far is that when Boeing decided to re-engine B737NG. It lead to the creation of MAX which of course lead to the massive problems they have now.
In other timeline, there would be 2 outcome that would probably happen, the B737 replacement would succeeded or a design flaw would cause the aircraft to be grounded (similar to MAX).

Either way, the option of designing a new aircraft for B737NG replacement sounds like a better choice now. Because there would be 50/50 chance of it to succeeded.
While the current situation suggest that re-engine B737NG is a bad choice.

The problem is the people making the decisions back in 2011 didn't have the information you have now. The alternate to the MAX was spending $billions and losing 4+ years of the market to get an all new plane that would be incompatible for air and ground crew and be at risk of developmental screw ups ( 787, Starliner, KC46, 747-8, et al ) since the scope of work was so big, or trust engineers to not screw up a much smaller program, MAX, and get most of the benefit for a lot smaller spend and a lot less risk.

If we consider probability, the probability of Boeing's engineers screwing up a relatively simple control law change called MCAS is the one thing the management probably would not have bet on back then.

Your 50/50 scenario makes it look like all things are equal when they are not. It is not considering things like development cost, time to market, market acceptance, and risk, all of which are much higher for a clean sheet.

There was a very real risk many customers may have said "we won't wait four+ years for a Boeing clean sheet and deal with the risk and the teething pains, we'll order A320neo since Boeing is making us retrain our crews and making us buy all new spares anyway".

Of course those A320neo customers who ordered GTF had a rough ride, but that too wasn't something anyone would have predicted. The gear was supposed to be the difficult part.

That is true. But their main problem now is that, it seems like Boeing kept making the wrong move even pre and post MAX fiasco. While I do agree that finding the fix for MAX is extremely important. Their next moves seems a bit out of touch with the market post-Covid.

I think they should have focused more on MAX replacement and scrap any upgrades on MAX other than the fix. Minimized development cost of B777X which at this particular time is not a good investment (I don't even think A350-1000 is a good one either for the next few years). And actually get ready to launch the replacements before 2030 at the least.

MAX should have only be a stopgap for maximum of 10 years. I don't even think that they need the NMA right now. A narrowbody the size of A321XLR within the new MAX replacement should have been enough to gain the market share for the lower end of the MoM.

While I personally much prefer Airbus products and have long had a soft spot for the A321, the A321LR isn't selling in huge numbers and right now nothing is. I don't think that Boeing should redesign its entire product line to compete with the A321 and developments with the 77X are so far gone that they must continue. Even if it will be a poor seller. There is no money to be saved there.

Right now no airlines are ordering aircraft, they are deferring and cancelling. This gives Boeing and Airbus time to consider their next moves. Orders are likely to restart in 2023-2024. The key is to anticipate the regions of the market that neither Airbus nor Boeing are covering. But to do that some form of recovery needs to be identified. Will frequency be important, or will customers prefer less frequent flights that over-fly hubs? Will passengers pay more for socially distanced flights, making premium economy cabins and business class more important? If leisure travel drives a recovery I think the market could be quite divergent. The LCC's will do well packing high-density narrow bodies and premium airlines will do well, with blocked middle seats, etc.

Airbus have an inherent advantage in that if they were to replace the A32x with a larger, heavier model in the MoM space, they can stretch the A220 to make a -500. Boeing does not have such an advantage and will almost certainly have to develop MoM twins to over the entire 150-300 seat market. Ironically they will have huge commonality, unlike an A220/320/330 combination.

At this point, with the MAX fiasco and the pandemic, the Boeing alternative to the A321XLR is lost.

I respectfully disagree. As I stated in other threads on the subject, and I'm not alone on this, it all comes down to timing. Boeing could have an A321XLR competitor/MOM/NSA/737-10 upgrade/Whatever ready to fly in about five years. This assumes that engine advances make it worthwhile and efficient enough to invest capital in such a program. What will be happening in about five years? Hopefully, the pandemic will be over and airlines and leasing agencies will have enough cash to begin investing in new aircraft, economies will be improving and there will be enough cash flow to justify new orders. Airlines can't keep flying old metal forever, and Airbus can't meet every A321-ish order; there simply isn't enough factory space available even if Mobile ramped up more. So...

Timing is everything. If the pandemic ends and air travel begins coming back significantly in about five years, which I believe it will, then Boeing will have a nice modern bird ready for the airlines to order. But again, the timing must be well nigh perfect and they can't afford any major delays or pitfalls. This must be done absolutely right the first time. The real question is whether Boeing has the backbone to undertake such a risk right now. Personally, I don't see how they can't. You either evolve or die, and they've about run out of older models to upgrade and update. No more derivatives. They need something new. Time to evolve and be creative. Boeing really has no other choice.

lightsaber wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

At this point, with the MAX fiasco and the pandemic, the Boeing alternative to the A321XLR is lost.

I respectfully disagree. As I stated in other threads on the subject, and I'm not alone on this, it all comes down to timing. Boeing could have an A321XLR competitor/MOM/NSA/737-10 upgrade/Whatever ready to fly in about five years. This assumes that engine advances make it worthwhile and efficient enough to invest capital in such a program. What will be happening in about five years? Hopefully, the pandemic will be over and airlines and leasing agencies will have enough cash to begin investing in new aircraft, economies will be improving and there will be enough cash flow to justify new orders. Airlines can't keep flying old metal forever, and Airbus can't meet every A321-ish order; there simply isn't enough factory space available even if Mobile ramped up more. So...

Timing is everything. If the pandemic ends and air travel begins coming back significantly in about five years, which I believe it will, then Boeing will have a nice modern bird ready for the airlines to order. But again, the timing must be well nigh perfect and they can't afford any major delays or pitfalls. This must be done absolutely right the first time. The real question is whether Boeing has the backbone to undertake such a risk right now. Personally, I don't see how they can't. You either evolve or die, and they've about run out of older models to upgrade and update. No more derivatives. They need something new. Time to evolve and be creative. Boeing really has no other choice.

To others (I'm building on the above, not rebutting):
I too disagree. The proposed -9ER has merit. There is so much absolutism today. I believe the A321xLR and A321NEO will outsell the -10, but that isn't the same as writing off the competition. FR wants the -10, so Boeing will continue. The cost to put the -10 gear on the -9 is low, so the project to improve the -9 will continue. Heck, we could see the gear on the -8 for an incredible short field performance.

That isn't to say Airbus won't do incredibly well. But Boeing has a history of improvements. The 737 is actually a great example of how improvements can sell for an incredibly long time. They made one HUGE mistake with trying to hide MCAS. That is in the past. I'll discuss the future which is getting back to manufacturing economy of scales. Boeing will have to do a new narrowbody earlier than Airbus. They will.

But first, get in money which means expanding the MAX line's sales. That is the -10, PiPs, a probably -9ER, possibly extending the gear to the -8. I write off the -7 as that is a niche aircraft (as is the A319NEO).

LIghtsaber

With that being said. Wouldn't it be better to put those billions of dollars, resources and time into working on MAX replacement instead? I mean if they want a head start, they need to do it now.
Setting up new production line, developing new models, setting up connections with suppliers for the new project and working with engine manufactures.
As everyone says here, updated MAX9 and MAX10 would be extremely limited in terms of orders. Why not pull the plug now like they did on B747?

Airbus already got a head start with A220. They could easily stretch A220-300 to A220-500, this could replace A320neo. While they would beef up and spam the market with cheap A321neo and A321XLR once the order start to dried up.

ewt340 wrote:

Airbus already got a head start with A220.

Did Airbus change the FBW system on the jet when they changed the name to A220 to be in line with the system already in-house?

No.
Actually it is more advanced if you look at warnings and interactive checklists. Like a "dark cockpit" concept on the data display part as well.

ewt340 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Aptivaboy wrote:

I respectfully disagree. As I stated in other threads on the subject, and I'm not alone on this, it all comes down to timing. Boeing could have an A321XLR competitor/MOM/NSA/737-10 upgrade/Whatever ready to fly in about five years. This assumes that engine advances make it worthwhile and efficient enough to invest capital in such a program. What will be happening in about five years? Hopefully, the pandemic will be over and airlines and leasing agencies will have enough cash to begin investing in new aircraft, economies will be improving and there will be enough cash flow to justify new orders. Airlines can't keep flying old metal forever, and Airbus can't meet every A321-ish order; there simply isn't enough factory space available even if Mobile ramped up more. So...

Timing is everything. If the pandemic ends and air travel begins coming back significantly in about five years, which I believe it will, then Boeing will have a nice modern bird ready for the airlines to order. But again, the timing must be well nigh perfect and they can't afford any major delays or pitfalls. This must be done absolutely right the first time. The real question is whether Boeing has the backbone to undertake such a risk right now. Personally, I don't see how they can't. You either evolve or die, and they've about run out of older models to upgrade and update. No more derivatives. They need something new. Time to evolve and be creative. Boeing really has no other choice.

To others (I'm building on the above, not rebutting):
I too disagree. The proposed -9ER has merit. There is so much absolutism today. I believe the A321xLR and A321NEO will outsell the -10, but that isn't the same as writing off the competition. FR wants the -10, so Boeing will continue. The cost to put the -10 gear on the -9 is low, so the project to improve the -9 will continue. Heck, we could see the gear on the -8 for an incredible short field performance.

That isn't to say Airbus won't do incredibly well. But Boeing has a history of improvements. The 737 is actually a great example of how improvements can sell for an incredibly long time. They made one HUGE mistake with trying to hide MCAS. That is in the past. I'll discuss the future which is getting back to manufacturing economy of scales. Boeing will have to do a new narrowbody earlier than Airbus. They will.

But first, get in money which means expanding the MAX line's sales. That is the -10, PiPs, a probably -9ER, possibly extending the gear to the -8. I write off the -7 as that is a niche aircraft (as is the A319NEO).

LIghtsaber

With that being said. Wouldn't it be better to put those billions of dollars, resources and time into working on MAX replacement instead? I mean if they want a head start, they need to do it now.
Setting up new production line, developing new models, setting up connections with suppliers for the new project and working with engine manufactures.
As everyone says here, updated MAX9 and MAX10 would be extremely limited in terms of orders. Why not pull the plug now like they did on B747?

Airbus already got a head start with A220. They could easily stretch A220-300 to A220-500, this could replace A320neo. While they would beef up and spam the market with cheap A321neo and A321XLR once the order start to dried up.

It won't be billions though - the parts exist - it's mainly just a question of bolting different ones together and flight testing them.

Personally I think an 738ER could be a hot ticket with wing and MTOW of -10 - using the gear if needed. If in a post Covid world of lower passenger demand it could really help reestablish old route frequencies.

It won't be 5 years either before a new bird would be in production - clean sheet would probably be lucky to deliver in 2028.

It also makes a lot of sense to do the big wing (or folding wing to fit in existing gate) version first - to prove the new line at lower volumes before moving on to a MAX 8/9/10 replacement with non-folding wing that fits in existing gates.

You then don't cannibalize MAX - but MAX needs to be produced probably until early 2030's which means PIP's and ER's are required. Those could be launched now at very little cost and be delivering in 2-3 years (The ER's).

Lightsaber is right about economies of Scale. One reason why Boeing was more profitable was mainly due to centralized production (one 737 line vs what 4 or 5 A320 lines?).

This is where Boeing can get a one up - build the 757/737 replacement in one spot using high automation with the design optimized for automated production.

With Boeing doing a lot of the primary structure in highly automated factories to cut out supplier margins.

They could take millions out of labour costs. Something Airbus due to its structure will have a very tough time replicating.

Can you imagine the political fights if Airbus tried to replace the A320 and build it using a lot more robots in one location?

As I said before the next aircraft to dominate the SA space may be the one that figures out out how to reduce labour costs the most and can be sold at a profit - not the one that is 1% better in fuel burn than the other.

That being said China can't be forgotten as a serious competitor in the SA space by the end of this decade. I'm sure they will have no problem selling at way below production cost to take market share with the C919.

Boeing and Airbus better get cracking at figuring out how to produce at a lot lower price before then.

morrisond wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

To others (I'm building on the above, not rebutting):
I too disagree. The proposed -9ER has merit. There is so much absolutism today. I believe the A321xLR and A321NEO will outsell the -10, but that isn't the same as writing off the competition. FR wants the -10, so Boeing will continue. The cost to put the -10 gear on the -9 is low, so the project to improve the -9 will continue. Heck, we could see the gear on the -8 for an incredible short field performance.

That isn't to say Airbus won't do incredibly well. But Boeing has a history of improvements. The 737 is actually a great example of how improvements can sell for an incredibly long time. They made one HUGE mistake with trying to hide MCAS. That is in the past. I'll discuss the future which is getting back to manufacturing economy of scales. Boeing will have to do a new narrowbody earlier than Airbus. They will.

But first, get in money which means expanding the MAX line's sales. That is the -10, PiPs, a probably -9ER, possibly extending the gear to the -8. I write off the -7 as that is a niche aircraft (as is the A319NEO).

LIghtsaber

With that being said. Wouldn't it be better to put those billions of dollars, resources and time into working on MAX replacement instead? I mean if they want a head start, they need to do it now.
Setting up new production line, developing new models, setting up connections with suppliers for the new project and working with engine manufactures.
As everyone says here, updated MAX9 and MAX10 would be extremely limited in terms of orders. Why not pull the plug now like they did on B747?

Airbus already got a head start with A220. They could easily stretch A220-300 to A220-500, this could replace A320neo. While they would beef up and spam the market with cheap A321neo and A321XLR once the order start to dried up.

It won't be billions though - the parts exist - it's mainly just a question of bolting different ones together and flight testing them.

Personally I think an 738ER could be a hot ticket with wing and MTOW of -10 - using the gear if needed. If in a post Covid world of lower passenger demand it could really help reestablish old route frequencies.

It won't be 5 years either before a new bird would be in production - clean sheet would probably be lucky to deliver in 2028.

It also makes a lot of sense to do the big wing (or folding wing to fit in existing gate) version first - to prove the new line at lower volumes before moving on to a MAX 8/9/10 replacement with non-folding wing that fits in existing gates.

You then don't cannibalize MAX - but MAX needs to be produced probably until early 2030's which means PIP's and ER's are required. Those could be launched now at very little cost and be delivering in 2-3 years (The ER's).

Lightsaber is right about economies of Scale. One reason why Boeing was more profitable was mainly due to centralized production (one 737 line vs what 4 or 5 A320 lines?).

This is where Boeing can get a one up - build the 757/737 replacement in one spot using high automation with the design optimized for automated production.

With Boeing doing a lot of the primary structure in highly automated factories to cut out supplier margins.

They could take millions out of labour costs. Something Airbus due to its structure will have a very tough time replicating.

Can you imagine the political fights if Airbus tried to replace the A320 and build it using a lot more robots in one location?

As I said before the next aircraft to dominate the SA space may be the one that figures out out how to reduce labour costs the most and can be sold at a profit - not the one that is 1% better in fuel burn than the other.

That being said China can't be forgotten as a serious competitor in the SA space by the end of this decade. I'm sure they will have no problem selling at way below production cost to take market share with the C919.

Boeing and Airbus better get cracking at figuring out how to produce at a lot lower price before then.

IIRC the 737-7-8-9-10 all share the same wing. Same surface area and dimensions. It's the landing gear that is modified for longer heavier variants.

With that being said. Wouldn't it be better to put those billions of dollars, resources and time into working on MAX replacement instead? I mean if they want a head start, they need to do it now.
Setting up new production line, developing new models, setting up connections with suppliers for the new project and working with engine manufactures.

Yes, redoing the 737 yet again is like beating a dead horse. However, it sounds like a potential 737-10 revamp would in many ways be almost an all new aircraft, more of a 737 in name only. It might share a common fuselage diameter, but new tail, new wings, new gear, likely new or uprated engines... This sounds like a new plane in most ways likely requiring all new certifications. If it sells, why not?

As with all things, time will tell. They may not even build it. Given Boeing's hesitancy to pull he trigger on new designs, this one may never see the light of day, either. One thing that this design would have going for it would be speed of development. Since at least some parts of the design would be carryovers, development could possible be sped up which might result in lower costs. Again, time will tell.

morrisond wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

To others (I'm building on the above, not rebutting):
I too disagree. The proposed -9ER has merit. There is so much absolutism today. I believe the A321xLR and A321NEO will outsell the -10, but that isn't the same as writing off the competition. FR wants the -10, so Boeing will continue. The cost to put the -10 gear on the -9 is low, so the project to improve the -9 will continue. Heck, we could see the gear on the -8 for an incredible short field performance.

That isn't to say Airbus won't do incredibly well. But Boeing has a history of improvements. The 737 is actually a great example of how improvements can sell for an incredibly long time. They made one HUGE mistake with trying to hide MCAS. That is in the past. I'll discuss the future which is getting back to manufacturing economy of scales. Boeing will have to do a new narrowbody earlier than Airbus. They will.

But first, get in money which means expanding the MAX line's sales. That is the -10, PiPs, a probably -9ER, possibly extending the gear to the -8. I write off the -7 as that is a niche aircraft (as is the A319NEO).

LIghtsaber

With that being said. Wouldn't it be better to put those billions of dollars, resources and time into working on MAX replacement instead? I mean if they want a head start, they need to do it now.
Setting up new production line, developing new models, setting up connections with suppliers for the new project and working with engine manufactures.
As everyone says here, updated MAX9 and MAX10 would be extremely limited in terms of orders. Why not pull the plug now like they did on B747?

Airbus already got a head start with A220. They could easily stretch A220-300 to A220-500, this could replace A320neo. While they would beef up and spam the market with cheap A321neo and A321XLR once the order start to dried up.

