Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4125
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 9:32 am

Opus99 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
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.

If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.

Opus99 wrote:
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.

Is the A350 not holding its own?
Opus99 wrote:
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.

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?
Opus99 wrote:
The 787 is damn good aircraft,

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).
Opus99 wrote:
a successful program

Debatable.
Opus99 wrote:
and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?
Opus99 wrote:

Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...
Opus99 wrote:

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.

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.
Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.

Does it?
Opus99 wrote:
You can check if you like.
Where?

Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO.
Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Opus99 wrote:
Which is actually comparable size

330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?
Tantrum much?
Opus99 wrote:
Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.
Opus99 wrote:

Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred
Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 10:20 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:


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.

If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.

Opus99 wrote:
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.

Is the A350 not holding its own?
Opus99 wrote:
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.

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?
Opus99 wrote:
The 787 is damn good aircraft,

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).
Opus99 wrote:
a successful program

Debatable.
Opus99 wrote:
and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?
Opus99 wrote:

Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...
Opus99 wrote:

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.

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.
Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.

Does it?
Opus99 wrote:
You can check if you like.
Where?

Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO.
Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Opus99 wrote:
Which is actually comparable size

330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?
Tantrum much?
Opus99 wrote:
Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.
Opus99 wrote:

Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X


I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny. The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny. As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad? That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have. But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to
 
brindabella
Posts: 731
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 10:56 am

ewt340 wrote:
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?


788 has much too much capability.

797 will be shorter range and much, much lighter.

cheers
Billy
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4125
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 11:42 am

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
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.

If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.

Opus99 wrote:
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.

Is the A350 not holding its own?
Opus99 wrote:
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.

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?
Opus99 wrote:
The 787 is damn good aircraft,

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).
Opus99 wrote:
a successful program

Debatable.
Opus99 wrote:
and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?
Opus99 wrote:

Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...
Opus99 wrote:

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.

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.
Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.

Does it?
Opus99 wrote:
You can check if you like.
Where?

Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO.
Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Opus99 wrote:
Which is actually comparable size

330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?
Tantrum much?
Opus99 wrote:
Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.
Opus99 wrote:

Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

It's on wikipedia?! I suppose it must be true...
Opus99 wrote:
There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

I'm afraid your claim is there to be proven or evidence found by yourself, it isn't for others who have made no claim to find evidence that yours is incorrect. I'm quite happy to let the individual reader/user determine if your wikipedia source is reliable or not.
Opus99 wrote:

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X

I agree, both aircraft appear to not compete as well against their newer competitors, numbers build confidence which build numbers. It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy. No-one buys an aircraft that has not future for fear of resale value and residual costs, it has no resale value because no one is buying. The best thing Boeing did was the massive ramp up of the 787, get the installed base high and the sell later becomes easier.
Opus99 wrote:
I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny.

The more you say it doesn't make it more true.
Opus99 wrote:
The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny.

A rich industrialised nation wanting to order Big jets? Why is that funny?
Opus99 wrote:
As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus

Are these not the ones assumed by IAG? the parent company of both Aer lingus and Iberia and transferred then to Iberia?

Opus99 wrote:
and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is

Twas ever thus? You apply the same reasoning to being or are they immune from your tantrums?
Opus99 wrote:
and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad?

...
Opus99 wrote:
That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have.

of course it won't it only takes one cancellation, like it does with any manufacturer.
Opus99 wrote:
But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to

Totally, you play to the rules you are given. If you don't have to remove orders from the books to make them look better you can. Just like you would shift costs to a future date with no interest to change the value of the asset. Companies can only operate within the frameworks that they are allowed to.

Edit: you still havent said what the 36bn number was? and why the 1500 frames number is relevant to it? or why 12 years matters? Far from it for me to accusatory but those just feel like numbers thrown in the hope that something sticks? Was there a valid point to be made?

Fred
Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:19 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.


Is the A350 not holding its own?

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).

Debatable.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.

Does it?
Where?

Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Tantrum much?
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

It's on wikipedia?! I suppose it must be true...
Opus99 wrote:
There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

I'm afraid your claim is there to be proven or evidence found by yourself, it isn't for others who have made no claim to find evidence that yours is incorrect. I'm quite happy to let the individual reader/user determine if your wikipedia source is reliable or not.
Opus99 wrote:

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X

I agree, both aircraft appear to not compete as well against their newer competitors, numbers build confidence which build numbers. It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy. No-one buys an aircraft that has not future for fear of resale value and residual costs, it has no resale value because no one is buying. The best thing Boeing did was the massive ramp up of the 787, get the installed base high and the sell later becomes easier.
Opus99 wrote:
I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny.

The more you say it doesn't make it more true.
Opus99 wrote:
The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny.

A rich industrialised nation wanting to order Big jets? Why is that funny?
Opus99 wrote:
As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus

Are these not the ones assumed by IAG? the parent company of both Aer lingus and Iberia and transferred then to Iberia?

Opus99 wrote:
and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is

Twas ever thus? You apply the same reasoning to being or are they immune from your tantrums?
Opus99 wrote:
and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad?

...
Opus99 wrote:
That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have.

of course it won't it only takes one cancellation, like it does with any manufacturer.
Opus99 wrote:
But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to

Totally, you play to the rules you are given. If you don't have to remove orders from the books to make them look better you can. Just like you would shift costs to a future date with no interest to change the value of the asset. Companies can only operate within the frameworks that they are allowed to.

Edit: you still havent said what the 36bn number was? and why the 1500 frames number is relevant to it? or why 12 years matters? Far from it for me to accusatory but those just feel like numbers thrown in the hope that something sticks? Was there a valid point to be made?

Fred

You said where, i brought it. If there is another source bring it. I have looked. Those who are better informed can bring their source . The person that their tantrum said the 787 weighs more than the 330 go and ask them for their own source or where they got their numbers. You said I’m using opinions to make fact. I brought where I saw it or because it’s airbus it’s immune from your inspection. You’re coming here to disturb me. Whether those numbers are true you can’t confirm nor deny. That is what I have, like I’ve said somebody can see this and completely destroy my argument and I will give way, but that is what I saw so that is what I’m saying. The person that had their airbus tantrum you didn’t disturb them about their facts because I took the opposing side you’re coming to disturb me. Till you’ve collected their own source you can put me on hold. I’ll wait.

See if you have figures to debase me Then bring it. I won’t argue it honestly. Wiki is not always best source but it’s what one has

Iran Air rescinded that contract. So it has no business there and that’s the point


Boeing at least by law are more transparent on what the true backlog is so yes on the question of backlog they are immune. But for many of their other problems know.

36 billion in development cost for the 787 and for the 380. If we want to discuss success and failure. The 380 is the prime example of commercial failure, like you said 787 is debatable. Fair enough but for steelchair to come and say Boeing listened to a few customers so the 787 is a failure, overbuilt and too much plane? Does that statement make sense to you? But it’s ME that is striking your eye?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10307
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:43 pm

At least the business case has become simple, it is a go if AerCap and Avalon order 40%+ of the frames you need for a launch, if they don´t, scrap the idea.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4125
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 12:56 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

It's on wikipedia?! I suppose it must be true...
Opus99 wrote:
There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

I'm afraid your claim is there to be proven or evidence found by yourself, it isn't for others who have made no claim to find evidence that yours is incorrect. I'm quite happy to let the individual reader/user determine if your wikipedia source is reliable or not.
Opus99 wrote:

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X

I agree, both aircraft appear to not compete as well against their newer competitors, numbers build confidence which build numbers. It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy. No-one buys an aircraft that has not future for fear of resale value and residual costs, it has no resale value because no one is buying. The best thing Boeing did was the massive ramp up of the 787, get the installed base high and the sell later becomes easier.
Opus99 wrote:
I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny.

The more you say it doesn't make it more true.
Opus99 wrote:
The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny.

A rich industrialised nation wanting to order Big jets? Why is that funny?
Opus99 wrote:
As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus

Are these not the ones assumed by IAG? the parent company of both Aer lingus and Iberia and transferred then to Iberia?

Opus99 wrote:
and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is

Twas ever thus? You apply the same reasoning to being or are they immune from your tantrums?
Opus99 wrote:
and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad?

...
Opus99 wrote:
That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have.

of course it won't it only takes one cancellation, like it does with any manufacturer.
Opus99 wrote:
But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to

Totally, you play to the rules you are given. If you don't have to remove orders from the books to make them look better you can. Just like you would shift costs to a future date with no interest to change the value of the asset. Companies can only operate within the frameworks that they are allowed to.

Edit: you still havent said what the 36bn number was? and why the 1500 frames number is relevant to it? or why 12 years matters? Far from it for me to accusatory but those just feel like numbers thrown in the hope that something sticks? Was there a valid point to be made?

Fred

You said where, i brought it. If there is another source bring it. I have looked. Those who are better informed can bring their source . The person that their tantrum said the 787 weighs more than the 330 go and ask them for their own source or where they got their numbers. You said I’m using opinions to make fact. I brought where I saw it or because it’s airbus it’s immune from your inspection. You’re coming here to disturb me. Whether those numbers are true you can’t confirm nor deny. That is what I have, like I’ve said somebody can see this and completely destroy my argument and I will give way, but that is what I saw so that is what I’m saying. The person that had their airbus tantrum you didn’t disturb them about their facts because I took the opposing side you’re coming to disturb me. Till you’ve collected their own source you can put me on hold. I’ll wait.

See if you have figures to debase me Then bring it. I won’t argue it honestly. Wiki is not always best source but it’s what one has

Iran Air rescinded that contract. So it has no business there and that’s the point


Boeing at least by law are more transparent on what the true backlog is so yes on the question of backlog they are immune. But for many of their other problems know.

36 billion in development cost for the 787 and for the 380. If we want to discuss success and failure. The 380 is the prime example of commercial failure, like you said 787 is debatable. Fair enough but for steelchair to come and say Boeing listened to a few customers so the 787 is a failure, overbuilt and too much plane? Does that statement make sense to you? But it’s ME that is striking your eye?


777x order book weak and faltering.
Sounds reasonable to me...

No doubt the 787 has sold a lot of frames, but will never (cue endless accounting comments) make a dime.
LIke you agreed to, debatable.
It's waaaayyyy heavier than it was supposed to be.
initial estimates of the 7E7 were 93t MEW, it ended up ~100t. thats a lot.
Something like 50k more than a similarly equipped 767. 25 tons!
also true.

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.
Many people do consider this, I'd wager that the NG program was a complete success and this was after the launch of the 777.

Personally I disagree with what Steelchair had to say in terms of the few customers taking over the 787, as far as I can tell Boeing pulled a blinder by talking about the 767 and 757 during the development program and what they were actually targeting was the A330 territory, the noise of the "new 767" masked the fact that is was actually a "new A330"

Reason you feel picked on? Because you had a tantrum whilst accusing someone else of having one. It somehow felt more intellectually dishonest.

Fred
Image
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 1:35 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

It's on wikipedia?! I suppose it must be true...

I'm afraid your claim is there to be proven or evidence found by yourself, it isn't for others who have made no claim to find evidence that yours is incorrect. I'm quite happy to let the individual reader/user determine if your wikipedia source is reliable or not.

I agree, both aircraft appear to not compete as well against their newer competitors, numbers build confidence which build numbers. It's almost a self fulfilling prophecy. No-one buys an aircraft that has not future for fear of resale value and residual costs, it has no resale value because no one is buying. The best thing Boeing did was the massive ramp up of the 787, get the installed base high and the sell later becomes easier.

The more you say it doesn't make it more true.

A rich industrialised nation wanting to order Big jets? Why is that funny?

Are these not the ones assumed by IAG? the parent company of both Aer lingus and Iberia and transferred then to Iberia?


Twas ever thus? You apply the same reasoning to being or are they immune from your tantrums?

...

of course it won't it only takes one cancellation, like it does with any manufacturer.

Totally, you play to the rules you are given. If you don't have to remove orders from the books to make them look better you can. Just like you would shift costs to a future date with no interest to change the value of the asset. Companies can only operate within the frameworks that they are allowed to.

Edit: you still havent said what the 36bn number was? and why the 1500 frames number is relevant to it? or why 12 years matters? Far from it for me to accusatory but those just feel like numbers thrown in the hope that something sticks? Was there a valid point to be made?

Fred

You said where, i brought it. If there is another source bring it. I have looked. Those who are better informed can bring their source . The person that their tantrum said the 787 weighs more than the 330 go and ask them for their own source or where they got their numbers. You said I’m using opinions to make fact. I brought where I saw it or because it’s airbus it’s immune from your inspection. You’re coming here to disturb me. Whether those numbers are true you can’t confirm nor deny. That is what I have, like I’ve said somebody can see this and completely destroy my argument and I will give way, but that is what I saw so that is what I’m saying. The person that had their airbus tantrum you didn’t disturb them about their facts because I took the opposing side you’re coming to disturb me. Till you’ve collected their own source you can put me on hold. I’ll wait.

See if you have figures to debase me Then bring it. I won’t argue it honestly. Wiki is not always best source but it’s what one has

Iran Air rescinded that contract. So it has no business there and that’s the point


Boeing at least by law are more transparent on what the true backlog is so yes on the question of backlog they are immune. But for many of their other problems know.

36 billion in development cost for the 787 and for the 380. If we want to discuss success and failure. The 380 is the prime example of commercial failure, like you said 787 is debatable. