Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 34
 
Noshow
Posts: 2190
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:06 pm

I don't think Airbus wasted any time after Bombardier had launched the CSeries.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:06 pm

744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.

It’s a lot trickier than you may think. If they launch the NSA in 22 or 23. What will end up happening is sales for the max will stall and then people end up ordering the new jet. Will people still even want to take delivery of maxes they’ve ordered with the new jet available? I do however believe this jet should be a single aisle. So that can more easily shrink it for a max replacement
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:14 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.
Exactly.

Anyone that wants a plane that is larger than say MAX10 should be told that there is a jetliner that could seat 230 in a 2 class config, and that is the 787-8. Anyone that wants more capacity than this can get the 787-9.

It is time for them to simplify the portfolio.

A highly premium -8. Two class -8 is about 250 passengers. Ethiopian is 276. 42 business class seater for ANA is at 240. I just think it should be a single aisle 230-240.

The problem is the max10 not the max 8. Nobody wants the max10. That is what needs to be replaced.

The max 8 and 320neo have roughly the same orders. It’s when you get the 230 321neo LR and XLR. That’s the ball park area.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:31 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.
Exactly.

Anyone that wants a plane that is larger than say MAX10 should be told that there is a jetliner that could seat 230 in a 2 class config, and that is the 787-8. Anyone that wants more capacity than this can get the 787-9.

It is time for them to simplify the portfolio.

A highly premium -8. Two class -8 is about 250 passengers. Ethiopian is 276. 42 business class seater for ANA is at 240. I just think it should be a single aisle 230-240.

The problem is the max10 not the max 8. Nobody wants the max10. That is what needs to be replaced.

The max 8 and 320neo have roughly the same orders. It’s when you get the 230 321neo LR and XLR. That’s the ball park area.
Boeing has spent too much time, and too much money chasing marginal products. Anyone that wanted a 757 replacement already got one or will be getting one. Anyone that wants more range is getting the A321Neo-XLR.

If they are going to commit to a new airplane, build something that will shift several thousands and finally move on from this old school 737 that they should have replaced some time back.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 990
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:46 pm

If they are going to commit to a new airplane, build something that will shift several thousands and finally move on from this old school 737 that they should have replaced some time back.


Between us, I agree with you and I'm not trying to argue. You're right. The issue is that doing so opens up another proverbial can of worms for Boeing. If their next aircraft is a true 737 replacement, then it will eat into MAX sales, especially those at the end of the MAX order backlog, further reducing Boeing's marginal revenue for the type. I have a suspicion that part of the reason Boeing talks about a middle of the market plane so much is that its trying to avoid just that scenario, that perhaps they recognize how circumstances and their own actions have combined, that they've painted themselves into a corner. Time will tell...
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:49 pm

744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.


If they go down this route NSA will most likely be part of NMA without cannibalizing the MAX, maybe appearing in 2031/2032 after a 2025/2026 launch. From what we have heard NMA will introduce a lot of new production tech that will make sense to perfect on a lower volume NMA before moving it down to NSA capacities/volumes for an eventual MAX replacement.

MAX sales will recover and they will be able to offer them at quite attractive pricing with very good efficiency covering the vast majority of routes. It should be good enough to last for another 10ish years. At lower production rates than those envisioned pre-Covid/MAX fiasco (say 30-40 per month eventually) - they still have a solid enough backlog to keep the MAX in production until then. The current backlog with no new sales should easily take them at least to 2027-2028 even with no new orders as production will take some time to get to those levels (30-40 per month).

Just to be clear in this strategy - NSA uses same Cockpit/Cross Section/Systems as NMA - just with a much lighter wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

When you do the math on an Ovalish 168x186" cross section the drag penalty is not that bad and not out of the realm of what the A320 /vs 737 is, and less on a wetted area basis as it would be shorter for the same capacity. Especially if you can go 2x2x2 up front in a nice domestic business class. Most of the drag on an airplane is from the wing/tail/engines.
Last edited by morrisond on Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:55 pm

The problem with the argument that Boeing has to build a new 737 replacement is that Boeing does not (and neither does Airbus) currently have the ability to do 50-60 Composite NBs per month. They need the NMA to smoothen the transition from just doing 14 787s per month to a rate about 50 per month. Even if they choose not to do the NMA, by the time they have figured out the production methods and supply chain, the 737 replacement NSA will most probably still come at around the same timeframe of around 2030 First Flight or later. Might as well do a NMA to improve the market share.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:04 pm

Who says it has to use composites for the fuselage? I have not seen one conclusive case for using composites on a single aisle hull, as long as you stay with the conventional tube with wings design. To be honest given modern alloys and additive manufacturing, I am not even sure composites have not become the second best option, especially compared to a qualified mix, which would see more composites than the old A320/737 but still not be a fully composite frame. NMA needed composites due to the ovoid cross section, but if you drop this, the whole numbers change.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:24 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Interesting. @revelation isn’t this what you were thinking in terms of size? Bigger than the 321neo?

The word I use is 'differentiation' and yes, this provides that. It's a twin aisle that is bigger than and has more range than the current A321XLR:

The new Boeing airliner study, believed to be called the -5X, appears to be an outgrowth of the shelved New Midmarket Airplane (NMA) project and is targeting the 250-275 seat size category in a two-class, twin-aisle configuration. The aircraft, which would effectively be a replacement for the 757-200/300, would likely have a range of up to 5,000 nm and be aimed at entry-into-service in the late 2020s.

Ref: AvWeek link provided by morrisond above

Opus99 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
My understanding is that the NMA program had 2 final designs at one point. A short range wide body, and a new narrow body. Based on a lot of information released it appeared that they had moved forward with the short range wide body. With the cancellation of the NMA program its my understanding that they reverted back to those 2 concepts and how they would do a new cockpit

I don't see how you could shrink the short range wide-body aircraft concept (except perhaps shortening its range even more). I see Boeing being able to move forward with the single isle concept relatively rapidly if that is where they think they need to be.

I think it’s the narrow body. I think I that’s what Jon must’ve been referring to. Because the whole point is to compete with the XLR

It's kind of difficult to call a twin aisle a narrow body, no? I prefer the 'tight oval' phrase that morrisond has been using for a while now.

744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.

It's been clear for quite a while that Boeing wants/needs MAX to run its course. Doing otherwise would stiff their partners and their customers and themselves. For instance they could have just canceled MAX10 and paid penalties to those holding orders, but nope, they're going to put another two or more years work into it. A post in a now-deleted thread suggests they are doing more to MAX10 than just adding the synthetic AoA in those two years. It'll be interesting to see what it ends up being.

Opus99 wrote:
But can i just ask, does this really compete with the XLR thats a single aisle? I imagine it would be lighter no? But I imagine the attraction is the higher seat capacity?

I think it provides differentation. If you are already a A321 customer like all the US3 are, why would you buy a 'me too' A321 clone? This has more capacity and more range and yes better boarding time/experience, something QF asked for from NMA.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.
Exactly.

Anyone that wants a plane that is larger than say MAX10 should be told that there is a jetliner that could seat 230 in a 2 class config, and that is the 787-8. Anyone that wants more capacity than this can get the 787-9.

It is time for them to simplify the portfolio.

You may have noticed 788 is not flying off the shelves. 788 is a nice plane but has twice the range of this proposal, thus much larger wings to store fuel, much larger landing gear to land with that fuel on an engine out return to base flight, etc.

One plane does not fit all. Note how Boeing built both 767 and 757, because their markets were distinct, and still are IMO.

morrisond wrote:
If they go down this route NSA will most likely be part of NMA without cannibalizing the MAX, maybe appearing in 2031/2032 after a 2025/2026 launch. From what we have heard NMA will introduce a lot of new production tech that will make sense to perfect on a lower volume NMA before moving it down to NSA capacities/volumes for an eventual MAX replacement.

MAX sales will recover and they will be able to offer them at quite attractive pricing with very good efficiency covering the vast majority of routes. It should be good enough to last for another 10ish years. At lower production rates than those envisioned pre-Covid/MAX fiasco (say 30-40 per month eventually) - they still have a solid enough backlog to keep the MAX in production until then. The current backlog with no new sales should easily take them at least to 2027-2028 even with no new orders as production will take some time to get to those levels (30-40 per month).

Just to be clear in this strategy - NSA uses same Cockpit/Cross Section/Systems as NMA - just with a much lighter wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

When you do the math on an Ovalish 168x186" cross section the drag penalty is not that bad and not out of the realm of what the A320 /vs 737 is, and less on a wetted area basis as it would be shorter for the same capacity. Especially if you can go 2x2x2 up front in a nice domestic business class. Most of the drag on an airplane is from the wing/tail/engines.

I agree. If we feel VLAs are dead/dying and route fragmentation is the next big thing, this is a good move. Team A will have to react, which is fine, let the best product win. In the mean time it will set up the future NSA once MAX has run its course.

Recently I suggested we could see Boeing spin off commercial airplanes and move on to other things. The recent moves of deciding to add two years to both MAX10 and 777X schedules to get things done right and now some hints of eventually doing something based on the earlier NMA work suggests they are more committed to commercial aviation than I thought they might be.

One more thing from the AvWeek article:

Like the NMA, the aircraft is expected to incorporate composite wings and fuselage, and use versions of the same higher bypass ratio, 50,000 lb.-thrust class engines competitively proposed for the earlier family by the General Electric-Safran CFM joint venture and by Pratt & Whitney. The extended service entry timetable could also potentially provide an opportunity for Rolls-Royce to re-enter the contest with a version of the UltraFan. The engine maker dropped out of the NMA contest in 2019 citing tight schedule concerns but, with a potential late 2020s certification goal, may be able to re-consider a bid. The first UltraFan demonstrator is entering assembly and is due to run in early 2022.

It still feels to me that CFM has the inside track, but who knows what the future holds?

seahawk wrote:
Who says it has to use composites for the fuselage? I have not seen one conclusive case for using composites on a single aisle hull, as long as you stay with the conventional tube with wings design. To be honest given modern alloys and additive manufacturing, I am not even sure composites have not become the second best option, especially compared to a qualified mix, which would see more composites than the old A320/737 but still not be a fully composite frame. NMA needed composites due to the ovoid cross section, but if you drop this, the whole numbers change.

I agree with your points, yet I will point out AvWeek just said they expect composite fuse and wings. I guess time will tell.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:40 pm

If you research the Boeing New Light Twin. I think that’s what they’re looking to launch but they’re extending it a bit. Is my take
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:42 pm

Revelation wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
You may have noticed 788 is not flying off the shelves. 788 is a nice plane but has twice the range of this proposal, thus much larger wings to store fuel, much larger landing gear to land with that fuel on an engine out return to base flight, etc.

One plane does not fit all. Note how Boeing built both 767 and 757, because their markets were distinct, and still are IMO.

I do not think it matters in the grand scheme of things. What Being need to do now is focus on a plane that will bring them the most revenue and move the highest amount of units going forward. That is not the NMA.

Build a replacement to the MAX. Anyone that needs capacity ought to go for the 787-8 which is one efficient aircraft. Coming up with a clean sheet NMA would not be the smartest use of money from an OEM that is losing money on programs not called the 777 or 767F; one that needs a cash cow. Go for the sure fire thing.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:44 pm

Let me throw my hat in the ring once again for a 2-2-2 fuselage. Metal fuselage and KISS principle, Keep It Sircular with a 172" outside diameter. For a 752/753 capacity, this works nice. Plus lots of aisle seats, the value of which I think is glossed over, and actually is of major importance to most passengers.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:52 pm

Revelation wrote:
I agree with your points, yet I will point out AvWeek just said they expect composite fuse and wings. I guess time will tell.


They also see a twin aisle design which would need composites to compete. But I must admit I am no fan of the tight widebody, it is just screaming to do an A330 (to this new 767) and counter it with a slightly wider 8 abreast solution coming 5 years later and being just as efficient due to launching 5 years later. If you consider a yearly 2% traffic increase It would have 14% more capacity (using the same length) while demand should have grown by 11% since the launch of the 7ab plane. Also I do not buy into the idea of parts sharing. Apart from the cockpit (which is nothing worth mentioning today any way) you can not use a meaningful number of parts between a single and a twin aisle, if you want both to be highly efficient.

Apart from that one must not forget the strategic effect. If it forces Airbus to do a A322NG (new wings, new wingbox,...) there is no way these improvements will not tickle down to the A320 and A321, which will then kill the 737MAX, which means that Boeing needs the NSA asap. Imho both OEMs are in a position that they can not afford to really fight each other. So if we agree that the development potential of the 737 is closing in on zero, the only sensible option is a new single aisle replacement. It is needed and it is inevitable.
Last edited by seahawk on Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27509
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:00 pm

Opus99 wrote:
But can i just ask, does this really compete with the XLR thats a single aisle? I imagine it would be lighter no? But I imagine the attraction is the higher seat capacity?


Essentially the higher number of seats drops the operating costs-per-seat lower. Also, the A321XLR's payload drops as stage length increases so -5X could be carrying 50-75% more people at the ~5000nm end of the payload-range envelope compared to the A321XLR.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:07 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Let me throw my hat in the ring once again for a 2-2-2 fuselage. Metal fuselage and KISS principle, Keep It Sircular with a 172" outside diameter. For a 752/753 capacity, this works nice. Plus lots of aisle seats, the value of which I think is glossed over, and actually is of major importance to most passengers.


Yes - but an 168"H x 186"H Ovalish cross section has only marginally more cross sectional area (24,542sq" vs 23,235sq" or 5.6% and you might be able to squish the 2x3x2 a bit more) for 16.7% more Y seats and the ability to do a nice 2x2x2 up front).

Remember too that the leading rumour before NMA was shelved it was not an oval but two circles of different diameters - a lot easier to build - just some complexity where the two circles meet - however lots of extra space there at the floor of the cabin and in the sides of the hold to make make the fuselage ribs deeper at that point to deal with the stresses. Boeing is getting good at this type of work with doing ribs of varying depth on the 777X to allow a wider interior cabin - they could do the same thing here.

Ostrower explains it well in this article https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8901
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:10 pm

Stitch wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
But can i just ask, does this really compete with the XLR thats a single aisle? I imagine it would be lighter no? But I imagine the attraction is the higher seat capacity?


Essentially the higher number of seats drops the operating costs-per-seat lower. Also, the A321XLR's payload drops as stage length increases so -5X could be carrying 50-75% more people at the ~5000nm end of the payload-range envelope compared to the A321XLR.


And the 50-75% additional seats would be either empty or heavily discounted.

Innovation would be to increase the range of a NB without adding more seats. Seems to technically not possible.

A321NEOLR capacity is 241 very close to 788 with 256. Why do you think addition more seats is a good idea?
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19696
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:11 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Let me throw my hat in the ring once again for a 2-2-2 fuselage. Metal fuselage and KISS principle, Keep It Sircular with a 172" outside diameter.


How can that compete with a 3-3 single-aisle when you're carrying around an extra 2" of fuselage width? That's more weight and drag for the same number of passengers? The plane would be the same length as a 753 for the same capacity.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:17 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I agree with your points, yet I will point out AvWeek just said they expect composite fuse and wings. I guess time will tell.


They also see a twin aisle design which would need composites to compete. But I must admit I am no fan of the tight widebody, it is just screaming to do an A330 (to this new 767) and counter it with a slightly wider 8 abreast solution coming 5 years later and being just as efficient due to launching 5 years later. If you consider a yearly 2% traffic increase It would have 14% more capacity (using the same length) while demand should have grown by 11% since the launch of the 7ab plane. Also I do not buy in the idea of parrs sharing. Apart from the cockpit (which is nothing worth mentioning today any way) you can not use a meaningful number of parts between a single and a twin aisle, if you want both to be highly efficient.

Apart from that one must not forget the strategic effect. If it forces Airbus to do a A322NG (new wings, new wingbox,...) there is no way these improvements will not tickle down to the A320 and A321, which will then kill the 737MAX, which means that Boeing needs the NSA asap. Imho both OEMs are in a position that they can not afford to really fight each other. So if we agree that the development potential of the 737 is closing in on zero, the only sensible option is a new single aisle replacement. It is needed and it is inevitable.

You’re saying what everybody including Boeing knows. It’s not a matter of if. It is when. They have to launch it at the appropriate time. NG Launched in the late 90s we didn’t get max till 2011. Even if Boeing launched the NSA now. Is the tech up to place to add significant improvement to narrow bodies? 20% fuel burn reduction? That is a genuine question btw, I really don’t know.

Also the 787-8 is too heavy, too much range for what Boeing is going for.

Boeing’s initial NLT was 204 seats in a two class which is effectively an a321neo sized aircraft but twin aisled

I think whatever it is. Boeing wants to use this jet and morph it into what will replace the MAX
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:17 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
The issue is that doing so opens up another proverbial can of worms for Boeing. If their next aircraft is a true 737 replacement, then it will eat into MAX sales, especially those at the end of the MAX order backlog, further reducing Boeing's marginal revenue for the type.


This is only a huge concern if you believe the MAX backlog is safe. If you really believe they will place the remaining 3989 unfilled max orders. But if you believe that it will shake out to be half of that or a third of that, and that customers want those deliveries to be spread out over the next 10 years... for 140 to 200 deliveries a year,... while still a respectable airplane program, might have you pondering an all new model to build a backlog around.....

As aviation enthusiast it cost us nothing to take a wait and see how it all plays out approach.... the manufacturers... different story.......
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
744SPX
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:18 pm

Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.

It’s a lot trickier than you may think. If they launch the NSA in 22 or 23. What will end up happening is sales for the max will stall and then people end up ordering the new jet. Will people still even want to take delivery of maxes they’ve ordered with the new jet available? I do however believe this jet should be a single aisle. So that can more easily shrink it for a max replacement


I agree a near-term launch is inadvisable, but I think that if they are going to go with a new aircraft, it should be NSA and not MOM or NMA, otherwise they are done for. I still think aggressively pursuing the Truss Braced Wing design for NSA (single aisle) with a launch goal of perhaps 2025 or 2026 and EIS at 2029 or 2030 would be best option going forward. If they do NMA they won't be able to field a replacement for the MAX until the early to mid 2030's and that will cede the market to Airbus (which it is already dominating). They need something of a moon shot to regain all the ground the MAX has lost for them (and will continue to lose for them).
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:23 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I agree with your points, yet I will point out AvWeek just said they expect composite fuse and wings. I guess time will tell.


They also see a twin aisle design which would need composites to compete. But I must admit I am no fan of the tight widebody, it is just screaming to do an A330 (to this new 767) and counter it with a slightly wider 8 abreast solution coming 5 years later and being just as efficient due to launching 5 years later. If you consider a yearly 2% traffic increase It would have 14% more capacity (using the same length) while demand should have grown by 11% since the launch of the 7ab plane. Also I do not buy in the idea of parrs sharing. Apart from the cockpit (which is nothing worth mentioning today any way) you can not use a meaningful number of parts between a single and a twin aisle, if you want both to be highly efficient.

Apart from that one must not forget the strategic effect. If it forces Airbus to do a A322NG (new wings, new wingbox,...) there is no way these improvements will not tickle down to the A320 and A321, which will then kill the 737MAX, which means that Boeing needs the NSA asap. Imho both OEMs are in a position that they can not afford to really fight each other. So if we agree that the development potential of the 737 is closing in on zero, the only sensible option is a new single aisle replacement. It is needed and it is inevitable.


For Boeing the attraction of the 7W Double Circle (Does that work better than Ovalish based on the Ostrower article above) is that it can extend down to the NSA and MAX replacement and probably be built on the same line as the NSA.

I could see them building NMA in Everett and use the 777X Wing factory to pump out the wings, and use the line to get NSA production going - with the high Volume NSA line being in SC in a new building.

Just to refresh everyones memory's this 7W DC (Double Circle) would have a cross section of about 24,542sqin. A320 is 19,971sqin. - only about 22.8% more. For the same passenger capacity the 7W DC Fuselage would have less wetted area (drag) than an A320. I've done the math it's in previous NMA threads.

For reference an 767 is 213"H x 198"W in cross section - or about 33,123sqin. It's a lot bigger.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:27 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
But can i just ask, does this really compete with the XLR thats a single aisle? I imagine it would be lighter no? But I imagine the attraction is the higher seat capacity?


Essentially the higher number of seats drops the operating costs-per-seat lower. Also, the A321XLR's payload drops as stage length increases so -5X could be carrying 50-75% more people at the ~5000nm end of the payload-range envelope compared to the A321XLR.


And the 50-75% additional seats would be either empty or heavily discounted.

Innovation would be to increase the range of a NB without adding more seats. Seems to technically not possible.

A321NEOLR capacity is 241 very close to 788 with 256. Why do you think addition more seats is a good idea?


If you pack the 788 at the same density of an A321 at 241 you are looking at more like 330-350 seats - they are no way comparable in size.

Scoot packs 330 on an 788 and not all are Y seats - and the Y's are at 31" pitch - a 321 at 31" pitch is not 241 - it's closer to 220ish?
Last edited by morrisond on Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:28 pm

744SPX wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Boeing needs to be focusing on NSA, not NMA. The longer they put off a MAX replacement, the worse the position they will be in.

It’s a lot trickier than you may think. If they launch the NSA in 22 or 23. What will end up happening is sales for the max will stall and then people end up ordering the new jet. Will people still even want to take delivery of maxes they’ve ordered with the new jet available? I do however believe this jet should be a single aisle. So that can more easily shrink it for a max replacement


I agree a near-term launch is inadvisable, but I think that if they are going to go with a new aircraft, it should be NSA and not MOM or NMA, otherwise they are done for. I still think aggressively pursuing the Truss Braced Wing design for NSA (single aisle) with a launch goal of perhaps 2025 or 2026 and EIS at 2029 or 2030 would be best option going forward. If they do NMA they won't be able to field a replacement for the MAX until the early to mid 2030's and that will cede the market to Airbus (which it is already dominating). They need something of a moon shot to regain all the ground the MAX has lost for them (and will continue to lose for them).

I don’t think that’s late. I don’t see Airbus bringing a replacement for the NEO. What will bring Boeing back is not how late or how early they launch. It will be around the same time as whatever Airbus does. What Boeing needs to do is get that plane very right. But the short haul market is not going to grow. It will begin and end at that. What is growing is the XLR market. That’s the sweet spot atm. IMO. Also narrow bodies are getting bigger and widebodies smaller.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:39 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
I do not think it matters in the grand scheme of things. What Being need to do now is focus on a plane that will bring them the most revenue and move the highest amount of units going forward. That is not the NMA.

Build a replacement to the MAX. Anyone that needs capacity ought to go for the 787-8 which is one efficient aircraft. Coming up with a clean sheet NMA would not be the smartest use of money from an OEM that is losing money on programs not called the 777 or 767F; one that needs a cash cow. Go for the sure fire thing.

We disagree about the urgency (the market is still happy to lend Boeing money at low interest rates) and the "sure fire" nature of taking on Airbus's most successful product head on, and the customer's willingness to buy 788s rather than "abuse" A321s.

seahawk wrote:
Apart from that one must not forget the strategic effect. If it forces Airbus to do a A322NG (new wings, new wingbox,...) there is no way these improvements will not tickle down to the A320 and A321, which will then kill the 737MAX, which means that Boeing needs the NSA asap. Imho both OEMs are in a position that they can not afford to really fight each other. So if we agree that the development potential of the 737 is closing in on zero, the only sensible option is a new single aisle replacement. It is needed and it is inevitable.

Yes, it forces Airbus to move rather than sit on its laurels, which IMO is a good thing. Note I would not think of Airbus as remarkably agile. It's taking them the better part of four years to deliver A321XLR which really is just an exercise in repartitioning the center wing box along with required strengthening and systems changes. The difficult part of being successful is that it makes it hard to do changes without disrupting the life blood flowing from the same factories.

NSA is inevitable, but only after MAX runs its course. Given this is the case, it makes sense to aim for the gap between A321 and 788/338 with the hopes/expectations that you can deliver a better product then leverage its tech when doing NSA.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
The issue is that doing so opens up another proverbial can of worms for Boeing. If their next aircraft is a true 737 replacement, then it will eat into MAX sales, especially those at the end of the MAX order backlog, further reducing Boeing's marginal revenue for the type.


This is only a huge concern if you believe the MAX backlog is safe. If you really believe they will place the remaining 3989 unfilled max orders. But if you believe that it will shake out to be half of that or a third of that, and that customers want those deliveries to be spread out over the next 10 years... for 140 to 200 deliveries a year,... while still a respectable airplane program, might have you pondering an all new model to build a backlog around.....

As aviation enthusiast it cost us nothing to take a wait and see how it all plays out approach.... the manufacturers... different story.......

You aren't projecting the case where MAX backlog is not just safe but also continues to do what it does well, sell into established fleets like WN, FR, AS, WS, etc and the end result of the order book shake out sees both players hurt in a similar way.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:42 pm

Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
It’s a lot trickier than you may think. If they launch the NSA in 22 or 23. What will end up happening is sales for the max will stall and then people end up ordering the new jet. Will people still even want to take delivery of maxes they’ve ordered with the new jet available? I do however believe this jet should be a single aisle. So that can more easily shrink it for a max replacement


I agree a near-term launch is inadvisable, but I think that if they are going to go with a new aircraft, it should be NSA and not MOM or NMA, otherwise they are done for. I still think aggressively pursuing the Truss Braced Wing design for NSA (single aisle) with a launch goal of perhaps 2025 or 2026 and EIS at 2029 or 2030 would be best option going forward. If they do NMA they won't be able to field a replacement for the MAX until the early to mid 2030's and that will cede the market to Airbus (which it is already dominating). They need something of a moon shot to regain all the ground the MAX has lost for them (and will continue to lose for them).

I don’t think that’s late. I don’t see Airbus bringing a replacement for the NEO. What will bring Boeing back is not how late or how early they launch. It will be around the same time as whatever Airbus does. What Boeing needs to do is get that plane very right. But the short haul market is not going to grow. It will begin and end at that. What is growing is the XLR market. That’s the sweet spot atm. IMO. Also narrow bodies are getting bigger and widebodies smaller.


No, the XLR market grows because it is a single aisle that can fly further without any meaningful penalty. The strength of the XLR is not to fly 220 pax over 4500nm, the strength is to fly 220pax over 4500nm or fly 220 pax over 600nm and still be very efficient while doing both.

Revelation wrote:
Apart from that one must not forget the strategic effect. If it forces Airbus to do a A322NG (new wings, new wingbox,...) there is no way these improvements will not tickle down to the A320 and A321, which will then kill the 737MAX, which means that Boeing needs the NSA asap. Imho both OEMs are in a position that they can not afford to really fight each other. So if we agree that the development potential of the 737 is closing in on zero, the only sensible option is a new single aisle replacement. It is needed and it is inevitable.

Yes, it forces Airbus to move rather than sit on its laurels, which IMO is a good thing. Note I would not think of Airbus as remarkably agile. It's taking them the better part of four years to deliver A321XLR which really is just an exercise in repartitioning the center wing box along with required strengthening and systems changes. The difficult part of being successful is that it makes it hard to do changes without disrupting the life blood flowing from the same factories.

NSA is inevitable, but only after MAX runs its course. Given this is the case, it makes sense to aim for the gap between A321 and 788/338 with the hopes/expectations that you can deliver a better product then leverage its tech when doing NSA.[/quote]

That is exactly what Boeing thought before Airbus launched the NEO. The MAX has run its course, there is really nothing left to squeeze out of that old bird. On the other hand we know Airbus has the CFRP wing box and has been focussed on a new wing as well. And if Airbus is more or less agile than Boeing, is a question I can not answer. neither seems very agile to me. But the world has changed. The times of airlines wanting more planes than both can make are over. So the big problem of Airbus, which was to make as many A320 series frames as possible, is gone. The main problem of the XLR was not engineering but finding slots for building it. All this is over.

But I am also not seeing the XLR as much more than a niche solution. It is nice to have, but nothing more. All assessments by airlines of the XLR or LR I have seen, have not focussed on the capabilities but on the very small risk of adding it to an existing A320 series fleet and on the flexibility in scheduling in case the demand should shrink or change. A quote I heard "If it does not work on the longer routes, we can still fly it to Mallorca."
Last edited by seahawk on Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes - but an 168"H x 186"H Ovalish cross section
Ostrower explains it well in this article https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/


I hope they go a little bigger. Baseline for me would be 192" diam for the upper fuselage circle, but maybe that can be shrunk to 190". I guess the floor bubble can be shrunk since it has struts to hold it's shape.
My only question is will it(this fuselage) work for Southwest for a 200 seater?
I think any type of twin aisle is the solution at 200 seats. It just needs the critical mass of a few airlines to commit to it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27509
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:57 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
And the 50-75% additional seats would be either empty or heavily discounted.


Well it's not like Boeing doesn't do market analysis in conjunction with their customers and it's not like those customers don't model their historic traffic patterns.

So if in fact 50-75% of those additional seats would fly empty or deeply discounted, Boeing wouldn't be moving forward with the -5X.

So clearly the models show that they're not going to be empty.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Innovation would be to increase the range of a NB without adding more seats. Seems to technically not possible.


Adding range is easy - just add more fuel volume. Something the A321LR and A321XLR just happen to do.


dtw2hyd wrote:
A321NEOLR capacity is 241 very close to 788 with 256. Why do you think addition more seats is a good idea?


Well one, those 241 seats on the A321LR are all Economy while the 256 on the 787-8 are a mix of Business Class, Premium Economy and Economy with Business Class and Premium Economy earning many multiples per seat compared to Economy. So that 787-8 is going to earn a hell of a lot more revenue per trip (as it needs to do to offset it's higher trip costs).

The Boeing -5X will also have Business Class and Premium Economy and will therefore be earning much more revenue per trip and an A321LR is also not going to have 241 seats on the longest stage lengths (or a significant number of them will have to be empty to allow sufficient fuel weight to be loaded) where as they can all be filled on -5X.
Last edited by Stitch on Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27509
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:00 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
The issue is that doing so opens up another proverbial can of worms for Boeing. If their next aircraft is a true 737 replacement, then it will eat into MAX sales, especially those at the end of the MAX order backlog, further reducing Boeing's marginal revenue for the type.


FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
This is only a huge concern if you believe the MAX backlog is safe. If you really believe they will place the remaining 3989 unfilled max orders. But if you believe that it will shake out to be half of that or a third of that, and that customers want those deliveries to be spread out over the next 10 years... for 140 to 200 deliveries a year,... while still a respectable airplane program, might have you pondering an all new model to build a backlog around...


If Boeing can only deliver 1500 MAX over the next decade, there is no point going forward with a new commercial airplane of any capacity.

At that point you follow Lockheed and shut-down your commercial operations and proceed forward only as a defense and space company.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:01 pm

seahawk wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:

I agree a near-term launch is inadvisable, but I think that if they are going to go with a new aircraft, it should be NSA and not MOM or NMA, otherwise they are done for. I still think aggressively pursuing the Truss Braced Wing design for NSA (single aisle) with a launch goal of perhaps 2025 or 2026 and EIS at 2029 or 2030 would be best option going forward. If they do NMA they won't be able to field a replacement for the MAX until the early to mid 2030's and that will cede the market to Airbus (which it is already dominating). They need something of a moon shot to regain all the ground the MAX has lost for them (and will continue to lose for them).

I don’t think that’s late. I don’t see Airbus bringing a replacement for the NEO. What will bring Boeing back is not how late or how early they launch. It will be around the same time as whatever Airbus does. What Boeing needs to do is get that plane very right. But the short haul market is not going to grow. It will begin and end at that. What is growing is the XLR market. That’s the sweet spot atm. IMO. Also narrow bodies are getting bigger and widebodies smaller.


No, the XLR market grows because it is a single aisle that can fly further without any meaningful penalty. The strength of the XLR is not to fly 220 pax over 4500nm, the strength is to fly 220pax over 4500nm or fly 220 pax over 600nm and still be very efficient while doing both.

Ah then the standard 321neo is effectively useless no? Why would I buy the standard if I can get the XLR? How many are standard and how many are LRs and XLRs? If most are standard then there’s clearly a reason not to buy the XLR....there’s clearly a reasonable penalty if you don’t need the range. If that’s the case the normal 321neo will never sell. But the XLR is probably more expensive and heavier. So why?

It flies 220 over 450nm for unmatched economics that’s what. Single aisle economics. Why would I buy an XLR if I want to fly it for one hour?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27509
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:13 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Ah then the standard 321neo is effectively useless no?


To be blunt - yes it is.


Opus99 wrote:
Why would I buy the standard if I can get the XLR?


Also to be blunt, you would not. That is why the A321XLR is seeing such strong sales. There is no intention to send 450+ of them across the Atlantic every day. The significant majority will fly distances currently flown by A321s (all of which have at least one ACT).


Opus99 wrote:
How many are standard and how many are LRs and XLRs? If most are standard then there’s clearly a reason not to buy the XLR....there’s clearly a reasonable penalty if you don’t need the range. If that’s the case the normal 321neo will never sell. But the XLR is probably more expensive and heavier. So why?


You need to look at A321 model sales since the A321XLR was announced.

Before the A321XLR, everyone ordered an A321 with one ACT as that was the minimum needed for mission flexibility. And since it was a pain in the ass to take out and put in, you left it in for the missions you did not need it, and sacrificed payload revenue. With the A321XLR, you now get the flexibility of the A321 with an ACT, but without as great a loss of revenue cargo space.

The A3321LR was really a niche case for very specific markets because its (up to) three ACTs effectively meant you were only carrying passenger bags in the hold. And now with the A321XLR, you can add an additional ACT to have more range than the A321LR with three ACTs and still have room available for something other than passenger bags in the hold.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 644
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:18 pm

Sub 3,000nm aircraft are getting bigger, over 3,000nm aircraft are getting smaller, so it's just a question of where the sweet spot is at. Assuming there is room between a 100t aircraft and a 250t aircraft, which I believe there is. The design decision is to optimize wing, engine, and cabin and build at 125t or 150t? What is the most competitive spot to start at?
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:21 pm

Stitch wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Ah then the standard 321neo is effectively useless no?


To be blunt - yes it is.


Opus99 wrote:
Why would I buy the standard if I can get the XLR?


Also to be blunt, you would not. That is why the A321XLR is seeing such strong sales. There is no intention to send 450+ of them across the Atlantic every day. The significant majority will fly distances currently flown by A321s (all of which have at least one ACT).


Opus99 wrote:
How many are standard and how many are LRs and XLRs? If most are standard then there’s clearly a reason not to buy the XLR....there’s clearly a reasonable penalty if you don’t need the range. If that’s the case the normal 321neo will never sell. But the XLR is probably more expensive and heavier. So why?


You need to look at A321 model sales since the A321XLR was announced.

Before the A321XLR, everyone ordered an A321 with one ACT as that was the minimum needed for mission flexibility. And since it was a pain in the ass to take out and put in, you left it in for the missions you did not need it, and sacrificed payload revenue. With the A321XLR, you now get the flexibility of the A321 with an ACT, but without as great a loss of revenue cargo space.

The A3321LR was really a niche case for very specific markets because its (up to) three ACTs effectively meant you were only carrying passenger bags in the hold. And now with the A321XLR, you can add an additional ACT to have more range than the A321LR with three ACTs and still have room available for something other than passenger bags in the hold.

Then this NLT must be able to do that.

Or I think Boeing is just creating a new market again.
Last edited by Opus99 on Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:24 pm

seahawk wrote:
That is exactly what Boeing thought before Airbus launched the NEO.

Peter Lemme (Satcom Guru) has a new and very detailed piece on what Boeing thought in that time period, and all the history that led up to that point in time. It's up at Leeham News and I recommend reading it. However I don't see how the current situation compares to that time.

I'm not sure where the disagreements are.

No one thinks Boeing should do another 737, I would think, despite evidence of the '5G' study leaking.

I think Boeing needs to meet its current commitments on MAX to customers and partners, and needs to get as much cash flow as they can from this generation of 737. I can see the MAX generating lots of positive cash flow over the rest of this decade. Others seem to feel the right move is to replace MAX as soon as possible or even sooner (i.e. announce the change before it's feasible to deliver anything in a reasonable time frame), but we have no evidence that anyone in Boeing is pushing for that. I get the sense that this is coming from people's emotional reactions and not from logical thinking. If the market kills MAX so be it, but IMO it makes no sense for Boeing to kill it, and that's what announcing a replacement would do.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:26 pm

DenverTed wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes - but an 168"H x 186"H Ovalish cross section
Ostrower explains it well in this article https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/


I hope they go a little bigger. Baseline for me would be 192" diam for the upper fuselage circle, but maybe that can be shrunk to 190". I guess the floor bubble can be shrunk since it has struts to hold it's shape.
My only question is will it(this fuselage) work for Southwest for a 200 seater?
I think any type of twin aisle is the solution at 200 seats. It just needs the critical mass of a few airlines to commit to it.


The 777x is 244" external - remove one seat and one 1.5" armrest from each seat set and that saves you about 57" taking you down to 187". The ribs/sidewall depth on an NMA sized aircraft should be thinner than an 350T 777X so 186" should be doable - maybe even less. I would think they would size it for no more comfort than 777X/787/737 in Y.

I think the NMA cross section totally works for Southwest at 200 seats - just with a lighter NSA wing/gear/wingbox/tail.

NSA is what makes NMA work when you can do both as a combined program and amortize the costs under program accounting over 5,000+ frames.

A lot of the investment will be new very highly automated production lines. I would guess the 777x wing factory can do the presumably longer/possibly folding NMA wing and then a new facility will be needed for NSA wing production and NSA assembly.

That leaves Renton to keep cranking out MAX's until the orders finally dry up and Boeing may be able to get half decent prices for NSA initially as the premium product.

The C919 may be a force in the market by 2030 - Boeing needs to differentiate and lower production cost as you know the Chinese will have no problem selling at a loss to gain market share.
Last edited by morrisond on Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is exactly what Boeing thought before Airbus launched the NEO.

Peter Lemme (Satcom Guru) has a new and very detailed piece on what Boeing thought in that time period, and all the history that led up to that point in time. It's up at Leeham News and I recommend reading it. However I don't see how the current situation compares to that time.

I'm not sure where the disagreements are.

No one thinks Boeing should do another 737, I would think, despite evidence of the '5G' study leaking.

I think Boeing needs to meet its current commitments on MAX to customers and partners, and needs to get as much cash flow as they can from this generation of 737. I can see the MAX generating lots of positive cash flow over the rest of this decade. Others seem to feel the right move is to replace MAX as soon as possible or even sooner (i.e. announce the change before it's feasible to deliver anything in a reasonable time frame), but we have no evidence that anyone in Boeing is pushing for that. I get the sense that this is coming from people's emotional reactions and not from logical thinking. If the market kills MAX so be it, but IMO it makes no sense for Boeing to kill it, and that's what announcing a replacement would do.

Exactly
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:35 pm

Opus99 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I don’t think that’s late. I don’t see Airbus bringing a replacement for the NEO. What will bring Boeing back is not how late or how early they launch. It will be around the same time as whatever Airbus does. What Boeing needs to do is get that plane very right. But the short haul market is not going to grow. It will begin and end at that. What is growing is the XLR market. That’s the sweet spot atm. IMO. Also narrow bodies are getting bigger and widebodies smaller.


No, the XLR market grows because it is a single aisle that can fly further without any meaningful penalty. The strength of the XLR is not to fly 220 pax over 4500nm, the strength is to fly 220pax over 4500nm or fly 220 pax over 600nm and still be very efficient while doing both.

Ah then the standard 321neo is effectively useless no? Why would I buy the standard if I can get the XLR? How many are standard and how many are LRs and XLRs? If most are standard then there’s clearly a reason not to buy the XLR....there’s clearly a reasonable penalty if you don’t need the range. If that’s the case the normal 321neo will never sell. But the XLR is probably more expensive and heavier. So why?

It flies 220 over 450nm for unmatched economics that’s what. Single aisle economics. Why would I buy an XLR if I want to fly it for one hour?


An XLR cannot do 220 over 4,500 NM. That is a pipe dream. It's more like 3,300-3,400 Winter Transatlantic range at that density.

See this article https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
If the market kills MAX so be it, but IMO it makes no sense for Boeing to kill it, and that's what announcing a replacement would do.


I think the last thing Boeing can risk is having the market kill the 737MAX, but it will happen as the 737 evolution is at the end. The final question for Boeing is, if they would rather see a Boeing product kill the MAX or an Airbus product kill the MAX. In a worst case scenario the MAX killer might be already flying in the form of the NEO, as we have no idea how orders (and margins) will develop once both OEMs are no longer volume limited in production.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:01 pm

seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the market kills MAX so be it, but IMO it makes no sense for Boeing to kill it, and that's what announcing a replacement would do.

I think the last thing Boeing can risk is having the market kill the 737MAX, but it will happen as the 737 evolution is at the end. The final question for Boeing is, if they would rather see a Boeing product kill the MAX or an Airbus product kill the MAX. In a worst case scenario the MAX killer might be already flying in the form of the NEO, as we have no idea how orders (and margins) will develop once both OEMs are no longer volume limited in production.

I think Boeing has been OK with the market killing products. They did that with 757, 767 (pax), 747.

I think there is a pretty healthy market for MAX that Boeing can consider to be captive because it costs the customer so much to switch, and may be able to poach a few other customers over time (for instance IAG still wanting to keep Airbus honest and still finding value in an airplane optimized for 738 class missions).

Boeing will move on from MAX but IMO the transition will be via '-5X' or something similar, then 'NSA'.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
If you really believe they will place the remaining 3989 unfilled max orders. But if you believe that it will shake out to be half of that or a third of that, and that customers want those deliveries to be spread out over the next 10 years... for 140 to 200 deliveries a year,... while still a respectable airplane program, might have you pondering an all new model to build a backlog around..... .

You aren't projecting the case where MAX backlog is not just safe but also continues to do what it does well, sell into established fleets like WN, FR, AS, WS, etc and the end result of the order book shake out sees both players hurt in a similar way.


That's true. I painted a picture where cancellations outnumber sales. I don't think that will happen to the exaggerated state I mentioned (1/2 or 1/3). However, I do not believe it will grow. WN, FR, AS, WS will have top-up orders on their already substantial orders, but they will come as a result of very favorable pricing that will be offered due to the additional cancellations we've yet to see. With the cutbacks to production, there are going to be allot of missed deliveries which will give airlines leverage to reschedule deliveries with a cost savings, or outright cancel their order.

That last statement is true of both major airframe producers, but it's going to hurt the MAX program more.

Should we have a quicker COVID recovery than anticipated, with demand increasing, than my dim view will change (that's what we do when we receive new information... we re-evaluate). However, with cheap gas, low demand, and a flood of cheap used planes on the market... It's not unreasonable to think that airlines will keep existing metal around for allot longer than expected during the NEO/MAX order bananzas...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:14 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
If the market kills MAX so be it, but IMO it makes no sense for Boeing to kill it, and that's what announcing a replacement would do.

I think the last thing Boeing can risk is having the market kill the 737MAX, but it will happen as the 737 evolution is at the end. The final question for Boeing is, if they would rather see a Boeing product kill the MAX or an Airbus product kill the MAX. In a worst case scenario the MAX killer might be already flying in the form of the NEO, as we have no idea how orders (and margins) will develop once both OEMs are no longer volume limited in production.

I think Boeing has been OK with the market killing products. They did that with 757, 767 (pax), 747.

I think there is a pretty healthy market for MAX that Boeing can consider to be captive because it costs the customer so much to switch, and may be able to poach a few other customers over time (for instance IAG still wanting to keep Airbus honest and still finding value in an airplane optimized for 738 class missions).

Boeing will move on from MAX but IMO the transition will be via '-5X' or something similar, then 'NSA'.


Exactly - how many more MAX does Southwest and Ryanair have to order to replace their fleets? It's not like Airbus will give them the same level of discount Boeing would to have them switch sides. You could see big orders from those two soonish in order to take advantage of Boeing at a weak point.

They have 3,300 MAX left to build including ASC 606 adjustments - which Airbus does not do - add another 1,000 on and its not too hard to see line rates at 40+ for the rest of the decade and higher if more orders materialize. MAX production could taper after 2030 but by then you have NMA and NSA coming and a probable 787 NEO by that time that should have very healthy margins.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8901
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:37 pm

Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
And the 50-75% additional seats would be either empty or heavily discounted.


Well it's not like Boeing doesn't do market analysis in conjunction with their customers and it's not like those customers don't model their historic traffic patterns.

So if in fact 50-75% of those additional seats would fly empty or deeply discounted, Boeing wouldn't be moving forward with the -5X.

So clearly the models show that they're not going to be empty.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Innovation would be to increase the range of a NB without adding more seats. Seems to technically not possible.


Adding range is easy - just add more fuel volume. Something the A321LR and A321XLR just happen to do.


dtw2hyd wrote:
A321NEOLR capacity is 241 very close to 788 with 256. Why do you think addition more seats is a good idea?


Well one, those 241 seats on the A321LR are all Economy while the 256 on the 787-8 are a mix of Business Class, Premium Economy and Economy with Business Class and Premium Economy earning many multiples per seat compared to Economy. So that 787-8 is going to earn a hell of a lot more revenue per trip (as it needs to do to offset it's higher trip costs).

The Boeing -5X will also have Business Class and Premium Economy and will therefore be earning much more revenue per trip and an A321LR is also not going to have 241 seats on the longest stage lengths (or a significant number of them will have to be empty to allow sufficient fuel weight to be loaded) where as they can all be filled on -5X.


200 or 800, empty seats won't generate revenue. It is not Boeing, it is the airline which has to fill seats or take loss.
No one knows when the corporate travel will be back.
Airlines are happy if their trip costs are covered and yet the rundown "Biggest Premium Heavy Plane" wins the race mantra is tiring.

No wonder Boeing is having trouble.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:43 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
200 or 800, empty seats won't generate revenue. It is not Boeing, it is the airline which has to fill seats or take loss.
No one knows when the corporate travel will be back.
Airlines are happy if their trip costs are covered and yet the rundown "Biggest Premium Heavy Plane" wins the race mantra is tiring.

No wonder Boeing is having trouble.

Yes, no one knows what the future holds, but someone has to be thinking today about what it will be when the next plane enters service, easily six to eight years away.

Hopefully things become clearer in the next two years or so before the airplane is offered for sale.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:53 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Stitch wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
And the 50-75% additional seats would be either empty or heavily discounted.


Well it's not like Boeing doesn't do market analysis in conjunction with their customers and it's not like those customers don't model their historic traffic patterns.

So if in fact 50-75% of those additional seats would fly empty or deeply discounted, Boeing wouldn't be moving forward with the -5X.

So clearly the models show that they're not going to be empty.


dtw2hyd wrote:
Innovation would be to increase the range of a NB without adding more seats. Seems to technically not possible.


Adding range is easy - just add more fuel volume. Something the A321LR and A321XLR just happen to do.


dtw2hyd wrote:
A321NEOLR capacity is 241 very close to 788 with 256. Why do you think addition more seats is a good idea?


Well one, those 241 seats on the A321LR are all Economy while the 256 on the 787-8 are a mix of Business Class, Premium Economy and Economy with Business Class and Premium Economy earning many multiples per seat compared to Economy. So that 787-8 is going to earn a hell of a lot more revenue per trip (as it needs to do to offset it's higher trip costs).

The Boeing -5X will also have Business Class and Premium Economy and will therefore be earning much more revenue per trip and an A321LR is also not going to have 241 seats on the longest stage lengths (or a significant number of them will have to be empty to allow sufficient fuel weight to be loaded) where as they can all be filled on -5X.


200 or 800, empty seats won't generate revenue. It is not Boeing, it is the airline which has to fill seats or take loss.
No one knows when the corporate travel will be back.
Airlines are happy if their trip costs are covered and yet the rundown "Biggest Premium Heavy Plane" wins the race mantra is tiring.

No wonder Boeing is having trouble.

Boeing is not having trouble because of the competitiveness of their aircrafts. They’re having problems because of their negligence and poor culture. In a scenario the Max was designed properly and no grounding. Boeing was in a very good place when the max just entered service. 17-18 it was selling fast. I have no doubt that Boeing knows how to measure the market and develop the appropriate aircraft. They’ve done it many times before. Boeing knows how to design and built very good planes. The problem usually is in getting the plane to market without significant delays or in the case of max gross negligence.
Boeing did their market research and produced the 787 and the 777. They’ve gotten good results on their last two clean sheets. I’m sure they’ll do the necessary research and know what the market needs.

Avolon CEO recently did an interview with Lee ham and he says the NSA tech is definitely not ready. So there’s no point in Boeing launching that now. If they can however find a sweet spot in the middle of the market and use that as an opportunity to base line their next product the NSA I think that’s a good game plan.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:22 pm

morrisond wrote:
They have 3,300 MAX left to build including ASC 606 adjustments - which Airbus does not do - add another 1,000 on and its not too hard to see line rates at 40+ for the rest of the decade and higher if more orders materialize. MAX production could taper after 2030 but by then you have NMA and NSA coming and a probable 787 NEO by that time that should have very healthy margins.


In the current environment, many people seem to conflate the short term and long term outlooks. As a result, they do not give the long term market forecasts much credibility. I always view the forecasts as over-optimistic (and I always get proven wrong), but even if long term growth is slower than forecast, the demand between now and when the next aircraft enters service and ramps up is significant.

Boeing's interim forecast adjusted for COVID was a fairly sizeable downgrade - 15% decrease in RPK growth rate, worse in the first half of the forecast period. Yet even that calls for an average of 113 narrowbodies per month over the next decade. Even as the A320 family and CSeries ramp up back to and beyond their previous records, they will still be leaving a significant market for Boeing even if for no other reason than lack of available slots to meet growth. If the MAX really does beat the NEO economics for some route applications as various sources have indicated, especially for the -8 vs. the A320, Boeing will win some sales on merits, too.

I wanted to briefly look at more pessimistic outcomes, so let me share my numbers. From Boeing's interim 2020 forecast, I made some very simple alternative total demand scenarios, and moved the forecast window by 1 year (2021-2030) to get past the worst of the pandemic impacts and run through roughly when an NSA/NMA might be in service. I start from a combined rate of 75 (31 x 737 + 40 x A320 + 4 x CSeries), and ramp that linearly over the decade. All of these are combined rates for the three families:

Forecast       2021-2030  -  Initial  -  Final
Adjustment -   Deliveries -   Rate    -  Rate
--
Boeing CMO -    13,570    -      75   -   151
-10%       -    12,213    -      75   -   129
-20%       -    10,856    -      75   -   106


There is risk for Boeing to be gradually marginalized as Airbus production ramps up in the -20% scenario, assuming no 737 sales based on merit - slot availability only. Airbus exceeding their previous record rates by even a small amount could prevent Boeing from ever recovering fully back to their previous record rate. That's not actually a dire scenario - Boeing was making good money on the 737 before the accidents - but it's not the worst case credible.

In the -10% scenario, if Airbus recovers to their production rate record of 53 x A320 family per month by the end of next year, then in order to keep Boeing from recovering even to their record of 48 per month, Airbus has to continue increasing their production rate by 3.5 per month every year. Airbus's actual ramp rate from 2010 to 2019 was only 2 per month gain each year.

In the CMO baseline scenario, both Boeing and Airbus could both ramp as fast as they historically have, and still leave room for the C919 to find a modest market, too.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8901
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:59 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Boeing did their market research and produced the 787 and the 777.


787 started as 757 replacement which dominated TATL. Now they neither are able to downsize 787 nor upsize 737 created a vacuum Airbus is ready to fill.
All posts are just opinions.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:38 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They have 3,300 MAX left to build including ASC 606 adjustments - which Airbus does not do - add another 1,000 on and its not too hard to see line rates at 40+ for the rest of the decade and higher if more orders materialize. MAX production could taper after 2030 but by then you have NMA and NSA coming and a probable 787 NEO by that time that should have very healthy margins.


