Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 45
 
Opus99
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:59 am

morrisond wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Large pricing advantage will only come after spending the $billions to get that new production method up and running at full production volume across the supply chain. The 3-5% gain can be addressed by a new wing for Team A. The transition period will be fraught with peril for Team B. Customers will stop buying MAX once they know Boeing is moving on from it. 787, MAX and now 777X gives customers a lot of reasons to wonder if Boeing can deliver on a clean sheet or not. It would take giant cajones for an executive to decide to be in the front of the line to get what IMO will largely be a "me too" product. The transition time would be perfect for Team A to steal some key customers. Tell them that B is leaving them stranded because no money will be spent on MAX, meanwhile A can sell the current product as a known quantity at sharp prices while making a much smaller transition to a new wing while keeping the rest of the supply chain in place.


Rev,
Everything you are saying here has been true for Boeing for the last 10+ years (except we have the added MAX tragedies and 777X delays to further erode investor/customer confidence). Boeing can't keep kicking the can down the road with respect to everything smaller than the 787-9. They just have to build a better 'me-too' plane.

There have been two planes that have been expecially challenging for Boeing to compete against in the last 15 years... They were the A330 and the A320. They addressed the A330 head on, realizing the 767 couldn't do it, they went clean sheet. Man it was painful, but the worst is behind.. 787 is a good plane... and it will be even better when it's significantly improved as a NG/ER whatever followup. They need to address the A320 (especially the A321) head on... still... The MAX can't do it, they need to go clean sheet. Can't take an MD approach and go DC9,MD80,MD90 with the same plane to compete indefinitely in that market..... Can no longer take the usual approach of Jurrasic, Classic, NG, and MAX with the same plane to compete indefinitely in that market either.

Again, Airbus did such a great job defining the A330 and A320, that Boeing was always going to have eventually launch new programs to compete in those segments. Boeing was always going to isolate 737 operators and always going to be vulnerable to Airbus doing incremental improvements on the A320. At some point you just have to do it. Imagine if they had done it instead of wasting time on the 748?

Yes, they need to place the parked frames... yes they need to build and deliver on the backlog... But does anyone believe that backlog will even be halfway built out?... honestly... Boeing admits that to themselves, they will be able to stomach moving on to build a fantastic me too plane.

Clean Sheet Single Aisle program.. built with curent tech: GTF engines w/ leap materials tech, bleedless engines, electrical tech for subsystems, folding wingtips, integrated center tanks, carbon fibre, big windows, containers in the hold,.... but two wings, two landing gears, two engine thrust sizes... Current tech is very good, especially when you start with a foundation that can take proper advantage of it. Cover from 175/200pax and 200/250pax, short haul and medium haul. 2 models each in 2 subfamilies to make 1 family with common fuselage/avionics/cabin.

They did the 757/767 tandem during the economic crisis of the later Carter / early Reagan years... They can do a Tandem built around the same fuselage/avionics/cabin and get back in the game.

Rev,
I know a long post.... as an aviation enthusiast... I'm just getting tired of hearing why Boeing can't do this and won't do that. If everyone really believes that passenger loads will return to 2019 levels by 2027... AWESOME... Let's have some awesome planes, a 1 - 2 - punch, for Airlines to start buying in 2027-2029!

Yeah I know.... long term commitments to an entire new family of aircraft run counter to everyone needing to take profits as income every quarter...even in down times... Different world man.....


Totally agree. I expect them to do an Equity raise sooner rather than later to fund the next chapter and retire some debt. Now that they have started to clean up the books that sooner may be quite soon (equity raise). I would not be surprised by an announcement on what comes next within the next 18 months. They have done enough studies that it should be just a matter of picking one and going for it. Calhoun will want to make his mark and once they get a handle on how long long it takes to certify in the new era they can properly define the program in terms of length and cost. The 777X experience should give them that knowledge.

Either this or basically concede defeat and let the MAX run out. They really need to get started to start delivering the next solution before the end of the decade.

Credit Suisse analysts are thinking 2023/2024 for launch announcement for EIS 2030/31. What we know for sure is that they are working on something for launch and they're definitely ending the 737 business. This decade may be spent preparing everett for this jet as the 787 moves out?
Secondly they clearly have a good idea of what they want to build, its now looking at how to extract the best in class efficiencies from what that is. Calhoun says its just not the right time to point at the design.

I think it will be in the 180-250 seater range of course like calhoun has already eluded to
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:13 am

Revelation wrote:
It seems like they are heading towards a "me too" airplane. IMO this is good news for Team A. This plays right into the advantages their huge installed base and huge A321 lead gives them. Team B will have to come up with an incredibly good product to have any chance at all, IMO. There aren't any big tech "leaps" available to be harvested so I don't see how they will be able to make inroads against the A32x family.


Yes, the next Boeing aircraft has to be incredibly good. And with the opportunity to apply to a clean sheet the experiences, technology developments, and insights into the market trends of the 40 years that will have elapsed between the launch of the A320 and the launch of the next Boeing aircraft, they should be able to achieve it.

Yes, they will lose market share during the transition. I don't think they have a choice as they will lose market share anyways as Airbus continues to improve the A320 family and increase their production capacity, and unlocks the potential of the CSeries.

If executed right, they should be able to achieve a better balance of operating economics and capability in a clean sheet than Airbus can arrive at through upgrades, even a new wing and another engine update, and ultimately earn back that market share.

They do need the market to recover though. Demand has to sufficiently exceed what Airbus can produce such that Boeing's market share risk is limited for long enough to fund the new aircraft and reach stable production.

Eiszeit wrote:
A 5% gain in efficiency over a potential rewinged a320 can't be the goal for a clean sheet design with a new certificate, the business case would be dead against the scale of a32x production


As a really rough ballpark, I'd call that $5-10 million fuel savings over the life of the aircraft.
 
tax1k
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:02 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:32 am

UA444 wrote:
So it will be another 737 derivative because of WN

Hasn’t that ship sailed with the MAX?
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:28 am

tax1k wrote:
UA444 wrote:
So it will be another 737 derivative because of WN

Hasn’t that ship sailed with the MAX?


Yeah, it sure has. The 737 family's 60-year lifespan (or however long it's been around) is probably soon coming to a close after they fill MAX backlogs. It's highly unlikely any transportation regulators/agencies would tolerate seeing yet another derivative of the 737. Furthermore, there's only so much more advancing Boeing can do with the 737 due to its short stature. The short wheels, the byproduct of the old design, are what led to moving the LEAPs on the MAX forward so they could gain efficiency from bigger engines while still having sufficient ground clearance, thus changing the center of gravity and influencing Boeing to put in MCAS. I'm sure, at this point, a clean-sheet design is beneficial for everyone. Boeing needs to turn over a new leaf and make a great plane to get their head back in the game... or they could just let Airbus run them over repeatedly with the success of the A320/neo family, especially with the 321/neo and its derivatives which are just eating up the lower-middle end of the MoM market.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:22 am

DenverTed wrote:
Boeing needs a 1 hr to 4 hr 200 pax to 250 pax workhorse. It also needs a 5,000 nm aircraft to beat the XLR, which shouldn't be too hard with a better wing. The problem is that this requires two different aircraft with different wings, so where does Boeing go first?


Why not a more modular product line with different wings and landing gear for different applications. Having a small twin aisle cross section that could be scaled from 150 to 250 seats and carry LD3-45 containers would allow faster boarding than a single aisle plane and containerized cargo below.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:25 am

par13del wrote:
How can it be a 737 replacement, Boeing needs to recoup as much as it can from the existing MAX product line.
The weak spot in their line up is the MAX9, 10, 200 so an NMA that sits between the MAX9 and the 787-8 seems to me to be their only option for a new build project starting in the next few years. Based on the crashes and Covid, enough slack exist in the backlog that if a MAX replacement is offered, the bulk of the backlog would be transferred thus the MAX financial black hole gets even deeper. The bean counters may not see such as viable.


It must be a 737 replacement. You would be a fool to not see that by the end of the decade, the time would right for Airbus doing another A320 update. New wing, new wing box, maybe even more CFRP in the tail. This could be synchronized perfectly with a large PiP for the engine delivering 3-4% fuel burn advantage, so they could have another update that deliver ~10% better fuel burn than the NEO. There is no way Boeing could answer this with another round of 737 evolution.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:34 am

seahawk wrote:
par13del wrote:
How can it be a 737 replacement, Boeing needs to recoup as much as it can from the existing MAX product line.
The weak spot in their line up is the MAX9, 10, 200 so an NMA that sits between the MAX9 and the 787-8 seems to me to be their only option for a new build project starting in the next few years. Based on the crashes and Covid, enough slack exist in the backlog that if a MAX replacement is offered, the bulk of the backlog would be transferred thus the MAX financial black hole gets even deeper. The bean counters may not see such as viable.


It must be a 737 replacement. You would be a fool to not see that by the end of the decade, the time would right for Airbus doing another A320 update. New wing, new wing box, maybe even more CFRP in the tail. This could be synchronized perfectly with a large PiP for the engine delivering 3-4% fuel burn advantage, so they could have another update that deliver ~10% better fuel burn than the NEO. There is no way Boeing could answer this with another round of 737 evolution.

100%
Even from an investment standpoint it makes the most sense. Boeing must act and Airbus must take it seriously, the last clean sheet Boeing launched (upon all the problems) is a fantastic jet and even Airbus will tell you that it’s a fantastic jet. So Airbus with the advantage they have now must also work to maintain it as much as they can. Because If Boeing is going to ditch the 737 and get its customers to retrain onto a new jet they know it has to be damn good and I look forward to it seeing what they bring to market
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:46 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Boeing needs a 1 hr to 4 hr 200 pax to 250 pax workhorse. It also needs a 5,000 nm aircraft to beat the XLR, which shouldn't be too hard with a better wing. The problem is that this requires two different aircraft with different wings, so where does Boeing go first?


Why not a more modular product line with different wings and landing gear for different applications. Having a small twin aisle cross section that could be scaled from 150 to 250 seats and carry LD3-45 containers would allow faster boarding than a single aisle plane and containerized cargo below.

I agree that twin aisle is the final frontier for the domestic 200 seater. End the tyranny of the middle seat. Just have to convince Southwest and the rest will be history.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:09 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Boeing needs a 1 hr to 4 hr 200 pax to 250 pax workhorse. It also needs a 5,000 nm aircraft to beat the XLR, which shouldn't be too hard with a better wing. The problem is that this requires two different aircraft with different wings, so where does Boeing go first?


Why not a more modular product line with different wings and landing gear for different applications. Having a small twin aisle cross section that could be scaled from 150 to 250 seats and carry LD3-45 containers would allow faster boarding than a single aisle plane and containerized cargo below.


That sounds good at first, but that also means effectively two aircraft because different wings = different wing boxes, otherwise the wing box is massively over weight for the short distance aircraft due to over strength. If you have different wings, you need a different tail, because the difference in lift from the wing has to be compensated differently with the tail. That means, that the aft fuselage has to take different moments and has to be strengthened what leads to over weight for the short range model.

So you can effectively keep the forward fuselage and the cockpit. All else would either have to be different or the aircraft will be a giant compromise but then you can also go the cheaper and simpler way and just make one wing.

So you either go two programs to have to specialized aircraft (aka NSA and NMA) or you go the airbus-way and make one giant compromise to have an aircraft that is really good a everything but not specialised. The A32X family is so successful because it is like a mule. Can work hard and can do almost everything. Not perfect but it gets it done. Yes a race horse is nice, but you wouldn't put it in the field for hard labour.
 
giblets
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:20 am

I find it interesting that Calhoun is talking about a NMA, 270 seats first. Entry 2030-2035 at least. Which will significantly overlap their own 787.
Airbus is planning a new wing for an A322 (presumably being the centre of the range with A320 at the bottom, possible a323?). Is Boeing just ceding this space to Airbus?
Don’t think anyone believes they can do anything more with the 737 frame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:12 pm

did you guys note that concerning the future aircraft M Calhoun used many words to say basically nothing?

And you are trying to interpret his words in a way that I cannot understand.

In my opinion, he basically said, "Thank you for your question but I have other more important things to think about and to do."
 
planecane
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:00 pm

744SPX wrote:
B would be better off going for the Transonic Truss Braced Wing at this point. A "me too" isn't going to cut it


It doesn't seem anything he said precludes an airframe innovation. Just that the propulsion will be turbofan based.

I have long felt that for air travel a combination of improved efficiency and biofuels would be the way to go. For ground transportation batteries and hydrogen fuel cells make a lot of sense and the trade-offs can be handled pretty easily. Ships can pretty easily be adapted to hydrogen fuel cell as well with some design modifications.

For aircraft, batteries need a technological leap of epic proportions to make sense and hydrogen, while doable, creates a ton of issues due to storage volume and other storage considerations.

It is feasible to produce enough biofuel for worldwide air travel. It isn't remotely feasible to produce enough for ground transportation which is another reason why following the biofuel path for aviation and the battery/fuel cell path for ground vehicles makes the most sense.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:36 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
What are you talking about? MCAS has nothing to do with FBW and you are intentionally trying to spread false information.


Boeing already won the internet, time to win the skies. Let's talk about flight automation without nitpicking or smoke screens.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:48 pm

Boeing's alternative, and this may seem radical, to this board, would be to sell the remaining aerostructures business to a private equity/venture capital group. There are such groups who specialize in large cap (remember Cerberus?), and the services, helo's, space and defense units could remain under the Boeing umbrella.

It may sound crazy, but that would make it easier actually for the business to escape the Pacific NW relatively quickly, focus on the 787, and sell off remaining unneeded core businesses. Labor problems solved, big cash infusion for Boeing shareholders, and long term product problems pawned off on whoever chooses to buy them.

