keesje wrote:

If Airbus launches a "cheap" same wing A322NEO, based on the 101t A321XLR, that can easily cover Europe, US mainland and China with 250 passengers, what will be left of the MoM/NMA projections? If AA, DL, UA order 100 Mobile, Pratt powered A322s each and Airbus leaves the 2023 Paris Airshow with 554 A322 conversions / commitments, can't believe that? Why?

And how far do you think this aircraft will go with 250 passengers?

seahawk wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And the OEMs do not want that. As long as both are running at capacity and earn good margins, it is totally okay for Airbus and Boeing to have the MAX with a little advantage in the -7/-8 and the A321 with a little advantage over the -9/-10. A nicely balanced duopoly is perfect for both.

They are both publicly traded stock.

The very worst they want is to maintain market share even as the need for aviation continues to grow. Investors also want to see revenues and profits going up, and if they are wise/have any common sense, they will insist on long term planning. Boeing is not going to be profitable for quite some time unless they become really, really creative in how they report. It has nothing to do with program accounting but poor execution across multiple product lines.

Boeing is in the hole they are in today because they were pandering to the short term dictates that dominate Wall St.in combination to making some strange decisions to cater to a few airlines.

I think both would be very happy with keeping the market share at 50:50 and with no third player gaining market share.

They would both want a lot of things, none of which are going to happen. There will be players coming in, and in China which is a huge market, local manufactured aircraft will probably be mandated on local players. Do they want that? No, but they are powerless.

All big companies want to dominate, settling for a 50/50 split is the bare minimum. Boeing can be a great company if they put their minds into it; you look at what they did with the 777, or the thinking that went into the 787 business case......they can really be great. Up to this point, even discounting poor execution, they had Airbus on the ropes.

That kind of thinking is what they need going forward, and they need to really come through when it comes to manufacturing on the next clean sheet program.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

They are both publicly traded stock.

The very worst they want is to maintain market share even as the need for aviation continues to grow. Investors also want to see revenues and profits going up, and if they are wise/have any common sense, they will insist on long term planning. Boeing is not going to be profitable for quite some time unless they become really, really creative in how they report. It has nothing to do with program accounting but poor execution across multiple product lines.

Boeing is in the hole they are in today because they were pandering to the short term dictates that dominate Wall St.in combination to making some strange decisions to cater to a few airlines.

I think both would be very happy with keeping the market share at 50:50 and with no third player gaining market share.

They would both want a lot of things, none of which are going to happen. There will be players coming in, and in China which is a huge market, local manufactured aircraft will probably be mandated on local players. Do they want that? No, but they are powerless.

All big companies want to dominate, settling for a 50/50 split is the bare minimum. Boeing can be a great company if they put their minds into it; you look at what they did with the 777, or the thinking that went into the 787 business case......they can really be great. Up to this point, even discounting poor execution, they had Airbus on the ropes.

That kind of thinking is what they need going forward, and they need to really come through when it comes to manufacturing on the next clean sheet program.

Exactly

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

If Airbus launches a "cheap" same wing A322NEO, based on the 101t A321XLR, that can easily cover Europe, US mainland and China with 250 passengers, what will be left of the MoM/NMA projections? If AA, DL, UA order 100 Mobile, Pratt powered A322s each and Airbus leaves the 2023 Paris Airshow with 554 A322 conversions / commitments, can't believe that? Why?

And how far do you think this aircraft will go with 250 passengers?

I think around 1200NM less than an XLR. Mainly 4m of structure, cabin and 2.5t payload, fuelcapacity could become MTOW limited,
Maybe leaving out a (heavy) ACT might help range for such an aircraft. https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing and the airlines did not have an option but to continue with the MAX. What were they choose?

I wish you were saying this back in the MCAS threads. We had all kinds of suggestions that MAX was done, no one would ever set foot on one again, yada yada. People were not willing to think of practical things like Boeing's investment in MAX, CFM's investment in LEAP-1B, the investments of the rest of the supply chain, customer's commitments to MAX, etc. These things still matter. It's absurd to ignore them.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing if they walked away would not have a product in the narrow body segment. So what do you do? Design a new plane and hope to sell it 8 years from now? What is there in the interim?

Right, yet one of our esteemed members is floating the narrative of killing MAX "asap", yet can't answer how one can sell a "me too" airplane with the same engine against the established competitor. At least with NMA, you target the fastest growing segment and get the ability to position your clean sheet for maximum gain and make the competitor compete instead of capturing that segment due to lack of competition.

To use a car analogy, Airbus is making a lot of money selling Lexuses because Boeing's products target Camry not Lexus. People here are suggesting the fix is for Boeing to make a better Camry when there's no tech available to make a noticeably better competitor, while Airbus continues to sell Lexuses with no competition. It's absurd. It's so absurd you have to question the motivations behind making such an absurd proposition.

Revelation wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing and the airlines did not have an option but to continue with the MAX. What were they choose?

I wish you were saying this back in the MCAS threads. We had all kinds of suggestions that MAX was done, no one would ever set foot on one again, yada yada. People were not willing to think of practical things like Boeing's investment in MAX, CFM's investment in LEAP-1B, the investments of the rest of the supply chain, customer's commitments to MAX, etc. These things still matter. It's absurd to ignore them.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing if they walked away would not have a product in the narrow body segment. So what do you do? Design a new plane and hope to sell it 8 years from now? What is there in the interim?

Right, yet one of our esteemed members is floating the narrative of killing MAX "asap", yet can't answer how one can sell a "me too" airplane with the same engine against the established competitor. At least with NMA, you target the fastest growing segment and get the ability to position your clean sheet for maximum gain and make the competitor compete instead of capturing that segment due to lack of competition.

To use a car analogy, Airbus is making a lot of money selling Lexuses because Boeing's products target Camry not Lexus. People here are suggesting the fix is for Boeing to make a better Camry when there's no tech available to make a noticeably better competitor, while Airbus continues to sell Lexuses with no competition. It's absurd. It's so absurd you have to question the motivations behind making such an absurd proposition.

I don't think I have ever said that Boeing needed to walk away from the MAX. What I have been, is hard on them for building what was a death trap and bullying a regulator that was way too willing to meet their demands. If I had my way, probably the plane never flies again, but what would the aviation landscape look like?

I have been hard on Boeing for not planning ahead on the narrow body segment, having a board that could not get the culture right and after getting it right with the 777 and 787, losing focus. Once the NEO launched, they had no choice but to re-engine too. The moment they did this, they committed to this for the better part of a decade if not slightly more. There was not walking away for them, the suppliers or the airlines, thus through the grounding, they had an obligation to try and get the plane in working condition and to ensure that going forward there isn't another design flaw so bad that it could crash a plane.

That said, they seem to be a company that is so bent on cutting corners the first time and doing most things wrong that they end up spending billions trying to rectify their mistakes. If they are not doing this, they are chasing vanity projects like the 747-8, or building the 777X because some customers who flew the 777 might move to the A350-1000, or that they lack a VLA.

As for the NMA, it falls in a segment that was covered by the 757 and 767. Boeing does not have a competing product, but so what? It is a holdover from when they decided to have the MAX and the market has since found alternatives to these aircraft. Some got the A330, some went for the Dreamliner, some have gone for the A321XLR.

It does not matter that much that there is not a single aircraft that is specifically optimized for this mission and this is where I disagree that they need something, and rather urgently to compete in this segment. The 'urgent' that people are talking about is having a new program that will take at least 7 years to launch. What is absurd is that people do not see the absurdity in this reasoning or what has happened in aviation since.

There are some airlines that may want a lighter 787 to fly shorter missions, but by and large, airlines do not care because the efficiency gains over the 767 were that much better and with the range offered, it gave airlines a tonne of flexibility on where they could fly. So what makes the NMA such an outstanding prospect when come end of the decade we will have new tech that can allow Boeing, Airbus to re-engine the 787 and A350 once again? Tech that would similarly allow them to make more fuel efficient aircraft on even lighter frames?

Boeing has had a problem issue when they heard edge case clients who wanted a 747-8 and the 777X. Airbus has had a rather expensive mistake listening to Emirates and their need for the super jumbo. Get out of that mindset and just build a family of jets that offer enough efficiency gains at various size and different stage lengths.

The A380 was dead on arrival, the 747-8 was dead on arrival, the 777X is dead, Boeing seeing dwindling orders. The NMA, as I currently see it would be no different, not if the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and is somehow reliable. It also assumes that airlines will have been sitting for the better part of two decades waiting for a replacement.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

They are both publicly traded stock.

The very worst they want is to maintain market share even as the need for aviation continues to grow. Investors also want to see revenues and profits going up, and if they are wise/have any common sense, they will insist on long term planning. Boeing is not going to be profitable for quite some time unless they become really, really creative in how they report. It has nothing to do with program accounting but poor execution across multiple product lines.

Boeing is in the hole they are in today because they were pandering to the short term dictates that dominate Wall St.in combination to making some strange decisions to cater to a few airlines.

I think both would be very happy with keeping the market share at 50:50 and with no third player gaining market share.

They would both want a lot of things, none of which are going to happen. There will be players coming in, and in China which is a huge market, local manufactured aircraft will probably be mandated on local players. Do they want that? No, but they are powerless.

All big companies want to dominate, settling for a 50/50 split is the bare minimum. Boeing can be a great company if they put their minds into it; you look at what they did with the 777, or the thinking that went into the 787 business case......they can really be great. Up to this point, even discounting poor execution, they had Airbus on the ropes.

That kind of thinking is what they need going forward, and they need to really come through when it comes to manufacturing on the next clean sheet program.

I thought companies want to make money. And an established duopoly is usually a safe way to do this. And if you want to prepare for the Chinese entering the market, you might not want to pick a pointless fight with your competitor right before that. Boeing can easily make lots money with the MAX, 787 and 777 during the 2020ies, money that would als pay for the invetiable MAX replacement. in the 2030ies.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

I don't think I have ever said that Boeing needed to walk away from the MAX. What I have been, is hard on them for building what was a death trap and bullying a regulator that was way too willing to meet their demands. If I had my way, probably the plane never flies again, but what would the aviation landscape look like?

I have been hard on Boeing for not planning ahead on the narrow body segment, having a board that could not get the culture right and after getting it right with the 777 and 787, losing focus. Once the NEO launched, they had no choice but to re-engine too. The moment they did this, they committed to this for the better part of a decade if not slightly more. There was not walking away for them, the suppliers or the airlines, thus through the grounding, they had an obligation to try and get the plane in working condition and to ensure that going forward there isn't another design flaw so bad that it could crash a plane.

That said, they seem to be a company that is so bent on cutting corners the first time and doing most things wrong that they end up spending billions trying to rectify their mistakes. If they are not doing this, they are chasing vanity projects like the 747-8, or building the 777X because some customers who flew the 777 might move to the A350-1000, or that they lack a VLA.

As for the NMA, it falls in a segment that was covered by the 757 and 767. Boeing does not have a competing product, but so what? It is a holdover from when they decided to have the MAX and the market has since found alternatives to these aircraft. Some got the A330, some went for the Dreamliner, some have gone for the A321XLR.

It does not matter that much that there is not a single aircraft that is specifically optimized for this mission and this is where I disagree that they need something, and rather urgently to compete in this segment. The 'urgent' that people are talking about is having a new program that will take at least 7 years to launch. What is absurd is that people do not see the absurdity in this reasoning or what has happened in aviation since.

There are some airlines that may want a lighter 787 to fly shorter missions, but by and large, airlines do not care because the efficiency gains over the 767 were that much better and with the range offered, it gave airlines a tonne of flexibility on where they could fly. So what makes the NMA such an outstanding prospect when come end of the decade we will have new tech that can allow Boeing, Airbus to re-engine the 787 and A350 once again? Tech that would similarly allow them to make more fuel efficient aircraft on even lighter frames?

Boeing has had a problem issue when they heard edge case clients who wanted a 747-8 and the 777X. Airbus has had a rather expensive mistake listening to Emirates and their need for the super jumbo. Get out of that mindset and just build a family of jets that offer enough efficiency gains at various size and different stage lengths.

The A380 was dead on arrival, the 747-8 was dead on arrival, the 777X is dead, Boeing seeing dwindling orders. The NMA, as I currently see it would be no different, not if the ultrafan delivers on efficiency and is somehow reliable. It also assumes that airlines will have been sitting for the better part of two decades waiting for a replacement.

Thanks for a well written post explaining your point of view quite clearly.

I'm not thinking a re-engine for A350 or 787 impacts the NMA market nor the A321-2 market either. They are bigger and heavier aircraft and the new engines will also be bigger and heavier. I think they'll serve to add range, which is already twice or more of the NMA/A321-2 market space. They won't compete effectively in the NMA segment, they'll actually to make the middle of the market gap bigger rather than smaller.

I guess the main difference is about how well and how long MAX will remain an effective competitor and how important the space above MAX10 is. I think I'm more optimistic about MAX's staying power and about the market potential above MAX10 than you are. That's fine, we can all have different opinions.

As I've written a few times already, I don't think any new offering from Boeing is going to happen for another two years or so, and a lot can change by then. Maybe the way forward will be clearer by then.

JonesNL wrote:

Is the 3000-5000nm stage length that interesting?

Overall? I do not believe it will be, but I am skeptical NMA-5 will be better than the 737-10 and A321-200neo at shorter (sub-2000nm) ranges.

That being said, I could be wrong - a much newer wing than the A321 and 737-10 at 38m could provide a significant aerodynamic boost and NMA would have a larger engine than the 737-10 (I am guessing they would run the LEAP-1A / PW1100G with a hotter core for more thrust). So NMA might be competitive on shorter stage lengths even with it's heavier OEW.

Stitch wrote:

That being said, I could be wrong - a much newer wing than the A321 and 737-10 at 38m could provide a significant aerodynamic boost and NMA would have a larger engine than the 737-10 (I am guessing they would run the LEAP-1A / PW1100G with a hotter core for more thrust). So NMA might be competitive on shorter stage lengths even with it's heavier OEW.

What GE Aviation's CEO was saying less than two years ago:

A CFM International engine for Boeing’s New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) would be a growth version of the Leap series turbofan, suggesting a balance between a derivative and a clean-sheet design, says GE Aviation chief executive David Joyce.

“It will be bigger,” Joyce told a JP Morgan investment conference on 14 March. “It’s advancing [on the Leap technology] not a full generation but a half-generation.”

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/engines/le ... 89.article

Bigger with an advance of a half-generation in tech suggests to me something bigger than LEAP-1A and sized for the needs of the platform, rather than a throttle pushed LEAP-1A.

But then how much is a half generation? PW/MTU are aiming for a 3-4% PiP for the GTF to come online by 2024. with another 2% to come at the end of the decade. That´s the benchmark.

seahawk wrote:

But then how much is a half generation? PW/MTU are aiming for a 3-4% PiP for the GTF to come online by 2024. with another 2% to come at the end of the decade. That´s the benchmark.

I thought the PW PIP was needed to make the A321XLR range math work as advertised, and it's supposed to EIS in 2023.

Who knows what tech the GE Aviation CEO was thinking of, but we do know GE9x was developed after LEAP so there probably are things that can be pulled out of the parts database, scaled down and fitted to a half-generation better LEAP.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

I have been hard on Boeing for not planning ahead on the narrow body segment, having a board that could not get the culture right and after getting it right with the 777 and 787, losing focus.

Except Boeing's Board did not get it right on the 777 when you take into account how expensive the launch was and they certainly did not get it right on the 787 when you take into account the fiascoes related to development and EIS.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

That said, they seem to be a company that is so bent on cutting corners the first time and doing most things wrong that they end up spending billions trying to rectify their mistakes. If they are not doing this, they are chasing vanity projects like the 747-8, or building the 777X because some customers who flew the 777 might move to the A350-1000, or that they lack a VLA.

Since the mid-1990s, the focus of the Board and C-Suite has been to invest in the stock price, not the product portfolio. I believe the only reason they approved the 787 was because middle management said they could outsource most of the development and production so it would be "cheap" and once that backfired, they lost their appetite for new aircraft programs so they scrapped the 777/747 replacement and launched the 747-8 as a backstop in case the A380 did prove popular (and then promptly had to outsource most of it to the Russians and Japanese as their own engineers were tasked with trying to drag the 787 across the finish line and deal with the EIS issues).

I think at that point they did start thinking about a 737 re-engine rather than launch a new replacement because they were worried about what would happen if they botched the launch as badly as they did the 787 and worried about the cost of doing an all-new narrowbody when the 737 Next Generation had done quite well against the A320 so why wouldn't a 737 with the same engines do well against an A320 re-engine if Airbus went that route? In the end, I believe they wanted to do a new narrowbody because they knew the 737 was "maxed out", but when AA threatened to drop the 737 and move completely to the A320, the MAX became their option and a new narrowbody program was put back on the shelf.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

As for the NMA, it falls in a segment that was covered by the 757 and 767...There are some airlines that may want a lighter 787 to fly shorter missions, but by and large, airlines do not care because the efficiency gains over the 767 were that much better and with the range offered, it gave airlines a tonne of flexibility on where they could fly. So what makes the NMA such an outstanding prospect when come end of the decade we will have new tech that can allow Boeing, Airbus to re-engine the 787 and A350 once again? Tech that would similarly allow them to make more fuel efficient aircraft on even lighter frames?

Right now, it sounds like price. The A330neo, A350 and 787 are expensive planes and it seems like airlines are interested in a much cheaper option, which is why we've been hearing they have told Boeing they're willing to only pay so much for it and why Boeing has evidently been working hard to reduce the projected production cost to hit those targets and still make money.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Boeing has had a problem issue when they heard edge case clients who wanted a 747-8 and the 777X. Airbus has had a rather expensive mistake listening to Emirates and their need for the super jumbo. Get out of that mindset and just build a family of jets that offer enough efficiency gains at various size and different stage lengths.

Airbus and Boeing talk to plenty of customers when they are doing the initial design of a new airplane program, but considering how expensive a new airplane program is, having a customer willing to order scores of them (ANA with the 787 and Qatar with the A350/A350XWB) or hundreds (Emirates, Qatar and Etihad with the 777X) means that customer gets to dictate a fair but of the specs.

Revelation wrote:

Bigger with an advance of a half-generation in tech suggests to me something bigger than LEAP-1A and sized for the needs of the platform, rather than a throttle pushed LEAP-1A.

Okay - then a LEAP-2B incorporating GE9X technology and a larger fan would give NMA-5 a propulsive advantage over the A321 on LEAP-1A and coupled with the new wing's aerodynamic could very well mean NMA-5 can hold it's own against the A321 on a majority of mission profiles.

keesje wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

If Airbus launches a "cheap" same wing A322NEO, based on the 101t A321XLR, that can easily cover Europe, US mainland and China with 250 passengers, what will be left of the MoM/NMA projections? If AA, DL, UA order 100 Mobile, Pratt powered A322s each and Airbus leaves the 2023 Paris Airshow with 554 A322 conversions / commitments, can't believe that? Why?

And how far do you think this aircraft will go with 250 passengers?

I think around 1200NM less than an XLR. Mainly 4m of structure, cabin and 2.5t payload, fuelcapacity could become MTOW limited,
Maybe leaving out a (heavy) ACT might help range for such an aircraft. https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... 0.1&view=1

So if the real range is 3,650 NM with 240 seats in the 321 XLR, 3,150NM transatlantic Westbound in the Winter - will 2,450NM be enough to cover what you propose its use will be? Forget trying to fly Tranatlantic - I'm pretty sure less than 2,000NM with 250 seats filled puts you in the drink well short of land.

See this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Something tells me it really does need a new wing with more MTOW/Thrust, heavier gear. It would be a good MAX-10 competitor though.

Is it only me or do I not understand an a 767/757 like aircraft?!?!?

To me there is only two reasonable ways to build an aircraft intended to move passengers. The first is single aisle, the other twin aisle (leaving aside upper decks and so on). So in this tube, you want to get in as many passengers as possible. Currently, the lowest fuel burn can be achieved with a tube accommodating 3+3. With twin aisles you already face on big problem: you haul a lot of empty space. So essentially as far as I understand, a diameter in the area of a 787/A350 would be the most economic. The MOM "gap" between single and double aisle to my understanding is basically owed to the fact, that it costs a lot of wasted space to place passengers side by side into a bigger tube, thus only allowing for missions a single aisle can't do. The best example is the A300. Great aircraft but can't compete whatsoever on a first gen A321-100. And yes I get it, there is aspects to cargo as well and so on. I am only looking at the passenger side. Also turn arounds need to be performed I a useful time frame.

A new 2+3+2 or 2+2+2 767 style aircraft makes no sense. Essentially, the most economic thing to build would be an A32X in 757-300 dimensions for the MOM segment. And then again these are only really small market segments. Globally we are organized in areas where a lot of travel takes place in the A321N sphere. That's why Boeing is struggling to come up with something useful. And no, I don't see the MAX as equally capable as a NEO. I am neither Airbus nor Boeing fanboy, but let's not forget, we have the year 2021 and we are talking about a 737 - and yes, the A320 concept is not new either.

So what I assume we will see, is the same airplane as an A320, MS-21 and C919. Anything else makes no sense (aka 787-300). What we will see is an aircraft family with planes reaching from 200-230-260 seats fitting into the standard narrow body gates. That is the most logical size... as far as I understand it.

Ty134A wrote:

Is it only me or do I not understand an a 767/757 like aircraft?!?!?

To me there is only two reasonable ways to build an aircraft intended to move passengers. The first is single aisle, the other twin aisle (leaving aside upper decks and so on). So in this tube, you want to get in as many passengers as possible. Currently, the lowest fuel burn can be achieved with a tube accommodating 3+3. With twin aisles you already face on big problem: you haul a lot of empty space. So essentially as far as I understand, a diameter in the area of a 787/A350 would be the most economic. The MOM "gap" between single and double aisle to my understanding is basically owed to the fact, that it costs a lot of wasted space to place passengers side by side into a bigger tube, thus only allowing for missions a single aisle can't do. The best example is the A300. Great aircraft but can't compete whatsoever on a first gen A321-100. And yes I get it, there is aspects to cargo as well and so on. I am only looking at the passenger side. Also turn arounds need to be performed I a useful time frame.

A new 2+3+2 or 2+2+2 767 style aircraft makes no sense. Essentially, the most economic thing to build would be an A32X in 757-300 dimensions for the MOM segment. And then again these are only really small market segments. Globally we are organized in areas where a lot of travel takes place in the A321N sphere. That's why Boeing is struggling to come up with something useful. And no, I don't see the MAX as equally capable as a NEO. I am neither Airbus nor Boeing fanboy, but let's not forget, we have the year 2021 and we are talking about a 737 - and yes, the A320 concept is not new either.

So what I assume we will see, is the same airplane as an A320, MS-21 and C919. Anything else makes no sense (aka 787-300). What we will see is an aircraft family with planes reaching from 200-230-260 seats fitting into the standard narrow body gates. That is the most logical size... as far as I understand it.

Well the funny thing is is that there is not as much wasted space in a 2x Aisle aircraft with similar capacity as the 1x as one would think. It would not be 787/330 cross section in area more like A320 + 20% as the lower lobe would be small like A320. Think A320 with the sides bulged out only 15" on each side.

To get similar capacity in a 2x 2x3x2 it's a bunch shorter, especially if you assume 2x2x2 (or even 2x1x2) in the front and accept slightly narrower seats (20-20.5") than you could put in a 1x. If Boeing does go 2x they would probably stick with 777X Aisle widths which are only 18". Good luck with 260 seats and a 1x and an aisle width 18".

When you do the math 2 shorter 18" aisles are equal to about a 27" aisle in a 1x - a number which has been suggested as the ideal aisle width if you go to 757-300 or more in capacity on a 1x. You're not talking about a big difference.

Looking at internal volume of the 2X and skin area - it's within a few percent difference plus or minus depending on how long you make the ends.

The other issue for many single aisle gates is that you can only make an aircraft so long before there is space issues - You will be able to cram a much higher capacity 2x into the same gate space which is important for 15-20 years from now if Air travel resumes it's previous growth and more airports become slot restricted.

That helps for a 2x3x2 NSA as well.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Bigger with an advance of a half-generation in tech suggests to me something bigger than LEAP-1A and sized for the needs of the platform, rather than a throttle pushed LEAP-1A.

Okay - then a LEAP-2B incorporating GE9X technology and a larger fan would give NMA-5 a propulsive advantage over the A321 on LEAP-1A and coupled with the new wing's aerodynamic could very well mean NMA-5 can hold it's own against the A321 on a majority of mission profiles.

But the A321 can also field the GTF and GTF and LEAP will see PiPs in the 2020ies. So the delta will be not that big. PW says, they could offer a GTF Mk.2 after 2030, that should bring about 10% improvement over a GTF fitted on an early A320NEO. They are also aiming at a 3-4% PiP by 2024 and a 2% PiP in the second half of the 2020ies. I am sceptical about 5% efficiency advantage from the engine alone. It would be a good outcome for Boeing.

seahawk wrote:

But the A321 can also field the GTF and GTF and LEAP will see PiPs in the 2020ies. So the delta will be not that big. PW says, they could offer a GTF Mk.2 after 2030, that should bring about 10% improvement over a GTF fitted on an early A320NEO. They are also aiming at a 3-4% PiP by 2024 and a 2% PiP in the second half of the 2020ies. I am sceptical about 5% efficiency advantage from the engine alone. It would be a good outcome for Boeing.

The key point to realize is Boeing has no product in the space above MAX10 to offer at all. Coming out of the gate with an engine sized for your new clean sheet is a game changer. Coming out with an engine sized for the current aircraft on offer will help those who buy CFM on Airbus as much as it helps Boeing.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But the A321 can also field the GTF and GTF and LEAP will see PiPs in the 2020ies. So the delta will be not that big. PW says, they could offer a GTF Mk.2 after 2030, that should bring about 10% improvement over a GTF fitted on an early A320NEO. They are also aiming at a 3-4% PiP by 2024 and a 2% PiP in the second half of the 2020ies. I am sceptical about 5% efficiency advantage from the engine alone. It would be a good outcome for Boeing.

The key point to realize is Boeing has no product in the space above MAX10 to offer at all. Coming out of the gate with an engine sized for your new clean sheet is a game changer. Coming out with an engine sized for the current aircraft on offer will help those who buy CFM on Airbus as much as it helps Boeing.

I look at it from a different angle. Doing a new design with just an up-dated engine of the current generation, makes you very vulnerable to a counter coming a few years later, when a completely new engine generation is ready. Or to put it differently. I rather have a NMA with an all new engine by 2032 than a NMA with a LEAP 1.5 by 2028.

A NMA with a LEAP 1.5 would imho be very vulnerable. It would be vulnerable from the NSA on short mission, because the NSA will use engines that must be a big step better then the LEAP, otherwise it is not worth doing it. It will be also vunlerbale to a theoretical A330 successor that could come once the 787 gets a new engine. And it would also be under pressure from that re-engined 787. And yes there probably will be a A320NEO2 / or A320 successor as well.

The A380 should serve as a reminder on why you should not do a new plane, when the engine OEMs are at best willing to give you warmed over tech.

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But the A321 can also field the GTF and GTF and LEAP will see PiPs in the 2020ies. So the delta will be not that big. PW says, they could offer a GTF Mk.2 after 2030, that should bring about 10% improvement over a GTF fitted on an early A320NEO. They are also aiming at a 3-4% PiP by 2024 and a 2% PiP in the second half of the 2020ies. I am sceptical about 5% efficiency advantage from the engine alone. It would be a good outcome for Boeing.

The key point to realize is Boeing has no product in the space above MAX10 to offer at all. Coming out of the gate with an engine sized for your new clean sheet is a game changer. Coming out with an engine sized for the current aircraft on offer will help those who buy CFM on Airbus as much as it helps Boeing.

I look at it from a different angle. Doing a new design with just an up-dated engine of the current generation, makes you very vulnerable to a counter coming a few years later, when a completely new engine generation is ready. Or to put it differently. I rather have a NMA with an all new engine by 2032 than a NMA with a LEAP 1.5 by 2028.

A NMA with a LEAP 1.5 would imho be very vulnerable. It would be vulnerable from the NSA on short mission, because the NSA will use engines that must be a big step better then the LEAP, otherwise it is not worth doing it. It will be also vunlerbale to a theoretical A330 successor that could come once the 787 gets a new engine. And it would also be under pressure from that re-engined 787. And yes there probably will be a A320NEO2 / or A320 successor as well.

The A380 should serve as a reminder on why you should not do a new plane, when the engine OEMs are at best willing to give you warmed over tech.

That's kind of one dimensional thinking. There's other reasons why NMA will be good besides the engine, and getting it out in ~2028 has value too.

Then it comes down to what new tech will be available in that ~2032 engine. Things I've read suggest there really aren't a lot of ideas with a lot of upside gain and without downside risk. If there is home run engine tech in ~2032 then it does make sense to apply it on a NSA and then later on NMA as a NEO.

Overall it makes more sense to me than to do nothing till 2032.

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for a well written post explaining your point of view quite clearly.

I'm not thinking a re-engine for A350 or 787 impacts the NMA market nor the A321-2 market either. They are bigger and heavier aircraft and the new engines will also be bigger and heavier. I think they'll serve to add range, which is already twice or more of the NMA/A321-2 market space. They won't compete effectively in the NMA segment, they'll actually to make the middle of the market gap bigger rather than smaller.

I guess the main difference is about how well and how long MAX will remain an effective competitor and how important the space above MAX10 is. I think I'm more optimistic about MAX's staying power and about the market potential above MAX10 than you are. That's fine, we can all have different opinions.

As I've written a few times already, I don't think any new offering from Boeing is going to happen for another two years or so, and a lot can change by then. Maybe the way forward will be clearer by then.

The range on the re-engined 787 or A350 is not going to be an issue for a lot of airlines, they would simply not need it just the way most do not need the range on a 777, A330, 787, 747-8, A380 or A350. What they get these aircraft for is the efficiency gains.

Boeing is a company on the rocks. Too much debt, issues with multiple programs on the civilian, military and space programs and finite resources. They are also a company that needs to raise new money to help fund new programs. What they cannot be doing is chasing projects that are questionable, and this is what I always go back to. They need a program that is a sure winner and there is nothing as simple to make a business case on like a small aircraft to replace the 737.

Whatever happens, you are not going to compete with the A321XLR for another 7, maybe 8 years even if you launched the program today and this is not repeated enough.
Boeing needs an easy win, and the easiest win there is, the one plane you can build that will have thousands of orders is 737 replacement. This is the aircraft that they should have been thinking about even when they launched the MAX to replace what is today a 50 year frame.

seahawk wrote:

I thought companies want to make money. And an established duopoly is usually a safe way to do this. And if you want to prepare for the Chinese entering the market, you might not want to pick a pointless fight with your competitor right before that. Boeing can easily make lots money with the MAX, 787 and 777 during the 2020ies, money that would als pay for the invetiable MAX replacement. in the 2030ies.

What are you talking about?

Boeing has picked fights with almost everyone, even Bombardier which was later acquired by Airbus.

For the avoidance of doubt, Boeing is not going to make money off the MAX or the 777X. They will not make money on the former because of just how much the grounding cost and we still do not know what it will cost them to settle cases. On the latter, where are orders going to come from?

This is supposed to be year 10 since the Dreamliner first entered service, yet close to 10 years on, they still have manufacturing issues. Considering they used program accounting, I think this also ends up in the red looking at where the order book is. Boeing's accounting method is early profits; there are no profits if it costs you tens of billions on multiple programs to do repeat work. Plus we do not know whether they will have a fix that works on all planes or whether these will see an early end of life, and you still have pickle fork issues.

Boeing may make money off ancillary revenue but nothing off the above three programs. If they go for a clean sheet NMA, I think it will lack enough orders to justify ROI. There has to be a reason why they have taken an age trying to make a business case.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for a well written post explaining your point of view quite clearly.

I'm not thinking a re-engine for A350 or 787 impacts the NMA market nor the A321-2 market either. They are bigger and heavier aircraft and the new engines will also be bigger and heavier. I think they'll serve to add range, which is already twice or more of the NMA/A321-2 market space. They won't compete effectively in the NMA segment, they'll actually to make the middle of the market gap bigger rather than smaller.

I guess the main difference is about how well and how long MAX will remain an effective competitor and how important the space above MAX10 is. I think I'm more optimistic about MAX's staying power and about the market potential above MAX10 than you are. That's fine, we can all have different opinions.

As I've written a few times already, I don't think any new offering from Boeing is going to happen for another two years or so, and a lot can change by then. Maybe the way forward will be clearer by then.

The range on the re-engined 787 or A350 is not going to be an issue for a lot of airlines, they would simply not need it just the way most do not need the range on a 777, A330, 787, 747-8, A380 or A350. What they get these aircraft for is the efficiency gains.

Boeing is a company on the rocks. Too much debt, issues with multiple programs on the civilian, military and space programs and finite resources. They are also a company that needs to raise new money to help fund new programs. What they cannot be doing is chasing projects that are questionable, and this is what I always go back to. They need a program that is a sure winner and there is nothing as simple to make a business case on like a small aircraft to replace the 737.

Whatever happens, you are not going to compete with the A321XLR for another 7, maybe 8 years even if you launched the program today and this is not repeated enough.
Boeing needs an easy win, and the easiest win there is, the one plane you can build that will have thousands of orders is 737 replacement. This is the aircraft that they should have been thinking about even when they launched the MAX to replace what is today a 50 year frame.

seahawk wrote:

I thought companies want to make money. And an established duopoly is usually a safe way to do this. And if you want to prepare for the Chinese entering the market, you might not want to pick a pointless fight with your competitor right before that. Boeing can easily make lots money with the MAX, 787 and 777 during the 2020ies, money that would als pay for the invetiable MAX replacement. in the 2030ies.

What are you talking about?

Boeing has picked fights with almost everyone, even Bombardier which was later acquired by Airbus.

For the avoidance of doubt, Boeing is not going to make money off the MAX or the 777X. They will not make money on the former because of just how much the grounding cost and we still do not know what it will cost them to settle cases. On the latter, where are orders going to come from?

This is supposed to be year 10 since the Dreamliner first entered service, yet close to 10 years on, they still have manufacturing issues. Considering they used program accounting, I think this also ends up in the red looking at where the order book is. Boeing's accounting method is early profits; there are no profits if it costs you tens of billions on multiple programs to do repeat work. Plus we do not know whether they will have a fix that works on all planes or whether these will see an early end of life, and you still have pickle fork issues.

Boeing may make money off ancillary revenue but nothing off the above three programs. If they go for a clean sheet NMA, I think it will lack enough orders to justify ROI. There has to be a reason why they have taken an age trying to make a business case.

The reason the business case hasn’t closed is the cost to build not the demand. There’s demand for the type but not at the price Boeing will sell it to make money. Airlines want to buy for 70M. It costs Boeing 70M to make it without MBSE. Which is why they’re breaking their backs over MBSE

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The key point to realize is Boeing has no product in the space above MAX10 to offer at all. Coming out of the gate with an engine sized for your new clean sheet is a game changer. Coming out with an engine sized for the current aircraft on offer will help those who buy CFM on Airbus as much as it helps Boeing.

I look at it from a different angle. Doing a new design with just an up-dated engine of the current generation, makes you very vulnerable to a counter coming a few years later, when a completely new engine generation is ready. Or to put it differently. I rather have a NMA with an all new engine by 2032 than a NMA with a LEAP 1.5 by 2028.

A NMA with a LEAP 1.5 would imho be very vulnerable. It would be vulnerable from the NSA on short mission, because the NSA will use engines that must be a big step better then the LEAP, otherwise it is not worth doing it. It will be also vunlerbale to a theoretical A330 successor that could come once the 787 gets a new engine. And it would also be under pressure from that re-engined 787. And yes there probably will be a A320NEO2 / or A320 successor as well.

The A380 should serve as a reminder on why you should not do a new plane, when the engine OEMs are at best willing to give you warmed over tech.

That's kind of one dimensional thinking. There's other reasons why NMA will be good besides the engine, and getting it out in ~2028 has value too.

Then it comes down to what new tech will be available in that ~2032 engine. Things I've read suggest there really aren't a lot of ideas with a lot of upside gain and without downside risk. If there is home run engine tech in ~2032 then it does make sense to apply it on a NSA and then later on NMA as a NEO.

Overall it makes more sense to me than to do nothing till 2032.

The NSA engine would be in a different thrust class, so it would not fit on the NMA. The NMA will have to do with the engine it launches with for about 10-15 years, against whatever competition it faces. And to be honest if they want to launc hsomethign in the early 2030ies, they need to start launch it around 2025.So we are not talking about a long extra wait.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt, Boeing is not going to make money off the MAX or the 777X. They will not make money on the former because of just how much the grounding cost and we still do not know what it will cost them to settle cases. On the latter, where are orders going to come from?.

If you believe they will never make money on the MAX, then the NSA is the plane they need, not the NMA.

Stitch wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

I have been hard on Boeing for not planning ahead on the narrow body segment, having a board that could not get the culture right and after getting it right with the 777 and 787, losing focus.

Except Boeing's Board did not get it right on the 777 when you take into account how expensive the launch was and they certainly did not get it right on the 787 when you take into account the fiascoes related to development and EIS.

Since the mid-1990s, the focus of the Board and C-Suite has been to invest in the stock price, not the product portfolio. I believe the only reason they approved the 787 was because middle management said they could outsource most of the development and production so it would be "cheap" and once that backfired, they lost their appetite for new aircraft programs so they scrapped the 777/747 replacement and launched the 747-8 as a backstop in case the A380 did prove popular (and then promptly had to outsource most of it to the Russians and Japanese as their own engineers were tasked with trying to drag the 787 across the finish line and deal with the EIS issues).

I think at that point they did start thinking about a 737 re-engine rather than launch a new replacement because they were worried about what would happen if they botched the launch as badly as they did the 787 and worried about the cost of doing an all-new narrowbody when the 737 Next Generation had done quite well against the A320 so why wouldn't a 737 with the same engines do well against an A320 re-engine if Airbus went that route? In the end, I believe they wanted to do a new narrowbody because they knew the 737 was "maxed out", but when AA threatened to drop the 737 and move completely to the A320, the MAX became their option and a new narrowbody program was put back on the shelf.


Right now, it sounds like price. The A330neo, A350 and 787 are expensive planes and it seems like airlines are interested in a much cheaper option, which is why we've been hearing they have told Boeing they're willing to only pay so much for it and why Boeing has evidently been working hard to reduce the projected production cost to hit those targets and still make money.


Airbus and Boeing talk to plenty of customers when they are doing the initial design of a new airplane program, but considering how expensive a new airplane program is, having a customer willing to order scores of them (ANA with the 787 and Qatar with the A350/A350XWB) or hundreds (Emirates, Qatar and Etihad with the 777X) means that customer gets to dictate a fair but of the specs.

1. Boeing got it right with the 777 because of how smooth the launch went. They got it right with the 787 because they were right on where the market was headed, but the execution is an absolute mess even today, and this is close to 10 years after the first frame was delivered.

2. There was a lot of McDonnell Douglas executives that went to Boeing and a lot of General Electric alumni. What they know, and what they are great at is stripping great companies of value and 'maximizing shareholder returns.' The short term thinking, and remuneration that is pegged to stock price allows them to get rich even as the company they work for becomes less and less competitive.

3. If I remember correctly, Boeing was thinking about making a new plane or a re-engine to the 737NG after they had the 787 came into service. Airbus at the time was going to launch the A380, and they also had the A350 coming afterwards. They had no money to launch a new narrow body jet and they thought that if they re-engined the A320 it would force Boeing to follow suit. This was followed by a huge order for American Airlines who in a press statement insisted that they would order a re-engined 737, and Boeing folded.

The efficiency gains being offered by the A320 were significant enough for them to note that Boeing customers in the narrow body segment would not be competitive for quite some time had they gone for a new program. Even if they had executed on the 787, I think Airbus was always going to launch the NEO to deter any new product launch, and they were lucky that there were engines to enable this. No way on earth were they going to have money on three clean sheet programs, all launching within a decade or so.
Right now, there is no engine that would be a huge step from what we have currently. So if you are going to wait until the end of the decade for something to be ready, why not make it a 737 replacement?

4. You can have the big customers, and even talk to them to see what it is they would want in an frame. However, you tend to sell to a lot more customers than just the few huge airlines who make significant orders. You listen to Emirates on the 777X and A380 and there are no significant orders to sustain the program after your deliveries to them are done. This is the wrong way of doing business. Look at the 787, the most popular model is the -9, and given the opportunity, Emirates would pass on it for something bigger.

Opus99 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Thanks for a well written post explaining your point of view quite clearly.

I'm not thinking a re-engine for A350 or 787 impacts the NMA market nor the A321-2 market either. They are bigger and heavier aircraft and the new engines will also be bigger and heavier. I think they'll serve to add range, which is already twice or more of the NMA/A321-2 market space. They won't compete effectively in the NMA segment, they'll actually to make the middle of the market gap bigger rather than smaller.

I guess the main difference is about how well and how long MAX will remain an effective competitor and how important the space above MAX10 is. I think I'm more optimistic about MAX's staying power and about the market potential above MAX10 than you are. That's fine, we can all have different opinions.

As I've written a few times already, I don't think any new offering from Boeing is going to happen for another two years or so, and a lot can change by then. Maybe the way forward will be clearer by then.

The range on the re-engined 787 or A350 is not going to be an issue for a lot of airlines, they would simply not need it just the way most do not need the range on a 777, A330, 787, 747-8, A380 or A350. What they get these aircraft for is the efficiency gains.

Boeing is a company on the rocks. Too much debt, issues with multiple programs on the civilian, military and space programs and finite resources. They are also a company that needs to raise new money to help fund new programs. What they cannot be doing is chasing projects that are questionable, and this is what I always go back to. They need a program that is a sure winner and there is nothing as simple to make a business case on like a small aircraft to replace the 737.

Whatever happens, you are not going to compete with the A321XLR for another 7, maybe 8 years even if you launched the program today and this is not repeated enough.
Boeing needs an easy win, and the easiest win there is, the one plane you can build that will have thousands of orders is 737 replacement. This is the aircraft that they should have been thinking about even when they launched the MAX to replace what is today a 50 year frame.

seahawk wrote:

I thought companies want to make money. And an established duopoly is usually a safe way to do this. And if you want to prepare for the Chinese entering the market, you might not want to pick a pointless fight with your competitor right before that. Boeing can easily make lots money with the MAX, 787 and 777 during the 2020ies, money that would als pay for the invetiable MAX replacement. in the 2030ies.

What are you talking about?

Boeing has picked fights with almost everyone, even Bombardier which was later acquired by Airbus.

For the avoidance of doubt, Boeing is not going to make money off the MAX or the 777X. They will not make money on the former because of just how much the grounding cost and we still do not know what it will cost them to settle cases. On the latter, where are orders going to come from?

This is supposed to be year 10 since the Dreamliner first entered service, yet close to 10 years on, they still have manufacturing issues. Considering they used program accounting, I think this also ends up in the red looking at where the order book is. Boeing's accounting method is early profits; there are no profits if it costs you tens of billions on multiple programs to do repeat work. Plus we do not know whether they will have a fix that works on all planes or whether these will see an early end of life, and you still have pickle fork issues.

Boeing may make money off ancillary revenue but nothing off the above three programs. If they go for a clean sheet NMA, I think it will lack enough orders to justify ROI. There has to be a reason why they have taken an age trying to make a business case.

The reason the business case hasn’t closed is the cost to build not the demand. There’s demand for the type but not at the price Boeing will sell it to make money. Airlines want to buy for 70M. It costs Boeing 70M to make it without MBSE. Which is why they’re breaking their backs over MBSE

Dead on arrival if they build it on current engine tech. It will be another 777X.

Just because you can put 200 people on a single aisle doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just because you can put people in a 17" seat for long haul doesn't mean it's a good idea. For every A330neo or A350 sold, it is a counterbalance to the 787 and 777x, which in my opinion were uninspired ideas in the finely tuned evolution of air travel comfort.
I hope that WN, AA, UA, and DL will envision a more spacious dream, and exert some influence towards a twin aisle 200 to 225 seat future aircraft.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

The range on the re-engined 787 or A350 is not going to be an issue for a lot of airlines, they would simply not need it just the way most do not need the range on a 777, A330, 787, 747-8, A380 or A350. What they get these aircraft for is the efficiency gains.

Boeing is a company on the rocks. Too much debt, issues with multiple programs on the civilian, military and space programs and finite resources. They are also a company that needs to raise new money to help fund new programs. What they cannot be doing is chasing projects that are questionable, and this is what I always go back to. They need a program that is a sure winner and there is nothing as simple to make a business case on like a small aircraft to replace the 737.

Whatever happens, you are not going to compete with the A321XLR for another 7, maybe 8 years even if you launched the program today and this is not repeated enough.
Boeing needs an easy win, and the easiest win there is, the one plane you can build that will have thousands of orders is 737 replacement. This is the aircraft that they should have been thinking about even when they launched the MAX to replace what is today a 50 year frame.

What are you talking about?

Boeing has picked fights with almost everyone, even Bombardier which was later acquired by Airbus.

For the avoidance of doubt, Boeing is not going to make money off the MAX or the 777X. They will not make money on the former because of just how much the grounding cost and we still do not know what it will cost them to settle cases. On the latter, where are orders going to come from?

This is supposed to be year 10 since the Dreamliner first entered service, yet close to 10 years on, they still have manufacturing issues. Considering they used program accounting, I think this also ends up in the red looking at where the order book is. Boeing's accounting method is early profits; there are no profits if it costs you tens of billions on multiple programs to do repeat work. Plus we do not know whether they will have a fix that works on all planes or whether these will see an early end of life, and you still have pickle fork issues.

Boeing may make money off ancillary revenue but nothing off the above three programs. If they go for a clean sheet NMA, I think it will lack enough orders to justify ROI. There has to be a reason why they have taken an age trying to make a business case.

The reason the business case hasn’t closed is the cost to build not the demand. There’s demand for the type but not at the price Boeing will sell it to make money. Airlines want to buy for 70M. It costs Boeing 70M to make it without MBSE. Which is why they’re breaking their backs over MBSE

Dead on arrival if they build it on current engine tech. It will be another 777X.

Your opinion of course both on 777X and NMA

Opus99 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

The reason the business case hasn’t closed is the cost to build not the demand. There’s demand for the type but not at the price Boeing will sell it to make money. Airlines want to buy for 70M. It costs Boeing 70M to make it without MBSE. Which is why they’re breaking their backs over MBSE

Dead on arrival if they build it on current engine tech. It will be another 777X.

Your opinion of course both on 777X and NMA

If they build a clean sheet middle of the market plane with current engine tech, and launch around 2028, then it will be a humongous waste of time and resources.

I thought the 747-8 was waste, and so it turned out to be. I thought the 777X was utter waste chasing a segment Boeing themselves did not believe in when they built the Dreamliner. And so it is.

Any middle of the market plane with current, or improved current engine tech is a dinosaur if there is a re-engine to the A350 or 787. Unlike the 747-8 which is a derivative and the 777X which uses the old fuselage but is mainly a new plane, this will be a clean sheet, >$15Billion mistake because Boeing needed to compete in a segment they only noticed was important once the XLR came on board.

When was the last time Boeing manufactured a 757? Last 767 that came off the assembly line to passenger airlines? This is as much attention as they have shown for a true middle of the market jet.

On the 777X? The order book speaks. Should it change tune, I will also change tune.

We're really not talking about "current generation engines" unless you think technology froze in the 00s and GE and Safran learned nothing from GE9X.

Feel free to list the engine technologies it's worth waiting till the 30s for, and what they offer in risk vs reward.

Revelation wrote:

We're really not talking about "current generation engines" unless you think technology froze in the 00s and GE and Safran learned nothing from GE9X.

Feel free to list the engine technologies it's worth waiting till the 30s for, and what they offer in risk vs reward.

I don't think that what they have learnt is important in this topic or for us because we are not going to make a lot of sense from it. When is that power plant going to be ready is more relevant.

Engine tech always evolves.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We're really not talking about "current generation engines" unless you think technology froze in the 00s and GE and Safran learned nothing from GE9X.

Feel free to list the engine technologies it's worth waiting till the 30s for, and what they offer in risk vs reward.

I don't think that what they have learnt is important in this topic or for us because we are not going to make a lot of sense from it. When is that power plant going to be ready is more relevant.

Engine tech always evolves.

Yes, lots of things evolve. Two years ago GE Aviation's CEO said CFM was going to improve LEAP by a half generation for NMA, and now they've got two year's more info to work with, in particular petabytes of data from 779 flight tests. Should be a good info on what stuff they would put on their next LEAP.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We're really not talking about "current generation engines" unless you think technology froze in the 00s and GE and Safran learned nothing from GE9X.

Feel free to list the engine technologies it's worth waiting till the 30s for, and what they offer in risk vs reward.

I don't think that what they have learnt is important in this topic or for us because we are not going to make a lot of sense from it. When is that power plant going to be ready is more relevant.

Engine tech always evolves.

Yes and if that tech doesn't exist right now - no way it's going on any engine for entry into commercial service in the next 10 years.

Ty134A wrote:

Is it only me or do I not understand an a 767/757 like aircraft?!?!?

To me there is only two reasonable ways to build an aircraft intended to move passengers. The first is single aisle, the other twin aisle (leaving aside upper decks and so on). So in this tube, you want to get in as many passengers as possible. Currently, the lowest fuel burn can be achieved with a tube accommodating 3+3. With twin aisles you already face on big problem: you haul a lot of empty space. So essentially as far as I understand, a diameter in the area of a 787/A350 would be the most economic. The MOM "gap" between single and double aisle to my understanding is basically owed to the fact, that it costs a lot of wasted space to place passengers side by side into a bigger tube, thus only allowing for missions a single aisle can't do. The best example is the A300. Great aircraft but can't compete whatsoever on a first gen A321-100. And yes I get it, there is aspects to cargo as well and so on. I am only looking at the passenger side. Also turn arounds need to be performed I a useful time frame.

A new 2+3+2 or 2+2+2 767 style aircraft makes no sense. Essentially, the most economic thing to build would be an A32X in 757-300 dimensions for the MOM segment. And then again these are only really small market segments. Globally we are organized in areas where a lot of travel takes place in the A321N sphere. That's why Boeing is struggling to come up with something useful. And no, I don't see the MAX as equally capable as a NEO. I am neither Airbus nor Boeing fanboy, but let's not forget, we have the year 2021 and we are talking about a 737 - and yes, the A320 concept is not new either.

So what I assume we will see, is the same airplane as an A320, MS-21 and C919. Anything else makes no sense (aka 787-300). What we will see is an aircraft family with planes reaching from 200-230-260 seats fitting into the standard narrow body gates. That is the most logical size... as far as I understand it.

I see it similar to you, except I see two single aisle subfamilies in one larger single-aisle family. 2-3 members to the first subfamily with smaller wing (folding), right-sized vert/horz stablizer, less fuel/range (2.5k - 3k nm), less thrust, single shorter gear, 175-225 (32" pitch) pax... and 2-3 members of the second subfamily with larger wing (folding), more fuel/range (4.5k - 5k nm), right-sized vert/horz stablizer, more thurst, taller double bogey, 225-275 (32" pitch) pax. Common cockpit, single aisle fuselage, tail apendage, avionics, interior fittings, containers, common type ratings for pilots, lots of production synergy....

I don't see this 3 family twin-aisle between the A321 and the 787-8 happening.... I see something happening.... but it's going to look allot like a family with a few planes between the 737-9 and the 757-300 size wise.... I just can't see a 4th Boeing widebody family .. while an aging single narrow aisle family is left to serve where the huge volumes are...

seahawk wrote:

But the A321 can also field the GTF and GTF and LEAP will see PiPs in the 2020ies.

Well Pratt has been willing to offer GTF for multiple OEM platforms so no reason they could not also offer it on NMA. Pratt says it can scale so they should be able to create a GTF dimensioned for NMA and that would also give them an inside track to co-power NSA.

And it stands to reason the NMA's LEAP will incorporate the PiPs that the LEAPs on the A320neo and MAX will get.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

1. Boeing got it right with the 777 because of how smooth the launch went.

They got it right with the 777 because they spent twice as much as they planned. And they still had a production meltdown in 1997 and there are claims the program might have gone into a Forward Loss position during that time if Boeing had not "cooked the books". That being said, one cannot argue with how successful the 777-200ER and 777-300ER were so the extra investment surely paid off.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

3. If I remember correctly, Boeing was thinking about making a new plane or a re-engine to the 737NG after they had the 787 came into service. Airbus at the time was going to launch the A380, and they also had the A350 coming afterwards. They had no money to launch a new narrow body jet and they thought that if they re-engined the A320 it would force Boeing to follow suit. This was followed by a huge order for American Airlines who in a press statement insisted that they would order a re-engined 737, and Boeing folded.

Your recollection is correct. Boeing had the "Yellowstone" program which would have eventually replaced the 737 (Y1), the 767 (Y2) and the 777 and 747 (Y3) with all-new models. The 787 was Y2, though it did grow based on customer input/pressure to also cover the 777-200 as well as the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. However, once the 787 program was a shambles, Boeing shelved Y3 completely (instead launching the 747-8) and continued work on Y1.

yeah... I can't see Y1.5 (somewhere between 737and787) being a 767 redeaux.... I just can't see NMA being 7 accross... Maybe my imagination isn't broad enough.

Revelation wrote:

We're really not talking about "current generation engines" unless you think technology froze in the 00s and GE and Safran learned nothing from GE9X.

Feel free to list the engine technologies it's worth waiting till the 30s for, and what they offer in risk vs reward.

On the GE-side the geared fan will have to come around that time frame. But in the end the danger for the NMA does not come from the A320NEO, it comes from the NSA and whatever Airbus will do in response.

Stitch wrote:

They got it right with the 777 because they spent twice as much as they planned. And they still had a production meltdown in 1997 and there are claims the program might have gone into a Forward Loss position during that time if Boeing had not "cooked the books". That being said, one cannot argue with how successful the 777-200ER and 777-300ER were so the extra investment surely paid off.

Absolutely.

morrisond wrote:

Well I don't think there are that many disadvantages when you start thinking of this as a widened narrow body vs 767 in size but some posters do think differently and believe it's a non-starter. Picture an A320 Fuselage with the sides bulged out 15" on each side. So it will have a bigger cross section but will be shorter so the wetted area and internal volumes are essentially the same.

Obvious as the rumours/articles won't die (that it will be a tight/light 2x aisle) and were there even way back when Boeing went with the MAX vs NSA.

Boeing has been working on this an awful long time so I'm sure they have figured out ways to optimize it. I have no doubt the clever engineers at Airbus could do the same if they choose to do so.

So you don’t think there are many disadvantages, the rumours won’t die, and you’re sure Boeing have figured out ways of optimising it.
Respectfully I’d suggest that these are personal opinions framed in your own particular context of NMA happening being a given, and it being a “narrow 7-abreast” being a given.

Unless a poster happens to share your own absolute certainty on these, on the basis that a) NMA has NOT been launched, and b) it being a narrow 7-abreast is, as you point out, still a rumour, and not confirmed, Boeing having made the trade-offs, and found solutions may not be as obvious to many posters as it appears to be to you. Just a thought.

For clarity, I share your advocacy for a “narrow 7-abreast” solution for NMA – it is the only non-narrowbody solution that has a chance of succeeding against ever more capable narrowbodys.

morrisond wrote:

So if the real range is 3,650 NM with 240 seats in the 321 XLR, 3,150NM transatlantic Westbound in the Winter - will 2,450NM be enough to cover what you propose its use will be? Forget trying to fly Tranatlantic - I'm pretty sure less than 2,000NM with 250 seats filled puts you in the drink well short of land.

See this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Something tells me it really does need a new wing with more MTOW/Thrust, heavier gear. It would be a good MAX-10 competitor though.

I think I'm missing the point here...
I don't know why you've selected 240 seats in the tightest ULCC configuration as the benchmark because it clearly isn't going to happen on TATL routes
And it wouldn't be the assumption you would make for NMA

The article you cite gives the following real ranges (summer TATL) in TAP configuration

A321LR - 3,400Nm
757-200 (when new) - 3,540Nm
A321XLR - 4,070Nm

This first off clearly shows the A321XLR to have a 500 - 550Nm real world advantage over the 757-200 (when it was new) which probably translates into close to 700Nm against today's 757-200's.

Secondly, if we stick with Keejse's 1,200Nm delta (which could be challenged), that gives a 4m stretch A322 a range of about 2,900Nm real-world (summer TATL) in a "TAP configuration", probably about 500Nm shy of today's 757-200's, and not quite enough for TATL.

That is way plenty to be able to conduct TCON operations in the USA.
Even a 260 seat configuration is only likely to bring that down to about 2,400Nm real-world - still plenty for US TCON in ULCC mode.

I thought we were all agreed that the longer range sectors were in reality going to be the outliers.
And that the shorter sectors would be where a narrowbody would be strongest
It is pretty clear that TCON will be a way bigger slice of sectors performed than TPAC.

That said, next-gen engines applied to NMA can just as easily be applied to an A322 and would probably release about 300Nm more range.
All Airbus then have to do is find another 1 tonne of MTOW and they've got the remaining 200Nm to match a 757-200 of today.
TATL capable..
I'll resist saying "its obvious", but it doesn't seen that far-fetched.

Rgds

par13del wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Boeing fighting the A321XLR rear center tank via the certification route seems to indicate they themselves plan to go for something like it possibly a tad bigger.

Since EASA dismissed Boeing attempt to fight, how is this relevant?

was that case actually closed by EASA? if yes I missed the info.

The issue remains, however, EASA is saying they have received Boeing's comment and have not changed their (EASA) current statements on the issue based on any comments made by Boeing. However, we can go to many other articles which play this as strictly A versus B, take your pick.
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-safety-issue/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN2AU2RJ
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... airbus-jet
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... conditions

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

yeah... I can't see Y1.5 (somewhere between 737and787) being a 767 redeaux.... I just can't see NMA being 7 accross... Maybe my imagination isn't broad enough.

You need to narrow your imagination. You may be thinking of it as 767 in size in terms of cross section. You have to think think of it as A320 bulged out 15" on each side - with a cross section about 20% more than A320. Picture sitting in an 320 and thinking what that would feel like - a lot tighter than an 767.

An A320 is 163" H x 156" W for a cross section of 19,971sqin - Minimum cross section to hold LD3-45 and using 777X seats - then you have a wider aisle for longer lengths. If you want to keep A320 seat width then you probably need to make it wider to accommodate ingress/egress and getting past trolleys.

An 767 is 213" H x 192" W for a cross section of 32,119sqin. - 60.8% more than A320

A potential tight light 7W NMA/NSA using 777X seats and aisle widths could be as small as 163"Hx184"W or 24,278sqin - 21.5% more than A320

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Well I don't think there are that many disadvantages when you start thinking of this as a widened narrow body vs 767 in size but some posters do think differently and believe it's a non-starter. Picture an A320 Fuselage with the sides bulged out 15" on each side. So it will have a bigger cross section but will be shorter so the wetted area and internal volumes are essentially the same.

Obvious as the rumours/articles won't die (that it will be a tight/light 2x aisle) and were there even way back when Boeing went with the MAX vs NSA.

Boeing has been working on this an awful long time so I'm sure they have figured out ways to optimize it. I have no doubt the clever engineers at Airbus could do the same if they choose to do so.

So you don’t think there are many disadvantages, the rumours won’t die, and you’re sure Boeing have figured out ways of optimising it.
Respectfully I’d suggest that these are personal opinions framed in your own particular context of NMA happening being a given, and it being a “narrow 7-abreast” being a given.

Unless a poster happens to share your own absolute certainty on these, on the basis that a) NMA has NOT been launched, and b) it being a narrow 7-abreast is, as you point out, still a rumour, and not confirmed, Boeing having made the trade-offs, and found solutions may not be as obvious to many posters as it appears to be to you. Just a thought.

For clarity, I share your advocacy for a “narrow 7-abreast” solution for NMA – it is the only non-narrowbody solution that has a chance of succeeding against ever more capable narrowbodys.

morrisond wrote:

So if the real range is 3,650 NM with 240 seats in the 321 XLR, 3,150NM transatlantic Westbound in the Winter - will 2,450NM be enough to cover what you propose its use will be? Forget trying to fly Tranatlantic - I'm pretty sure less than 2,000NM with 250 seats filled puts you in the drink well short of land.

See this article. https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/

Something tells me it really does need a new wing with more MTOW/Thrust, heavier gear. It would be a good MAX-10 competitor though.

I think I'm missing the point here...
I don't know why you've selected 240 seats in the tightest ULCC configuration as the benchmark because it clearly isn't going to happen on TATL routes
And it wouldn't be the assumption you would make for NMA

The article you cite gives the following real ranges (summer TATL) in TAP configuration

A321LR - 3,400Nm
757-200 (when new) - 3,540Nm
A321XLR - 4,070Nm

This first off clearly shows the A321XLR to have a 500 - 550Nm real world advantage over the 757-200 (when it was new) which probably translates into close to 700Nm against today's 757-200's.

Secondly, if we stick with Keejse's 1,200Nm delta (which could be challenged), that gives a 4m stretch A322 a range of about 2,900Nm real-world (summer TATL) in a "TAP configuration", probably about 500Nm shy of today's 757-200's, and not quite enough for TATL.

That is way plenty to be able to conduct TCON operations in the USA.
Even a 260 seat configuration is only likely to bring that down to about 2,400Nm real-world - still plenty for US TCON in ULCC mode.

I thought we were all agreed that the longer range sectors were in reality going to be the outliers.
And that the shorter sectors would be where a narrowbody would be strongest
It is pretty clear that TCON will be a way bigger slice of sectors performed than TPAC.

That said, next-gen engines applied to NMA can just as easily be applied to an A322 and would probably release about 300Nm more range.
All Airbus then have to do is find another 1 tonne of MTOW and they've got the remaining 200Nm to match a 757-200 of today.
TATL capable..
I'll resist saying "its obvious", but it doesn't seen that far-fetched.

Rgds

I've said multiple times it could be 3x3 - I just don't think there is that much of a disadvantage going tight 7W as some make it out to be. There are good commercial reasons to go with with 2x3x2 - such as:

Differentiates your product from A320 and C919 which could be a strong competitor by 2030 taking away the low end market as the Chinese heavily subsidize frames to steal market share and place them with their trading partners. You want us to finish your roads/bridges - take our planes.

The Cross section could be used for NSA in Capacities that will be in demand by mid 2030's due to Air travel growth - call it 200 Y Seats on the low end.

With a Different wingbox and 52M wing could be used to carry an easy 300+ all Y seats. That will be a great advantage as that aircraft will be able to benefit from Economies of scale on NMA/NSA and be a super efficient people mover.

Basically one program that covers everything from 739 to 788. You then have future variants of 787 if you need to carry Passengers plus a bunch of cargo.

Keesje was saying it could carry 250 people on his missions - so that is why I was using the ULCC numbers. Presumably an NMA would have the ability to go farther with higher density seating than an 322 with the existing wing. It would really need a new wing to compete.

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

seahawk wrote:

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

of course an A322 with a new wing will compete against NMA-5X..... and it will do it with 18.5" seats that have 2" armrests.... comfort... super tight NMA at 7-abreast with the extra weight for the floor that is under compression has no business case.

nma will be 3+3. because it's optimal and lays the ground for the nsa. no 4th widebody family at Boeing.

Even an A322, if you put a long haul 3 class cabin in it, would be able to do transatlantic. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgI ... Boeing.jpg

But regional/ domestic 250 seats, comfy 19 inch wide, 31-32 inch pitch seating would be the focus markets. Up to 6-7 hour flights for leisure carriers flying to Caribbean, Mediterranean, Malaysian destinations. And low cost between big cities. All at a production speed, price, risk and time to market that seems hard to beat by anything new competitor this decade.

Also aircraft being assembled locally (Europe, China) is something Boeing might need to address on any future program, being it NSA or NMA. An aircraft being fully developed, build and locally assembled might make local people happy and proud, but maybe not Ma Xu Lun.

I wonder if Airbus would do a new wing without a new fuselage. For XLR/possible A322, they decided strengthening, new fuel systems, flaps were good enough as a "new wing"
A bigger, more capable, heavier, more expensive, 2026 wing would probably make the XLR less attractive for shorter flights, loosing operational flexibility. And waste the time to market advantage on any Boeing product. Maybe later on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w0yv ... 320NEO.jpg

If Boeing launches a new NB, it should make sure it has selling points that can't be matched by the NEO family. Technical, operational, political and financial.

seahawk wrote:

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

The NMA has no business case. I'm certain Airbus already has champagne bottles in fridge at Toulouse for the possibility that Boeing launches 7-abreast two aisle NMA/MOM. Such a plane would bury Boeing commercial. Boeing needs to do a new narrowbody to replace the ill-fated MAX. 6-abreast and bit wider so it can take containers. That will put Airbus in a position where Boeing was with 737 Classic when the A320 debuted.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The A322 should never compete against the NMA. If it can, even with a new wing, the NMA has no business case.

of course an A322 with a new wing will compete against NMA-5X..... and it will do it with 18.5" seats that have 2" armrests.... comfort... super tight NMA at 7-abreast with the extra weight for the floor that is under compression has no business case.

nma will be 3+3. because it's optimal and lays the ground for the nsa. no 4th widebody family at Boeing.

Comfort has never been a determining factor of what Airlines choose. This tight NMA would have 777X levels of comfort which seems to be fine for much longer missions 15-18 hour missions in Y.

There are ways around the floor being under compression as has been detailed before. Monolithic lower lobe/floor beams made of carbon for one plus only about 40% of the length of the fuselage that isn't above the Wing Box (where a double circle NMA would be no different than a SA) or the nose or the tail would be really unique cross section. The nose, center section and tail could help to hold those passenger sections in shape as well. The entire fuselage is about 5% of the MTOW of an A320. Assume that 40% section is under compression (and there is less of it than a 6W for similar capacity is maybe 2% of the MTOW and is 50% heavier (which it won't be) - that means MTOW 1% more. That's a rounding error.

Have you seen the Boeing business case? Yes 3x3 could be slightly more efficient - but the difference could really be marginal if you stop to think about it and not enough to offset the advantages of 2x3x2 being able to cover a vastly wider market (with various different wings, etc...).

I'm with you on there won't be 4 Widebody cross sections that sell in any significant past 2030 for passenger duties when the 787 probably gets renengined and the 789 turns into a 9,000NM bird and the 781 - easily over 8,000nm. The 777X will probably be relegated to freighter duty by that point and be low production with an 787 replacing the 767 freighter by then as well.

keesje wrote:

Even an A322, if you put a long haul 3 class cabin in it, would be able to do transatlantic. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bcgI ... Boeing.jpg

But regional/ domestic 250 seats, comfy 19 inch wide, 31-32 inch pitch seating would be the focus markets. Up to 6-7 hour flights for leisure carriers flying to Caribbean, Mediterranean, Malaysian destinations. And low cost between big cities. All at a production speed, price, risk and time to market that seems hard to beat by anything new competitor this decade.

Also aircraft being assembled locally (Europe, China) is something Boeing might need to address on any future program, being it NSA or NMA. An aircraft being fully developed, build and locally assembled might make local people happy and proud, but maybe not Ma Xu Lun.

I wonder if Airbus would do a new wing without a new fuselage. For XLR/possible A322, they decided strengthening, new fuel systems, flaps were good enough as a "new wing"
A bigger, more capable, heavier, more expensive, 2026 wing would probably make the XLR less attractive for shorter flights, loosing operational flexibility. And waste the time to market advantage on any Boeing product. Maybe later on? https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w0yv ... 320NEO.jpg

If Boeing launches a new NB, it should make sure it has selling points that can't be matched by the NEO family. Technical, operational, political and financial.

How do you get 6-7 hours 3,000-3,500NM with 250 seats when the A321XLR will struggle with that and by your assumption the A322 will have 1,200NM less range?