Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

morrisond · Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:22 pm

Noshow wrote:
Your plan would lead them to design the heavy version first and the shrink it to found a family? So all the smaller ones end up being made of their heavy weight ancestor version's ingredients? No that would not be really smart and not lead to a competitive lightweight product.

And I doubt that airlines are ready for folding wing sections in the short haul market. They would fold heir wings in and out all the time. If that mechanism breaks you are grounded.

Conceptually you would digitally design the NSA first using a common fuselage then beef up gear/engines/wingbox/wing for ER NMA version.

Basically what Airbus will be doing if they rewing A321 and make an A322.

The NSA would have a non-folding 36M wing - not needed as you might only target a range of 3,000ishNM initially. The NMA would have something like a 43-44m wing that folds down to 36M.

Common sized (but not necessarily common strength) wingbox - as the fuel capacity in the 3,000NM NSA wingbox might be enough so you don't have to get into the complication of putting fuel in the wing - allowing the NSA wing to be Simple, really thin (efficient) and light. NSA would have a different tail as different thrust/weight - learn lessons from NMA first and learn how to build in volume.

On Boeing's last Carbon airplane they learned a ton going from 788 to 789. I expect a lot of learning if they take this approach this time as well.

With the volume that NSA will sell in - they can afford to put a lot of hours into it to make it as good as it can be taking what they learn from NMA where weight will not be so critical and not kill the MAX while doing so.

Chemist · Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:28 pm

morrisond wrote:

With the volume that NSA will sell in - they can afford to put a lot of hours into it to make it as good as it can be taking what they learn from NMA where weight will not be so critical and not kill the MAX while doing so.

Based upon Boeing's recent history, I can't imagine their beancounting management spending more money to make something "as good as it can be".

If we're lucky, perhaps the MAX fiasco has finally changed their focus a bit.

Stitch · Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:37 pm

Chemist wrote:
Based upon Boeing's recent history, I can't imagine their beancounting management spending more money to make something "as good as it can be". If we're lucky, perhaps the MAX fiasco has finally changed their focus a bit.

In the end, it will be the airlines who determine how much is spent since they will set a maximum price they will pay.

That being said, Boeing's management spent so much time counting said beans, they did not notice that those collection of beans were about to be swallowed up (as in massive overages and losses) by factors they should have been paying attention on. So hopefully they indeed are more focused on how much more money they could end up spending later by not spending sufficiently up front.

CRJockey · Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:55 pm

morrisond wrote:

I think the more and more we get into details of what the NMA might be - the more and more I just realize that it could really just be an NSA-ER with larger folding wing/ more thrust (possibly just a geared LEAP using the existing core), stronger gear.

You seem to think, that "just" doing a larger folding wing, "just" more thrust (could be software only, not guaranteed), "just" the adaption of an existing engine with a gear (not a plug & play exercise as none of the thermodynamic setup is taking the gear into account) and "just" a stronger landing gear is somehow an easy exercise. You seem to imply an easily created aircraft family when in engineering realities, none of that is easy, cheap or fast. And not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

Where do you take this confidence from, that it is so easy?

flipdewaf · Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:30 pm

AvgWhiteGuy wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
DenverTed wrote:

About 180lb difference according to my model. ~45kghr^-1. In an identical aircraft with just length that’s like 2% difference. 2% could be masked by all sorts of age or wear related stuff as well as weather or it may just be close enough that the airline just use 1 fuel model?

Fred

The data regarding the fuel burn for the -700 and -800's was obtained from the performance laptop in our cockpit. In the laptop, you could select any tail number we
had, so both 700 and 800, input the parameters of speed, altitude, weight, temp, bleed configuration, etc... and get fuel burn output. I think I've made the point, but
when I put in say 145,000 pounds for a 700 with X set of parameters, I would get ~2,520 pounds per hour per engine. Changing only the model to the 800, leaving
all other parameters the same, the laptop would spit out the same fuel burn, 2,520.

Guess another point to make clear was this was a digital output, I was not chasing charts.

As a side note, I had come up with a crude, but revealing performance calculation in the 90's of simply taking weight and dividing it by fuel burn at LRC and was using
the laptop 10 years later to see the changes the winglets and scimitars had on that reference number I had gotten from my years at Delta. The NG with winglets was
28.6 and widebodies of the day were in the low 30's. I believe now we are in the low 30's for narrowbodies and probably around 40 for wide. Admittedly, there is a
flaw with the calculation and that is the lighter a plane is made given a certain configuration, the more it falsely skews the numbers lower, when really higher is better.
I still like to use it to compare efficiency gain over a models aerodynamic and engine changes though; it is very useful for that.

That sounds exactly like the thing I would have done. I don’t doubt that what you are saying is true however I don’t also believe that there would be a genuine zero drag increase. It would be small but certainly an increase non the less.

CRJockey wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I think the more and more we get into details of what the NMA might be - the more and more I just realize that it could really just be an NSA-ER with larger folding wing/ more thrust (possibly just a geared LEAP using the existing core), stronger gear.

You seem to think, that "just" doing a larger folding wing, "just" more thrust (could be software only, not guaranteed), "just" the adaption of an existing engine with a gear (not a plug & play exercise as none of the thermodynamic setup is taking the gear into account) and "just" a stronger landing gear is somehow an easy exercise. You seem to imply an easily created aircraft family when in engineering realities, none of that is easy, cheap or fast. And not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

Where do you take this confidence from, that it is so easy?

I have to say though I think there is a middle ground and that is the cross section design that would be consistent and the integration in that alone (along with potentially the cockpit and tail section) would be significant. If we look back at the Boeing narrow bodies so far (707, 727, 737, 757) it’s very easy to see this happening again. I see the NMA as the new 757 and the NSA as the new 737. I’m not qualified to say that they could be under same type certificate or type rating for the pilots but sharing many common elements should be achievable.

Fred

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond · Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:56 pm

CRJockey wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I think the more and more we get into details of what the NMA might be - the more and more I just realize that it could really just be an NSA-ER with larger folding wing/ more thrust (possibly just a geared LEAP using the existing core), stronger gear.

You seem to think, that "just" doing a larger folding wing, "just" more thrust (could be software only, not guaranteed), "just" the adaption of an existing engine with a gear (not a plug & play exercise as none of the thermodynamic setup is taking the gear into account) and "just" a stronger landing gear is somehow an easy exercise. You seem to imply an easily created aircraft family when in engineering realities, none of that is easy, cheap or fast. And not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

Where do you take this confidence from, that it is so easy?

Where did I say cheap or easy or fast? They were about to go to market with a 2-3-2 concept a few years ago. And it might not be 2-3-2 at the end of the day - although this approach would work with a 3x3 as well.

I'm just saying this approach would make a lot of sense - it would be efficient from a resources standpoint. This would have a ton of the engineering and systems work used between the two. This would save a ton of time, effort and money to go with this approach vs two completely separate programs.

You could probably build them on the same assembly lines (as the folded wingspan of NMA would be the same as the NSA and just install the folded part after - if space inside the factory is an issue.

9 Years to a GTF variant using an existing core? What is unreasonable about that?

9 years to have the first NMA roll off the line - 12-13 years for the first NSA? None of that seems fast.

Please read up on the T-7 - it is utilizing new design tools that make things like having two different sets of wings not such a big thing anymore. I suspect the big limiting factor on development in the future will be getting new systems certificated so if that is common it saves you a ton of effort.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... e5d9855f7c

Noshow · Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:10 pm

Are engine manufacturers where Boeing needs them right now? To start calculations and give contractual guaranteed basic performance data to customers? To me it looks like it will take some years until newer engine families will be available. Like at least five years or so?
Would this be the moment now to start new programs, aside from stressed finances both at Boeing and airline customers?

CRJockey · Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:15 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Dunning Kruger.

I have to say though I think there is a middle ground and that is the cross section design that would be consistent and the integration in that alone (along with potentially the cockpit and tail section) would be significant. If we look back at the Boeing narrow bodies so far (707, 727, 737, 757) it’s very easy to see this happening again. I see the NMA as the new 757 and the NSA as the new 737. I’m not qualified to say that they could be under same type certificate or type rating for the pilots but sharing many common elements should be achievable.

Yes, there is a middle ground. Yes, there is tremendous value in the same fuselage, similar cockpit and familiarity with the tail plane. If NSA/NMA are somehow related, and I am sure system wise and regarding cockpit design and general design approach, they will be related, many decisions will be valid for both types.

I am just repeatedly astonished, that the remaining huge differences (wings, engines, gear,...), which will manifest themselves in billions and years are somehow labeled as "just" a new wing, "just" a new whatever...

morrisond · Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:21 pm

CRJockey wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Dunning Kruger.

I have to say though I think there is a middle ground and that is the cross section design that would be consistent and the integration in that alone (along with potentially the cockpit and tail section) would be significant. If we look back at the Boeing narrow bodies so far (707, 727, 737, 757) it’s very easy to see this happening again. I see the NMA as the new 757 and the NSA as the new 737. I’m not qualified to say that they could be under same type certificate or type rating for the pilots but sharing many common elements should be achievable.

Yes, there is a middle ground. Yes, there is tremendous value in the same fuselage, similar cockpit and familiarity with the tail plane. If NSA/NMA are somehow related, and I am sure system wise and regarding cockpit design and general design approach, they will be related, many decisions will be valid for both types.

I am just repeatedly astonished, that the remaining huge differences (wings, engines, gear,...), which will manifest themselves in billions and years are somehow labeled as "just" a new wing, "just" a new whatever...

I never said "Just a new wing". I said that the NMA could reality be something as simple as "Just an ER version of the NSA"

So where is you brilliant idea of how Boeing covers the market from 737-7 to 788 without spending more than what I am proposing and accomplish it in less time without killing the MAX? Or do you just like to criticize others?

CRJockey · Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:23 pm

morrisond wrote:
Where did I say cheap or easy or fast? [...]

Well, now you took the time to explain yourself in years. The post I directly replied to, your wording was just NSA ER with "a new wing", just a geared Leap etc...

Just a new something is synonymous for easy, cheap and fast.

CRJockey · Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:30 pm

morrisond wrote:

I never said "Just a new wing". I said that the NMA could reality be something as simple as "Just an ER version of the NSA"

So where is you brilliant idea of how Boeing covers the market from 737-7 to 788 without spending more than what I am proposing and accomplish it in less time without killing the MAX? Or do you just like to criticize others?

Yes, I actually enjoy being a critic. A bit more critics would have done wonders for the Boeing a couple years ago in the 737 Max design, or for Airbus in the A380 business case, so I don't see how that is a bad thing.

The difference is, I don't claim to have a brilliant idea. You do. The industry has tought me a very conservative thinking over the years. Sometimes a pain in the ass, sometimes rightfully so, the conservative approach. In that regard, I just happen to acknowledge that Boeing has positioned itself in a seriously annoying situation where I don't see really "brilliant" solutions, considering all factors.

And I told you at least twice that you have my utmost respect if your designs really come to reality. I feel you are oversimplifying the whole "let's build a family of aircraft in exactly the most challenging efficiency spot, and it won't have any disadvantages or they can be overcome".

morrisond · Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:12 pm

CRJockey wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I never said "Just a new wing". I said that the NMA could reality be something as simple as "Just an ER version of the NSA"

So where is you brilliant idea of how Boeing covers the market from 737-7 to 788 without spending more than what I am proposing and accomplish it in less time without killing the MAX? Or do you just like to criticize others?

Yes, I actually enjoy being a critic. A bit more critics would have done wonders for the Boeing a couple years ago in the 737 Max design, or for Airbus in the A380 business case, so I don't see how that is a bad thing.

The difference is, I don't claim to have a brilliant idea. You do. The industry has tought me a very conservative thinking over the years. Sometimes a pain in the ass, sometimes rightfully so, the conservative approach. In that regard, I just happen to acknowledge that Boeing has positioned itself in a seriously annoying situation where I don't see really "brilliant" solutions, considering all factors.

And I told you at least twice that you have my utmost respect if your designs really come to reality. I feel you are oversimplifying the whole "let's build a family of aircraft in exactly the most challenging efficiency spot, and it won't have any disadvantages or they can be overcome".

Ok - and BTW I don't think my idea is brilliant - I just think I might be pretty good at reading the tea leaves. I didn't come up with this whole concept - Boeing did - or maybe some German engineers that may or may not work for Airbus. I'm just trying to figure and show how they might get Single Aisle economics out of a twin aisle aircraft vs just proclaiming "It's too heavy" over and over.

I just don't think it's such a big non-starter as many do for when you really think about it - a 2-3-2 is barely progress - just 50% of the length of the fuselage that might have a slightly different shape and engineering issues with that. Everything else is the same as a 3x3 of similar capacity.

In terms of being a critic at times I am one as well - if you were on these boards when Boeing was deciding to go clean sheet or MAX you would have seen that I was one of the biggest critics of the whole MAX idea - I thought they were crazy to go down that road. I was suggesting a clean sheet was the better course of action and to bridge the gap to EIS(which I thought if they were lucky would be sometime around now) re-engine the NG with a Leap with the same diameter as the NG engines so you didn't have to deal with a new COG or aerodynamic issues ( too bad they didn't take my idea). You might have gotten 5-10% better fuel burn and made the NG kind of competitive at a much lower development cost and give you something to sell as it would probably have taken 3-4 years (2023-2024) to get the 2011 NSA up to sufficient production levels to replace NG cash flow.

kalvado · Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:35 pm

CRJockey wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I never said "Just a new wing". I said that the NMA could reality be something as simple as "Just an ER version of the NSA"

So where is you brilliant idea of how Boeing covers the market from 737-7 to 788 without spending more than what I am proposing and accomplish it in less time without killing the MAX? Or do you just like to criticize others?

The difference is, I don't claim to have a brilliant idea. You do. The industry has tought me a very conservative thinking over the years. Sometimes a pain in the ass, sometimes rightfully so, the conservative approach. In that regard, I just happen to acknowledge that Boeing has positioned itself in a seriously annoying situation where I don't see really "brilliant" solutions, considering all factors.

There was a pretty educative post about technology readiness level scale - by @Lightsaber if I remember correctly - which formalized industry willingness for innovation in new product. While basic concepts are fairly obvious - you do not design in hopes for problems resolving themselves by the time thing is ready to fly! - formalized view is fascinating (well, for me at least). And yes, being fairly conservative becomes an obvious requirement in that scope.

Revelation · Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:59 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
What is right now hurting Boeing is, that the certification goals changed during certification of their aircraft, so everything that deviates from the current model has to be fully certified to the new standards (for the 77X this seems to be the case). For the MAX-10 the problem is the additional demands by EASA that have to be implemented, tested and certified.

I guess the XLR will have to go through the same and the modification of the wings and the new centre fuel tank have to comply with up to date rules.

So while you most probably do not have to bring the old bits to new standard in case of the 77X or XLR (say the cockpit can stay the same), the same might be true for a A322. So if you actually only stretch it and not change anything else (based on the XLR) all will be ok, but as soon as you start to include more and more modifications it becomes a lengthy process.
Now if you know from the beginning you can plan accordingly but Boeing unfortunately got caught in the middle of certification with the 77X.

For the MAX it is just the continuation of the grounding story.

Boeing is now in the "blow back" phase of the MAX experience. They have paid $billions in fines to avoid prosecution, which in my eyes is an admission of guilt. To me there was a clear path to further persecution. We never got to the heart of why they felt comfortable saying MCAS on MAX was not a new function based on KC-46, yet it clearly did not function the same way, and there was an interesting e-mail chain that could have been persued. No one ever asked follow on questions to those who signed the MAX documents for its control system, at least not in a court of law. No one ever asked the "four second guy" whether he made that decision free of management pressure, at least it was not asked in a court of law.

As per our 777x thread it seems there will now be at least working rules of thumb the regulators will follow on how much change they will accept without re-certification. It's going to add a lot of time and cost to the certification of new aircraft. This makes me think we won't see too many "frankenstein" variations of models going forward.

For instance I can see Airbus definitely doing the work to get A322 certified, but then I can't see them doing some of the various variations people have pitched here in the past, like A320.5NEO. There would probably be a certification trail going back to A320-100 of the 80s that will need to be rebuilt for each variation and that will be darn expensive. It also be another reason we do see 777-9 but don't see 777-8.

Noshow · Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:03 pm

Wouldn't the 777-8 be needed for the freighter anyway? What critical work remains to be done on the -8 after the 777-9 will be certified?

par13del · Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
Boeing is now in the "blow back" phase of the MAX experience. They have paid $billions in fines to avoid prosecution, which in my eyes is an admission of guilt. To me there was a clear path to further persecution. We never got to the heart of why they felt comfortable saying MCAS on MAX was not a new function based on KC-46, yet it clearly did not function the same way, and there was an interesting e-mail chain that could have been persued. No one ever asked follow on questions to those who signed the MAX documents for its control system, at least not in a court of law. No one ever asked the "four second guy" whether he made that decision free of management pressure, at least it was not asked in a court of law.

As per our 777x thread it seems there will now be at least working rules of thumb the regulators will follow on how much change they will accept without re-certification. It's going to add a lot of time and cost to the certification of new aircraft. This makes me think we won't see too many "frankenstein" variations of models going forward.

For instance I can see Airbus definitely doing the work to get A322 certified, but then I can't see them doing some of the various variations people have pitched here in the past, like A320.5NEO. There would probably be a certification trail going back to A320-100 of the 80s that will need to be rebuilt for each variation and that will be darn expensive. It also be another reason we do see 777-9 but don't see 777-8.

The assumption here is that the regulators in the USA will be able to mandate that EASA is held to the same changing standards that have been forced and or accepted by the FAA on Boeing. I recall in the MAX threads the slippery slope political mantra dealing with Boeing, the first effects are being seen on the 777X, let's see what happens when Airbus announces another if any modification.

scbriml · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:04 pm

Noshow wrote:
Wouldn't the 777-8 be needed for the freighter anyway? What critical work remains to be done on the -8 after the 777-9 will be certified?

I've not heard any compelling reason why Boeing needs to spend a penny on the 778F, when they could just carry on pumping out 777Fs. Zero competition.

Revelation · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:06 pm

par13del wrote:
The assumption here is that the regulators in the USA will be able to mandate that EASA is held to the same changing standards that have been forced and or accepted by the FAA on Boeing. I recall in the MAX threads the slippery slope political mantra dealing with Boeing, the first effects are being seen on the 777X, let's see what happens when Airbus announces another if any modification.

Seems Airbus already is not finding an easy way to thread the regulatory needle when it comes to fire prevention and crash worthiness on A321XLR:

Airbus’s A321XLR will be subject to special conditions proposed for the aircraft’s integrated rear centre tank, intended to ensure adequate protection from fire.

The large 12,900-litre centre tank, located in the aft hold of the twinjet, will contain the fuel necessary for the aircraft to achieve its extended range.

Airbus has submitted an application for the change to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and the authority states that the location of the tank is likely to create a “cold feet” cooling effect to the potential discomfort of passengers seated immediately above it.

This means insulation panels will need to be fitted between the tank and the cabin floor, and these would have to meet burn-through criteria. But Airbus has informed EASA that this is “technically not feasible”, for various reasons.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/a32 ... 19.article

The article goes on to describe some give-and-take between EASA, Airbus and Boeing, because Boeing has made some comments on the application for change.

Boeing757100 · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:06 pm

scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Wouldn't the 777-8 be needed for the freighter anyway? What critical work remains to be done on the -8 after the 777-9 will be certified?

I've not heard any compelling reason why Boeing needs to spend a penny on the 778F, when they could just carry on pumping out 777Fs. Zero competition.

Also, from what I have heard, QR is the only airline interested in a 777X-F. And it's not like he needs to replace his 777Fs until like 5 years from now, as he got 3 in one day this year.

Revelation · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Wouldn't the 777-8 be needed for the freighter anyway? What critical work remains to be done on the -8 after the 777-9 will be certified?

I've not heard any compelling reason why Boeing needs to spend a penny on the 778F, when they could just carry on pumping out 777Fs. Zero competition.

77F has benefited from economy of scale with 77W, now we see the end of the line for 77W production looming.

Presumably at some point in time the burden of keeping the 77F supply chain alive will be more than the cost benefit of consolidating on 778/F for Boeing, GE and other major partners.

Opus99 · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:23 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Wouldn't the 777-8 be needed for the freighter anyway? What critical work remains to be done on the -8 after the 777-9 will be certified?

I've not heard any compelling reason why Boeing needs to spend a penny on the 778F, when they could just carry on pumping out 777Fs. Zero competition.

Also, from what I have heard, QR is the only airline interested in a 777X-F. And it's not like he needs to replace his 777Fs until like 5 years from now, as he got 3 in one day this year.

FedEx were also interested but at the time fedex said 2026 and Boeing wanted more lie 23/24 but this was back in 2019.

Also there’s talk of an A350F

Boeing757100 · Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:25 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I've not heard any compelling reason why Boeing needs to spend a penny on the 778F, when they could just carry on pumping out 777Fs. Zero competition.

Also, from what I have heard, QR is the only airline interested in a 777X-F. And it's not like he needs to replace his 777Fs until like 5 years from now, as he got 3 in one day this year.

FedEx were also interested but at the time fedex said 2026 and Boeing wanted more lie 23/24 but this was back in 2019

Why would Fedex be interested? Their 767s and 777s are incredibly young (and they're still taking deliveries). To replace the MD-11? To me, the 777X is much too big of a plane to replace the MD-11F.

Revelation · Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:38 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Why would Fedex be interested? Their 767s and 777s are incredibly young (and they're still taking deliveries). To replace the MD-11? To me, the 777X is much too big of a plane to replace the MD-11F.

I think they won't go smaller when replacing MD-11F since we're told on this forum that they run out of volume before they run out of takeoff weight due to e-commerce loads.

In the future I could see FX setting up a 77W P2F conversion line, just like they did for 757.

Time will tell.

Chemist · Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:37 pm

So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

Great job, Boeing management. You certainly have not earned your high compensation with great strategy.

Revelation · Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:51 pm

Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

Great job, Boeing management. You certainly have not earned your high compensation with great strategy.

1) Last 757 was built Nov 2005, it's a nonsense to think it could have held on till a new market emerged
2) MAX would have saved money if it was implemented properly, the business strategy was sound, the engineering was not
3) They need to aim for where the puck is going: get what they can from MAX while they build a MOM.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:33 am

Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

Great job, Boeing management. You certainly have not earned your high compensation with great strategy.

Everyone who needed a 757 already had one. Even CO didn't need any more. They just redeployed the ones they had to transatlantic missions, and they were relatively young airframes. They replaced their domestic 757-200's with cheaper 737-900's and 900ER's. A new MOM plane needs to have containerized cargo capabilities that can handle standard LD3-45 containers. A resurrected 757MAX wouldn't have that. A new small widebody cross section would allow a MOM to fill the 757 role while improving cargo capabilities. It would also allow a dual aisle configuration that is better for medium to long haul operations. Dual aisles would also allow quicker turnaround between flights. The biggest problem with the 757-300 was the long passenger boarding and deboarding times. A MOM with similar capacity would be great plane for dense domestic routes.

FiscAutTecGarte · Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:02 am

Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Everyone who needed a 757 already had one.

That is probably the #1 reason.

Boeing took the 757 on tour, literally a publicity tour, for about a year before deciding to shut the line down. The 300 came too late, only selling 55 examples. No one was buying them in number. They just wouldn't sell. It was simply that the 737NG and A32x families were becoming more capable for a fraction of the cost (procurement, trip, maintenance, etc... the whole TCO was heavily favoring these planes).

JannEejit · Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:04 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

Great job, Boeing management. You certainly have not earned your high compensation with great strategy.

Everyone who needed a 757 already had one. Even CO didn't need any more. They just redeployed the ones they had to transatlantic missions, and they were relatively young airframes. They replaced their domestic 757-200's with cheaper 737-900's and 900ER's. A new MOM plane needs to have containerized cargo capabilities that can handle standard LD3-45 containers. A resurrected 757MAX wouldn't have that. A new small widebody cross section would allow a MOM to fill the 757 role while improving cargo capabilities. It would also allow a dual aisle configuration that is better for medium to long haul operations. Dual aisles would also allow quicker turnaround between flights. The biggest problem with the 757-300 was the long passenger boarding and deboarding times. A MOM with similar capacity would be great plane for dense domestic routes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the all new Boeing 767-800...erm...MAX ! :box:

seahawk · Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:08 am

morrisond wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Your plan would lead them to design the heavy version first and the shrink it to found a family? So all the smaller ones end up being made of their heavy weight ancestor version's ingredients? No that would not be really smart and not lead to a competitive lightweight product.

And I doubt that airlines are ready for folding wing sections in the short haul market. They would fold heir wings in and out all the time. If that mechanism breaks you are grounded.

Conceptually you would digitally design the NSA first using a common fuselage then beef up gear/engines/wingbox/wing for ER NMA version.

Basically what Airbus will be doing if they rewing A321 and make an A322.

The NSA would have a non-folding 36M wing - not needed as you might only target a range of 3,000ishNM initially. The NMA would have something like a 43-44m wing that folds down to 36M.

Common sized (but not necessarily common strength) wingbox - as the fuel capacity in the 3,000NM NSA wingbox might be enough so you don't have to get into the complication of putting fuel in the wing - allowing the NSA wing to be Simple, really thin (efficient) and light. NSA would have a different tail as different thrust/weight - learn lessons from NMA first and learn how to build in volume.

On Boeing's last Carbon airplane they learned a ton going from 788 to 789. I expect a lot of learning if they take this approach this time as well.

With the volume that NSA will sell in - they can afford to put a lot of hours into it to make it as good as it can be taking what they learn from NMA where weight will not be so critical and not kill the MAX while doing so.

Perfect analysis.

Noshow · Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:06 am

It means in order to come up with a NMA Boeing need to design some NSA first instead of making NSA, the one that "must be right" the 2nd improved alteration of NMA. The order above would lead to possible mistakes being carried over all over the place. Remember the 787-8 prototypes and compare them to the current -9 and -10?
So better create them in this order:
1. NMA, wait, perfect, optimize production system.
2. Then NSA. High rate, high tech, killer pricing.

Especially the production system needs some fine tuning as the 787 issues seem to indicate. Don't try to do everything at the same time.

WIederling · Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:20 am

Stitch wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into?

They did not miss the market, they just did not have a compelling alternative with the 737-900ER / 737-9. The 737-10 is a compelling alternative to a point (around 2500nm or so) and was seeing good sales up until the grounding.

did they sell anything to potential Airbus A321 customers?
IMU most of the -10 orders are conversions from -9* ,from -8

parts count, complexity of the MLG increased (significantly?!), loading of the MLG leg doubled. That comes with cost!

VSMUT · Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:55 am

WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into?

They did not miss the market, they just did not have a compelling alternative with the 737-900ER / 737-9. The 737-10 is a compelling alternative to a point (around 2500nm or so) and was seeing good sales up until the grounding.

did they sell anything to potential Airbus A321 customers?

VietJet. Although that smelled more of an airline desperate for expansion at a time when you could barely get aircraft, since they also ordered as many A321s they could get their hands on.

WIederling · Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:10 am

Noshow wrote:
Remember the 787-8 prototypes and compare them to the current -9 and -10?

That was not how a sane airframer would have done it.

The 788 lacked premeditation. You don't do prototypes for change testing anymore.
What you do is pre-series samples for certification/product proving.
All the new features should be qualified long before first metal is cut/resin cured.

Misterven1 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 2:29 pm

I still remember images about NMA or MOM projects and the last images looked a lot like an older Boeing 767-200. I believe that comparing this concept to Boeing 767-200 is the best for an NMA aircraft to become. But Boeing still opts for a single aisle aircraft that resembles the older Boeing 757 ...., while the LCD 3 containers must be able to fit in the cargo space under the passenger cabin.

Slightly wider fuselage single-aisle aircraft is in itself a good way to become an NMA aircraft, such as 3x3 with a spacious aisle. We have seen that the 757-300 takes a long time to board and disembark with passengers, which means that turnaround time takes longer than smaller Boeing 757-200. I think a long thin plane is really not a solution for a medium and long haul flight.

My conclusion is that concept like Boeing 767 is best for 6-12 hour flights, with 2-3-2 rows of seats and flying about 9,000-11,000 km. Much longer than the Airbus A321LR / XLR. With 2 aisles it is much faster to get in and out of the passengers.
The advantage is that the 797 with larger versions can replace older Boeing 787 in the future, which also saves savings in kerosene per seat. I assume that the 797 is much lighter than Boeing 787 in use, but not many details are known yet about what Boeing is doing now.

Speaking of NSA to succeed Boeing 737, a family plane must be created that must have the same cockpit, stronger engines that must fly on fossil kerosene or hydrogen, 2x2x2 or 3x3 seats in rows, can fly 5,000-8,000 km in different versions. Passenger capacity of 130-240 passengers. Must be able to operate without MCAS or should it?