I don't think it's likely, but I also don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility the board would consider this, given the market realities faced by commercial aviation today, and that the investments needed will only tank the stock price further over the next two years, perhaps to under a hundred bucks a share (where it was just 6 months ago).
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:19 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Boeing needs a 1 hr to 4 hr 200 pax to 250 pax workhorse. It also needs a 5,000 nm aircraft to beat the XLR, which shouldn't be too hard with a better wing. The problem is that this requires two different aircraft with different wings, so where does Boeing go first?


Why not a more modular product line with different wings and landing gear for different applications. Having a small twin aisle cross section that could be scaled from 150 to 250 seats and carry LD3-45 containers would allow faster boarding than a single aisle plane and containerized cargo below.


That sounds good at first, but that also means effectively two aircraft because different wings = different wing boxes, otherwise the wing box is massively over weight for the short distance aircraft due to over strength. If you have different wings, you need a different tail, because the difference in lift from the wing has to be compensated differently with the tail. That means, that the aft fuselage has to take different moments and has to be strengthened what leads to over weight for the short range model.

So you can effectively keep the forward fuselage and the cockpit. All else would either have to be different or the aircraft will be a giant compromise but then you can also go the cheaper and simpler way and just make one wing.

So you either go two programs to have to specialized aircraft (aka NSA and NMA) or you go the airbus-way and make one giant compromise to have an aircraft that is really good a everything but not specialised. The A32X family is so successful because it is like a mule. Can work hard and can do almost everything. Not perfect but it gets it done. Yes a race horse is nice, but you wouldn't put it in the field for hard labour.


You forget about the A220. Boeing would be wise to cover off that space and as most SA flights (90%+) are less than 1,500NM, Aircraft (an NMA/NSA with Common wing from 150-250 seats) capable of 5,000NM isn't really the right answer either.

Heck you could argue that even Current 220's, NEO's and MAX's are too capable and inefficient (due to being excessively heavy for the range they are capable of) to cover the vast majority of missions. A 220 NEO of the early 2030's could be capable of close to 4,000 NM.

Yes you are right that the tails would have to be different with two different wings. However it's more the systems, propulsion and manufacturing innovation where the vast majority of Money is spent.

There would be nothing stopping them from a conventional solution for NMA (with a Higher Cruising speed) using folding wings - A321 and A322/323 in size (230 and 270 Seats one class variants with a reasonable pitch) - then use the same tech, systems, nose and cross section on a Truss based solution (wing totally optimized for Efficiency - lower cruise speed but shorter range so it won't really matter) to cover off the 150 to 200 seat market with the longest variant maybe only capable of 2,500 nm.

Both built fully out of Carbon - Long Wing version first with Evolved Current engines - truss braced follows a few years later (launch 2025-2026 before Long Wing EIS so it can be part of the same program) in the early 2030's with optimized clean sheet engines in the same thrust class as A220. It should be significantly lighter than 737/A320 which if they had the same Gen of engines could have ranges in the 4-5,500 NM range class - way too heavy/capable for the vast majority of SA missions.

Then Boeing has a common cockpit - probable same type rating on everything under 787.

I think Airbus might end up having the same for if they rewing the A320 I think they may have to certify as a clean sheet anyways which means time to modernize cockpit/systems - might as well make it a lot more common with A220.

At one point I was a real believer in the Tight Light twin Aisle - but now that they have to cover off the C-series I'm guessing it will probably be the good old boring 3x3. But who knows anything can happen.
 
reltney
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:22 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Boeing needs a 1 hr to 4 hr 200 pax to 250 pax workhorse. It also needs a 5,000 nm aircraft to beat the XLR, which shouldn't be too hard with a better wing. The problem is that this requires two different aircraft with different wings, so where does Boeing go first?



Yup, I’ll say it...757. I fly them and have flown the 321. I had to leave something going west every time like pax or cargo with the 321. 757, never left a thing. Back when we flew full planes I would do a DCA to LAX with no restrictions in weight. Sad thing is boing can get an engine for the 757x or whatever they are calling it.

I said it. Our CEO and COO say it and Numbers prove it, now we need Boeing to reopen the line.....

Your turn non pilot naysayers .... not a B vs A thing as I flown both, It just facts from those who fly planes, not ride in back.

Cheers
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:02 pm

For clarity, my "me too airplane" comment relates to Calhoun suggesting that Boeing's next airplane will target the A321 market space.

Opus99 wrote:
“Differentiation at the airframe level… is really, really important,” (Calhoun) says.

I'm glad he feels that way.

He needs differentiation from A321 since Airbus has already captured that market. In case no one has noticed, all three of the US3 are A321 customers and Team A has a huge backlog to fill.

He needs differentiation from the MAX because once he announces a replacement MAX will be even harder to sell and he'll have to find a way to keep BCA running till its replacement can not only be put onto the market but till the production line ramps up and becomes cash positive.

The real question is how does he get such differentiation? Incremental improvements in product positioning, manufacturing and efficiency are going to run smack into all the advantages Airbus has from being an incumbent.

Then we have the trust factor. Early customers of 787, 747-8, and MAX all have suffered badly. Getting customers to sign up to something that is in essence an incrementally better A321 is going to be a hard sell.

Opus99 wrote:
Credit Suisse analysts are thinking 2023/2024 for launch announcement for EIS 2030/31. What we know for sure is that they are working on something for launch and they're definitely ending the 737 business.

Link?

Regardless, the time frame seems way too early. MAX10 will just be hitting EIS in that time frame. Boeing will need strong cash flow from MAX, it really is their life blood given the fortunes of the wide body market in general and their models in particular.

iamlucky13 wrote:
Yes, the next Boeing aircraft has to be incredibly good. And with the opportunity to apply to a clean sheet the experiences, technology developments, and insights into the market trends of the 40 years that will have elapsed between the launch of the A320 and the launch of the next Boeing aircraft, they should be able to achieve it.

Yes, they will lose market share during the transition. I don't think they have a choice as they will lose market share anyways as Airbus continues to improve the A320 family and increase their production capacity, and unlocks the potential of the CSeries.

If executed right, they should be able to achieve a better balance of operating economics and capability in a clean sheet than Airbus can arrive at through upgrades, even a new wing and another engine update, and ultimately earn back that market share.

I'm pretty dubious about the later statement. It's hard to think of any thing that could make a clean sheet "incredibly good" that could not be adopted by Airbus. In the mean time Team A will be taking in hordes of cash building out their backlog. Worst case they fill out their backlog while Boeing announces their clean sheet and once its properties are known Airbus does a clean sheet to counter it.

planecane wrote:
It is feasible to produce enough biofuel for worldwide air travel. It isn't remotely feasible to produce enough for ground transportation which is another reason why following the biofuel path for aviation and the battery/fuel cell path for ground vehicles makes the most sense.

The risk is that people will eventually fully realize that biofuel is eco-fraud perpetuated by agra-business and will get rejected akin to GMOs.

texl1649 wrote:
Boeing's alternative, and this may seem radical, to this board, would be to sell the remaining aerostructures business to a private equity/venture capital group. There are such groups who specialize in large cap (remember Cerberus?), and the services, helo's, space and defense units could remain under the Boeing umbrella.

I think there is a very small yet non-zero chance that Boeing could wake up one day and decide its best path forward is to exit commercial aviation. How and when is a good question. They still make good money off military aviation so I think they would keep enough aerostructures business in house to compete in that market.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:15 pm

Look at the 787, Boeing made in incredible cut and used new technology and all this and still it ended up within less than 5% of a revamped A330. Even if they go all out and use cold cured composites, Airbus can still go through the A320 design, optimize it for more additive manufacturing using latest metal alloys and a composite wing and wing box and end up competitive.

Airplanes are a mature product, so if you want to have a tube with wings carrying the same amounts of cargo and passengers over the same range, at the same speed, with the same engines and designed by teams of equal capability you end up with 2 very similar solutions.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:18 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:

Why not a more modular product line with different wings and landing gear for different applications. Having a small twin aisle cross section that could be scaled from 150 to 250 seats and carry LD3-45 containers would allow faster boarding than a single aisle plane and containerized cargo below.


That sounds good at first, but that also means effectively two aircraft because different wings = different wing boxes, otherwise the wing box is massively over weight for the short distance aircraft due to over strength. If you have different wings, you need a different tail, because the difference in lift from the wing has to be compensated differently with the tail. That means, that the aft fuselage has to take different moments and has to be strengthened what leads to over weight for the short range model.

So you can effectively keep the forward fuselage and the cockpit. All else would either have to be different or the aircraft will be a giant compromise but then you can also go the cheaper and simpler way and just make one wing.

So you either go two programs to have to specialized aircraft (aka NSA and NMA) or you go the airbus-way and make one giant compromise to have an aircraft that is really good a everything but not specialised. The A32X family is so successful because it is like a mule. Can work hard and can do almost everything. Not perfect but it gets it done. Yes a race horse is nice, but you wouldn't put it in the field for hard labour.


You forget about the A220. Boeing would be wise to cover off that space and as most SA flights (90%+) are less than 1,500NM, Aircraft (an NMA/NSA with Common wing from 150-250 seats) capable of 5,000NM isn't really the right answer either.

Heck you could argue that even Current 220's, NEO's and MAX's are too capable and inefficient (due to being excessively heavy for the range they are capable of) to cover the vast majority of missions. A 220 NEO of the early 2030's could be capable of close to 4,000 NM.

Yes you are right that the tails would have to be different with two different wings. However it's more the systems, propulsion and manufacturing innovation where the vast majority of Money is spent.

There would be nothing stopping them from a conventional solution for NMA (with a Higher Cruising speed) using folding wings - A321 and A322/323 in size (230 and 270 Seats one class variants with a reasonable pitch) - then use the same tech, systems, nose and cross section on a Truss based solution (wing totally optimized for Efficiency - lower cruise speed but shorter range so it won't really matter) to cover off the 150 to 200 seat market with the longest variant maybe only capable of 2,500 nm.

Both built fully out of Carbon - Long Wing version first with Evolved Current engines - truss braced follows a few years later (launch 2025-2026 before Long Wing EIS so it can be part of the same program) in the early 2030's with optimized clean sheet engines in the same thrust class as A220. It should be significantly lighter than 737/A320 which if they had the same Gen of engines could have ranges in the 4-5,500 NM range class - way too heavy/capable for the vast majority of SA missions.

Then Boeing has a common cockpit - probable same type rating on everything under 787.

I think Airbus might end up having the same for if they rewing the A320 I think they may have to certify as a clean sheet anyways which means time to modernize cockpit/systems - might as well make it a lot more common with A220.

At one point I was a real believer in the Tight Light twin Aisle - but now that they have to cover off the C-series I'm guessing it will probably be the good old boring 3x3. But who knows anything can happen.


My opinion: Go back to the roots. Remember the size of the 737-200? Start there build an aircraft family placed between the A221 and A223 for the smallest variant, one between the 223 and the MAX-8 and one with MAX-9 Size.

130/150/180 Pax two class and 150/180/210 one class. Super efficient wing/engine and weight with maximal transcon range, not a nm more. This aircraft should be really tight built.

Start with the 130 version. So the market for the MAX will only gradually vanish and the MAX-10 can sell for a while.

Then afterwards build a bigger narrowbody, also 3-3 but with a wider fuselage for 3-3 with a wide aisle and wide seats and a big wing. So you can fit 1-1-1 business up front.

But start with the smaller version as this will be the money maker anyway. The big one later when the development can be done cheaper as the modern production processes are matured. Only so will a niche aircraft in the MOM space be filled economically.

Boeing can not afford another niche aircraft or botched launch for an aircraft that might sell 1000 or less frames (777X, 748-8 were niche and 787 and MAX had a terrible launch). Now you can overcome a terrible launch with a main stream aircraft like the 787 but bot with a niche product like the 77X or MoM.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6621
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:51 pm

Opus99 wrote:
UA444 wrote:
So it will be another 737 derivative because of WN

It will obviously be a clean sheet. As they’ve said before


It will be a clean sheet. Even if Boeing wanted to again update the 737 -and they don’t - there is no way the 737 could comply with newer regulatory requirements such as 25.1302 or 25.1322. I think it’s a safe bet that no more exemptions would be granted by the regulators.

A derivative is a non-starter.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 6:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Yes, the next Boeing aircraft has to be incredibly good. And with the opportunity to apply to a clean sheet the experiences, technology developments, and insights into the market trends of the 40 years that will have elapsed between the launch of the A320 and the launch of the next Boeing aircraft, they should be able to achieve it.

Yes, they will lose market share during the transition. I don't think they have a choice as they will lose market share anyways as Airbus continues to improve the A320 family and increase their production capacity, and unlocks the potential of the CSeries.

If executed right, they should be able to achieve a better balance of operating economics and capability in a clean sheet than Airbus can arrive at through upgrades, even a new wing and another engine update, and ultimately earn back that market share.

I'm pretty dubious about the later statement. It's hard to think of any thing that could make a clean sheet "incredibly good" that could not be adopted by Airbus. In the mean time Team A will be taking in hordes of cash building out their backlog. Worst case they fill out their backlog while Boeing announces their clean sheet and once its properties are known Airbus does a clean sheet to counter it.


To address the easy consideration first: if Airbus does a clean sheet design in response to a Boeing NSA, then the result is more equal competition than we have today. They get the same technological benefits but have the same drawbacks in development cost, manufacturing system ramp up to efficiency, break in commonality. The duopoly has fluorished even with two assymmetrically matched narrow bodies. I'm not too worried about how it would play out with symmetrically matched narrowbodies on the market. That said, some level of asymmetry in the duopoly is arguably best for both the manufacturers and the customers, ideally deliberately chosen asymmetry instead of what effective comes down to an accident - the MAX isn't what Boeing wanted to offer against the NEO, but the market conditions led them there.

How the NSA vs. A321NWO family (New Wing Option) would play out is a little less clear to me. But with a new fuselage, there is the opportunity to invest a lot of computer hours on finite element modelling to optimize it structurally, aerodynamically, and for what the market asks for in terms of passenger and cargo space; consider carbon fiber (maybe even monolithic barrels again, although it would be really critical to get the tolerances and assembly plan right from the start on those); and design the wing unconstrained by what the fuselage allows for center wingbox geometry. It also would be easier to integrate a more electric architecture.

In this situation, the present position of Boeing offering an older airframe against Airbus's newer airframe becomes reversed.

Revelation wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
Boeing's alternative, and this may seem radical, to this board, would b.e to sell the remaining aerostructures business to a private equity/venture capital group. There are such groups who specialize in large cap (remember Cerberus?), and the services, helo's, space and defense units could remain under the Boeing umbrella.

I think there is a very small yet non-zero chance that Boeing could wake up one day and decide its best path forward is to exit commercial aviation. How and when is a good question. They still make good money off military aviation so I think they would keep enough aerostructures business in house to compete in that market.


Spinning off commercial aerostructures doesn't resolve the competitive challenges being noted, and exiting airframe integration would leave one less customer on the market for the aerostructures business to rely on. For the in-between option, Boeing already tried to go the direction of spinning off more of their aerostructures and focusing on integration, and even the partial effort was a disaster.

Besides, Boeing was making very good money in commercial aviation until the MAX screwup. They can get back there again if they execute properly.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 7:56 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
To address the easy consideration first: if Airbus does a clean sheet design in response to a Boeing NSA, then the result is more equal competition than we have today. They get the same technological benefits but have the same drawbacks in development cost, manufacturing system ramp up to efficiency, break in commonality. The duopoly has fluorished even with two assymmetrically matched narrow bodies. I'm not too worried about how it would play out with symmetrically matched narrowbodies on the market. That said, some level of asymmetry in the duopoly is arguably best for both the manufacturers and the customers, ideally deliberately chosen asymmetry instead of what effective comes down to an accident - the MAX isn't what Boeing wanted to offer against the NEO, but the market conditions led them there.

That's why I described this as a worst-case scenario for Airbus. For this to happen Boeing would have to come up with some remarkable improvement that cannot be implemented within the A32x family (which seems unlikely) and for A32x to stop selling which would force Airbus to come up with a replacement. Even so, it could design its follow-on for maximal compatability with A32x, kind of like how 777 pilots have a relatively short training period to transition to 787. Also Airbus had an excellent EIS for A350 and the A320neo problems were due to PW. It's not the same kind of situation we saw with 787 and MAX. Customers are going to want some serious considerations in order to take on the risk of another Boeing screw up.

iamlucky13 wrote:
How the NSA vs. A321NWO family (New Wing Option) would play out is a little less clear to me. But with a new fuselage, there is the opportunity to invest a lot of computer hours on finite element modelling to optimize it structurally, aerodynamically, and for what the market asks for in terms of passenger and cargo space; consider carbon fiber (maybe even monolithic barrels again, although it would be really critical to get the tolerances and assembly plan right from the start on those); and design the wing unconstrained by what the fuselage allows for center wingbox geometry. It also would be easier to integrate a more electric architecture.

I don't see how fiber fuse is a big win. A220 chose AL fuse and CFRP wings. 77X decided to keep the AL fuse. The main reason Boeing was thinking of CFRP fuse for NMA was to gain a new and distinct cross section.

iamlucky13 wrote:
Spinning off commercial aerostructures doesn't resolve the competitive challenges being noted, and exiting airframe integration would leave one less customer on the market for the aerostructures business to rely on. For the in-between option, Boeing already tried to go the direction of spinning off more of their aerostructures and focusing on integration, and even the partial effort was a disaster.

I could see a non-zero chance of Boeing spinning off all of commercial aviation entirely. That's probably the best way to get investors interested in taking it on.

iamlucky13 wrote:
Besides, Boeing was making very good money in commercial aviation until the MAX screwup. They can get back there again if they execute properly.

Clearly not for the next five years, probably not for the next ten. The situation back in 2019 was being described by many as an aviation bubble. It will take a long time to discover what the new norm is. Boeing is offering some eye watering deals to move MAXes right now. This has got to have changed the market in a way that will be difficult to reverse.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:24 pm

I think one change from before, is that now Boeing has to consider designing a new aircraft to derivatives of the current engines, LEAP and GTF at 35K to 40K if that is achievable.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
I don't see how fiber fuse is a big win. A220 chose AL fuse and CFRP wings. 77X decided to keep the AL fuse. The main reason Boeing was thinking of CFRP fuse for NMA was to gain a new and distinct cross section.

It doesn't have to be a big win, and it doesn't have to be carbon fiber, but it might be. Small improvements add up to meaningful benefits in this industry. The point is simply with a new fuselage, they have more options for how they improve it, one of which could be carbon fiber.

Revelation wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Besides, Boeing was making very good money in commercial aviation until the MAX screwup. They can get back there again if they execute properly.

Clearly not for the next five years, probably not for the next ten. The situation back in 2019 was being described by many as an aviation bubble. It will take a long time to discover what the new norm is. Boeing is offering some eye watering deals to move MAXes right now. This has got to have changed the market in a way that will be difficult to reverse.


Past statements suggest digging back out to cash flow positive operations sometime in 2022, although we of course take those statements with a lot of uncertainty. This quarter they mentioned they are allowing airlines to shuffle around their pre-delivery payments on later deliveries to cover the final delivery payments on near term deliveries, so that will likely delay the shift to positive cash flow. However, they do have a pretty good idea what how their production costs scale with rate, and they know what payment they will ultimately receive for each plane with an assigned delivery slot.

I don't know what it means for accounting profit considering the mountain of write-downs, but as far as I see it, they should be cash flow positive well within 5 years.

For 10 years from now, I'd take a look at their 2011 and 2018 earnings reports for followups to previous major crises. This one is certainly far worse, but that defines they money they're losing right now, not how they'll be doing in 10 years.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:07 am

MileHFL400 wrote:
I think they should concentrate on getting the 777-9 out the door first


People don't plan to fail.

If Boeing were to only concentrate on the 779, they'll be sitting on thier hands again.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:14 am

Could this be another 757/767 type project? Release the widebody first that covers the market of the proposed A322 to 787. Then release the narrowbody that will cover the 737 and A320 family. I just don't believe a long narrowbody with lots of range is the answer. It would be un-upgradeabke from the start. A widebody would allow for future improvement in engine technology and it wouldn't be a runway hog. And having a common flight deck between the two types will help with costs and crew efficiency.
 
gaystudpilot
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:29 am

DocLightning wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It seems like they are heading towards a "me too" airplane. IMO this is good news for Team A. This plays right into the advantages their huge installed base and huge A321 lead gives them. Team B will have to come up with an incredibly good product to have any chance at all, IMO. There aren't any big tech "leaps" available to be harvested so I don't see how they will be able to make inroads against the A32x family.


Good news and bad news. Good news for the reasons you stated, but bad news because Boeing can target any deficiencies in the A320 family that are "baked in" and Airbus can't fix.

I don't think Boeing is going to do anything radical like a transonic truss-braced wing, but I expect a CFRP construction. Given their experience with the 787, they may wish to use all-electric architecture going forward, which can save a lot of weight and simplify systems. I would not be surprised to see folding wingtips included in a clean-sheet Boeing new-build. They may choose to widen the fuselage so it can accomodate LD3-45/46 containers in the hold. They will definitely be generous in the landing gear length. They may offer tinting windows as an option but I think that they will retain sliding shades as an option.

The interior will be a graceful, curvaceous white with cute LED light effects. The flight will be just as long, slow, and boring as they are right now. Boeing will, of course, market the interior renderings with optimistically spacious cabins and show attractive, well-dressed people and their well-behaved children who need nothing more than a single stuffed animal for entertainment sitting back and taking a deep, blissful breath as the sun sets outside the window.


And the airlines’ bean counters will force their counterparts in marketing to get even more creative in articulating the luxurious amenities of their company’s latest Boeing model while reality will stipulate 28” seat pitch and lavs that require passengers to move around like vertical rotisserie chickens.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2716
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:35 am

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
It is feasible to produce enough biofuel for worldwide air travel. It isn't remotely feasible to produce enough for ground transportation which is another reason why following the biofuel path for aviation and the battery/fuel cell path for ground vehicles makes the most sense.

The risk is that people will eventually fully realize that biofuel is eco-fraud perpetuated by agra-business and will get rejected akin to GMOs.

Why do you consider biofuels worse for the environment than fossile fuels?
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2142
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:59 am

Products are getting ‘nicer’, and the disadvantages of older products are more noticeable. I’m not sure how wide (or thin) Boeing would need to go on the fuselage - but I imagine a cabin between the 757/737 and 767- but retaining at six across in Y, with 18” seats, and with TWO aisles (2-2-2.) Obviously, the thinner fuselage design would only allow for either center or outboard overhead bins, but I imagine such a configuration would be quite spacious and could be, at operator discretion, converted to a terrible 7 abreast single aisle (4-3) if desired. Such a configuration in Y would be very popular; and can you imagine the efficiency gains of boarding a “six across aircraft” with the advent of an additional aisle.
 
planecane
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:27 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
It is feasible to produce enough biofuel for worldwide air travel. It isn't remotely feasible to produce enough for ground transportation which is another reason why following the biofuel path for aviation and the battery/fuel cell path for ground vehicles makes the most sense.

The risk is that people will eventually fully realize that biofuel is eco-fraud perpetuated by agra-business and will get rejected akin to GMOs.

Why do you consider biofuels worse for the environment than fossile fuels?

I share your question. Biofuels are certainly not "zero carbon" if that's what you are interested in but neither is wind, solar or any other renewable energy. Hydroelectric is probably the closest because the infrastructure lasts so long that the energy to build the dam is amortized over a very long time.

Biofuel is certainly "cleaner" than fossil fuels. To what extent is still a question. A biofuel strategy to replace gas in cars makes no sense because you need so much and you start competing with food for farm output. Aviation is a fraction of the total fossil fuel market so it is at least feasible as a plan for aviation. Batteries are not and won't be in my lifetime and hydrogen comes with a lot of challenges and can not be adapted to existing aircraft or designs.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
...Boeing would have to come up with some remarkable improvement that cannot be implemented within the A32x family ...
The main reason Boeing was thinking of CFRP fuse for NMA was to gain a new and distinct cross section.

Respecting your well thought through comments, these two comments (selected for relevance to 'point' and brevity) are used for thesis support

Admission: I've been stuck on the following thesis as it has been the most compelling and logical given the data I have to date. An argument has yet to be presented that shakes the macro idea. However, additional data and challenges are encouraged.

Problem to solve: A significant NSA parameter will be to maximize efficiency around the 'economics of gate real estate'.
Thesis: The twin isle ovoid addresses one of the biggest problems in commercial aviation; gate turn around time. Southwest has mastery of this idea; efficient use of capital resources by increasing turnover with the same assets. Simply put, get one more leg out of every plane every day with the same assets. For those needing a visual 'experience'; embark/dis-embark from a full b753 for an 'ah-ha' moment (realizing that the 'parking meter is running' based on value of the real-estate on which the plane sits).
Airframer traffic growth expectations are astounding when one considers that airports are constrained to a fixed geographic footprint. How will metropolitan airports support a doubling of passengers served?... upgauging and increased frequency? Stretching an A321 will only lengthen the neck of the bottle.

respects if one considers this repetitive, however, it shows up comparatively less than expected given its significance.


DocLightning wrote:
I don't think Boeing is going to do anything radical like a transonic truss-braced wing, but I expect a CFRP construction.

The tech you've highlighting is inspiring. It looks comparatively simple to implement. Combined with folding wingtips, for a D-gate footprint, makes the product compelling (as described by wikipedia Truss-wing page).
imo: Boeing will be compelled to include this evolution. Said with comparative ignorance, 'it looks easier than advancing engine tech'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Truss-Braced_Wing

*1 Calhoun would have to relent on his freighter parameter for the NSA to maximize success.
*2 Southwest is not satisfied with current b738 turnaround times
Last edited by amdiesen on Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:53 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 1134
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:37 pm

If Boeing designs a plane with 2-2-2 seating, I can almost guarantee that one airline will add an extra seat, and everyone will soon follow. Imagine being in a 2-3-2 fuselage that is narrower than a 767?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 12:55 pm

Nobody will do 2-2-2. The inherent larger amount of non revenue producing space is too big.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:02 pm

Couldn't the 767 be beefed up to form some instant A321neo competitor? CFRP-wing and latest engines. No need for transpacific range. Just a cheapo well known robust frame. Almost ready?
All other options take too long and leave A eating B's lunch with the A321neo monopoly.
The luxury variant would be to do this 787 based, like a new 787-3 but with some better wing. Higher rates would help to lower the prices for the entire family.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:17 pm

amdiesen wrote:
Revelation wrote:
...Boeing would have to come up with some remarkable improvement that cannot be implemented within the A32x family ...
The main reason Boeing was thinking of CFRP fuse for NMA was to gain a new and distinct cross section.

Respecting your well thought through comments, these two comments (selected for relevance to 'point' and brevity) are used for thesis support

Admission: I've been stuck on the following thesis as it has been the most compelling and logical given the data I have to date. An argument has yet to be presented that shakes the macro idea. However, additional data and challenges are encouraged.

Problem to solve: A significant NSA parameter will be to maximize efficiency around the 'economics of gate real estate'.
Thesis: The twin isle ovoid addresses one of the biggest problems in commercial aviation; gate turn around time. Southwest has mastery of this idea; efficient use of capital resources by increasing turnover with the same assets. Simply put, get one more leg out of every plane every day with the same assets. For those needing a visual 'experience', embark/dis-embark from a full b753 for an 'ah-ha' moment.
Airframer traffic growth expectations are astounding when one considers that airports are constrained to a fixed geographic footprint. How will metropolitan airports support a doubling of passengers served?... upgauging and increased frequency? Stretching an A321 will only lengthen the neck of the bottle.

respects if one considers this repetitive, however, it shows up comparatively less that expected give its significance.


DocLightning wrote:
I don't think Boeing is going to do anything radical like a transonic truss-braced wing, but I expect a CFRP construction.

The tech you've highlighting is inspiring. Looks comparatively simple to implement. Combined with folding wingtips, for a D-gate footprint, makes the product compelling (as described by wikipedia Truss-wing page).
imo: Boeing will be compelled to include this evolution. Said with comparative ignorance, 'it looks easier than advancing engine tech'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Truss-Braced_Wing

*1 Calhoun would have to relent on his freighter parameter for the NMA for success to be maximized.
*2 Southwest is not satisfied with current b738 turnaround times


This turn-unround time issue is way to overblown to justyfiy an inefficiency in aircraft design. More unused floor space (second aisle) just leads to a heavier design than necessary for a benefit that is actually a non-starter for most of the airlines and would only be for a feel good benefit for economy passengers.

Turn around times are not only limited by the ability for passengers to exit and enter the aircraft. Especially bulk loaded aircraft also have the issue of loading and unloading and if turn around times really were the issue than using airstairs at the back would be widely used but I only saw it in Europe and even there only sometimes (Gatwick and some holiday destinations were we had double airstairs).

The real deal for Boeing will be to have huge production capacity ready asap. That is the real limiting factor. Look at the A220 ramp up. That is way to slow. Imagine if the NSA would have such a ramp up speed.

The line will have to be able to handle 20+ aircraft a month from the get go. This will be were the money is made or lost. The competition could be producing 70-80 aircraft a month in 2030. So 75% of the design will go towards production optimisation. The actual aircraft will be a boring tube with wings and 3-3 seating.

Boeing (and its investors) will not want any experiments on the most important product ever. And all the focus will be on that product. We will not see a MoM aircraft from Boeing for a long time. Too much is at stake. The next aircraft will have to bring the NB market back into a 50/50 split with Airbus. And to achieve this there will be no money to through at a MoM thing that will sell maybe 2000. Shareholders want returns and especially when Covid is over they want to get something Back and that can only be achieved with a great lineup in the bread and butter market and that is the 150-240 narrow body market with 2500nm range.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:44 pm

Just listened to the aviation week network podcast with Guy Norris and a few other speakers. He’s saying what he got out of what Calhoun said wasn’t much different from what we already know but something he pointed out was that Boeing intends to build this aircraft with the engine technology that is already on ground or soon to be on ground. The focus really is on airframe and manufacturing technology.

He says that usually new engine development is what inspires new Air frames. But he says not this time around
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20090
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:35 pm

Noshow wrote:
Couldn't the 767 be beefed up to form some instant A321neo competitor? CFRP-wing and latest engines. No need for transpacific range. Just a cheapo well known robust frame. Almost ready?
All other options take too long and leave A eating B's lunch with the A321neo monopoly.
The luxury variant would be to do this 787 based, like a new 787-3 but with some better wing. Higher rates would help to lower the prices for the entire family.


That's an interesting new use of the word "instant". I wouldn't like to guess how long it would take to re-wing and re-engine the 767. Then there's certification...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:44 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Just listened to the aviation week network podcast with Guy Norris and a few other speakers. He’s saying what he got out of what Calhoun said wasn’t much different from what we already know but something he pointed out was that Boeing intends to build this aircraft with the engine technology that is already on ground or soon to be on ground. The focus really is on airframe and manufacturing technology.

He says that usually new engine development is what inspires new Air frames. But he says not this time around


That is simply not correct, just look at the 737Classic and NG. This happens when the OEM sees, that the current product has reached the end of the development potential and won´t be able to keep up with the competitor. Airbus is openly talking about a new A320 wing, has already shown a CFRP wing box and PW talks about improvement potentials for the GTF. Add the shrinking overall demand and it becomes obvious that the NEO could take more and more market share from the 737, as we already know how many A320s Airbus did produce in 2019 and originally planed to produce in 2022. If Boeing now sees that the 737 has no potential to counter this, they need a new plane and they can not afford to wait, as once Airbus would launch a re-winged A320 series, it would be too late for a new design to be ready in time.
Last edited by seahawk on Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:46 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
If Boeing designs a plane with 2-2-2 seating, I can almost guarantee that one airline will add an extra seat, and everyone will soon follow. Imagine being in a 2-3-2 fuselage that is narrower than a 767?


Couldn't Boeing demand the FAA only certify it for six across seating? Or they could configure the tracks or PSU's in such a way that it wouldn't be possible.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:50 pm

scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Couldn't the 767 be beefed up to form some instant A321neo competitor? CFRP-wing and latest engines. No need for transpacific range. Just a cheapo well known robust frame. Almost ready?
All other options take too long and leave A eating B's lunch with the A321neo monopoly.
The luxury variant would be to do this 787 based, like a new 787-3 but with some better wing. Higher rates would help to lower the prices for the entire family.


That's an interesting new use of the word "instant". I wouldn't like to guess how long it would take to re-wing and re-engine the 767. Then there's certification...


While I don't think it would ever happen for various reasons, I don't think it would take any longer than the proposed A322. And it would certainly be cost efficient given the line will be open for many years to come thanks to Freight and USAF. I would love to see it but it's too expensive for a temporary solution unless you can get firm commitments from AA, UA, and maybe ANA/JAL for intra-Asia flights.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10945
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:54 pm

seahawk wrote:
That is simply not correct, just look at the 737Classic and NG. This happens when the OEM sees, that the current product has reached the end of the development potential and won´t be able to keep up with the competitor. Airbus is openly talking about a new A320 wing, has already shown a CFRP wing box and PW talks about improvement potentials for the GTF. Add the shrinking overall demand and it becomes obvious that the NEO could take more and more market share from the 737, as we already now how many A320s Airbus did produce in 2019 and originally planed to produce in 2022. If Boeing now sees that the 737 has no potential to counter this, they need a new plane and they can not afford to wait, as once Airbus would launch a re-winged A320 series, it would be too late for a new design to be ready in time.

So Boeing announces a 737 replacement now for EIS when 2025/2030 time frame, what do you expect them to do with the MAX frames already produced, the existing orders will not be taken and the market share will take an even greater hit. Now if you somehow believe that Boeing will be able to invent an a/c that is 100% better than any existing Airbus product and Airbus will be unable to create a counter for the next 10 years allowing Boeing to recapture market share, that some great analysis.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2367
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Just listened to the aviation week network podcast with Guy Norris and a few other speakers. He’s saying what he got out of what Calhoun said wasn’t much different from what we already know but something he pointed out was that Boeing intends to build this aircraft with the engine technology that is already on ground or soon to be on ground. The focus really is on airframe and manufacturing technology.

He says that usually new engine development is what inspires new Air frames. But he says not this time around


That is simply not correct, just look at the 737Classic and NG. This happens when the OEM sees, that the current product has reached the end of the development potential and won´t be able to keep up with the competitor. Airbus is openly talking about a new A320 wing, has already shown a CFRP wing box and PW talks about improvement potentials for the GTF. Add the shrinking overall demand and it becomes obvious that the NEO could take more and more market share from the 737, as we already now how many A320s Airbus did produce in 2019 and originally planed to produce in 2022. If Boeing now sees that the 737 has no potential to counter this, they need a new plane and they can not afford to wait, as once Airbus would launch a re-winged A320 series, it would be too late for a new design to be ready in time.

Maybe I worded that wrongly because we are saying the same thing. I think he meant. OEMs usually launch when new engine tech is available to maximise efficiency gain. But yes Boeing cannot afford to wait for new engine technology. But Boeing knows the 737 cannot compete any further than this
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:15 pm

par13del wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is simply not correct, just look at the 737Classic and NG. This happens when the OEM sees, that the current product has reached the end of the development potential and won´t be able to keep up with the competitor. Airbus is openly talking about a new A320 wing, has already shown a CFRP wing box and PW talks about improvement potentials for the GTF. Add the shrinking overall demand and it becomes obvious that the NEO could take more and more market share from the 737, as we already now how many A320s Airbus did produce in 2019 and originally planed to produce in 2022. If Boeing now sees that the 737 has no potential to counter this, they need a new plane and they can not afford to wait, as once Airbus would launch a re-winged A320 series, it would be too late for a new design to be ready in time.

So Boeing announces a 737 replacement now for EIS when 2025/2030 time frame, what do you expect them to do with the MAX frames already produced, the existing orders will not be taken and the market share will take an even greater hit. Now if you somehow believe that Boeing will be able to invent an a/c that is 100% better than any existing Airbus product and Airbus will be unable to create a counter for the next 10 years allowing Boeing to recapture market share, that some great analysis.


Boeing simply has no choice. If they risk Airbus gaining the chance to move first and again forcing Boeing to re-act, Boeing is in deep trouble. 737 sales will go down once Airbus moves with more A320 improvements, the question is whether airlines will then choose the A320 or being able to choose the 737 successor.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20090
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:28 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
While I don't think it would ever happen for various reasons, I don't think it would take any longer than the proposed A322.


But NoShow was talking specifically about an "instant competitor" to the A321neo, not a theoretical frame that doesn't exist today.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:38 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
If Boeing designs a plane with 2-2-2 seating, I can almost guarantee that one airline will add an extra seat, and everyone will soon follow. Imagine being in a 2-3-2 fuselage that is narrower than a 767?


Well Boeing can fight that by designing the cabin width so that it would be impossible - there are certification minimums for seat and aisle width (16 inches for each, I believe). However, that would result in an airframe that is wider and heavier than a 3+3 single aisle for no revenue benefit. So Boeing would have to design it around a 2+3+2 structure so airlines could add that third seat to offset the heavier weight.


Noshow wrote:
Couldn't the 767 be beefed up to form some instant A321neo competitor? CFRP-wing and latest engines.


It would be significantly heavier than the A321 and therefore would have much higher per-seat fuel burn. High-capacity shuttle flights within Asia and Emerging Markets might have found appeal in that, but then came COVID...
 
planecane
Posts: 1715
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
If Boeing designs a plane with 2-2-2 seating, I can almost guarantee that one airline will add an extra seat, and everyone will soon follow. Imagine being in a 2-3-2 fuselage that is narrower than a 767?


Well Boeing can fight that by designing the cabin width so that it would be impossible - there are certification minimums for seat and aisle width (16 inches for each, I believe). However, that would result in an airframe that is wider and heavier than a 3+3 single aisle for no revenue benefit. So Boeing would have to design it around a 2+3+2 structure so airlines could add that third seat to offset the heavier weight.


Noshow wrote:
Couldn't the 767 be beefed up to form some instant A321neo competitor? CFRP-wing and latest engines.


It would be significantly heavier than the A321 and therefore would have much higher per-seat fuel burn. High-capacity shuttle flights within Asia and Emerging Markets might have found appeal in that, but then came COVID...


Wouldn't 10" wider than an A320 allow 2-2-2 with 17" seats? I don't know how much heavier it would be but then there is flexibility of 2-2-2 with 17" seats or 3-3 with 18" seats and an extra wide aisle.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:23 pm

As long as it doesn't have dimmable windows...

A new 757/767 combi would be nice. I do wonder though what Boeing would call their next aircraft type after the 797.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:38 pm

VV wrote:
did you guys note that concerning the future aircraft M Calhoun used many words to say basically nothing?

And you are trying to interpret his words in a way that I cannot understand.

In my opinion, he basically said, "Thank you for your question but I have other more important things to think about and to do."


Yeah, we are aware that we are grasping for straws....excited by the prospect of an all new anything in the single aisle category from Boeing. It's been 40 years since Boeing developed a clean sheet single aisle plane (757)... (The 717 doesn't count as they were just taking over the MD95 program... which was just a shrink/rework of the MD90 anyway...)

LIkewise, we are also giddy over a re-engine/rewing/stretch of the A321 as an A322..

I guess as fans of all things aeronautics, we can't help but get excited by developments in the single-aisle programs... We've had nothing but re-engines, wing tip devices, and cabin refreshes for decades and decades from A and B (yeah I know there has been other incremental improvements, carbon brakes, CRT to LCDs, etc...). Embraer gave us something good in the EJets and Bombardier in the C-Series.... but it's the prospect of new planes that pack well more than 150pax, fly accross the continents, and sell in the thousands that excite us the most.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:40 pm

planecane wrote:
Wouldn't 10" wider than an A320 allow 2-2-2 with 17" seats? I don't know how much heavier it would be but then there is flexibility of 2-2-2 with 17" seats or 3-3 with 18" seats and an extra wide aisle.


The McD ATMR, which was planned to compete with the 757-200, would have had a fuselage width of 173in (439cm) which was designed for 2+2+2, but did allow 2+3+2 at around 16.5" seat width (same as a 767 at 2+4+2 or a DC-10 at 3+4+3). The A320 fuselage is 156 inches (395cm).
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jan 29, 2021 5:03 pm

One of the things I like about this site is I am surrounded by people who know a lot more than I do. So, understanding that I come from a place of ignorance, why couldn't either A or B design an airframe now that could be offered with a new engine later?

We've seen what's in development with the engines. In rough terms, we know what they will look like, how heavy they are likely to be, and how much thrust the physical engineering should be manageable. With a fbw system essentially assured in a new aircraft, it should be a matter of programing language and integration and known and agreed upon hard points where the pylon meets the wing.

What airframe are specific challenges for a new engine to be integrated into a line?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 45

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos