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.