I think the history of Boeing 2 types design alike is repeating what was the case with Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 before.

Revelation · Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:39 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes.

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Everyone who needed a 757 already had one.

That is probably the #1 reason.

Boeing took the 757 on tour, literally a publicity tour, for about a year before deciding to shut the line down. The 300 came too late, only selling 55 examples. No one was buying them in number. They just wouldn't sell. It was simply that the 737NG and A32x families were becoming more capable for a fraction of the cost (procurement, trip, maintenance, etc... the whole TCO was heavily favoring these planes).

Yes, in the end the 757 stopped selling and Boeing used the space to make another 737 production line, because that's where the market demand was.

Boeing757100 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 3:58 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

Great job, Boeing management. You certainly have not earned your high compensation with great strategy.

Everyone who needed a 757 already had one. Even CO didn't need any more. They just redeployed the ones they had to transatlantic missions, and they were relatively young airframes. They replaced their domestic 757-200's with cheaper 737-900's and 900ER's. A new MOM plane needs to have containerized cargo capabilities that can handle standard LD3-45 containers. A resurrected 757MAX wouldn't have that. A new small widebody cross section would allow a MOM to fill the 757 role while improving cargo capabilities. It would also allow a dual aisle configuration that is better for medium to long haul operations. Dual aisles would also allow quicker turnaround between flights. The biggest problem with the 757-300 was the long passenger boarding and deboarding times. A MOM with similar capacity would be great plane for dense domestic routes.

Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

Revelation · Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:10 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

Keeps?

They really have said next to nothing about the current concept.

One reason I started this thread was to point out the few things the CEO was willing to say.

Clearly the pre-2021 NMA concept was not cargo friendly, and maybe that's one reason why it is now dead.

DenverTed · Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:28 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

An XLR carry with 180pax at 4,000nm be seems to be even less built for the cargo market, yet is doing fine.
I think that "not" for the MOM simply means it will have a smaller cargo hold and payload than the 767 or 787. It will either have an LD45-3 container or a new slightly bigger container to optimize the cargo volume of the fuselage they choose.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:00 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:

Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

I think by that they meant that it would not have the capacity for side by side LD3 containers like the A300, A330, or 787. Considering the 757 has been out of production for 16 years, resurrecting the capability to manufacture them or an updated derivative would cost as much as designing and building a clean sheet MOM. New tooling would have to be built and certified. BA got rid of all of its narrow bodies at LHR that don't have containers due to their baggage system. Not having a plane that can at least use the same containers as the A320 series would be a serious mistake for a clean sheet MOM plane.

Noshow · Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:50 pm

I can see some NMA very much being usable for the cargo market. Exactly like the 767 is still in production as a factory made freighter.

Boeing757100 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:52 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:

Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

I think by that they meant that it would not have the capacity for side by side LD3 containers like the A300, A330, or 787. Considering the 757 has been out of production for 16 years, resurrecting the capability to manufacture them or an updated derivative would cost as much as designing and building a clean sheet MOM. New tooling would have to be built and certified. BA got rid of all of its narrow bodies at LHR that don't have containers due to their baggage system. Not having a plane that can at least use the same containers as the A320 series would be a serious mistake for a clean sheet MOM plane.

Yes, I agree that a 757-X or resurrection would be incredibly costly, but as per some older NMA threads on here, most were saying that the NMA would not be aimed for the cargo market.

Noshow · Sun Feb 28, 2021 8:00 pm

That is just meaning what #1040 perfectly described.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Feb 28, 2021 9:30 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:

Yet Boeing keeps claiming that their new MOM NMA 797 plane would not be built for the cargo market.

I think by that they meant that it would not have the capacity for side by side LD3 containers like the A300, A330, or 787. Considering the 757 has been out of production for 16 years, resurrecting the capability to manufacture them or an updated derivative would cost as much as designing and building a clean sheet MOM. New tooling would have to be built and certified. BA got rid of all of its narrow bodies at LHR that don't have containers due to their baggage system. Not having a plane that can at least use the same containers as the A320 series would be a serious mistake for a clean sheet MOM plane.

Yes, I agree that a 757-X or resurrection would be incredibly costly, but as per some older NMA threads on here, most were saying that the NMA would not be aimed for the cargo market.

But even aiming at the passenger market, a plane of the size of a proposed MOM needs cargo container capabilities to get orders from some airlines even if those airlines only use it to haul luggage. If Boeing is going to spend the money for a whole new plane with a new cross section, I seriously doubt they would omit the capability of handling LD3-45 containers. Some Asian airlines wanted the ability to carry 2 abreast LD3 containers. That won't happen. The 787 already has that capability.

Antaras · Mon Mar 01, 2021 3:39 pm

VSMUT wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:

They did not miss the market, they just did not have a compelling alternative with the 737-900ER / 737-9. The 737-10 is a compelling alternative to a point (around 2500nm or so) and was seeing good sales up until the grounding.

did they sell anything to potential Airbus A321 customers?

