Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Revelation wrote:
That's akin to saying Boeing learned nothing from MCAS.

What is needed is competition.

The iteration of 2019-20 of NMA had LEAP with some incremental improvements.

If GE is willing to offer a scaled down GE9x that would be a new development.

Competition has advantages and drawbacks. If the market is really 2000 frames or less and you want to engine OEMs, both will be tempted to just go with scaled versions of proven engines. Either a scaled up LEAP or scaled down 9x. If you grant exclusivity the business case is safer and warrants more development costs. I think exclusivity for a CFM/GE engine is the right way forward, if CFM/GE is willing to commit fully.

Competition in the sense of competition to get onto the plane.

With UltraFan in the picture, GE/CFM will feel pressure to do better than a tweaked LEAP.

I think whomever gets onto the plane will insist on an exclusive.

par13del wrote:
Based on current experience and past, if Boeing has been struggling to close the business case, going with UltraFan in my opinion would be a huge risk with the potential to kill the entire program. Imagine if the NEO with PW was the only model, no CEO was available, look at the 787 when RR had their issues, were any sales lost to the A350 because of those problems? In a program like this where some say the market is niche, there are some risk that are a "bridge too far" if GE is going a modified of GENX and RR wants back in, a modified version of something presently in production would be best in my opinion.

GE has said their NMA offering will come from CFM and be based on LEAP.

I have yet to see a media report saying they will offer a modified GEnX or GE9X.

As above, I think we are at least 1-2 years out before the program gets ATO so we have lots of time for things to shake out.


Sorry, I never even considered the idea, that they could pick an engine without having the OEMs compete for the deal.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27610
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:19 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
So, Boeing is going to have a $15 Billion plus, clean sheet NMA test run so that they are better equipped to build the NSA?


Why not?

Single-aisle is where Airbus and Boeing really make their money and if demand returns to 100+ frames a month as it was trending towards before COVID then Boeing certainly cannot afford to have NSA suffer a long and painful production ramp because they need to go from building scores of MAX a month to building scores of NSA a month just as they were doing with NG to MAX before the grounding / COVID.


Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Boeing is unlikely to make money of the MAX, Dreamliner and 777X.


We shall see. All three will be decades-long programs with a fair bit of higher-margin ancillary sales attached to each frame.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:29 pm

seahawk wrote:
Sorry, I never even considered the idea, that they could pick an engine without having the OEMs compete for the deal.

No problem. That's where things were left when Calhoun put the program on ice shortly after becoming CEO. PW was ruled out early, RR withdrew itself on financial/business grounds, and the CFM LEAP proposal was winning by default. Now it seems AvWeek is saying RR is back in the competition.
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
 
Ertro
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 7:49 pm

Stitch wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
So, Boeing is going to have a $15 Billion plus, clean sheet NMA test run so that they are better equipped to build the NSA?

Why not? Single-aisle is where Airbus and Boeing really make their money and if demand returns to 100+ frames a month as it was trending towards before COVID then Boeing certainly cannot afford to have NSA suffer a long and painful production ramp because they need to go from building scores of MAX a month to building scores of NSA a month just as they were doing with NG to MAX before the grounding / COVID.


Sounds good if Boeing is going to build the whole plane in-house. But consider you are a subcontractor company or even better still a risk-sharing partner that Boeing previously was pushing all of the manufacturing towards away from doing stuff in-house.

Does this sound enticing to you as a company in Italy or in Japan to become risk-sharing partner for a NMA test run that Boeing is "publicly known" not to be hugely interested in and is doing it mainly for the purpose of learning stuff so that Boeing can then make loads of money on NSA? Does this make you jump up and down from excitement to get onboard of this NMA project test run?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27610
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:00 pm

Ertro wrote:
Does this sound enticing to you as a company in Italy or in Japan to become risk-sharing partner for a NMA test run that Boeing is "publicly known" not to be hugely interested in and is doing it mainly for the purpose of learning stuff so that Boeing can then make loads of money on NSA? Does this make you jump up and down from excitement to get onboard of this NMA project test run?


I don't see how NSA would be something Boeing would make predominately "in-house" so being an NMA supplier could possibly fast-track you to being an NSA supplier.

The other option is Boeing does decide to make NSA "in-house" and does so by buying out NMA suppliers to leverage their expertise (as Boeing was forced to do with Vought and Alenia's facilities in South Carolina).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Sorry, I never even considered the idea, that they could pick an engine without having the OEMs compete for the deal.

No problem. That's where things were left when Calhoun put the program on ice shortly after becoming CEO. PW was ruled out early, RR withdrew itself on financial/business grounds, and the CFM LEAP proposal was winning by default. Now it seems AvWeek is saying RR is back in the competition.


I must say I simply assumed that they would have decided to start over and also forget all the engine decisions from the past. RR is a crazy choice, if you consider the fact that Airbus has PW and CFM on the A321 and both would probably be hugely motivated to make the fight hard for the new Boeing product. And even the smallest ever mentioned Ultrafan version would probably point more to a new 767 than a real A321 competitor. On the other hand it makes sense if it really is a 767 replacement.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2504
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:17 pm

It feels a bit like they might change their royal warrants: Airbus going GE and Boeing going RR?
 
MCabouie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:53 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:48 pm

If addition to developing more efficient manufacturing processes an NMA is perceived as a step increase in value (quality, performance, delivery lead time...),it may also provide a marketing advantage for NSA.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1426
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:10 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Stitch wrote:
And there in lies the problem - there is no current advances in engine tech available. At least ones, Airbus cannot put on the A320.

So a "MAX replacement" would be a "Boeing A320" and good luck getting a premium for that against an Airbus A320, which Boeing would need to do to cover the investment.

And that presumes Boeing (and their shareholders) are willing to just scrap the investment in the MAX with no RoI.

NMA at least could offer a return on the direct investment since Airbus is unlikely to jump into the market (for I agree with you it will not be huge). And if it means NSA is that much more effective when it comes to putting it into production, then that is where the return will really be generated.
So, Boeing is going to have a $15 Billion plus, clean sheet NMA test run so that they are better equipped to build the NSA?

Boeing is unlikely to make money of the MAX, Dreamliner and 777X. It has nothing to do with what the board wants, this is just the price of bleeding suppliers dry, poor execution, and mega financialization since the merger with MD.


I think they could all make money, but it will take a while. The 787 in particular was on a really good trajectory to reach profitability before the pandemic hit. They should still reach that threshold by roughly the end of the decade even if the recovery is far worse on widebodies than expected so far (~8 per month average).

Looking at Boeing's financials for the last few years to try to get a sense of what ballpark the 737 margin was before the MAX crashes and pandemic (my estimate is around $5-6 million per aircraft NG + MAX average), I'd say the 737 needs a pretty good recovery to dig out of the $20 billion financial hole it is in. It might be able to get there around the end of the decade even if they never recover to their former production rates. They do need to stay close to their former margins, but they have a really solid production system to help with that.

For the 777X, in addition to their meager order book is now also getting a late start (2023). Yet even if it never comes close to the legacy 777 demand, give it 15+ years and they might even recover the write off they took on it.

I don't know what this means for their narrowbody strategy, other than providing hope that the programs they paid for with the profits of the 737 NG and the legacy 777 can generate the cash flow needed to fund their next program(s) and make payments on their debt.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:58 pm

Stitch wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
So, Boeing is going to have a $15 Billion plus, clean sheet NMA test run so that they are better equipped to build the NSA?


Why not?


Because the climate for the coming years doesn't invite to launch a clean sheet ? So planning for 2 clean sheet in a row seems like crazy ?

I'm not even sure there is room for a profitable new clean sheet airliner in the shape we currently know, tube+wing+pair of turbofan.
At least without game changing propulsion technology and associated aero solution change it's seems difficult to justify the expense and risks of a clean sheet.

It is cheaper to slap a turbofan evolution under A320 wing, or a A322 wing if needed, than to put in service a new Type Certificate with breakthrough technology an A320 couldn't benefit.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:24 am

Stitch wrote:
Why not?

Single-aisle is where Airbus and Boeing really make their money and if demand returns to 100+ frames a month as it was trending towards before COVID then Boeing certainly cannot afford to have NSA suffer a long and painful production ramp because they need to go from building scores of MAX a month to building scores of NSA a month just as they were doing with NG to MAX before the grounding / COVID.

We shall see. All three will be decades-long programs with a fair bit of higher-margin ancillary sales attached to each frame.
No one is taking a $15 billion hit on a new program so that they can learn how to better produce another $15 billion dollar program. There is a reason why Boeing has spent this long trying to understand whether there is a business case for something new in this segment.

Boeing's problem is the shortsightedness of the leadership in place. Stop squeezing suppliers, take back some money made in profits and invest it in improving processes at the assembly line, stop this infatuation with shareholder value and actually take time (thus money) getting things right the first time.

Also, stop listening to airlines that have a need for a niche product. This is what they did when they built the 747-8 and the 777X. This is what they would be doing with a new clean sheet program that will struggle against any 787 or A350 re-engine.

Finally, the idea is for a program to make money off sales with ancillary revenue coming in as a bonus. You do not have programs in place never having a chance of breaking even on production and then praying that ancillary revenue comes through. I for one do not see how they break even on the MAX, and no one really knows what is going to happen with the 787 without fully understanding what it will cost to repair birds already produced but with shoddy quality.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:36 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
No one is taking a $15 billion hit on a new program so that they can learn how to better produce another $15 billion dollar program. There is a reason why Boeing has spent this long trying to understand whether there is a business case for something new in this segment.

It's not clear from your writing that you understand any business case that closes will need to be able to project a positive return on investment.
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
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:44 am

Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
No one is taking a $15 billion hit on a new program so that they can learn how to better produce another $15 billion dollar program. There is a reason why Boeing has spent this long trying to understand whether there is a business case for something new in this segment.

It's not clear from your writing that you understand any business case that closes will need to be able to project a positive return on investment.
They all do. I am sure that Airbus thought they would make money off the A380, and Boeing thought they would make money off the 777X, but alas, here were are.

Pretty sure that there were assumptions that a new manufacturing process would work well for 787, and look at how well that went.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:56 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
No one is taking a $15 billion hit on a new program so that they can learn how to better produce another $15 billion dollar program. There is a reason why Boeing has spent this long trying to understand whether there is a business case for something new in this segment.

It's not clear from your writing that you understand any business case that closes will need to be able to project a positive return on investment.
They all do. I am sure that Airbus thought they would make money off the A380, and Boeing thought they would make money off the 777X, but alas, here were are.

Pretty sure that there were assumptions that a new manufacturing process would work well for 787, and look at how well that went.

Right, so they aren't spending $15B to learn how to produce another $15B program, they are spending $15B because they think they will make a positive ROI on that money AND prove out manufacturing techniques they can use for NSA in the future while getting whatever cash flow they can get out of MAX without stiffing their current customer and supplier base.
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
 
MCabouie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:53 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:57 am

The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:09 am

Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's not clear from your writing that you understand any business case that closes will need to be able to project a positive return on investment.
They all do. I am sure that Airbus thought they would make money off the A380, and Boeing thought they would make money off the 777X, but alas, here were are.

Pretty sure that there were assumptions that a new manufacturing process would work well for 787, and look at how well that went.

Right, so they aren't spending $15B to learn how to produce another $15B program, they are spending $15B because they think they will make a positive ROI on that money AND prove out manufacturing techniques they can use for NSA in the future while getting whatever cash flow they can get out of MAX without stiffing their current customer and supplier base.

This is the point I am making. The NMA has to stand on its own yet some keep stating that it is worth it because there are manufacturing processes that could carry to the NSA.

It either makes sense, or it doesn't AND no one is getting into a new program to prove out manufacturing techniques. You commit to a program and live and die by those commitments. You learn.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:00 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
They all do. I am sure that Airbus thought they would make money off the A380, and Boeing thought they would make money off the 777X, but alas, here were are.

Pretty sure that there were assumptions that a new manufacturing process would work well for 787, and look at how well that went.

Right, so they aren't spending $15B to learn how to produce another $15B program, they are spending $15B because they think they will make a positive ROI on that money AND prove out manufacturing techniques they can use for NSA in the future while getting whatever cash flow they can get out of MAX without stiffing their current customer and supplier base.

This is the point I am making. The NMA has to stand on its own yet some keep stating that it is worth it because there are manufacturing processes that could carry to the NSA.

It either makes sense, or it doesn't AND no one is getting into a new program to prove out manufacturing techniques. You commit to a program and live and die by those commitments. You learn.

I would interpret the statement as "NMA would not be profitable by itself, but the value of IP (manufacturing technology, cockpit etc) would exceed nominal monetary loss. That IP applied to the next program(NSA) would allow for profitable (NMA+NSA) mega-program where each separate one would be loosing money having to shoulder full development cost.
This is not unlike developing a shrink of a model, where full development cycle would be prohibitively expensive - but makes sense if expense is shared with the base model, abeit on a bigger scale.
I am not sure this is the actual case at Boeing, but this is a valid way of looking at things
 
MCabouie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:53 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:28 am

kalvado wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Right, so they aren't spending $15B to learn how to produce another $15B program, they are spending $15B because they think they will make a positive ROI on that money AND prove out manufacturing techniques they can use for NSA in the future while getting whatever cash flow they can get out of MAX without stiffing their current customer and supplier base.

This is the point I am making. The NMA has to stand on its own yet some keep stating that it is worth it because there are manufacturing processes that could carry to the NSA.

It either makes sense, or it doesn't AND no one is getting into a new program to prove out manufacturing techniques. You commit to a program and live and die by those commitments. You learn.

I would interpret the statement as "NMA would not be profitable by itself, but the value of IP (manufacturing technology, cockpit etc) would exceed nominal monetary loss. That IP applied to the next program(NSA) would allow for profitable (NMA+NSA) mega-program where each separate one would be loosing money having to shoulder full development cost.
This is not unlike developing a shrink of a model, where full development cycle would be prohibitively expensive - but makes sense if expense is shared with the base model, abeit on a bigger scale.
I am not sure this is the actual case at Boeing, but this is a valid way of looking at things

===
Ty. I was speaking generally because I don't know the details. (development/manufacturing)

Shared developments costs, leverage with vendors, economy of scale, etc. COULD benefit manufacturing.

Customers could see reduced risk in buying NSA if it followed an NMA program that raised the bar on "value." This benefits the SALES side.
If Y2/Dreamliner had lived up to its promises, I think Y3 could have enjoyed a higher price as a result.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:49 am

kalvado wrote:
(NSA) would allow for profitable (NMA+NSA) mega-program where each separate one would be loosing money having to shoulder full development cost.
This is not unlike developing a shrink of a model, where full development cycle would be prohibitively expensive - but makes sense if expense is shared with the base model, abeit on a bigger scale.
I am not sure this is the actual case at Boeing, but this is a valid way of looking at things

None of this is new to aviation. The Boeing 757 and 767 were developed concurrently and shared a lot of tech in aerodynamics, avionics, cockpit design etc. There are innovations that were in the A380 that have been implemented on the A350 and we will see a synthetic AOA coming to the MAX10 which is to come from the 787.

None of this is groundbreaking. All Boeing needs to do is get back to where they were at with the 777 when it came to design and execution. Do that right and it does not matter whether you are making one program or doing a million concurrently. The only question that needs answering is whether there is a big enough market to sustain a new $15 billion clean sheet investment, and whether that program will be competitive. Or are they once again developing something that does not have legs like the 747-8, 777X?
 
oschkosch
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:26 am

MCabouie wrote:
The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.



Ummm, doesn't that statement contradict itself?
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
texl1649
Posts: 1798
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:38 am

MCabouie wrote:
The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.


This must be that new math I keep hearing about.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:52 am

oschkosch wrote:
MCabouie wrote:
The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.



Ummm, doesn't that statement contradict itself?

It's called synergy.
 
oschkosch
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:20 pm

kalvado wrote:
oschkosch wrote:
MCabouie wrote:
The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.



Ummm, doesn't that statement contradict itself?

It's called synergy.
any figures to back this up? Or is it just a baseless claim?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk
:stirthepot: :airplane: "This airplane is designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" :airplane: :stirthepot:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:23 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is the point I am making. The NMA has to stand on its own yet some keep stating that it is worth it because there are manufacturing processes that could carry to the NSA.

It either makes sense, or it doesn't AND no one is getting into a new program to prove out manufacturing techniques. You commit to a program and live and die by those commitments. You learn.

I'm pretty confident the next clean sheet will only get launched if the Board is confident it can make the traditional ROI.

MCabouie wrote:
The profit from NMA + NSA together could be greater than that from NSA alone, even if NMA isn't profitable by itself.

Even better if you don't screw over your customers and suppliers by killing MAX early.

WN just committed to up to 300 MAX7. FR just added another 75 MAX8. How happy would they be if you start a replacement program for them in the near future?
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
 
DartHerald
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:25 pm

Wasn't part of the reasoning behind the 787 that the investment in it would be partially covered by the fact that it would also provide the technology basis for a new generation of composite fuselage 737 replacements? Perhaps it did, in a way, by discovering the various pitfalls of that particular approach!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:43 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Wasn't part of the reasoning behind the 787 that the investment in it would be partially covered by the fact that it would also provide the technology basis for a new generation of composite fuselage 737 replacements? Perhaps it did, in a way, by discovering the various pitfalls of that particular approach!

The plan kinda looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ye ... ne_Project

It all got side-tracked when 787 overran schedule and budget by a huge amount, and somewhat because Boeing also chose to take on 747-8 too rather than leaving that space for Y3.

Seems Boeing is still in the learning phase on the 787.

Hopefully we get a true rendering of what the pitfalls are because FAA is in the loop.
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
 
kalvado
Posts: 3161
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:17 pm

oschkosch wrote:
kalvado wrote:
oschkosch wrote:


Ummm, doesn't that statement contradict itself?

It's called synergy.
any figures to back this up? Or is it just a baseless claim?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

Sure. Imagine factory Q making right shoes with some really sad sales. Once they invest into left shoe technology, though, they can start making pairs - and sales will skyrocket.
I am not sure the same would apply to Boeing NMA/NSA, but synergy of selling footware in pairs, as opposed to separate left and right shoe markets, is clearly understood.
 
Chemist
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:12 pm

I keep reading about how Boeing can't start the NSA now because they can't ramp up the volume yet, and because they would cannibalize the MAX which needs to make some big money for a while.
What I don't get is that since it's probably a 10 year exercise to get the NSA into production, why can't they do both?
The two scenarios I see are:
1 - Wait say 8 years and milk the MAX. Assume that the MAX goes from 40% market share now to 20% in 8 years. This is the signal that the MAX's day is over. Then you start the new program and you don't have an NSA in production until about 2039. Meanwhile Airbus is clearly the market leader with A3xx series or reengine follow on, and Boeing is almost irrelevant.
2 - Start NSA soon (next 1-2 years). Customer deliveries start in, say, 2028/9. Keep selling the MAX. Boeing has MAX availability of xx/year and NSA availability at small number per year (say 50). For a number of years overlap, let the market dictate the proportional sales of MAX versus NSA. Just as today Airbus is limited by manufacturing volume and therefore delivery timing to a customer for the A32x, Boeing would be in this scenario limited on how long somebody needs to wait to get a delivered NSA. Over the early production years Boeing slowly ramps up NSA production rate. And so there is significant overlap of production between MAX and NSA. For a customer who wants a frame soon, they order the MAX. If they REALLY want the NSA, they need to wait a few years, just as today Airbus customers wait years for an A32x. And yes Boeing is competing with itself, but they are also not ceding huge market share to Airbus by waiting and milking the MAX for another decade until their market share in the NB market dwindles to insignificance.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The last 727 was produced in 1984. Yes it was a trickle at the end but still it'd be interesting to see what would have happened if Boeing never got enough interest to launch 757 and did a true 722 replacement once 727 was finished.


Boeing did try to address the 727-200ADV market a second time in the 1980s with the 7J7, but with UDFs not ready for prime time and fuel prices low, that program stalled out and Boeing concentrated on the 737 Classic.


markets aren't frozen.
They change with time ( more travellers, different destinations )
They change with technology ( bigger sister now has similar range, the small one now has more range than makes sense for the previous use case but does not provide enough for the next demand region one up.)

long ago someone tried to make a statement on optimal size of narrow bodies showing statistics with distinct maxima.
... but those maxima corresponded to available frame sizes.
Murphy is an optimist
 
smartplane
Posts: 1695
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:31 pm

Certification rules for a clean sheet, in theory are certain. Application, post MAX, are less so, including how using a different current model for design justification, not subject to such close scrutiny / same rules, could be drawn into the new certification net, retrospectively.

Airbus (and Mitsi) are probably keen for Boeing to lead the way.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:34 pm

Chemist wrote:
I keep reading about how Boeing can't start the NSA now because they can't ramp up the volume yet, and because they would cannibalize the MAX which needs to make some big money for a while.
What I don't get is that since it's probably a 10 year exercise to get the NSA into production, why can't they do both?
The two scenarios I see are:
1 - Wait say 8 years and milk the MAX. Assume that the MAX goes from 40% market share now to 20% in 8 years. This is the signal that the MAX's day is over. Then you start the new program and you don't have an NSA in production until about 2039. Meanwhile Airbus is clearly the market leader with A3xx series or reengine follow on, and Boeing is almost irrelevant.
2 - Start NSA soon (next 1-2 years). Customer deliveries start in, say, 2028/9. Keep selling the MAX. Boeing has MAX availability of xx/year and NSA availability at small number per year (say 50). For a number of years overlap, let the market dictate the proportional sales of MAX versus NSA. Just as today Airbus is limited by manufacturing volume and therefore delivery timing to a customer for the A32x, Boeing would be in this scenario limited on how long somebody needs to wait to get a delivered NSA. Over the early production years Boeing slowly ramps up NSA production rate. And so there is significant overlap of production between MAX and NSA. For a customer who wants a frame soon, they order the MAX. If they REALLY want the NSA, they need to wait a few years, just as today Airbus customers wait years for an A32x. And yes Boeing is competing with itself, but they are also not ceding huge market share to Airbus by waiting and milking the MAX for another decade until their market share in the NB market dwindles to insignificance.

The flaw is assuming that announcing NSA in the next 1-2 years would not impact future MAX sales.

Also, NSA launch won't be dictated by market share, it'll be dictated by MAX backlog.

Right now it's 4000 so 6-7 years at rate 50, when that gets down to 2 years at rate 40 so around 1,000 then we may see serious talk of if/when NSA.

Keep in mind MAX is still attractive/competitive, more orders will come in.

NMA launch first lets Boeing open a new market for itself while not killing MAX prematurely.

It also lets it roll out its next gen design and manufacturing stuff without needing to hit rate 50 right out the gate.
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
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:49 pm

DartHerald wrote:
Wasn't part of the reasoning behind the 787 that the investment in it would be partially covered by the fact that it would also provide the technology basis for a new generation of composite fuselage 737 replacements? Perhaps it did, in a way, by discovering the various pitfalls of that particular approach!


Sometimes a troubled program is a giant tuition payment. The question is, why put people who didn’t have job skills in charge of a large program. if you do, it will cost a ton of money for them to learn how to do their job. So hopefully the lesson lasts 10-20 years.
 
Misterven1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:20 pm

Boeing is still too busy to catch up with Boeing 737 MAX, solve 777X problems and in the meantime is working on a new medium-haul aircraft.

At the moment, corona pandemic is underway, which is why few orders will come from the aviation companies. Both we can expect that this year will hear little news about Boeing's NMA or MOM (Boeing 797) project.

When the corona pandemic ends, a cautious recovery in the entire passenger transport world will start with caution and new orders will occasionally come for Boeing and Airbus.

I also believe that Boeing is in the process of reorganizing within the company, which can also lead to a better corporate culture with fewer managers and also have to deal with completely different business processes. In the past, Boeing also had a bad corporate culture where too many managers handed these sheets to its own staff and therefore directly made their own policy. That is why Boeing has also cleared its own aircraft without FAA supervision for airworthiness. That cannot and must never happen again, no matter what the reason for 2 Boeing 737MAX fatal accidents.

I would hardly ever think that Airbus would also inspect its own planes before they are delivered to the airline before they enter the fleet. The EASA has exactly the same job as FAA, overseeing delivered aircraft manufactured by Airbus ios. Safety is of the utmost importance to aviation, but aircraft manufacturers only have an eye for money and profit above human scale.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26303
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:47 pm

Misterven1 wrote:
Boeing is still too busy to catch up with Boeing 737 MAX, solve 777X problems and in the meantime is working on a new medium-haul aircraft.

At the moment, corona pandemic is underway, which is why few orders will come from the aviation companies. Both we can expect that this year will hear little news about Boeing's NMA or MOM (Boeing 797) project.

When the corona pandemic ends, a cautious recovery in the entire passenger transport world will start with caution and new orders will occasionally come for Boeing and Airbus.

I also believe that Boeing is in the process of reorganizing within the company, which can also lead to a better corporate culture with fewer managers and also have to deal with completely different business processes. In the past, Boeing also had a bad corporate culture where too many managers handed these sheets to its own staff and therefore directly made their own policy. That is why Boeing has also cleared its own aircraft without FAA supervision for airworthiness. That cannot and must never happen again, no matter what the reason for 2 Boeing 737MAX fatal accidents.

I would hardly ever think that Airbus would also inspect its own planes before they are delivered to the airline before they enter the fleet. The EASA has exactly the same job as FAA, overseeing delivered aircraft manufactured by Airbus ios. Safety is of the utmost importance to aviation, but aircraft manufacturers only have an eye for money and profit above human scale.

I think we're in for at least a two year wait.

Both MAX10 and 777X just took two year hits to their schedules.

Also as above Boeing is now hiring cockpit experts, and there is that human factors effort the regulators are making that will report in ~1 year.

And yes, no one knows when recovery will take hold, when airlines will start replacing their oldest planes, etc.

There's no point in announcing your next move till you're pretty clear what it is, and I don't see that happening for at last two years.
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
 
Noshow
Posts: 2504
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:22 am

What does this mean for the Everett production site? They are far from using all their capabilities.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:24 am

If there is a 20 year market for 24,000 180 seat aircraft, if half that shifts up to 200-250 seats, that is a large potential future market. 12,000 aircraft at 225 seats with 3,000nm range. So ya, I think if they build a light twin aisle with good engine competition, it is irrelevant if it is a stand alone project. I think too many future variables will make the grand plans fall apart by the time a new single aisle is due.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:38 am

Noshow wrote:
What does this mean for the Everett production site? They are far from using all their capabilities.

Kind of like WN ordering the MAX 7, Everett has some economic footing that will be tough for other sites to better. Space will clear out from the 747 and 787, there is a new carbon wing factory building with plenty of space, and there is a large aerospace infrastructure around Everett.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:20 am

DenverTed wrote:
If there is a 20 year market for 24,000 180 seat aircraft, if half that shifts up to 200-250 seats, that is a large potential future market. 12,000 aircraft at 225 seats with 3,000nm range. So ya, I think if they build a light twin aisle with good engine competition, it is irrelevant if it is a stand alone project. I think too many future variables will make the grand plans fall apart by the time a new single aisle is due.

Exactly and if the twin aisle is more economic and not much more expensive, even more will opt for the large plane with all advantages it brings.
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:19 am

Revelation wrote:
DartHerald wrote:
Wasn't part of the reasoning behind the 787 that the investment in it would be partially covered by the fact that it would also provide the technology basis for a new generation of composite fuselage 737 replacements? Perhaps it did, in a way, by discovering the various pitfalls of that particular approach!

The plan kinda looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ye ... ne_Project

It all got side-tracked when 787 overran schedule and budget by a huge amount, and somewhat because Boeing also chose to take on 747-8 too rather than leaving that space for Y3.

Seems Boeing is still in the learning phase on the 787.

Hopefully we get a true rendering of what the pitfalls are because FAA is in the loop.


I think Yellowstone is a good case study of the challenges presented by future product planning.

The market has not developed as Boeing hoped and anticipated. I suspect they overestimated their ability to shape demand.

They were forced to respond to Airbus by introducing the MAX rather than doing the Y1/NSA and now seem to have lost confidence in their ability to develop a family that does 100-250 seats. Maybe this was never realistic.

The large aircraft market has not grown and money has been lost on the 747-8 and probably the 777X. They are not alone though as Airbus found with the A380. An all new Y3 would probably have lost even more money.

Personally I think the MOM/NMA circus has been a distraction they can ill afford. Indications are that this was driven by the US majors wanting something to defeat the LCCs. Boeing need to revisit the Y1 strategy and decide what that market needs. I presume that is what they are now doing.

Geoff
 
Misterven1
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 7:30 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:36 am

I think it is best for Boeing to develop a new aircraft modeled on the Boeing 767-200, 250-seat aircraft with 2 aisles, 7 seats per row for distances of 3,500 - 6,500 km. That is cheaper for many airlines than a long 757-300. Then some LD-3 freight cotaniners may also have to fit well in the cargo area under the cabin.

In the past KLM flew with the Airbus A310 at short distances from Amsterdam, in 1984 I flew with this aircraft from Amsterdam to Málaga in Spain for the sun holiday. That was a good plane with 8 seats in a row, nice and spacious and wider aisles.

However, I think that long single-aisle aircraft is not really the solution for short and medium distances, because the airlines consider short boarding times very important and certainly also turnaround times.

We know very well that in the aviation world there are also uncertain times why large medium-sized aircraft can be successful for short and medium distances. Personally, I think longer planes such as Boeing 757-300 or DC-8-72 is not a good method for further development. But in the past we have also learned that Airbus A300 was a good plane for short and medium distances that many airlines have also flown. I think that Boeing and Airbus could develop a special widebody aircraft for short and medium distances in such a way.

TUI stated in the summer season that it was normal also occasionally Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 787-8 on short holiday flights from their own home base.

The narrow-body aircraft still has a future, but can be used much less on short distances, because the population in all countries is growing rapidly, but it is also necessary to look at slots at various airports, which are scarce due to strict environmental legislation. So I see more use in a widebody aircraft on short flights because the airlines can save more costs on this and you achieve more environmental benefits than with a narrowbody aircraft.
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:05 pm

Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.

Geoff
 
SkyLife
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:22 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.

Geoff


I don’t disagree with you however I wonder if it really fits the same mission. I’ve seen an up gauging in my lifetime of both regional and narrowbody aircraft in terms of capacity. A lot of the airlines seem to gravitate to the 739s and 321s. It is only reasonable to assume this trend continuing that a 220-270 seat airplane will fill the gap between the 739/321 sizing and the 787. The 787 is built for longer missions and I’m assuming carries a lot of extra engineered weight for said missions.

I do believe of course like most that at some point a narrowbody is limited by turnaround times. Very intrigued to see if Boeing can be a first mover once again and fill that niche. I do see domestic flying in NA gravitating towards that size airplane.
Last edited by SkyLife on Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19936
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:22 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
I think Yellowstone is a good case study of the challenges presented by future product planning.

The market has not developed as Boeing hoped and anticipated. I suspect they overestimated their ability to shape demand.


I don't think it's got anything to do with the markets or Boeing's ability to shape demand (if that's even possible).

It's a huge IF, but if Boeing had been able to execute the 787 (Y2) as planned, Y1 (737 replacement) would have followed and EIS around 2012 with Y3 (777/747 replacement) following in 2016. They would have been in a very strong position with three state-of-the-art families.

The significant delay and massive cost overrun of the 787 blew the rest of Yellowstone out of the water and resulted in three derivatives (747-8, MAX and 777X), each with their own challenges, rather than two all-new families.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 2:10 pm

SkyLife wrote:
Geoff1947 wrote:
Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.

Geoff


I don’t disagree with you however I wonder if it really fits the same mission. I’ve seen an up gauging in my lifetime of both regional and narrowbody aircraft in terms of capacity. A lot of the airlines seem to gravitate to the 739s and 321s. It is only reasonable to assume this trend continuing that a 220-270 seat airplane will fill the gap between the 739/321 sizing and the 787. The 787 is built for longer missions and I’m assuming carries a lot of extra engineered weight for said missions.

I do believe of course like most that at some point a narrowbody is limited by turnaround times. Very intrigued to see if Boeing can be a first mover once again and fill that niche. I do see domestic flying in NA gravitating towards that size airplane.


This turn around time is also limited by the engine, hence why HA uses 717s for island hopping. Modern engines seem not to be able to turn around faster. The question will be if any manufacturer can deliver a 50k thrust engine that can be turned around fast and airlines that want fast turn around times also want many cycles.

Currently we have wide body engines optimised for long cruise and low cycles and NB engines that are as optimised for many cycles and lowish cruise burn but there seems to be a point where you can not shorten turn around time any more.

So it is not good if the aircraft can turn around fast if the engines cant.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27610
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:16 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.


Thanks to it's technology, a 787-8 is more efficient than a 767-300ER even though it is a fairly larger frame.

Develop a new airframe similar in size to the 767-300ER with the technology of the 787 and it would be more efficient than the 787-8 and better-sized to the market.

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".
 
ewt340
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:36 am

Misterven1 wrote:
I think it is best for Boeing to develop a new aircraft modeled on the Boeing 767-200, 250-seat aircraft with 2 aisles, 7 seats per row for distances of 3,500 - 6,500 km. That is cheaper for many airlines than a long 757-300. Then some LD-3 freight cotaniners may also have to fit well in the cargo area under the cabin.

In the past KLM flew with the Airbus A310 at short distances from Amsterdam, in 1984 I flew with this aircraft from Amsterdam to Málaga in Spain for the sun holiday. That was a good plane with 8 seats in a row, nice and spacious and wider aisles.

However, I think that long single-aisle aircraft is not really the solution for short and medium distances, because the airlines consider short boarding times very important and certainly also turnaround times.

We know very well that in the aviation world there are also uncertain times why large medium-sized aircraft can be successful for short and medium distances. Personally, I think longer planes such as Boeing 757-300 or DC-8-72 is not a good method for further development. But in the past we have also learned that Airbus A300 was a good plane for short and medium distances that many airlines have also flown. I think that Boeing and Airbus could develop a special widebody aircraft for short and medium distances in such a way.

TUI stated in the summer season that it was normal also occasionally Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 787-8 on short holiday flights from their own home base.

The narrow-body aircraft still has a future, but can be used much less on short distances, because the population in all countries is growing rapidly, but it is also necessary to look at slots at various airports, which are scarce due to strict environmental legislation. So I see more use in a widebody aircraft on short flights because the airlines can save more costs on this and you achieve more environmental benefits than with a narrowbody aircraft.


I don't think the 7-abreast configuration is a good thing though. Also, I don't see many people mentioning this, but I think one of the reason to why Boeing didn't go ahead with their B797 project is because they are watching Airbus next move. We know Airbus also have a gap in their offering, currently, there is a big gap between A321XLR and A330-900neo. A330-800neo is a failure and A330-900neo didn't sell as well as A330-300. Which mean that Airbus next move would be to build A330neo replacement which might overlap with B797. The combinations of A321XLR and potential A330neo replacement might scare Boeing away with their 20 billion B797 project.

Their biggest problem for B797 is how it's being squashed by MAX10, A321XLR, and B787-8. They have to offer B797 is a discounted rate to compete with A321XLR, But it have to be significantly more efficient and cheaper to operate compared to B787-8. If they didn't have much differences then airlines wouldn't jump into the bandwagon and order it.
This mean that profit would be extremely thin. And I think when they do the math, building B797 might not make any sense financially. They are literally being squished left and right.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:58 am

Stitch wrote:
Geoff1947 wrote:
Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.


Thanks to it's technology, a 787-8 is more efficient than a 767-300ER even though it is a fairly larger frame.

Develop a new airframe similar in size to the 767-300ER with the technology of the 787 and it would be more efficient than the 787-8 and better-sized to the market.

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".


Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago. I still remembering seeing promotional photos of B787 with a weird 3-2-3 configurations for economy class cabin (here is the picture of it):

Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 2244
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:59 am

ewt340 wrote:
Misterven1 wrote:
I think it is best for Boeing to develop a new aircraft modeled on the Boeing 767-200, 250-seat aircraft with 2 aisles, 7 seats per row for distances of 3,500 - 6,500 km. That is cheaper for many airlines than a long 757-300. Then some LD-3 freight cotaniners may also have to fit well in the cargo area under the cabin.

In the past KLM flew with the Airbus A310 at short distances from Amsterdam, in 1984 I flew with this aircraft from Amsterdam to Málaga in Spain for the sun holiday. That was a good plane with 8 seats in a row, nice and spacious and wider aisles.

However, I think that long single-aisle aircraft is not really the solution for short and medium distances, because the airlines consider short boarding times very important and certainly also turnaround times.

We know very well that in the aviation world there are also uncertain times why large medium-sized aircraft can be successful for short and medium distances. Personally, I think longer planes such as Boeing 757-300 or DC-8-72 is not a good method for further development. But in the past we have also learned that Airbus A300 was a good plane for short and medium distances that many airlines have also flown. I think that Boeing and Airbus could develop a special widebody aircraft for short and medium distances in such a way.

TUI stated in the summer season that it was normal also occasionally Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 787-8 on short holiday flights from their own home base.

The narrow-body aircraft still has a future, but can be used much less on short distances, because the population in all countries is growing rapidly, but it is also necessary to look at slots at various airports, which are scarce due to strict environmental legislation. So I see more use in a widebody aircraft on short flights because the airlines can save more costs on this and you achieve more environmental benefits than with a narrowbody aircraft.


I don't think the 7-abreast configuration is a good thing though. Also, I don't see many people mentioning this, but I think one of the reason to why Boeing didn't go ahead with their B797 project is because they are watching Airbus next move. We know Airbus also have a gap in their offering, currently, there is a big gap between A321XLR and A330-900neo. A330-800neo is a failure and A330-900neo didn't sell as well as A330-300. Which mean that Airbus next move would be to build A330neo replacement which might overlap with B797. The combinations of A321XLR and potential A330neo replacement might scare Boeing away with their 20 billion B797 project.

Their biggest problem for B797 is how it's being squashed by MAX10, A321XLR, and B787-8. They have to offer B797 is a discounted rate to compete with A321XLR, But it have to be significantly more efficient and cheaper to operate compared to B787-8. If they didn't have much differences then airlines wouldn't jump into the bandwagon and order it.
This mean that profit would be extremely thin. And I think when they do the math, building B797 might not make any sense financially. They are literally being squished left and right.

Just to say 777X and 330NEO are still for sale. Thank you
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:51 am

Stitch wrote:

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".


Didn't Boeing announce just a few weeks/months ago that they invest money to bring the 787-8 commonality wise as close as possible towards the 787-9?

https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/01/34422/

Now Boeing denies that this is a 787-8 NMA, but it further squeezes the actual NMA market because if Boeing can offer cheap 787-8s it chips away some sales from the top of the NMA market, while MAX-10 and 321XLR chip away market form the bottom.

Every iteration of PiPs and improvements to the NBs below the ominous NMA chip away sales, every improvement or cost reduction of the 787-8 (or the A330Neos) chip away from the top.

It will be hard to position an aircraft in this gap and actually make money. Current 787s and A330s go for around 85-100mio new built (I cant find the source anymore, but IIRC Delta paid around 85m$ for the A330s) and XLRs go for around 50mio. Airbus can build A320s at a profit at around 40mio, so aggressively priced Airbus could sell XLRs for 45ish millions if they want to.

So realistically the NMA has to be offered in and around for 50-60mio, otherwise they gonna be a tough sale and it will be very hard to make money of a new program at that price.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2953
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:53 am

ewt340 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Geoff1947 wrote:
Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.


Thanks to it's technology, a 787-8 is more efficient than a 767-300ER even though it is a fairly larger frame.

Develop a new airframe similar in size to the 767-300ER with the technology of the 787 and it would be more efficient than the 787-8 and better-sized to the market.

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".


Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago. I still remembering seeing promotional photos of B787 with a weird 3-2-3 configurations for economy class cabin (here is the picture of it):

Image


Some operators do fly the 787 in 8 abreast economy configurations.

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