Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26288
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 6:20 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Revelation wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
How is this a "but"? In the "real world" Bombardier tried to exploit a market niche with a new product. Airbus and Boeing needed to protect their (ongoing exploitation of that very same) market niche and had the benefit of existing, more or less update-ready platforms.

The "but" comes in when you conflate "sound business plan" with CS. The likely response from A and B was well known, we talked about it at the time. GTF was a step change, the big boys were going to react. BBD had a small "first mover" advantage but decided to spend time and money on a new Lear and a new Global too. I remember Airbus putting the Pratt GTF on one of their flying testbeds. What was going to happen next was very obvious. Of course Pratt wasn't going to give BBD an exclusive.

BBD had to hope to use its first mover advantage well and not provoke a response too quickly (thus CS-100 before CS-300) and execute to plan to have any chance at all, and even that was wishful thinking. I remember threads saying "why not start with CS-300 then CS-500 and just deal with the inevitable response" but that's not how it played out.


Hindsight knowledge. That’s easy. When the CS was conceived, probability is high that the business plan was sound. No „but“ required.

No hindsight needed.

Here's an article from 2006 saying CS was a niche product and having a hard time forming a workable business plan: https://www.flightglobal.com/bombardier ... 44.article

If others want to remember things differently, so be it.
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
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22386
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 6:26 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You basically pick up extra floor area for free by making a pencil fatter.


Er..... no. Fatter pencil is both heavier and has more drag, so not free.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every seating plan has an optimum width to minimize weight/drag.
3 across, only 50 seats and below is this optimum.
4 across works 50 seats to about 120 (material dependent, more modern materials would allow longer aircraft).
5 across is good 110 seats to 165 seats (again, material dependent)
6 across is good for 130 to perhaps 220 seats (theoretically, new materials.

When 7 across is optimium is tougher, Very narrow range, perhaps 200 to 280 seats.
8 across allows for LD3s, which broadens the optimal range, I estimate 220 to 300 seats.
9 across is good for 300 to 360
10 across is 360 to perhaps as much as 500 if new materials were used.

Double deckers are tough. I believe the A380 was too short and should have been a little wider (11 across main deck, 8 or 9 upper deck). So were talking 550 seats+ in a 3 class. This is because of the lost space and added weight of the staircases, elevators, plumbing and challenges in doors and cross section.

Then we have BWBs which swap the optimization (wider than they are longer).
There is overlap, but not as much as some note.
7 months without TV. The best decision of my life.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 6:47 pm

Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I'm not a fan of 7 abreast (767 excepted) as they will either make it super tight or wide enough to fit super tight 8 abreast. If they are going to cram using narrow seat widths (and of course they will), then the best solution is 2-2-2. Everyone either gets an aisle or a window.

The moment the 777 went 10 abreast, everybody knows the last stakeholder Boeing cares about is the passenger. We don’t buy the planes, if we did A380 will be a hot seller


Boeing are not in the business for caring about passenger comfort though, and especially regarding seating. That is the responsibility of any given airline.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 6:50 pm

Vicenza wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I'm not a fan of 7 abreast (767 excepted) as they will either make it super tight or wide enough to fit super tight 8 abreast. If they are going to cram using narrow seat widths (and of course they will), then the best solution is 2-2-2. Everyone either gets an aisle or a window.

The moment the 777 went 10 abreast, everybody knows the last stakeholder Boeing cares about is the passenger. We don’t buy the planes, if we did A380 will be a hot seller


Boeing are not in the business for caring about passenger comfort though, and especially regarding seating. That is the responsibility of any given airline.

Oh no of course. I’m just saying that what decision Boeing makes about the standard config. Passenger comfort will be second thought
 
CRJockey
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 7:23 pm

Revelation wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The "but" comes in when you conflate "sound business plan" with CS. The likely response from A and B was well known, we talked about it at the time. GTF was a step change, the big boys were going to react. BBD had a small "first mover" advantage but decided to spend time and money on a new Lear and a new Global too. I remember Airbus putting the Pratt GTF on one of their flying testbeds. What was going to happen next was very obvious. Of course Pratt wasn't going to give BBD an exclusive.

BBD had to hope to use its first mover advantage well and not provoke a response too quickly (thus CS-100 before CS-300) and execute to plan to have any chance at all, and even that was wishful thinking. I remember threads saying "why not start with CS-300 then CS-500 and just deal with the inevitable response" but that's not how it played out.


Hindsight knowledge. That’s easy. When the CS was conceived, probability is high that the business plan was sound. No „but“ required.

No hindsight needed.

Here's an article from 2006 saying CS was a niche product and having a hard time forming a workable business plan: https://www.flightglobal.com/bombardier ... 44.article

If others want to remember things differently, so be it.


I happen to trust the decision of probably not totally stupid execs at Bombardier a little more. They decided to go ahead, hence believed the plan is more sound than it isn’t.

But of course you must be right. I mean, something was written in flightglobal, right? ;)
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 9:24 pm

I think Boeing will in the end have to start with replacing the 737. If the trend continues, the 737 losing more and more out to the A320 family, it will be the necessary move. The point is not the most advanced airframe, but getting competitive again. What use is it to win a niche market, while one is loosing the main market.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 9:37 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Vicenza wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
The moment the 777 went 10 abreast, everybody knows the last stakeholder Boeing cares about is the passenger. We don’t buy the planes, if we did A380 will be a hot seller


Boeing are not in the business for caring about passenger comfort though, and especially regarding seating. That is the responsibility of any given airline.

Oh no of course. I’m just saying that what decision Boeing makes about the standard config. Passenger comfort will be second thought


Yes, indeed it will.....absolutely.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 9:52 pm

Opus99 wrote:
I’m just saying that what decision Boeing makes about the standard config. Passenger comfort will be second thought


Well even Boeing is starting to realize that airlines don't always have passenger comfort in mind and are addressing that to some effect by allowing for wider seats on the 737 MAX and 777X at the higher seating densities.

On the flip side, Airbus forces airline's hands on economics and comfort by designing their planes so airlines have no (real) choice but to accept Airbus' decisions. One wonders if they did offer the...flexibility...that Boeing does, would they have been (even) more successful in the widebody space?
 
Opus99
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sun May 16, 2021 10:36 pm

Stitch wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
I’m just saying that what decision Boeing makes about the standard config. Passenger comfort will be second thought


Well even Boeing is starting to realize that airlines don't always have passenger comfort in mind and are addressing that to some effect by allowing for wider seats on the 737 MAX and 777X at the higher seating densities.

On the flip side, Airbus forces airline's hands on economics and comfort by designing their planes so airlines have no (real) choice but to accept Airbus' decisions. One wonders if they did offer the...flexibility...that Boeing does, would they have been (even) more successful in the widebody space?

oh yeah for sure. I say this all the time. Airbus wants to please everybody. But you're not selling planes to passengers, you're selling them to fleet strategists and CFOs. they care about numbers! And that is a mistake I think airbus made in the 350-1000. Airbus was banking on a 4-door config to make the 1000 slightly bigger than the 300ER but they did that on the back of the 300ER still being nine abreast. The per-seat step change was affected when Boeing moved the 777 to 10 abreast which meant the 777 now become bigger. But that is a discussion for another thread on another day.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 12:11 am

Opus99 wrote:
744SPX wrote:
I'm not a fan of 7 abreast (767 excepted) as they will either make it super tight or wide enough to fit super tight 8 abreast. If they are going to cram using narrow seat widths (and of course they will), then the best solution is 2-2-2. Everyone either gets an aisle or a window.

The moment the 777 went 10 abreast, everybody knows the last stakeholder Boeing cares about is the passenger. We don’t buy the planes, if we did A380 will be a hot seller


It was my impression that Boeing had very little to say about 9W or 10W beyond certification. Airline configuration is tbe choice of the airlines, and some 777 operators retained 9W.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 12:17 am

I'm a big believer in 7W btw.

Imho Boeing appeared to try to "force " airline customers to buy the 787, even though it is way too big and heavy to be a 767 replacement, by making it just a smidgen too big to allow the engines to be used for a 767 refresh. Thus, they committed to 8, and the 787 is 4 inches wider than the 330, 226 vs 222. Their problem is that few airlines were stupid enough to buy the too heavy 787-3.

So here we are. Endless speculation with no real information to go on with regard to the future.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 6:59 am

The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:27 am

FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.

I have been saying for years that the Boeing 797 was going to be closer to the A300 in capacity and cross section.

The problem I see is the A300/A310/A330 cross section has airlines that squeeze in 9AB. Knocking off 10inchs from the A300 cross section to make it 8AB using Boeing seating standards.

Having two fuselage lengths the shorter version can have 5000+nm range. The bigger version would be the CASM monster. I expect the MTOW to below 150t.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7393
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 am

FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.

This highlights the issue that I have with a MOM that looks like a widebody.
Surely if this was the solution, re-engined A300's and 767's would already exist, but it seems they've been driven out of the market by the more capable narrowbodys.
I don't see it personally. But I might be wrong :)

I think that's the driver behind the "narrow 7-abreast" concept, which I quite like for MOM
I have a bit more of an issue with the notion that this "narrow 7-abreast" can also replace the current narrowbodys.
Not sure I buy into that just yet.
I may be wrong with that, but if I'm right, that will limit the market penetrability of a MOM solution.
The only question then is whether the market is big enough to merit the new frame

Rgds
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 10:10 am

astuteman wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.

This highlights the issue that I have with a MOM that looks like a widebody.
Surely if this was the solution, re-engined A300's and 767's would already exist, but it seems they've been driven out of the market by the more capable narrowbodys.
I don't see it personally. But I might be wrong :)

I think that's the driver behind the "narrow 7-abreast" concept, which I quite like for MOM
I have a bit more of an issue with the notion that this "narrow 7-abreast" can also replace the current narrowbodys.
Not sure I buy into that just yet.
I may be wrong with that, but if I'm right, that will limit the market penetrability of a MOM solution.
The only question then is whether the market is big enough to merit the new frame

Rgds


The problem is, the A300 and 767 are so old, a simple re-engine would not make them anyway competitive, especially the 7AB 767 that is just not a competitive aircraft.

The short range of the A300 and the size of the 767 were purely due to engine choice back in time. When the 767 grew to the 400ER the A330 was already dominating the wide body market and to make the A300 fly anywhere it needed to grow massively in MTOW (hence the A330).

Now 40 years later (thats how old the designs actually are) a 160-170 Mtow aircraft would have massive capacities.

RJMAZ wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.

I have been saying for years that the Boeing 797 was going to be closer to the A300 in capacity and cross section.

The problem I see is the A300/A310/A330 cross section has airlines that squeeze in 9AB. Knocking off 10inchs from the A300 cross section to make it 8AB using Boeing seating standards.

Having two fuselage lengths the shorter version can have 5000+nm range. The bigger version would be the CASM monster. I expect the MTOW to below 150t.


I Agree 8ab is the better way forward for anything above a 6AB but giving airlines the option for 9AB in the MOM should not be a drawback if you want. I think the most important factor is that the aircraft needs LD3 capability going forward, especially as this would be a great base for a freighter.

I do not know how easy it is to take 40t out of the A339 OEW for Airbus to "relaunch" the A300 as A370 but it would be the next "step" that Boeing has to take into account. I do not think a carbon fuselage is necessary to be competitive. so it would need a new wingbox and wing, new tail and a "slimming" of the fuselage. Similar to what was needed for the 777X, good thing is, the certification standards for such an "operation" are now known to Airbus.

We will see in what time frame the engine manufacturers can deliver a 50k thrust engine and how Boeing would want to use said engine but it will also be available to Airbus. Boeing will need to do something very smart to place the aircraft.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14425
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 10:36 am

FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.


I think the A310 shaved another 10-12t from the A300 empty weight and added range. While the basic A310 configuration looks attractive, the way wings and wingboxes were build 40-50 years ago has changed dramatically. So it would mean an entire new wingbox, wing, suitable engine (...) and landing gear. The cockpit, avionics, cabin systems could be taken over from the latest A330NEO versions.

Even if Airbus would to willing to optimize an A330 version for an NMA like mission, OEW 75t, it would still weigh 50% more than the mass produced A321XLR. I think that a prohibitive benchmark for any new aircraft not offering a clearly differentiating efficiency.

Image
https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/3805/fsx-air-transat-airbus-a310-300/

The question for Boeing or Airbus would be if a smaller WB, 8 abreast and LD3 capable, could be designed lean enough, to also operate competitively on the many shorter flights, on top of competing with the larger, more capable WB's on longer flights. I think Airbus internally see the A310 as an experiment not to be repeated..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 11:04 am

keesje wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.


I think the A310 shaved another 10-12t from the A300 empty weight and added range. While the basic A310 configuration looks attractive, the way wings and wingboxes were build 40-50 years ago has changed dramatically. So it would mean an entire new wingbox, wing, suitable engine (...) and landing gear. The cockpit, avionics, cabin systems could be taken over from the latest A330NEO versions.

Even if Airbus would to willing to optimize an A330 version for an NMA like mission, OEW 75t, it would still weigh 50% more than the mass produced A321XLR. I think that a prohibitive benchmark for any new aircraft not offering a clearly differentiating efficiency.

Image
https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/3805/fsx-air-transat-airbus-a310-300/

The question for Boeing or Airbus would be if a smaller WB, 8 abreast and LD3 capable, could be designed lean enough, to also operate competitively on the many shorter flights, on top of competing with the larger, more capable WB's on longer flights. I think Airbus internally see the A310 as an experiment not to be repeated..


I wrote that in the post before yours, the design of the A300 is 40 years old but I do not think the fuselage is the problem. What it would need is taking the A339 and give it a new wing box and wing (together with a new gear), a new tail and take as much weight out of the fuselage as necessary.

The A310 failed mainly due to the fact that the timing was really bad and when air travel started to grow in the later half of the 80s and 90s the A330 was by far the better option. From 1993 the aircraft was almost dead in the production line

Nowadays I could see some market for an A300 sized aircraft with 6000nm range. Going forward it would need to sit in the middle of the size between a possible A322 and the A359, somewhere around 75-85% of the A339 cabin size.

It would complement the A321/322 when you need additional range or payload. Sub 3500nm the A322 would be the better option, but from 3500nm to 6000nm it would beat the A339 on economics and it could carry a lot of freight.

That is the space the MOM has to sit and that is why a 2-3-2 seems so out of touch, because it limits itself to fit into the market below 3500nm. I just can not see how anything else than a 3-3 aircraft can be efficient below 3500nm. But if you want to fly further you need to make the structure carry enough payload to make it worth while, so from 4500nm onwards the aircraft has to have some kind of lifting potential, more than just for passengers. Otherwise every route that has just a little cargo demand will be going to the 787, limiting sales in the upper end.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 11:22 am

744SPX wrote:
I'm not a fan of 7 abreast (767 excepted) as they will either make it super tight or wide enough to fit super tight 8 abreast. If they are going to cram using narrow seat widths (and of course they will), then the best solution is 2-2-2. Everyone either gets an aisle or a window.


That's even worse.... How is that make any sense?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26288
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 12:07 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Revelation wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Hindsight knowledge. That’s easy. When the CS was conceived, probability is high that the business plan was sound. No „but“ required.

No hindsight needed.

Here's an article from 2006 saying CS was a niche product and having a hard time forming a workable business plan: https://www.flightglobal.com/bombardier ... 44.article

If others want to remember things differently, so be it.

I happen to trust the decision of probably not totally stupid execs at Bombardier a little more. They decided to go ahead, hence believed the plan is more sound than it isn’t.

But of course you must be right. I mean, something was written in flightglobal, right? ;)

Right, let's just go with what you say rather than doing some actual research.

Let's just go with 'business plans are sound because businesses don't do stupid things' and 'Bombardier in particular doesn't do stupid things'.

No need to highlight that Bombardier thought doing a new Lear, Global and CS all at the same time would work out fine.

Hey, if business plans are inherently sound, three sound business plans run in parallel has to be better than just one, because businesses don't do stupid things.

No need to highlight that it would be easy for A and B to respond to CS, even though stuff written in FG and even a.net at the time said just that.
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
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 1:29 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
keesje wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.


I think the A310 shaved another 10-12t from the A300 empty weight and added range. While the basic A310 configuration looks attractive, the way wings and wingboxes were build 40-50 years ago has changed dramatically. So it would mean an entire new wingbox, wing, suitable engine (...) and landing gear. The cockpit, avionics, cabin systems could be taken over from the latest A330NEO versions.

Even if Airbus would to willing to optimize an A330 version for an NMA like mission, OEW 75t, it would still weigh 50% more than the mass produced A321XLR. I think that a prohibitive benchmark for any new aircraft not offering a clearly differentiating efficiency.

Image
https://flyawaysimulation.com/downloads/files/3805/fsx-air-transat-airbus-a310-300/

The question for Boeing or Airbus would be if a smaller WB, 8 abreast and LD3 capable, could be designed lean enough, to also operate competitively on the many shorter flights, on top of competing with the larger, more capable WB's on longer flights. I think Airbus internally see the A310 as an experiment not to be repeated..


I wrote that in the post before yours, the design of the A300 is 40 years old but I do not think the fuselage is the problem. What it would need is taking the A339 and give it a new wing box and wing (together with a new gear), a new tail and take as much weight out of the fuselage as necessary.

The A310 failed mainly due to the fact that the timing was really bad and when air travel started to grow in the later half of the 80s and 90s the A330 was by far the better option. From 1993 the aircraft was almost dead in the production line

Nowadays I could see some market for an A300 sized aircraft with 6000nm range. Going forward it would need to sit in the middle of the size between a possible A322 and the A359, somewhere around 75-85% of the A339 cabin size.

It would complement the A321/322 when you need additional range or payload. Sub 3500nm the A322 would be the better option, but from 3500nm to 6000nm it would beat the A339 on economics and it could carry a lot of freight.

That is the space the MOM has to sit and that is why a 2-3-2 seems so out of touch, because it limits itself to fit into the market below 3500nm. I just can not see how anything else than a 3-3 aircraft can be efficient below 3500nm. But if you want to fly further you need to make the structure carry enough payload to make it worth while, so from 4500nm onwards the aircraft has to have some kind of lifting potential, more than just for passengers. Otherwise every route that has just a little cargo demand will be going to the 787, limiting sales in the upper end.


If we look at the A321neo today, there are nearly 3,000 frames on backlog and 500 delivered. Airbus does not need a A322 or a A330 light as it is. An A322 would just take orders from the A321neo and an A330 light would make live more difficult for the A330neo.

Boeing has to do something. Boeing is just hanging on in the 737-8 sized market, the A320neo has a backlog of 2,650 frames and 1,200 already delivered that makes 3,850 frames. The A320 alone matches the whole 737MAX lineup in numbers.
Boeing has no frame competing seriously with the A321. The only frame at Boeing matching expectations is the 787.

If Boeing wants to continue to be a player in the 130 to 250 passenger short to medium long haul market, they have to make their move. Airbus can wait and see what Boeing does.

If Boeing comes with a frame slightly larger than the A321, Airbus can bring a A322. Airbus has been working on designs regarding a new wing, including going all electric on that wing. The all electric part, leading to significant weight reduction, has flown on the A320 testbed. In regards to the wing itself, Airbus has now done several carbon fiber wings.

If Boeing comes with a frame significant larger than the A321, Airbus could go for a A330 light, a redo of the A310. Same fuselage as the A330, lighter wingbox lighter MLG, same cockpit as the A330. It would be a stubby frame significantly lighter than the A330. The new things needed would be a new wing and right sized engines.
It is sometimes forgotten how related the A300/310 and the A330 are. Many advances in regards to the modern 2 engined wide body had been tested on the A310 and influenced the design of the A330. Airbus has never been bothered about not keeping the type certificate for the new model. They changed what needed to be changed.

In regards to a 767neo from Boeing, I hardly believe that that would be a good move. Yes the newer 767 gave the older A300/310 a hard competition, especially because of more range, but than Airbus brought the A330 and sales of the 767-300 went down and the 767-400 did never really take off. The 767-400 was supposed to hold it's own against the A330, but did not.
Boeing brought the 787 to win the market back from Airbus and it took off. But during the years the A330 did hold it's own.
Why would a 767-300neo or 767-400neo do better against a A330neo, than the 767-300 and 767-400 against a A330ceo.

And that brings me to the widebody 7W idea. Either it is not economical against a 8W design, being relatively to heavy. Or one builds a frame for passengers with little cargo capacity and that means a severely limited market.
There is a reason the 8W A330 won out against the 7W 767 and why Boeing went to 9W in the 787. The answer is economics.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 2:57 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Imho Boeing appeared to try to "force " airline customers to buy the 787, even though it is way too big and heavy to be a 767 replacement, by making it just a smidgen too big to allow the engines to be used for a 767 refresh.


The 787 is so much more efficient than a 767 that the extra empty weight doesn't hurt it and those extra seats are predominately just extra profit opportunity.

This might explain why the various flotations to put 787-class engines on a 767-400ER airframe have not found any traction with airlines and freight carriers. It's not just the engines that help the 787's efficiency vis-a-vis the 767.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 3:01 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I think the most important factor is that the aircraft needs LD3 capability going forward, especially as this would be a great base for a freighter.


LD3s might be important for passenger carriers, but the world's largest freight airlines all have the 767 as a foundation in their fleet so I don't think a frame that is limited to 767-compatible cans and pallets is going to be an issue for them.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 3:14 pm

Stitch wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I think the most important factor is that the aircraft needs LD3 capability going forward, especially as this would be a great base for a freighter.


LD3s might be important for passenger carriers, but the world's largest freight airlines all have the 767 as a foundation in their fleet so I don't think a frame that is limited to 767-compatible cans and pallets is going to be an issue for them.


I only see two large 767-300F operators (FedEx and UPS) that really use a lot of 767.

So if you have the option to integrate your future design into the global supply chain where every aircraft can take an LD3 or you built something else the choice is easy.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 3:25 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
I only see two large 767-300F operators (FedEx and UPS) that really use a lot of 767.


Do not forget Amazon.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 3:28 pm

Stitch wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I only see two large 767-300F operators (FedEx and UPS) that really use a lot of 767.


Do not forget Amazon.


Ah sorry yeah they have the conversions. I actually only looked for the 300Fs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26288
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 5:12 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Stitch wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I only see two large 767-300F operators (FedEx and UPS) that really use a lot of 767.


Do not forget Amazon.


Ah sorry yeah they have the conversions. I actually only looked for the 300Fs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Aviation lists 39 767s in the DHL ecosystem (some factory, some conversion), and a bit of googling finds plans to add more conversions too.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 5:15 pm

Stitch wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
I think the most important factor is that the aircraft needs LD3 capability going forward, especially as this would be a great base for a freighter.


LD3s might be important for passenger carriers, but the world's largest freight airlines all have the 767 as a foundation in their fleet so I don't think a frame that is limited to 767-compatible cans and pallets is going to be an issue for them.

Yes LD2 containers are the way to go. LD3 suit a 9AB cross section so that is too large for a 797.

LD2 containers suit a tight 8AB cross section perfectly. It can be 85% of the cross section area of the A330 which is much smaller. It would be effectively only a couple percent more cross section area than the 767.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7393
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 5:44 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
astuteman wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The best MOM aircraft already existed, it just needs to be redone. Just take the A300-600 and increase the range from 4000nm to 6000nm and all is good.

90t OEW, 170t MTOW, LD3 capable, composite wing, perfect freighter base. Back then Airbus had no chance as to increase OEW and MTOW to get range for the A330 but with new technology a 90t OEW A300-600 with a composite wing should have no problem to carry 30-35t out to 6000nm with 45-50t of fuel.

This highlights the issue that I have with a MOM that looks like a widebody.
Surely if this was the solution, re-engined A300's and 767's would already exist, but it seems they've been driven out of the market by the more capable narrowbodys.
I don't see it personally. But I might be wrong :)

I think that's the driver behind the "narrow 7-abreast" concept, which I quite like for MOM
I have a bit more of an issue with the notion that this "narrow 7-abreast" can also replace the current narrowbodys.
Not sure I buy into that just yet.
I may be wrong with that, but if I'm right, that will limit the market penetrability of a MOM solution.
The only question then is whether the market is big enough to merit the new frame

Rgds


The problem is, the A300 and 767 are so old, a simple re-engine would not make them anyway competitive, especially the 7AB 767 that is just not a competitive aircraft.

The short range of the A300 and the size of the 767 were purely due to engine choice back in time. When the 767 grew to the 400ER the A330 was already dominating the wide body market and to make the A300 fly anywhere it needed to grow massively in MTOW (hence the A330).

Now 40 years later (thats how old the designs actually are) a 160-170 Mtow aircraft would have massive capacities.


The point is that when they were forced out of the market, they were no older than the aircraft families that did that.
I agree that a simple re-engine would not work.
I'm not sure what "re-doing" the A300 means, but increasing its range from 4,000Nm to 6,000Nm will result in an airframe whose size and weight will never match the economics of a narrowbody on shorter sectors, and will be completely outclassed by the more capacious and more capable widebodys on longer sectors.
Even Boeing have never quoted anything more than 4,500Nm-5,000Nm
Which is the MOM conundrum

Rgds
 
User avatar
Ty134A
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 6:23 pm

The A300 was a perfect aircraft for the time it was built. The only thing it lacked were staicases such as the Il-86 hat, that would have allowed the aircraft to be even better suited for the missions it was built for. But for now, things such as a 783 or AB6neo are obsolete due to new technology availiable for the A321. This aurcraft became the most versatile one can imagine. It allows up to 230 pax, fits containers, offers variants for longer missions, fitting into existing fleets. I think the industry has not even realized that they soon can fly a narrowbody long range, and what that means. And yes, we had that with the 757, but it needed seperate crews, more fuel, engines etc. Now you have an aircraft thats crew today flies six legs and tomorrow long range... how cool is that? You don‘t need to fill up a 787 and can go many missions for a fraction of the fuel consumption, six crewmembers and so on. This is such a game changer. And yes I know, capacity, cargo and so on. But the airline industry is not about offering the most capacity, but filling the planes one has. The smaller, more efficient plane will always be the one earning money. Anything esle makes no sense. I habe a feeling, that anything the 787 now flies within the specs of the A321 will sooner or later be flown with A321s. So we will see 330ies and 787 being pushed towards longer range missions.
TU3/5,T20,IL8/6/W/9,I14,YK4/2,AN2/4,A26,A28,A38,A40,A81,SU9,L4T,L11,D1C,M11,M80/2/7,
AB4/6,318-321,313,332/3,342/3/5/6,712,703,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,741/L/2/3/4,752/3,763,
77E/W,J31,F50,F70,100,ATP,142/3,AR8/1,SF3,S20,D38,MIH,EM4,E75/90/95,AT7,DHT/3/4,CRJ/7/9
 
Cdydatzigs
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 3:31 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 6:39 pm

planecane wrote:
kelval wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).


Because people aren't interested in crouching to move around?


That and why would you want to create 2/3 middle seats and no window seats? It could possibly be the worst arrangement ever created!


One of the reasons why I feel the flying wing design will never take off (no pun intended) with airlines, it would be like a flying theater.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 7:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Stitch wrote:

Do not forget Amazon.


Ah sorry yeah they have the conversions. I actually only looked for the 300Fs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Aviation lists 39 767s in the DHL ecosystem (some factory, some conversion), and a bit of googling finds plans to add more conversions too.


But when you look at DHL aviation the frames carrying LD3 are much more common.

36 A300F
5 A330F
7 A330P2F
13 747F
17 777F

78 frames carrying LD3 against the 39 767F carrying LD2.

Fedex still uses 65 A300F
45 777F
54 MD-11F
and still 16 MD-10
carrying LD3

UPS
51 A300F getting new avionics
34 747F
42 MD-11F
carrying LD3

If we look at all the airlines using A330, A340, A350, 777, 787 and still some 747 passenger jets for belly freight, than the LD3 is the standard and the LD2 the outlier.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:15 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
You get 100% more aisle space for 15% more seats. (If you keep the aisles the same width).


Respectfully, this math is only correct for how many people/aisles fit in a single row.

420 people fit into 70 3*3 rows with 70 units of isle.
420 people fit into 60 2*3*2 rows with 120 units of isle. That makes for closer to 70% more aisle space.

Up front, the only real option in narrow body is to go from 3*3 to 2*2, a 33% reduction. A 2*3*2 could go to a 2*2*2 herringbone, or only a 15% reduction.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho Boeing appeared to try to "force " airline customers to buy the 787, even though it is way too big and heavy to be a 767 replacement, by making it just a smidgen too big to allow the engines to be used for a 767 refresh.


The 787 is so much more efficient than a 767 that the extra empty weight doesn't hurt it and those extra seats are predominately just extra profit opportunity.

This might explain why the various flotations to put 787-class engines on a 767-400ER airframe have not found any traction with airlines and freight carriers. It's not just the engines that help the 787's efficiency vis-a-vis the 767.


I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.

The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.

I'm in favor of 7W. The LD2/3 argument is non sequitur. The 767 can carry an adequate number of LD3s (singly, not side by side of course) to carry all the bags for a normal flight. Imho the LD3 argument was promulgated by European protectionism/nationalism to justify A330s.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:36 pm

SteelChair wrote:
The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter.


Man, I wish people would stop to insinuate corporate stupidity in every move by every company. Thousands of hours of analysis brought about the specs of the 787 and 777 or whatever aircraft model. That doesn't mean that it comes out perfect to market needs when it hits the market ten years later. All this babble about knowing it all better with hindsight... :roll:
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4881
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 9:52 pm

Back before the MAX disaster many of the respected posters on this seemed dismissive of a Boeing MOM. At the time it struck me that a 'light' 767/ modern version of an Airbus 300 would have been good for Boeing. It may not have produced a total return on investment, but it would have asserted a belief in the future and the learning of a program well done would have produced a lot of returns. And Boeing could well have afforded it with their somewhat inflated profits and stock buybacks. Boeing would currently be in a whole heck of a lot better shape than it now finds itself. Boeing is currently two strikes down, and the 767/777X prospects are just enough marginal that it cannot afford a MOM that is not at least modestly profitable. But if they are planning on being in business 20 years from now, they had damn well better be planning on doing something. If I read the tea leaves correctly respected posters may be at the same conclusion.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27607
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 10:48 pm

SteelChair wrote:
I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.


The 787s are supplanting the 767s on the "longer" routes because of their greater efficiency. Only the US3 and JP2 operate 767s heavily on domestic routes and we are seeing 787s being put on routes formerly flown by 767s (AA, for example, just added 787 service to Miami from their hubs).

As for Delta, they prefer Airbus now so that they decided to cancel their 787 order is not a surprise on reflection. But with their 767s gone by mid-decade, they will soon need to pick something to replace them...


SteelChair wrote:
The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.


The 787 has similar OEW to the A330 and the A350 is a physically smaller airframe than the 777.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon May 17, 2021 10:52 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Stitch wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho Boeing appeared to try to "force " airline customers to buy the 787, even though it is way too big and heavy to be a 767 replacement, by making it just a smidgen too big to allow the engines to be used for a 767 refresh.


The 787 is so much more efficient than a 767 that the extra empty weight doesn't hurt it and those extra seats are predominately just extra profit opportunity.

This might explain why the various flotations to put 787-class engines on a 767-400ER airframe have not found any traction with airlines and freight carriers. It's not just the engines that help the 787's efficiency vis-a-vis the 767.


I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.

The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.

I'm in favor of 7W. The LD2/3 argument is non sequitur. The 767 can carry an adequate number of LD3s (singly, not side by side of course) to carry all the bags for a normal flight. Imho the LD3 argument was promulgated by European protectionism/nationalism to justify A330s.

If Boeing listening to a few customers at the expense of others means 3300 orders across the 787 and 777 family then. Compared to about 2000 across the 330 and 350 then I mean. Few customers it is.

787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:33 am

Opus99 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Stitch wrote:

The 787 is so much more efficient than a 767 that the extra empty weight doesn't hurt it and those extra seats are predominately just extra profit opportunity.

This might explain why the various flotations to put 787-class engines on a 767-400ER airframe have not found any traction with airlines and freight carriers. It's not just the engines that help the 787's efficiency vis-a-vis the 767.


I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.

The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.

I'm in favor of 7W. The LD2/3 argument is non sequitur. The 767 can carry an adequate number of LD3s (singly, not side by side of course) to carry all the bags for a normal flight. Imho the LD3 argument was promulgated by European protectionism/nationalism to justify A330s.

If Boeing listening to a few customers at the expense of others means 3300 orders across the 787 and 777 family then. Compared to about 2000 across the 330 and 350 then I mean. Few customers it is.

787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense



777x order book weak and faltering.

No doubt the 787 has sold a lot of frames, but will never (cue endless accounting comments) make a dime. It's waaaayyyy heavier than it was supposed to be. Something like 50k more than a similarly equipped 767. 25 tons!

And many people consider the legacy 777 the last good program Boeing ever did. On time and profitable and all that stuff. 25 years ago. Ancient history.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:38 am

Stitch wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.


The 787s are supplanting the 767s on the "longer" routes because of their greater efficiency. Only the US3 and JP2 operate 767s heavily on domestic routes and we are seeing 787s being put on routes formerly flown by 767s (AA, for example, just added 787 service to Miami from their hubs).

As for Delta, they prefer Airbus now so that they decided to cancel their 787 order is not a surprise on reflection. But with their 767s gone by mid-decade, they will soon need to pick something to replace them...


SteelChair wrote:
The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.


The 787 has similar OEW to the A330 and the A350 is a physically smaller airframe than the 777.


Where persists this anet myth that every frame must always be "replaced" with like size and capability?

The all composite 787 has similar OEW to the old aluminum 330? That's a fail for Boeing. Massive fail.. Composites were supposed to be lighter. Just goes to show that most of the efficiency gains come from the engines.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:59 am

Opus99 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Stitch wrote:

The 787 is so much more efficient than a 767 that the extra empty weight doesn't hurt it and those extra seats are predominately just extra profit opportunity.

This might explain why the various flotations to put 787-class engines on a 767-400ER airframe have not found any traction with airlines and freight carriers. It's not just the engines that help the 787's efficiency vis-a-vis the 767.


I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.

The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.

I'm in favor of 7W. The LD2/3 argument is non sequitur. The 767 can carry an adequate number of LD3s (singly, not side by side of course) to carry all the bags for a normal flight. Imho the LD3 argument was promulgated by European protectionism/nationalism to justify A330s.

If Boeing listening to a few customers at the expense of others means 3300 orders across the 787 and 777 family then. Compared to about 2000 across the 330 and 350 then I mean. Few customers it is.

787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense


Where do you get your numbers? The 787 has not reached the A330 neither in orders nor in deliveries yet. For the A330 it is 1514 delivered and 1810 orders.
The 787 has 1003 deliveries and 1.489 orders. Orders excluding ASC 606 adjustments.
The A350 is at 913 orders with 422 deliveries.

In deliveries # 1 is the 777, # 2 the 747, # 3 the A330 and # 4 the 767. (If one looks at the A330 and A340 as one program, than it moves to number 1.)
In orders it is # 1 the 777, # 2 the A330, # 3 the 747 and # 4 the 787.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 1:37 am

CRJockey wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter.


Man, I wish people would stop to insinuate corporate stupidity in every move by every company. Thousands of hours of analysis brought about the specs of the 787 and 777 or whatever aircraft model. That doesn't mean that it comes out perfect to market needs when it hits the market ten years later. All this babble about knowing it all better with hindsight... :roll:


I'm not insuating anything. And I'm not calling anything anything stupid. I am calling out multi-billion dollar corporations for their failures. They're supposed to be better than this. As citizens/taxpayers, customers/passengers, operators, and enthusiasts, we have the obligation to demand better. Better is the goal. Not excuses for people who are very highly compensated continually floundering.

Boeing was correct when they said the market wouldn't support the A380. Unfortunately, they were wrong when designing their own product lineup. There's enough failure to go around.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 6:15 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense


Where do you get your numbers? The 787 has not reached the A330 neither in orders nor in deliveries yet.

He said the most successful.

The A330 has 1810 orders. It first flew 29 years ago.
The 777 has 2,036 orders. It first flew 27 years ago.
The 787 has 1489 orders. It flew only 12 years ago.


The 777 and 787 are clearly in first and second place in terms of success or orders per year compared to the A330. The 787 in particular has decades to go and will easily exceed 3000 deliveries.

I would actually say the A350 is more successful than the A330.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:08 am

RJMAZ wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense


Where do you get your numbers? The 787 has not reached the A330 neither in orders nor in deliveries yet.

He said the most successful.

The A330 has 1810 orders. It first flew 29 years ago.
The 777 has 2,036 orders. It first flew 27 years ago.
The 787 has 1489 orders. It flew only 12 years ago.


The 777 and 787 are clearly in first and second place in terms of success or orders per year compared to the A330. The 787 in particular has decades to go and will easily exceed 3000 deliveries.

I would actually say the A350 is more successful than the A330.

It’s a difficult one to judge, in the method you had applied indeed the A350 would come in behind the 787 and ahead of the T7. One has to factor in I would imagine that at a larger scale one would expect a lower number to be sold and as time moves on the market grows and so would expect newer models to produce more.

Ultimately there are too many more variables than data point to make any sort of regressive analysis useful.

CRJockey wrote:

In another, more on topic matter: have we decided yet on Morrisond vs. flipdewaf? Or are we going to repeat the same arguments for another 12 pages?


12 pages? It’s been more than 12 threads I reckon! Arguments on video calls are so tepid compared to in person that I guess I’m missing them now working from home so much.

I find it difficult to vary my arguments against the same issues every time. If ones proposals are like a broken record then the run taps will be too.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:18 am

What ever Boeing does next, it better includes a A320/MAX-8 size aircraft with that is efficient on sub 1000nm routes. That is where the money lies. If you look at the biggest operators of NB aircraft, they thrive in fragmented markets creating demand with fragmented routes. There is no magic in that. WN, FR, etc. want an aircraft that has maximum 200 seats single class and is efficient on very short to short routes. Who ever has an aircraft family on offer that goes from 150-250 seats single class will book 3000+ orders from 2035 on, only with the 5 biggest ULCC/LCCs. Upgauging is a thing for hub-airlines but the mass market in the future lies in point to point connections.

The go to move should be a 6 abreast three class family going from 150-250 single class at 30". That catches a potential market of 20'000 aircraft in one go. A 7AB will not do that, because it will be absolutely uncompetitive in the sub 200 seat market and no sane airline will introduce a different cockpit in the ULCC/LCC market (or better business model). So you are already out of the market. The WN order for the MAX-7 showed that.

The LCC business model also replaces aircraft relatively young. 10-15 year old A320neo/MAX-8 will need replacement early to mid 2030s. So you better have an option ready that promises a family ranging from 150-250 seats. If you only can offer 220-230+ you are out of the tender process.

The engine OEMs know that too. The money will be made by the company that can offer a 10% fuel reduction on their next generation 35kn thrust engine, where you can sell 10s of thousands.

We will see how ULCC/LCCs will thrive this summer with their model and they will have the money to make a move and take market share. You better design an aircraft for them not for the likes of DL or EK.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:23 am

My impression is that lowcost airlines grow into longer routes. Ryanair goes to Israel and north Africa with their 737-800. Islas Canarias is another standard routing. So sub 1000 NM sounds way to short. That goes for Asia this being the main and key future market as well. How about Hawaii-flights? Plus lowcost airlines want mainstream aircraft that can be resold easily.

If you really finally want to go short haul only some new turboprop might be the most efficient configuration as flying a tiny bit slower would not make a big difference and you would have the "green bonus" for marketing.
Last edited by Noshow on Tue May 18, 2021 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:26 am

SteelChair wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:

I doubt most airlines agree. Especially a big one in Atlanta. My hunch (thats all it is) is that most 787s are used on "longer" routes most of the time.

The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter. Compare the OEW of the 787 and 777 to the A330 and A350.

I'm in favor of 7W. The LD2/3 argument is non sequitur. The 767 can carry an adequate number of LD3s (singly, not side by side of course) to carry all the bags for a normal flight. Imho the LD3 argument was promulgated by European protectionism/nationalism to justify A330s.

If Boeing listening to a few customers at the expense of others means 3300 orders across the 787 and 777 family then. Compared to about 2000 across the 330 and 350 then I mean. Few customers it is.

787 and 777 are the most and second most successful wide body programs. So please make your analysis make sense



777x order book weak and faltering.

No doubt the 787 has sold a lot of frames, but will never (cue endless accounting comments) make a dime. It's waaaayyyy heavier than it was supposed to be. Something like 50k more than a similarly equipped 767. 25 tons!

And many people consider the legacy 777 the last good program Boeing ever did. On time and profitable and all that stuff. 25 years ago. Ancient history.

If you just want to throw a tantrum over Boeing then by all means but your analysis did not make any sense. What does Boeing listening to one group of customers have to do with their cost overruns.

I don’t understand this a.net obsession with accounting. Are you actually serious? All that cash Boeing made pre max, was it not from delivering 787s? Every time a 787 is delivered you get cash. You can do all the accounting mathematics you like. Well they deliver a 787, they are making clean Cash profit and accounting profit. Could we say that for A380? Can we say that for A220? There’s even no point going down all that.

It’s such a pathetic way to look for something bad to say and people here always use it like who actually gives a damn. There’s nobody that will look at a 787 program and say mehn that was a failure. 1500 orders in 12 years?? For a widebody?? This is even without a freighter, Airbus could dream. Show me who else has done that. That 350, they should release the real backlog that 900 frames on order is a joke and they know it. The 787 is damn good aircraft, a successful program and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years. Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.

As for weight. 787 weighs more than 767 and so what? Why won’t it it’s a bigger frame by length and by width and by fuel capacity and it travels farther. Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same. You can check if you like. The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO. Which is actually comparable size

330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?


Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.

Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA
 
CRJockey
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 8:08 am

SteelChair wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
The 787 is another example of Boeing listening to only some customers at the expense of others, and building too much airplane (too big, too heavy, too much range). See 777x, or the entire 777 series for that matter.


Man, I wish people would stop to insinuate corporate stupidity in every move by every company. Thousands of hours of analysis brought about the specs of the 787 and 777 or whatever aircraft model. That doesn't mean that it comes out perfect to market needs when it hits the market ten years later. All this babble about knowing it all better with hindsight... :roll:


I'm not insuating anything. And I'm not calling anything anything stupid. I am calling out multi-billion dollar corporations for their failures. They're supposed to be better than this. As citizens/taxpayers, customers/passengers, operators, and enthusiasts, we have the obligation to demand better. Better is the goal. Not excuses for people who are very highly compensated continually floundering.

Boeing was correct when they said the market wouldn't support the A380. Unfortunately, they were wrong when designing their own product lineup. There's enough failure to go around.


If you believe Boeing listened to "only some" customers at the expense of others you either don't understand the design compromises necessary for a versatile aircraft or you consider them to stupid to evaluate customer feedback properly.
And obligation to demand better? Please, spare me the pathos.

Boeing was so correct in predicting the 380 demise that they spent some hard cash on developing a counter offer in the 747-8.
And Boeing was correct in setting up their line up.

Execution was poor since at least the 787 program. Not the line up. A flawless 737Max design introduction would have nicely kicked down the 737 replacement down the road, earning Boeing billions and billions of easy money, creating lots of breathing space getting 787 profitability to where they want it and think about where to get their future line up come 2035ish.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 8:38 am

Many members here think Boeing should make an A321 narrowbody copy with excellent range. Boeing understands that designing an aircraft with lower range, reduces weight and improved per seat efficiency. The 787-10 and 737-10 are excellent examples of Boeing putting this into practice.

The whole point of the small widebody 797 is to then allow Boeing to make an ultra short range and highly efficient narrowbody to replace the 737MAX. We must remember around 90% of narrowbody routes are under 1,000nm. No Airbus rewinged A321XXXLR or A220-900 could compete with a Boeing 2,000nm max range truss wing narrowbody.

Such a short range Boeing model could not work without a small medium range widebody underneith the 787. The small Boeing widebody would share very few parts with the short range narrowbody. Sharing a cross section, nose or tail would be out of the question as the narrowbody would probably be high winged and the widebody conventional low winged.

The 787NEO will cause the 787-10 to be more capable. The 797 then had plenty of market.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 9:00 am

I believe it when I see it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 9:29 am

My main question when considering the NMA would be:
Could Boeing get away with the combination of B787-8 and new 6-abreast narrowbody (250 passengers + 5,000 to 5,500nmi nmi range).

I said yes. So, where does 7-abreast aircraft fits into the market?
Last edited by ewt340 on Tue May 18, 2021 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

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