VietJet. Although that smelled more of an airline desperate for expansion at a time when you could barely get aircraft, since they also ordered as many A321s they could get their hands on.

Yes. Selling a big patch of MAX 10 to VJ who ordered hundred of A321neos seems like a very big win for Boeing, even though that deal seems influenced by some obvious political purposes between the US and S.R. Vietnam government.

Stitch · Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:00 pm

Chemist wrote:
So Boeing's dilemma is that:
1 - They let the 757 market go, claiming it wasn't big enough, and the A321 grew into it and is selling like hotcakes

The A321 sells on it's own merits. Airlines that never bought a 757 have in sum bought thousands of A321s.

The 757 is irrelevant to this discussion - even if Boeing had kept the plane around and one or more of the engine OEMs had bothered to make a new engine for it, Boeing would have been lucky to sell a handful of them while Airbus would have continued to pump out thousands of A321s.

Chemist wrote:
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"

They did MAX to keep their largest narrowbody customers from defecting to Airbus. If they had gone NSA, they would have definitely lost them American Airlines as a customer and quite possibly United, as well. And with Airbus absorbing the C-Series and dragging it across the finish line, it might have cost them Southwest Airlines, as well, as the A220-300 would have been a compelling 737-700 replacement. Alaska would also have been at risk, since they were now operating Airbus, as well. And how long would Ryanair have held out against an easyJet A320neo fleet undercutting their operating costs and able to offer even lower fares?

Chemist wrote:
3 - So now they have no offering in the MOM space and have a stale competitor in the 737/A320/A220 space. They need to cover two markets (MOM and NSA) with new aircraft at some point, and are trying to figure out whether to do one plane or two, when to launch, etc. All the while Airbus continues to gain market share.

MAX is not that stale - it was selling well enough in MAX8 form and MAX10 started strong and looked to be something 737 operators were interested in.

Strato2 · Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:57 pm

Stitch wrote:

Chemist wrote:
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"

They did MAX to keep their largest narrowbody customers from defecting to Airbus. If they had gone NSA, they would have definitely lost them American Airlines as a customer and quite possibly United, as well. And with Airbus absorbing the C-Series and dragging it across the finish line, it might have cost them Southwest Airlines, as well, as the A220-300 would have been a compelling 737-700 replacement. Alaska would also have been at risk, since they were now operating Airbus, as well. And how long would Ryanair have held out against an easyJet A320neo fleet undercutting their operating costs and able to offer even lower fares?

Would it have been worse compared to the fact that 350 people are dead and Boeing has lost 20 billion dollars.

Revelation · Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:05 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Chemist wrote:
2 - They took the short path and instead of the NSA they did the MAX to get sales fast and "save money"

They did MAX to keep their largest narrowbody customers from defecting to Airbus. If they had gone NSA, they would have definitely lost them American Airlines as a customer and quite possibly United, as well. And with Airbus absorbing the C-Series and dragging it across the finish line, it might have cost them Southwest Airlines, as well, as the A220-300 would have been a compelling 737-700 replacement. Alaska would also have been at risk, since they were now operating Airbus, as well. And how long would Ryanair have held out against an easyJet A320neo fleet undercutting their operating costs and able to offer even lower fares?

Would it have been worse compared to the fact that 350 people are dead and Boeing has lost 20 billion dollars.

Yeah, but to make that choice they would need a time machine so they could know in 2011 what would be happening in 2018-9.

jagraham · Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
Boeing757100 wrote:
Why would Fedex be interested? Their 767s and 777s are incredibly young (and they're still taking deliveries). To replace the MD-11? To me, the 777X is much too big of a plane to replace the MD-11F.

I think they won't go smaller when replacing MD-11F since we're told on this forum that they run out of volume before they run out of takeoff weight due to e-commerce loads.

In the future I could see FX setting up a 77W P2F conversion line, just like they did for 757.

Time will tell.

Bedek already set up a 77W P2F line

as for MD11 replacements, FX was originally getting 77Fs to replace MD11s. But with the increase in online commerce, both FX and UPS kept their MD11s. And got new 767Fs for domestic widebody use.

FX rates their MD11s at 81.6t and 6100 km (4000 sm). Not a 77F, but not bad. And was noted above, FX and 5X own their MD11s.

Noshow · Mon Mar 01, 2021 6:50 pm

Assuming the 787 shims problems remain unrepairable on more frames built, which I don't hope, and some will need to get downgraded to lower MTOW for structural reasons would these be covering what the "NMA" had targeted as a market before?
Depending of the number of those 787, do "we" still need some NMA?

Stitch · Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:03 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Would it have been worse compared to the fact that 350 people are dead and Boeing has lost 20 billion dollars.

Hindsight is always 20-20.

Might as well ask why in 1979 Boeing and 737-200 operators did not have the prescience to know that Airbus' SA studies of the same period would actually go into development five years later as the A320 and therefore the 737 Classic never should have been pursued and instead an all-new design launched instead that would have been feature-comparable to the A320.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net