It won't be billions though - the parts exist - it's mainly just a question of bolting different ones together and flight testing them.

Personally I think an 738ER could be a hot ticket with wing and MTOW of -10 - using the gear if needed. If in a post Covid world of lower passenger demand it could really help reestablish old route frequencies.

It won't be 5 years either before a new bird would be in production - clean sheet would probably be lucky to deliver in 2028.

It also makes a lot of sense to do the big wing (or folding wing to fit in existing gate) version first - to prove the new line at lower volumes before moving on to a MAX 8/9/10 replacement with non-folding wing that fits in existing gates.

You then don't cannibalize MAX - but MAX needs to be produced probably until early 2030's which means PIP's and ER's are required. Those could be launched now at very little cost and be delivering in 2-3 years (The ER's).

Lightsaber is right about economies of Scale. One reason why Boeing was more profitable was mainly due to centralized production (one 737 line vs what 4 or 5 A320 lines?).

This is where Boeing can get a one up - build the 757/737 replacement in one spot using high automation with the design optimized for automated production.

With Boeing doing a lot of the primary structure in highly automated factories to cut out supplier margins.

They could take millions out of labour costs. Something Airbus due to its structure will have a very tough time replicating.

Can you imagine the political fights if Airbus tried to replace the A320 and build it using a lot more robots in one location?

As I said before the next aircraft to dominate the SA space may be the one that figures out out how to reduce labour costs the most and can be sold at a profit - not the one that is 1% better in fuel burn than the other.

That being said China can't be forgotten as a serious competitor in the SA space by the end of this decade. I'm sure they will have no problem selling at way below production cost to take market share with the C919.

Boeing and Airbus better get cracking at figuring out how to produce at a lot lower price before then.

The biggest question I have is why would they need to amp up MAX8 mtow or range. In terms of capacity, it's extremely small, with lie flat seat, premium economy/economy+ and economy class cabin, they probably would carry less than 150 passengers.

It kind of make sense to use MAX9 or MAX10. But I don't get MAX8 being upgraded.

The biggest goal is obviously to steal orders from A321LR/XLR. Currently I only see MAX10 in the run. But I don't know how they gonna beefed up to the point where its gonna be comparable to A321LR.

ewt340 wrote:

The biggest question I have is why would they need to amp up MAX8 mtow or range. In terms of capacity, it's extremely small, with lie flat seat, premium economy/economy+ and economy class cabin, they probably would carry less than 150 passengers.

It kind of make sense to use MAX9 or MAX10. But I don't get MAX8 being upgraded.

The biggest goal is obviously to steal orders from A321LR/XLR. Currently I only see MAX10 in the run. But I don't know how they gonna beefed up to the point where its gonna be comparable to A321LR.

The SAS A321LR seats 157 in a 3-class configuration, so a 737-8ER would seat way less than that.

I agree that it is small for an airline that wants lie-flat business, but it should be fine for an all-economy LCC or for airlines that will suffice with traditional 2+2 business class recliners and no premium economy. IMO, a bigger question is how far a 737-8ER could fly with with 189 economy seats (or even in the 199 config). Think of it more as a competitor to the upcoming 240-seat Wizz Air, Indigo, Air Asia and Frontier A321LR/XLRs.

Potential customers would be all-737 operators looking to compete with their A321LR/XLR outfitted competitors, without having to introduce a new type. Think SpiceJet, Southwest, FlyDubai, Ryanair and Norwegian.

I see the strong side of the MAX 10 in high capacity flights on short to medium routes between longer runways. Like low-cost, charter or trunk route shuttles.
To use the long fuselage for longer distance routes would only make sense if it is used with low passenger headcount and big business class sleeper seats that need a lot of cabin space. That is a niche product only.
So better leave the MAX 10 the way it is.

I think a 737-8ER would make a lot of sense. With that aux tank, 737-10 MTOW and landing gear you would get the range of the A321LR at least (7,400km). That is enough for most transatlantic flights from the northeast of the US to Western Europe. With a proper lie flat Business Class it would seat around 140 passengers. Also it should be quite easy to build without too many tweaks because the 737-8 is the "sweet spot" of the 737 family, its optimal size.

This means the break even to profit would be somewhere around just 100 passengers, which makes it a perfect airplane to open up niche routes on the atlantic that no one ever thought of before. Also busier routes can be flown at a higher frequency.

JonesNL wrote:

Simple; range sells.

Actually "Versatility" sells.
i.e. the size of the payload/range window an airframe is "efficient enough" in.