Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:04 pm

Stitch wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Why does the NMA/NSA need to approach such long distances? With all that capability it will be rather comprimised for uhhhhh, middle of the market missions, no?

Do we really need to fly this far with just 250 people? Is this really the Market? Even a A321XLR is not going to fly any more than 200pax to 4500nm.. or 240pax to 4000nm... under the best of conditions.


United and American have both invested heavily in the A321XLR with 50 each and have said they plan to use part of those fleets to expand into new TATL routes. So Boeing might be planning NMA-6X and NMA-7X to serve as natural upgrades for A321XLR routes that grow beyond the capacity of the A321XLR. In other words, A321XLRs would launch these routes and if they prove popular, NMAs would move in to handle the increased traffic.

Delta, whom one would expect to be a major A321XLR customer, has yet to order any because they are said to be waiting for NMA. Could it be that Delta feels that the A321XLR is too small for TATL or that NMA's cost-per-seat would be sufficiently lower to make it a better option (lower fares able to fill those extra seats)?


I get that.. So you have a new TATL route with 220pax going 4200nmi and you put an A321XLR on it... (random example that the A321XLR is capable of where other narrobodies aren't). This route proves widely popular and you decide to upgrade to a widebody that has a capacity of 250-270 to go that 4200nmi..... Why wouldn't you just use a 3-class 789? or a 2 class 788? Yes, a bit over capable in regards to range... But my point is....your NMA-6X/7X are now competing with 787... I thought the 788 was 20% more efficient than a 763... so it's not as if it's a fuel hog..... An engine PIP and aero treatments would help even more...and much cheaper than building another widebody.

Boeing has 3 widebodies at the moment (767,777,787).... and a single narrowbody... I can't believe it will build a 4th widebody to fill roles slightly north of the A321XLR... I really believe Airbus would just do the A322... and eventually roll those improvements into the A321 and a stretched A320...

Now if 5x,6x and 7x are comfortable narrowbodies.. and stay under 5000nmi.... then they fill TATL routes very nicely, and probably more economically than A321/A322.... and then compliment 789/7810 nicely instead of competing with them...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10180
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:23 pm

I think concentrating on the XLR misses the point. If barely makes up for 15% of the orders, if you discount converted normal NEOS it is even less. Is that a sign that the market for the XLR is that big?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:46 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Stitch wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Why does the NMA/NSA need to approach such long distances? With all that capability it will be rather comprimised for uhhhhh, middle of the market missions, no?

Do we really need to fly this far with just 250 people? Is this really the Market? Even a A321XLR is not going to fly any more than 200pax to 4500nm.. or 240pax to 4000nm... under the best of conditions.


United and American have both invested heavily in the A321XLR with 50 each and have said they plan to use part of those fleets to expand into new TATL routes. So Boeing might be planning NMA-6X and NMA-7X to serve as natural upgrades for A321XLR routes that grow beyond the capacity of the A321XLR. In other words, A321XLRs would launch these routes and if they prove popular, NMAs would move in to handle the increased traffic.

Delta, whom one would expect to be a major A321XLR customer, has yet to order any because they are said to be waiting for NMA. Could it be that Delta feels that the A321XLR is too small for TATL or that NMA's cost-per-seat would be sufficiently lower to make it a better option (lower fares able to fill those extra seats)?


I get that.. So you have a new TATL route with 220pax going 4200nmi and you put an A321XLR on it... (random example that the A321XLR is capable of where other narrobodies aren't). This route proves widely popular and you decide to upgrade to a widebody that has a capacity of 250-270 to go that 4200nmi..... Why wouldn't you just use a 3-class 789? or a 2 class 788? Yes, a bit over capable in regards to range... But my point is....your NMA-6X/7X are now competing with 787... I thought the 788 was 20% more efficient than a 763... so it's not as if it's a fuel hog..... An engine PIP and aero treatments would help even more...and much cheaper than building another widebody.

Boeing has 3 widebodies at the moment (767,777,787).... and a single narrowbody... I can't believe it will build a 4th widebody to fill roles slightly north of the A321XLR... I really believe Airbus would just do the A322... and eventually roll those improvements into the A321 and a stretched A320...

Now if 5x,6x and 7x are comfortable narrowbodies.. and stay under 5000nmi.... then they fill TATL routes very nicely, and probably more economically than A321/A322.... and then compliment 789/7810 nicely instead of competing with them...


However the 321XLR won't go 4,200nm with 220 passengers - that is more like under 3,500NM. I know you are just using that as an example - and that is why Airbus is probably looking at a new wing so it can take a full load to a lot of places in Europe with an additional 2 or so rows and probably higher MTOW.

https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
 
ehaase
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:06 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:02 pm

Cdydatzigs wrote:
So it would seem all of this boils down to two things: (1) Boeing needs a clean-sheet 737 replacement (2) The market wants/needs a 757/767 replacement

As much as Boeing would love for it to be the case, methinks you cannot achieve both with a single aircraft type. A super long single-aisle isn't going to cut it, nor will a stubby double-aisle. This will have to be two different airplanes.


I think in the end Boeing will produce only a slightly more efficient 320/321.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27515
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:02 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I get that.. So you have a new TATL route with 220pax going 4200nmi and you put an A321XLR on it... (random example that the A321XLR is capable of where other narrobodies aren't). This route proves widely popular and you decide to upgrade to a widebody that has a capacity of 250-270 to go that 4200nmi..... Why wouldn't you just use a 3-class 789? or a 2 class 788?


While an A321XLR might be able to take 220 passengers in an all-Economy configuration TATL distances, a more reasonable expectation would be 160-185 based on airlines like JetBlue and Aer Lingus that offer lie-flat Business Class.

So NMA-6X and NMA-7X would be the one carrying the 220-250 passengers and then the 787/A350 would be there for the over-250 seat market.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27515
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:05 pm

seahawk wrote:
I think concentrating on the XLR misses the point. If barely makes up for 15% of the orders, if you discount converted normal NEOS it is even less. Is that a sign that the market for the XLR is that big?


Yes it is a small percentage of the A321neo order book, but it will likely become the standard A321neo model going forward since every A321neo has at least one ACT and the A321LR with three ACTs loses too much cargo volume compared to tjh A321XLR with one ACT.
 
744SPX
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:14 pm

I'm thinking its got to be 3-3 or 2-2-2.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:16 pm

2-3-2 in basic eco, 2-2-2 in premium economy and 1-1-1 in business. How about that?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27515
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:36 pm

Noshow wrote:
2-3-2 in basic eco, 2-2-2 in premium economy and 1-1-1 in business. How about that?


For a small dual-aisle, that makes the most sense to me.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:42 pm

astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The 737-7 size is dead anyways by - 2035


It certainly will be at 6-abreast.
History seems pretty clear that shorter and fatter ultimately fails against longer and narrower at the capacity crossover

Rgds


I'm afraid I would have to respectivally disagree on this one. The A319CEO did not fail against a long 5-abreast. Neither did the 737-700NG. The A330-200 sold fine but the balance shiften to the 300 when it got sufficient range to negate the range and flexibility advantage of the 200. The balance shifted a whole lot more between the 800 NEO and the 900. Again because of the futher increase in MTOW and range.

Same with A319NEO. Once the A320 got so much range that the A319 lost a meaningfull range/flexibility advantage, airliners just paid that bit extra and just went for the CASM and revenue potential of the A320.

People see this happen to the shortest version and assume it's because of it's more stubby shape (of course there are limits), when in fact it's their legacy MTOW that mated with improved SFC and other efficiency improvements, that make the smallest version loose it's crucial range/flexibility advantage against the next model up.

A cleansheet could reinstate this range/flexibility advantage of the smallest models by limiting the design MTOW/range of the next model up.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:26 am

Stitch wrote:
Noshow wrote:
2-3-2 in basic eco, 2-2-2 in premium economy and 1-1-1 in business. How about that?


For a small dual-aisle, that makes the most sense to me.


Me too - or Domestic Business up front of 2x2x2 or 2x1x2
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:48 am

Taxi645 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The 737-7 size is dead anyways by - 2035


It certainly will be at 6-abreast.
History seems pretty clear that shorter and fatter ultimately fails against longer and narrower at the capacity crossover

Rgds


I'm afraid I would have to respectivally disagree on this one. The A319CEO did not fail against a long 5-abreast. Neither did the 737-700NG. The A330-200 sold fine but the balance shiften to the 300 when it got sufficient range to negate the range and flexibility advantage of the 200. The balance shifted a whole lot more between the 800 NEO and the 900. Again because of the futher increase in MTOW and range.

Same with A319NEO. Once the A320 got so much range that the A319 lost a meaningfull range/flexibility advantage, airliners just paid that bit extra and just went for the CASM and revenue potential of the A320.

People see this happen to the shortest version and assume it's because of it's more stubby shape (of course there are limits), when in fact it's their legacy MTOW that mated with improved SFC and other efficiency improvements, that make the smallest version loose it's crucial range/flexibility advantage against the next model up.

A cleansheet could reinstate this range/flexibility advantage of the smallest models by limiting the design MTOW/range of the next model up.


Exactly - the concept pictures in the AVWeek article seem to have the NMA-5 with a different wing and tail than the -6/7
 
astuteman
Posts: 7330
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:34 am

Taxi645 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
morrisond wrote:
The 737-7 size is dead anyways by - 2035


It certainly will be at 6-abreast.
History seems pretty clear that shorter and fatter ultimately fails against longer and narrower at the capacity crossover

Rgds


I'm afraid I would have to respectivally disagree on this one. The A319CEO did not fail against a long 5-abreast. Neither did the 737-700NG. The A330-200 sold fine but the balance shiften to the 300 when it got sufficient range to negate the range and flexibility advantage of the 200. The balance shifted a whole lot more between the 800 NEO and the 900. Again because of the futher increase in MTOW and range.

Same with A319NEO. Once the A320 got so much range that the A319 lost a meaningfull range/flexibility advantage, airliners just paid that bit extra and just went for the CASM and revenue potential of the A320.

People see this happen to the shortest version and assume it's because of it's more stubby shape (of course there are limits), when in fact it's their legacy MTOW that mated with improved SFC and other efficiency improvements, that make the smallest version loose it's crucial range/flexibility advantage against the next model up.

A cleansheet could reinstate this range/flexibility advantage of the smallest models by limiting the design MTOW/range of the next model up.


That was a long and convoluted way of saying you disagree with me, and then actually agreeing ......
But thanks... :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10180
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:14 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think concentrating on the XLR misses the point. If barely makes up for 15% of the orders, if you discount converted normal NEOS it is even less. Is that a sign that the market for the XLR is that big?


Yes it is a small percentage of the A321neo order book, but it will likely become the standard A321neo model going forward since every A321neo has at least one ACT and the A321LR with three ACTs loses too much cargo volume compared to tjh A321XLR with one ACT.


Yes, but so far most customers were happy with one ACT, some even with no ACT at all. So I still question if the range of the XLR is key to the success of the A321, I think it is not.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:40 am

It's cheap. Cheap to build and operate as it's based on a mass market legacy family. Cost wise this will be hard to impossible to beat with any new program.
It's a bit like "their" NG. Ad some new wing and they are set and remain competitive.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:07 am

What really needs to happen is for antitrust laws to change to allow manufacturers to have exclusive agreements with airlines. I still don't understand how Boeing's exclusive agreements with AA,DL, and CO got thrown out by a third party. Airlines are allowed to have exclusive agreements with other vendors (DL and Coke for example), so why not aircraft manufacturers? Without these exclusive agreements it makes it very difficult for both Boeing and Airbus to design and improve products when no one wants to make firm commitments and plays endless games with them. Boeing and Airbus have bills to pay as well and shouldn't be jerked around. Work out one deal and guarantee competitive pricing for exclusive rights to the fleet. Market share will washout to about even and the never ending chase for each sale will be gone. A win for all. When a new plane is on the horizon Boeing and Airbus can have meaningful input from their customers and get it into production sooner.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:50 am

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

This is really making me laugh. So I show that you basically get that extra aisle for more than free (in terms of Volume and skin area) and somehow that is a negative?

As most of the production will be automated - more complex parts won't really add that much more cost.

The point of this cross section - as others have pointed out above is that it could be the cross section for NSA as well and range up to 300 seats. It also differentiates Boeing as the premium product against COMAC which will be a much larger threat by EIS and Airbus if they do not go clean sheet (and they could easily do something like this 2x3x2 and would have more room to do so given they have the A220 - then they have 5W, 7W and 9W assuming A330 death - which is perfect).

For the container size the market will adapt - as others have pointed out many of there existing 737 Customers do not have the cargo handling equipment yet anyways - if the Cross section is also used for NSA then you are talking about an installed base of easily over 10,000 frames in the 2030's and 2040's. Some more Cargo Handling equipment won't be an issue. No reason you won't be able to put an LD3-45 in it either. - Less Capacity - but packed full for LR missions you might be Cargo limited anyways. Short Haul you don't need that much space in the belly.

In any case a new Container is not a show stopper.


Free volume does nothing for an aircraft. A ballon and a bowling ball also have the same volume but one flies when you fill it with helium.

No and Boeing can not force a wider container just like that, especially because every aircraft designed after 1980 uses LD3(-45s). They are all transferable from one to another and even into feeder aircraft. We will be stuck with them, they even load LD3s into the 747s even though they woule have LD1s .The LD2 is somewhat an oddball here.
A new container would drive costs into oblivion because if you want to buy the new aircraft you would also have to buy new cargo equipment. Thats not what a lean aircraft does.

Also using a stunby aircraft for the 240pax market means everything below is conceeded to the competitors.
And also the shorter the aircraft the bigger the tail what means that all the bigger versions need a new tail so you have two tails or a bad compromise at one end of the spectrum. This all adds cost.

So we really should just listen to Calhoun: Boeing targets the A321 family. So 180-200 two class with up to 4500nm range. If Boeing can do that with 85t MTOW it will be an aircraft selling 10‘000 copies.

If Boeing builds a 240 two class 150t aircraft they might sell 1500 tops and take 500 away from the 787.

Now where would the big shareholders (that control the board) put their money?


On an 200-220 Seat (A322 plus a little bit - realistic seat pitch) 2 Class NMA that weighs maybe 110-120T and will take that load out to a real 4-500- 5,000, whereas an A322 without a new wing would carry that load maybe 3,300NM.

If Boeing could actually build an 85T aircraft that does 4,500 with 200 two class - Airbus would have no hope in hell at competing - you are probably talking more about 105-110T even for a 3x3 to have that capability.

The 85T 2x3x2 NSA that can only do 3,000 NM will come later. Nothing would stop you from LD3-45 in an NMA - but you would have to think that Boeing has already thought through that problem.

Please show any current article where Boeing is rumoured or contemplating 3x3 for NMA. They want to build a premium product to differentiate themselves. The C919 is coming.


Why are you constantly shifting goal posts and stuff around and can never just stick to something?

Boeing said (Calhoun) that they target the A321 market. That is 180-200 2 Class, not 200-220. That is the only true statement we have. That is not a hypothetical 322 size with an old wing (whatever this is).

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-new-aircraft-discussions/ This was last october and fits perfectly the narrative that Boeing aims for the A321 market.

Also a 110-120t has a problem, as it needs stronger landing gear than one that can have a single-bogie. That means you inherently need more structure for not a lot of gain. I almost guess nearly 10% of the increase in MTOW will go towards the gear. A 757 wheel is about 68kg (150lb, https://aerosavvy.com/aircraft-wheels/). You need 4 more of them than on an aircraft with single-bogie. Plus 4 more breaks and the structure to hold all of it. So you gain around 1t of weight for 10t increase in MTOW. And that is just the start, you need bigger wings to bring that heavier weight further. So at the end you most probably do not gain significant payload by increasing MTOW over 100t. As you can see the 115t MTOW of the 757 had the same performance (capacity/range) as the 321xlr has now.
So instead of increasing MTOW just a bit to gain nothing as all the increase is eaten by a heavier airframe it would be way better to create the same capacity than the A321 but reduce MTOW by actually taking advantage of what that the A321 can not do easily. Losing weight. The wings are too heavy and old, the fuselage is old and heavy, the systems are old and heavy, the fuel tanks are old and heavy and now they even had to add another tank that is also not optimised. The aerodynamics are based on 80s knowledge.

The 321xlr holds 39'500 litres of fuel (31'600kg). So by reducing fuel consumption by 10% already helps to reduce MTOW by 3t. It is probably possible to take 3-4t out of the structure, especially with a modern wing box. Modern electronic sub systems should also reduce weight by around 1t as you can get rid of all the fluids etc.

So we are already at 93-94t MTOW vs the 101 of the 321xlr and this is just with a clean up, I bet there is more possible, look at the difference between A339 and 787-9 OEW.
Boeing could do the same with the NSA vs the XLR. Bringing the target MTOW down 10-15t should lead to around 8t advantage in the OEW. That is massive in this segment and creates a winning product selling thousands and making Boeing billions. And that is what the board and the investors want. A solid business case.
 
Chemist
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:46 am

In the context of the 737, it seems that they need to replace it. I've read the arguments that the plane has to be bigger or it would cannibalize the MAX order book. So what is the alternative, letting the MAX market share slowly degrade and lose that market entirely? If Boeing is going for the MOM, they might be successful but that's not a market the size of the A320/737 market. I can see targeting the A321/737-9 market if the size of average aircraft increases over time, but the MOM was the gap between the NBs and the WBs. And that's bigger than the 737/A320 and even A321.

It makes sense that they DO need to target the A321 market if that is where the average NB size is going. And that's not really the MOM, except perhaps as a future stretch. They can't kick the 737 replacement can down the road forever.
 
User avatar
Taxi645
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:24 am

astuteman wrote:
Taxi645 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

It certainly will be at 6-abreast.
History seems pretty clear that shorter and fatter ultimately fails against longer and narrower at the capacity crossover

Rgds


I'm afraid I would have to respectivally disagree on this one. The A319CEO did not fail against a long 5-abreast. Neither did the 737-700NG. The A330-200 sold fine but the balance shiften to the 300 when it got sufficient range to negate the range and flexibility advantage of the 200. The balance shifted a whole lot more between the 800 NEO and the 900. Again because of the futher increase in MTOW and range.

Same with A319NEO. Once the A320 got so much range that the A319 lost a meaningfull range/flexibility advantage, airliners just paid that bit extra and just went for the CASM and revenue potential of the A320.

People see this happen to the shortest version and assume it's because of it's more stubby shape (of course there are limits), when in fact it's their legacy MTOW that mated with improved SFC and other efficiency improvements, that make the smallest version loose it's crucial range/flexibility advantage against the next model up.

A cleansheet could reinstate this range/flexibility advantage of the smallest models by limiting the design MTOW/range of the next model up.


That was a long and convoluted way of saying you disagree with me, and then actually agreeing ......
But thanks... :)

Rgds


That depends on weather we agree a clean sheet 6-abreast could be competitive in the MAX 7 size bracket. It not not quite clear yet to me if you agree on that. I think it could be because commonality would outweigh the possible minor (if any) performance deficit in relation to a 5-abreast of the same tech level in my opinion.
Innovation is seeing opportunity before obstacle.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:58 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

Free volume does nothing for an aircraft. A ballon and a bowling ball also have the same volume but one flies when you fill it with helium.

No and Boeing can not force a wider container just like that, especially because every aircraft designed after 1980 uses LD3(-45s). They are all transferable from one to another and even into feeder aircraft. We will be stuck with them, they even load LD3s into the 747s even though they woule have LD1s .The LD2 is somewhat an oddball here.
A new container would drive costs into oblivion because if you want to buy the new aircraft you would also have to buy new cargo equipment. Thats not what a lean aircraft does.

Also using a stunby aircraft for the 240pax market means everything below is conceeded to the competitors.
And also the shorter the aircraft the bigger the tail what means that all the bigger versions need a new tail so you have two tails or a bad compromise at one end of the spectrum. This all adds cost.

So we really should just listen to Calhoun: Boeing targets the A321 family. So 180-200 two class with up to 4500nm range. If Boeing can do that with 85t MTOW it will be an aircraft selling 10‘000 copies.

If Boeing builds a 240 two class 150t aircraft they might sell 1500 tops and take 500 away from the 787.

Now where would the big shareholders (that control the board) put their money?


On an 200-220 Seat (A322 plus a little bit - realistic seat pitch) 2 Class NMA that weighs maybe 110-120T and will take that load out to a real 4-500- 5,000, whereas an A322 without a new wing would carry that load maybe 3,300NM.

If Boeing could actually build an 85T aircraft that does 4,500 with 200 two class - Airbus would have no hope in hell at competing - you are probably talking more about 105-110T even for a 3x3 to have that capability.

The 85T 2x3x2 NSA that can only do 3,000 NM will come later. Nothing would stop you from LD3-45 in an NMA - but you would have to think that Boeing has already thought through that problem.

Please show any current article where Boeing is rumoured or contemplating 3x3 for NMA. They want to build a premium product to differentiate themselves. The C919 is coming.


Why are you constantly shifting goal posts and stuff around and can never just stick to something?

Boeing said (Calhoun) that they target the A321 market. That is 180-200 2 Class, not 200-220. That is the only true statement we have. That is not a hypothetical 322 size with an old wing (whatever this is).

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-new-aircraft-discussions/ This was last october and fits perfectly the narrative that Boeing aims for the A321 market.

Also a 110-120t has a problem, as it needs stronger landing gear than one that can have a single-bogie. That means you inherently need more structure for not a lot of gain. I almost guess nearly 10% of the increase in MTOW will go towards the gear. A 757 wheel is about 68kg (150lb, https://aerosavvy.com/aircraft-wheels/). You need 4 more of them than on an aircraft with single-bogie. Plus 4 more breaks and the structure to hold all of it. So you gain around 1t of weight for 10t increase in MTOW. And that is just the start, you need bigger wings to bring that heavier weight further. So at the end you most probably do not gain significant payload by increasing MTOW over 100t. As you can see the 115t MTOW of the 757 had the same performance (capacity/range) as the 321xlr has now.
So instead of increasing MTOW just a bit to gain nothing as all the increase is eaten by a heavier airframe it would be way better to create the same capacity than the A321 but reduce MTOW by actually taking advantage of what that the A321 can not do easily. Losing weight. The wings are too heavy and old, the fuselage is old and heavy, the systems are old and heavy, the fuel tanks are old and heavy and now they even had to add another tank that is also not optimised. The aerodynamics are based on 80s knowledge.

The 321xlr holds 39'500 litres of fuel (31'600kg). So by reducing fuel consumption by 10% already helps to reduce MTOW by 3t. It is probably possible to take 3-4t out of the structure, especially with a modern wing box. Modern electronic sub systems should also reduce weight by around 1t as you can get rid of all the fluids etc.

So we are already at 93-94t MTOW vs the 101 of the 321xlr and this is just with a clean up, I bet there is more possible, look at the difference between A339 and 787-9 OEW.
Boeing could do the same with the NSA vs the XLR. Bringing the target MTOW down 10-15t should lead to around 8t advantage in the OEW. That is massive in this segment and creates a winning product selling thousands and making Boeing billions. And that is what the board and the investors want. A solid business case.


I'm not shifting the Goal posts - Boeing knows that Airbus is most likely to launch a 322 with a new wing. That is what the Goal post will be - and you probably want to be slightly bigger just like 738vsA320 to give you an advantage.

How far do you want your airplane to fly with these loads? With 180-200 2 c-class an A321XLR is not 4,500 - It is a lot closer to 3,600-3,700 real TATL Winter range. Extend it a bit without a new wing and it will be less - that is why Airbus is probably looking at a new wing - which won't be lighter than the existing A321XLR as It will most likely give it more capability.

The A320 series was actually available with a 4 wheel Main gear - you would not use 2 more of the same size - you would use 4 smaller ones.

Yes Boeing could do an NSA first - but it won't available for probably 10 years and that probably means the MAX is dead if they go down that route. The ideal is go down a path that supplements the MAX on the high end until you get your production process in place so you can build a high volume NSA.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:03 pm

keesje wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
So we are already at 93-94t MTOW vs the 101 of the 321xlr and this is just with a clean up, I bet there is more possible, look at the difference between A339 and 787-9 OEW.
Boeing could do the same with the NSA vs the XLR. Bringing the target MTOW down 10-15t should lead to around 8t advantage in the OEW. That is massive in this segment and creates a winning product selling thousands and making Boeing billions. And that is what the board and the investors want. A solid business case.


A330-900 OEW: 135t https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A330.pdf
787-9 OEW: 129t http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

The A339 has bigger span and is longer than the 787-9. If Boeing would do the same thing to the A321XLR, NMA OEW would be 49t vs 51t? But it has to be a NB, a bit smaller than an A321. I wouldn't count on yet-to-be revealed amazing technology to save the day.. E.g. the latest wing & engine technology added a lot of weight to the 777x.

The XLR wing is a heavily modified A321wing, to handle 101t MTOW and offers the required lift for acceptable airfield performance. They'll probably use that new wing to limit risk, time to market, investment and ramp up quickly a A322NEO. A standardized, affordable 250 seat regional platform with A321NEO range. If you need more range, the nearly identical A321XLR is available. No need to wait for anybody/ anything.

Image

That's probably the benchmark Boeing should aim for. Calhoun even kind of says so.

The NMA flat 2-3-2 / 5000NM concept failed to attract any commitment during the 2015-2020 aviation boom. Calhoun saw & killed that 20 year old concept a year ago. https://aeronewsglobal.com/boeing-to-re ... -approach/


I agree with your analysis on the above on the A321/322 - Calhoun is talking about 2-3-2/5000NM again. It was delayed by MAX and Covid.

Read this article. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14186
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:14 pm

morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
So we are already at 93-94t MTOW vs the 101 of the 321xlr and this is just with a clean up, I bet there is more possible, look at the difference between A339 and 787-9 OEW.
Boeing could do the same with the NSA vs the XLR. Bringing the target MTOW down 10-15t should lead to around 8t advantage in the OEW. That is massive in this segment and creates a winning product selling thousands and making Boeing billions. And that is what the board and the investors want. A solid business case.


A330-900 OEW: 135t https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A330.pdf
787-9 OEW: 129t http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

The A339 has bigger span and is longer than the 787-9. If Boeing would do the same thing to the A321XLR, NMA OEW would be 49t vs 51t? But it has to be a NB, a bit smaller than an A321. I wouldn't count on yet-to-be revealed amazing technology to save the day.. E.g. the latest wing & engine technology added a lot of weight to the 777x.

The XLR wing is a heavily modified A321wing, to handle 101t MTOW and offers the required lift for acceptable airfield performance. They'll probably use that new wing to limit risk, time to market, investment and ramp up quickly a A322NEO. A standardized, affordable 250 seat regional platform with A321NEO range. If you need more range, the nearly identical A321XLR is available. No need to wait for anybody/ anything.

Image

That's probably the benchmark Boeing should aim for. Calhoun even kind of says so.

The NMA flat 2-3-2 / 5000NM concept failed to attract any commitment during the 2015-2020 aviation boom. Calhoun saw & killed that 20 year old concept a year ago. https://aeronewsglobal.com/boeing-to-re ... -approach/


I agree with your analysis on the above on the A321/322 - Calhoun is talking about 2-3-2/5000NM again. It was delayed by MAX and Covid.

Read this article. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan


I think Boeings flattened 2-3-2 cross section has been on the table for 20 years: http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/6616100.

It took 20 years for Boeing to see for short/medium flights you can do a flat 2-3-2 - OR - be competitive with a lean tube with good engines, like A321. Or will it take longer then 20 years? :scratchchin:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:20 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

On an 200-220 Seat (A322 plus a little bit - realistic seat pitch) 2 Class NMA that weighs maybe 110-120T and will take that load out to a real 4-500- 5,000, whereas an A322 without a new wing would carry that load maybe 3,300NM.

If Boeing could actually build an 85T aircraft that does 4,500 with 200 two class - Airbus would have no hope in hell at competing - you are probably talking more about 105-110T even for a 3x3 to have that capability.

The 85T 2x3x2 NSA that can only do 3,000 NM will come later. Nothing would stop you from LD3-45 in an NMA - but you would have to think that Boeing has already thought through that problem.

Please show any current article where Boeing is rumoured or contemplating 3x3 for NMA. They want to build a premium product to differentiate themselves. The C919 is coming.


Why are you constantly shifting goal posts and stuff around and can never just stick to something?

Boeing said (Calhoun) that they target the A321 market. That is 180-200 2 Class, not 200-220. That is the only true statement we have. That is not a hypothetical 322 size with an old wing (whatever this is).

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-new-aircraft-discussions/ This was last october and fits perfectly the narrative that Boeing aims for the A321 market.

Also a 110-120t has a problem, as it needs stronger landing gear than one that can have a single-bogie. That means you inherently need more structure for not a lot of gain. I almost guess nearly 10% of the increase in MTOW will go towards the gear. A 757 wheel is about 68kg (150lb, https://aerosavvy.com/aircraft-wheels/). You need 4 more of them than on an aircraft with single-bogie. Plus 4 more breaks and the structure to hold all of it. So you gain around 1t of weight for 10t increase in MTOW. And that is just the start, you need bigger wings to bring that heavier weight further. So at the end you most probably do not gain significant payload by increasing MTOW over 100t. As you can see the 115t MTOW of the 757 had the same performance (capacity/range) as the 321xlr has now.
So instead of increasing MTOW just a bit to gain nothing as all the increase is eaten by a heavier airframe it would be way better to create the same capacity than the A321 but reduce MTOW by actually taking advantage of what that the A321 can not do easily. Losing weight. The wings are too heavy and old, the fuselage is old and heavy, the systems are old and heavy, the fuel tanks are old and heavy and now they even had to add another tank that is also not optimised. The aerodynamics are based on 80s knowledge.

The 321xlr holds 39'500 litres of fuel (31'600kg). So by reducing fuel consumption by 10% already helps to reduce MTOW by 3t. It is probably possible to take 3-4t out of the structure, especially with a modern wing box. Modern electronic sub systems should also reduce weight by around 1t as you can get rid of all the fluids etc.

So we are already at 93-94t MTOW vs the 101 of the 321xlr and this is just with a clean up, I bet there is more possible, look at the difference between A339 and 787-9 OEW.
Boeing could do the same with the NSA vs the XLR. Bringing the target MTOW down 10-15t should lead to around 8t advantage in the OEW. That is massive in this segment and creates a winning product selling thousands and making Boeing billions. And that is what the board and the investors want. A solid business case.


I'm not shifting the Goal posts - Boeing knows that Airbus is most likely to launch a 322 with a new wing. That is what the Goal post will be - and you probably want to be slightly bigger just like 738vsA320 to give you an advantage.

How far do you want your airplane to fly with these loads? With 180-200 2 c-class an A321XLR is not 4,500 - It is a lot closer to 3,600-3,700 real TATL Winter range. Extend it a bit without a new wing and it will be less - that is why Airbus is probably looking at a new wing - which won't be lighter than the existing A321XLR as It will most likely give it more capability.

The A320 series was actually available with a 4 wheel Main gear - you would not use 2 more of the same size - you would use 4 smaller ones.

Yes Boeing could do an NSA first - but it won't available for probably 10 years and that probably means the MAX is dead if they go down that route. The ideal is go down a path that supplements the MAX on the high end until you get your production process in place so you can build a high volume NSA.


The Problem is, that NMA is also not ready before 2030, most probably only in 2032. Boeing needed in general 10 years from launch to EIS (787 and 77X). The one time they wanted to deliver faster 737MAX it ended in tears.
If they go NMA into NSA we do not have a new Boeing aircraft below 200 seat 2 class capacity before 2035, if production processes have to mature first it will be 2040. That will shift the <200 seat market dangerously towards 70%/30% and Boeing might never win that market share back with COMAC coming online. This will hit the bottom line super hard and the big profits will be gone. Remember the 737 and A320 are the cash cows. Boeing blew this with the 737 so without a cash cow Boeing is slowly going the McD path. The board will not allow this, so a new cash cow has to come online and that is not a 2-3-2 5000nm aircraft but a solid 3-3 3000nm aircraft.
That is the reality, that is were the money is made, and at the end that is what the board will allow to go forward. Dreaming is nice but money rules and the board will follow the money not the dream.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10658
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:25 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Remember the 737 and A320 are the cash cows. Boeing blew this with the 737 so without a cash cow Boeing is slowly going the McD path. The board will not allow this, so a new cash cow has to come online and that is not a 2-3-2 5000nm aircraft but a solid 3-3 3000nm aircraft.
That is the reality, that is were the money is made, and at the end that is what the board will allow to go forward. Dreaming is nice but money rules and the board will follow the money not the dream.

So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:48 pm

Won't happen. It's not the right time to burn through anybody's cash now. This year will be about waiting it out and get MAXs off the yards and keep customers from delaying or cancelling. No time to attack.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:50 pm

seahawk wrote:
Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
I think concentrating on the XLR misses the point. If barely makes up for 15% of the orders, if you discount converted normal NEOS it is even less. Is that a sign that the market for the XLR is that big?


Yes it is a small percentage of the A321neo order book, but it will likely become the standard A321neo model going forward since every A321neo has at least one ACT and the A321LR with three ACTs loses too much cargo volume compared to tjh A321XLR with one ACT.


Yes, but so far most customers were happy with one ACT, some even with no ACT at all. So I still question if the range of the XLR is key to the success of the A321, I think it is not.


To my knowledge the latest XLR orders have been far greater than the orders for the standard A321neo. The XLR seems to be the capability and flexibility what the customers want when looking at the orders since its introduction. Not an surprise that the CEO of Boeing wants to focus on that area...
 
JonesNL
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:52 pm

par13del wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Remember the 737 and A320 are the cash cows. Boeing blew this with the 737 so without a cash cow Boeing is slowly going the McD path. The board will not allow this, so a new cash cow has to come online and that is not a 2-3-2 5000nm aircraft but a solid 3-3 3000nm aircraft.
That is the reality, that is were the money is made, and at the end that is what the board will allow to go forward. Dreaming is nice but money rules and the board will follow the money not the dream.

So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.


I think Boeing should create an clean sheet NB to supplement the MAX range. So an 737 MAX 12ER...
 
WIederling
Posts: 9986
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:55 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I thought the 788 was 20% more efficient than a 763... so it's not as if it's a fuel hog.....


Boeing initilly talked about 20+% over current generation models.
Later "sharpened" to only mean over their one generation older previous gen model : 767

20% 788 over 767-(300?) unsurprising: newer engines larger plane.

~<8% 788 over A332 : IMU that is less than the difference in engine sfc ( GenX vs Trent 700 )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27515
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:16 pm

seahawk wrote:
Yes, but so far most customers were happy with one ACT, some even with no ACT at all. So I still question if the range of the XLR is key to the success of the A321, I think it is not.


Oh I agree that raw range will not be the reason the XLR sells - it is just a "nice to have".

It is the space benefits the RCT offers over ACTs that is what will make the A321XLR the "standard" A321neo model sold and built going forward.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:19 pm

par13del wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Remember the 737 and A320 are the cash cows. Boeing blew this with the 737 so without a cash cow Boeing is slowly going the McD path. The board will not allow this, so a new cash cow has to come online and that is not a 2-3-2 5000nm aircraft but a solid 3-3 3000nm aircraft.
That is the reality, that is were the money is made, and at the end that is what the board will allow to go forward. Dreaming is nice but money rules and the board will follow the money not the dream.

So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.


No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:58 pm

keesje wrote:
morrisond wrote:
keesje wrote:

A330-900 OEW: 135t https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A330.pdf
787-9 OEW: 129t http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

The A339 has bigger span and is longer than the 787-9. If Boeing would do the same thing to the A321XLR, NMA OEW would be 49t vs 51t? But it has to be a NB, a bit smaller than an A321. I wouldn't count on yet-to-be revealed amazing technology to save the day.. E.g. the latest wing & engine technology added a lot of weight to the 777x.

The XLR wing is a heavily modified A321wing, to handle 101t MTOW and offers the required lift for acceptable airfield performance. They'll probably use that new wing to limit risk, time to market, investment and ramp up quickly a A322NEO. A standardized, affordable 250 seat regional platform with A321NEO range. If you need more range, the nearly identical A321XLR is available. No need to wait for anybody/ anything.

Image

That's probably the benchmark Boeing should aim for. Calhoun even kind of says so.

The NMA flat 2-3-2 / 5000NM concept failed to attract any commitment during the 2015-2020 aviation boom. Calhoun saw & killed that 20 year old concept a year ago. https://aeronewsglobal.com/boeing-to-re ... -approach/


I agree with your analysis on the above on the A321/322 - Calhoun is talking about 2-3-2/5000NM again. It was delayed by MAX and Covid.

Read this article. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... titor-plan


I think Boeings flattened 2-3-2 cross section has been on the table for 20 years: http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/6616100.

It took 20 years for Boeing to see for short/medium flights you can do a flat 2-3-2 - OR - be competitive with a lean tube with good engines, like A321. Or will it take longer then 20 years? :scratchchin:


Or in the 20 years they have been working on it and as it was the rumoured NSA cross section before the MAX - maybe they have figured out how to get the weight to good enough in a fuselage that has about 9% less skin Area and 2% less volume than an equivalent capacity 3x3 that it makes sense for both NMA and NSA. That patent talks about that cross section for the less than 200 seat market.

I would have to guess Computers and tools to calculate more efficient aircraft structure have gotten a lot better in the last 20 years and have definitely advanced beyond 787/350.
Last edited by morrisond on Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:06 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
par13del wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Remember the 737 and A320 are the cash cows. Boeing blew this with the 737 so without a cash cow Boeing is slowly going the McD path. The board will not allow this, so a new cash cow has to come online and that is not a 2-3-2 5000nm aircraft but a solid 3-3 3000nm aircraft.
That is the reality, that is were the money is made, and at the end that is what the board will allow to go forward. Dreaming is nice but money rules and the board will follow the money not the dream.

So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.


No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.


That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.

If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.
 
Chemist
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:27 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
par13del wrote:
So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.


No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.


That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.


If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.


So what is the end game on the MAX?
I keep hearing that Boeing doesn't want to cannibalize those sales. It seems the options are to milk the MAX until it fades into obscurity, or Boeing puts out something competitive and cannibalizes the MAX themselves rather than letting Airbus do it (which is already in progress).
The MOM is a good market but not as big as the MAX/A320 market. Boeing has waited so long to do something about the 737, how long do they wait? They can't wait too long or Airbus will own that entire (largest) market, just like Boeing let the 757 go away and now Airbus owns the A321 market. And with up to 10 years lead time needed, if Boeing waits 5 years to start on a MAX replacement, then that's 15 more years that the A32X gains market share on the MAX.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:45 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
par13del wrote:
So Boeing is going to announce a 737 replacement program now, kill all existing orders for the MAX, cede additional market share now as some carriers are not going to wait 10 years for a 737 size a/c, and the board is going to fund this and justify to the share holders?
Okay.


No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.


That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.

If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.


This ominous gap is in my opinion a made up term for the place the 757 and 767 once were and some fans dream of bringing back but that market was only served because back then nothing else was possible. The 767 was the only twin having decent range, Airbus hat to stubble out the 310 and that wasnt really a good solution. There was just no engine to carry a twin any further as it was not capable to bring it in the air with all that fuel.
The 757 got almost a wide body engine strapped on it to make a narrow body fly as far as possible. Both were gone in the pax market when the NG and the 330 showed up.
History showed it is better to serve that market with a family from above 787 and below NSA like Airbus does with the 321 and 339.
Wasting ressources on a 1500 aircraft market (1000xlr and some 500787-8) is not a good business move when ylu can produce and sell10000 NSA family members from 2030-2045. You better be there asap before Airbus serves that market with 220 and whatever comes aftwr the 321.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7330
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:01 pm

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Yes, but so far most customers were happy with one ACT, some even with no ACT at all. So I still question if the range of the XLR is key to the success of the A321, I think it is not.


Oh I agree that raw range will not be the reason the XLR sells - it is just a "nice to have".

It is the space benefits the RCT offers over ACTs that is what will make the A321XLR the "standard" A321neo model sold and built going forward.


Not just space, but weight particularly. Each ACT weighs 1/2 a tonne.
The beauty of the RCT is it gives you 3+ ACT capacity for the weight of one.

So the XLR weighs the same as an A321NEO with 1 x ACT (with just the RCT) which gives it a range of 4 300Nm ish with a pretty hefty payload
(The 4 700Nm nominal needs another ACT up forward to be realised)

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:16 pm

Chemist wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.


That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.


If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.


So what is the end game on the MAX?
I keep hearing that Boeing doesn't want to cannibalize those sales. It seems the options are to milk the MAX until it fades into obscurity, or Boeing puts out something competitive and cannibalizes the MAX themselves rather than letting Airbus do it (which is already in progress).
The MOM is a good market but not as big as the MAX/A320 market. Boeing has waited so long to do something about the 737, how long do they wait? They can't wait too long or Airbus will own that entire (largest) market, just like Boeing let the 757 go away and now Airbus owns the A321 market. And with up to 10 years lead time needed, if Boeing waits 5 years to start on a MAX replacement, then that's 15 more years that the A32X gains market share on the MAX.


From above

"It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it(NSA) would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then."

NMA could Launch in 2022 - NSA could follow in 2024-2025 or at the point when the MAX overbook would be full enough to get to NSA EIS. NSA would not take as long and is basically a derivative - just different wingbox/wing/tail structure - basically same systems - new Engines - which might take that long anyways.

NMA seems to be sized to compete with A321/322 rewing which when launched (the 321/322 rewing) will squash 321XLR new sales and EIS could not be significantly different than NMA.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3408
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:20 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

No carrier can wait 10 years for their max that has it on order right now but yes Boeing will not get new orders but the backlog is strong enough to keep the line from a loss until the NSA kicks in.


That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.

If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.


This ominous gap is in my opinion a made up term for the place the 757 and 767 once were and some fans dream of bringing back but that market was only served because back then nothing else was possible. The 767 was the only twin having decent range, Airbus hat to stubble out the 310 and that wasnt really a good solution. There was just no engine to carry a twin any further as it was not capable to bring it in the air with all that fuel.
The 757 got almost a wide body engine strapped on it to make a narrow body fly as far as possible. Both were gone in the pax market when the NG and the 330 showed up.
History showed it is better to serve that market with a family from above 787 and below NSA like Airbus does with the 321 and 339.
Wasting ressources on a 1500 aircraft market (1000xlr and some 500787-8) is not a good business move when ylu can produce and sell10000 NSA family members from 2030-2045. You better be there asap before Airbus serves that market with 220 and whatever comes aftwr the 321.


Yes - but those 1500 NMA teaches you how to build those 10,000 NSA's and mature the systems. If NSA arrives in 2032/2033 it will still sell a ton (and sell for probably 30 years at least at very high volume and until then they have the MAX. Passenger traffic should double by 2040ish. By then A322 and above might be the new sweet spot in terms of size.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14186
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:30 pm

In general I agree with Fluidflow and Chemist. But 2028-2030 for an advanced, competitive NB seems feasible.

Financially.. put aside market mechanisms. I cannot imagine a country spending $750B/yr on defense cannot bring up $15B to save their civil aviation industry.

Boeing f.cked up in a big way, let it drain itself and most of the board are accountable and hundreds of influencers complicit. That doesn't mean the US can afford to have capitalism finish of a strategically important industry. I think the Biden Gov. will intervene.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 8:56 pm

WIederling wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
I thought the 788 was 20% more efficient than a 763... so it's not as if it's a fuel hog.....


Boeing initilly talked about 20+% over current generation models.
Later "sharpened" to only mean over their one generation older previous gen model : 767

20% 788 over 767-(300?) unsurprising: newer engines larger plane.

~<8% 788 over A332 : IMU that is less than the difference in engine sfc ( GenX vs Trent 700 )


That would imply the A332 was ~>12% over 763.... Never heard that stated before.... I always thought the A332 beat the 763 based on cargo (standard containers) and range.

Regardless, Don't see the 787 needing a 4th Boeing widebody to compete with it on the bottom end... Couldn't a 788 receive some Engine PIPs and the last bit of 9 aero improvements to be sufficient in that market? Wierd to create an entirely new 5k+nm 250+pax widebody to compete with your barely a decade old 8k+nm 250+pax widebody...
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
Misterven1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:09 pm

I always read Airliners.net. I want to contribute to this because I'm a bit concerned about Boeing in terms of developing NMA, MOM and NSA concepts. First of all, the Boeing 737MAX crisis appears to be aggravated by recertification through EASA, FAA and individual aviation authorities.

I'm betting on some kind of copy of Boeing 757 in clean sheet plane with 2-2-2 (just like never manufactured Boeing 7J7), which is even better than older Boeing 757. In my mind 2-2-2 seating concept seems a lot better than 3-3 seating layout. If you are going to build a plane with 2-2-2 the passengers can get in and out much faster, I think it is more efficient for the airlines that want to keep turnaround times shorter.

My big question is why did Boeing never continue to develop with Boeing 757 after the last aircraft was delivered to a Chinese airline in 2004? Maybe wrong estimate or did they focus too much on Boeing 737? In my view, Boeing should have continued to develop a new Boeing 757 version without MCAS system.

Example:
Boeing 757-5: 150 passengers 4100 nm
Boeing 757-6: 180 passengers 3500 nm
Boeing 757-7: 220 passengers 5600 nm (size as Boeing 757-200)
Boeing 757-8: 250 passengers 5200 nm
Boeing 757-9: 280 passengers 4800 nm (size as Boeing 757-300)

With this 757 family it would have been possible to replace the entire 737 family and would have been wise to stop further development of Boeing 737.

It is very unfortunate that Boeing has fiddled so much with smaller aircraft that yielded more profit for their than larger Boeing 757. Because a 757 could take more passengers per flight than in a smaller 737, which could yield better benefits for the environment and flexibility. But it has now turned out differently than we have thought, so that now many airlines have Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320 in their fleet to offer more customization in flights per frequency, days and weeks. Now it is certain that the 757 is outdated and can no longer be further developed because tools have already been thrown away by Boeing and parts are also becoming scarcer. Pratt Withney and Rolls Royce have also long discontinued production of the engines because orders were no longer coming from the airlines for Boeing 757-200 / 300.

What Boeing is doing now with the Boeing 8737MAX family is very wrong because few airlines have ordered Boeing 737-MAX7, so that they would like to have larger aircraft (Boeing 737-MAX8, Boeing 737-MAX9 and Boeing 737-MAX10). I see Boeing 737-MAX as far too rapidly developed Boeing 737 generation in response to Airbus in connection with Airbus A320NEO family.

If Boeing had still chosen to continue with Boeing 7J7, it would have been much better than with Boeing 737-MAX. I think the Boeing 7J7 is a better developed concept that is based on Boeing 757, formed by a wider fuselage with 2-2-2 seating arrangement. I think Boeing 7J7 was an excellent candidate to succeed older Boeing 737 so that Boeing could also develop different versions of 7J7 can fly at certain flight distances.

What now concerns us what Boeing really plans to develop a new aircraft that will replace Boeing 757, 737 and 767. Few details are known about what Boeing is doing now, but my question is always why did Boeing continue to upgrade older aircraft for so long, such as Boeing 737 and Boeing 747, which date back to the 1970s.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:15 pm

ehaase wrote:
I think in the end Boeing will produce only a slightly more efficient 320/321.

I agree, the slightly lighter and more efficient 737 will continue to be produced.
 
744SPX
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:32 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
ehaase wrote:
I think in the end Boeing will produce only a slightly more efficient 320/321.

I agree, the slightly lighter and more efficient 737 will continue to be produced.



Which 737 is that? the UltraMax?
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
ehaase wrote:
I think in the end Boeing will produce only a slightly more efficient 320/321.

I agree, the slightly lighter and more efficient 737 will continue to be produced.


Ahhhh, becuase Airbus is just catching up...... -Randy Tinseth
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 25791
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:57 pm

A tidbit from Leeham's coverage of Airbus's financial results made me think of this thread:

(Airbus CEO) Faury emphasized that advanced aerostructures will be a key technology for Airbus in the future. The integrated digital design and production of aerostructures call for tighter integration. This is good news for Premium Aerotec and Stelia as it means a closer relationship with Airbus with a possible reintegration on the cards.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/18/airbu ... vironment/

What is there to advance on, according to this thread metal is metal, fiber is fiber, etc.

Maybe the perfect circle ain't exactly perfect?

:scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:
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
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:57 pm

744SPX wrote:
Which 737 is that? the UltraMax?

The current 737MAX

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Ahhhh, becuase Airbus is just catching up...... -Randy Tinseth

Where did I say Boeing is ahead and Airbus is catching up?

If you design two aircraft that carry 200 passengers one must fly 4700nm and the other must fly 3500nm the aircraft with less range will always be lighter and more efficient.

The 737MAX cross section has 92% of the frontal area of the A321 so it has a lower empty weight per square metre of cabin area as a result. The 737MAX has a design range nearly 1000nm lower than A321 so it needs less fuel and MTOW. A lower MTOW in the 737MAX means a lighter wing and wingbox. With the same wingspan limit the A321 must have a higher wing loading. The 737MAX can have smaller and lighter engine to get the job done. The 737 got a brand new wing in the 737NG so it is a newer wing than the A320 with more internal fuel capacity.

The A321 can carry containers and fly further. If that means Airbus is ahead then that is your opinion. I am staying facts that have weights and fuel figures to back it up. More than 90% of global passenger flights are under 1000nm.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:11 am

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That may well be what they decide to do - go after that size - but it still could be 2x3x2. However they would be quite crazy to design NSA for 5,000NM though - way too capable from the get go for the vast majority of missions it will be flying (90% less than 1,500Nm) and far from optimal.

How is that going to work for someone like Southwest where they shrink the design to 738 Capacity and then it can fly 6,000NM. That is definitely not going to work either.

NSA should be designed for about 3,000NM for largest variants at the maximum initially (3,500NM smallest) and as engines get better that grows higher over the probable 40 year life of the program.

If they do that - they still have a big hole and nothing to compete from A321/322 XLR up to 788.

It's a big range of aircraft size/capability that needs to be filled. It could have one common cross section/cockpit systems - but different wingbox/wing/gear/tail.

As a combined program it would not need to come in 2035 if NMA is 2030 - 2032/2033 should be doable and MAX can last until then.


This ominous gap is in my opinion a made up term for the place the 757 and 767 once were and some fans dream of bringing back but that market was only served because back then nothing else was possible. The 767 was the only twin having decent range, Airbus hat to stubble out the 310 and that wasnt really a good solution. There was just no engine to carry a twin any further as it was not capable to bring it in the air with all that fuel.
The 757 got almost a wide body engine strapped on it to make a narrow body fly as far as possible. Both were gone in the pax market when the NG and the 330 showed up.
History showed it is better to serve that market with a family from above 787 and below NSA like Airbus does with the 321 and 339.
Wasting ressources on a 1500 aircraft market (1000xlr and some 500787-8) is not a good business move when ylu can produce and sell10000 NSA family members from 2030-2045. You better be there asap before Airbus serves that market with 220 and whatever comes aftwr the 321.


Yes - but those 1500 NMA teaches you how to build those 10,000 NSA's and mature the systems. If NSA arrives in 2032/2033 it will still sell a ton (and sell for probably 30 years at least at very high volume and until then they have the MAX. Passenger traffic should double by 2040ish. By then A322 and above might be the new sweet spot in terms of size.


Production can only teach you something when you actually produce it. So if EIS of the NMA is in 2032, production will start around 2028. After 2-3 years of production you know what works and what not, than you can start planning the NSA around a perfected NMA production, with EIS around 2037.
Go back to the 787 and how Boeing learned the production process.
Management will not allow production hick ups to transfer from NMA directly to NSA and then delay both by 3+ years while triggering contractual penalties for both. 2 out of the 3 big launches had delays 787 and 777X. The one that got rushed was nearly 2 years grounded.
This time Boeing will make the right due diligence and will not launch two planes to close based on each other because if the first runs into troubles the second one will too. That is really bad risk management.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:13 am

Revelation wrote:
A tidbit from Leeham's coverage of Airbus's financial results made me think of this thread:

(Airbus CEO) Faury emphasized that advanced aerostructures will be a key technology for Airbus in the future. The integrated digital design and production of aerostructures call for tighter integration. This is good news for Premium Aerotec and Stelia as it means a closer relationship with Airbus with a possible reintegration on the cards.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/18/airbu ... vironment/

What is there to advance on, according to this thread metal is metal, fiber is fiber, etc.

Maybe the perfect circle ain't exactly perfect?

:scratchchin: :scratchchin: :scratchchin:


To be fair though, nothing there says anything about shape but it is emphasizing the design and production process, and Airbus is lacking there a lot hence why the A350 is so expensive to produce.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Ahhhh, becuase Airbus is just catching up...... -Randy Tinseth

Where did I say Boeing is ahead and Airbus is catching up?


Unless you are Randy, (Randy is that you?), he was obviously quoting him.

RJMAZ wrote:
If you design two aircraft that carry 200 passengers one must fly 4700nm and the other must fly 3500nm the aircraft with less range will always be lighter and more efficient.

The 737MAX cross section has 92% of the frontal area of the A321 so it has a lower empty weight per square metre of cabin area as a result. The 737MAX has a design range nearly 1000nm lower than A321 so it needs less fuel and MTOW. A lower MTOW in the 737MAX means a lighter wing and wingbox. With the same wingspan limit the A321 must have a higher wing loading. The 737MAX can have smaller and lighter engine to get the job done. The 737 got a brand new wing in the 737NG so it is a newer wing than the A320 with more internal fuel capacity.

The A321 can carry containers and fly further. If that means Airbus is ahead then that is your opinion. I am staying facts that have weights and fuel figures to back it up. More than 90% of global passenger flights are under 1000nm.


The lighter weights of the MAX hasn't really helped it when you look at sales though. Even with flights being less than 1000nm which should favour the lighter design, the 737 has been losing market share to the A320. I would say it is fair to draw the inference that the A320 is better than the 737.

And this makes the decision so hard for Boeing. They are going to have to compete with a better product than they currently have. If they come in with a design much better in that space than the A321XLR, airlines are going to want to know why they cannot get that savings with the 737-10MAX and then the 737-9MAX....you get the idea. So to protect the MAX they will need to aim in the space above the A321XLR, but that means they eat into the 788 space. Sure, you could say that the 788 isn't worth much because it doesn't have a lot of commonality with its bigger siblings, but didn't Boeing just undergo a program to address this to reduce the production cost?

Basically Boeing is still in the position they have been for a while now, and there are no magic solutions or shapes or configurations that will address this. There is a reason why this market has been left unattended by the OEM's, because there is no easy solution for what airlines want. It will cost a lot of money for not that many sales where you already have part of the market covered. The big difference? A new CEO and desperate times.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9986
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:04 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Which 737 is that? the UltraMax?

The current 737MAX

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Ahhhh, becuase Airbus is just catching up...... -Randy Tinseth

Where did I say Boeing is ahead and Airbus is catching up?

If you design two aircraft that carry 200 passengers one must fly 4700nm and the other must fly 3500nm the aircraft with less range will always be lighter and more efficient.

The 737MAX cross section has 92% of the frontal area of the A321 so it has a lower empty weight per square metre of cabin area as a result. The 737MAX has a design range nearly 1000nm lower than A321 so it needs less fuel and MTOW. A lower MTOW in the 737MAX means a lighter wing and wingbox. With the same wingspan limit the A321 must have a higher wing loading. The 737MAX can have smaller and lighter engine to get the job done. The 737 got a brand new wing in the 737NG so it is a newer wing than the A320 with more internal fuel capacity.

The A321 can carry containers and fly further. If that means Airbus is ahead then that is your opinion. I am staying facts that have weights and fuel figures to back it up. More than 90% of global passenger flights are under 1000nm.


With all those theoretical advantages the 737MAX is supposed to have it should handily outperform the Airbus product.

The real existing hardware evidence shows them to be on par with the Airbus getting ahead over longer ranges.
engines weigh about the same ( at least in CFM56 times ) less thrust is due the lesser SEO requirements applicable from the 60ties via grandfathering.

The NG wing still is a compromised design. it is not state of the art @1995 new.
Murphy is an optimist
 
brindabella
Posts: 721
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:04 pm

TheSonntag wrote:
I did not read all pages, but to me doing a clean sheet design with a kerosene-burning plane seems a very conservative design. I believe this is rather disappointing. Granted, the hydrogen infrastructure isn't there yet. But the design should then at least be designed to be easily derivable to hydrogern.


Point well worth making.

But in this particular real world, which of the major OEMs will be thr first to take this HUGE step?

cheers
Billy

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