In the current environment, many people seem to conflate the short term and long term outlooks. As a result, they do not give the long term market forecasts much credibility. I always view the forecasts as over-optimistic (and I always get proven wrong), but even if long term growth is slower than forecast, the demand between now and when the next aircraft enters service and ramps up is significant.

Boeing's interim forecast adjusted for COVID was a fairly sizeable downgrade - 15% decrease in RPK growth rate, worse in the first half of the forecast period. Yet even that calls for an average of 113 narrowbodies per month over the next decade. Even as the A320 family and CSeries ramp up back to and beyond their previous records, they will still be leaving a significant market for Boeing even if for no other reason than lack of available slots to meet growth. If the MAX really does beat the NEO economics for some route applications as various sources have indicated, especially for the -8 vs. the A320, Boeing will win some sales on merits, too.

I wanted to briefly look at more pessimistic outcomes, so let me share my numbers. From Boeing's interim 2020 forecast, I made some very simple alternative total demand scenarios, and moved the forecast window by 1 year (2021-2030) to get past the worst of the pandemic impacts and run through roughly when an NSA/NMA might be in service. I start from a combined rate of 75 (31 x 737 + 40 x A320 + 4 x CSeries), and ramp that linearly over the decade. All of these are combined rates for the three families:

Forecast       2021-2030  -  Initial  -  Final
Adjustment -   Deliveries -   Rate    -  Rate
--
Boeing CMO -    13,570    -      75   -   151
-10%       -    12,213    -      75   -   129
-20%       -    10,856    -      75   -   106


There is risk for Boeing to be gradually marginalized as Airbus production ramps up in the -20% scenario, assuming no 737 sales based on merit - slot availability only. Airbus exceeding their previous record rates by even a small amount could prevent Boeing from ever recovering fully back to their previous record rate. That's not actually a dire scenario - Boeing was making good money on the 737 before the accidents - but it's not the worst case credible.

In the -10% scenario, if Airbus recovers to their production rate record of 53 x A320 family per month by the end of next year, then in order to keep Boeing from recovering even to their record of 48 per month, Airbus has to continue increasing their production rate by 3.5 per month every year. Airbus's actual ramp rate from 2010 to 2019 was only 2 per month gain each year.

In the CMO baseline scenario, both Boeing and Airbus could both ramp as fast as they historically have, and still leave room for the C919 to find a modest market, too.


Great work. Any idea of how many frames in total that would be for A&B between now and then?
 
JonesNL
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:49 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
They have 3,300 MAX left to build including ASC 606 adjustments - which Airbus does not do - add another 1,000 on and its not too hard to see line rates at 40+ for the rest of the decade and higher if more orders materialize. MAX production could taper after 2030 but by then you have NMA and NSA coming and a probable 787 NEO by that time that should have very healthy margins.


In the current environment, many people seem to conflate the short term and long term outlooks. As a result, they do not give the long term market forecasts much credibility. I always view the forecasts as over-optimistic (and I always get proven wrong), but even if long term growth is slower than forecast, the demand between now and when the next aircraft enters service and ramps up is significant.

Boeing's interim forecast adjusted for COVID was a fairly sizeable downgrade - 15% decrease in RPK growth rate, worse in the first half of the forecast period. Yet even that calls for an average of 113 narrowbodies per month over the next decade. Even as the A320 family and CSeries ramp up back to and beyond their previous records, they will still be leaving a significant market for Boeing even if for no other reason than lack of available slots to meet growth. If the MAX really does beat the NEO economics for some route applications as various sources have indicated, especially for the -8 vs. the A320, Boeing will win some sales on merits, too.

I wanted to briefly look at more pessimistic outcomes, so let me share my numbers. From Boeing's interim 2020 forecast, I made some very simple alternative total demand scenarios, and moved the forecast window by 1 year (2021-2030) to get past the worst of the pandemic impacts and run through roughly when an NSA/NMA might be in service. I start from a combined rate of 75 (31 x 737 + 40 x A320 + 4 x CSeries), and ramp that linearly over the decade. All of these are combined rates for the three families:

Forecast       2021-2030  -  Initial  -  Final
Adjustment -   Deliveries -   Rate    -  Rate
--
Boeing CMO -    13,570    -      75   -   151
-10%       -    12,213    -      75   -   129
-20%       -    10,856    -      75   -   106


There is risk for Boeing to be gradually marginalized as Airbus production ramps up in the -20% scenario, assuming no 737 sales based on merit - slot availability only. Airbus exceeding their previous record rates by even a small amount could prevent Boeing from ever recovering fully back to their previous record rate. That's not actually a dire scenario - Boeing was making good money on the 737 before the accidents - but it's not the worst case credible.

In the -10% scenario, if Airbus recovers to their production rate record of 53 x A320 family per month by the end of next year, then in order to keep Boeing from recovering even to their record of 48 per month, Airbus has to continue increasing their production rate by 3.5 per month every year. Airbus's actual ramp rate from 2010 to 2019 was only 2 per month gain each year.

In the CMO baseline scenario, both Boeing and Airbus could both ramp as fast as they historically have, and still leave room for the C919 to find a modest market, too.


The ramp up speed of either one is going to be different compared to historical ramp up. When they went from 58 to 60 they had massive investments and were going to uncharted territory. Now the supply chain to support higher rates is a repetition of the past. I think both can ramp up much faster than before. In the end it boils down to demand and ability to deliver...
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:55 am

This is going out there. But, I wonder if Airbus or Boeing have some behind the curtain projects such as an HSCT? Boom Overture
Image
Image
For A & B if you can't beat them join them.
I'm Zippyjet & I approve this message!
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:25 am

morrisond wrote:
Great work. Any idea of how many frames in total that would be for A&B between now and then?


The "2021-2030 Deliveries" column is the total number of narrowbody frames, based on Boeing's interim Commercial Market Outlook, which forecast 13,570 narrowbody frames delivered for 2020-2039. My numbers are simplistically based only on decreasing the number of frames by the indicated percentage.

Boeing's forecast across all market segments (widebody, narrowbody, freighters, and regional jets) is 18,350 for the 2020-2039 decade.

I neglected the C919 in my numbers. I assume in reality it will have a small but non-zero effect, mainly in the later half of the decade.

JonesNL wrote:
The ramp up speed of either one is going to be different compared to historical ramp up. When they went from 58 to 60 they had massive investments and were going to uncharted territory. Now the supply chain to support higher rates is a repetition of the past. I think both can ramp up much faster than before. In the end it boils down to demand and ability to deliver...


Every incremental rate increase is uncharted territory and has involved investments in some portion of the supply chain and production system or another. Some steps are bigger than others. I will treat the pace of the production rate ramp up as uncertain until it is demonstrated, and use the historical pace as the baseline. I expect they will be cautious as they see how the market actually recovers, and accelerate later in the decade if the demand is proven out.

In the meantime, many of the suppliers are in rough shape and resisted Airbus' requests to increase the rate. Just a couple months ago Airbus indicated they wanted to ramp back up from 40 to 47 per month by mid-2021. The target is now 45 per month by late 2021.

They never went 60 in terms of true numbers. In 2019, when Airbus achieved a factory pace of 60 per month, reportedly in the middle of the year, due in some manner I've never seen fully explained to the way production time is actually utilized, their actual output amounted to 53.5 per month.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:51 am

https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/

Scott Hamilton believes this is the right plane for Boeing to launch ATM, he wrote an article about it over the summer.

Over he has some nice renderings on what it could look like.

Essentially, would this jet also be good for short haul operations like your london to dublin for example, or would it lose out to the smaller 321XLR there?

I see this aircraft being big in the asian market though
Last edited by Opus99 on Thu Feb 04, 2021 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 34

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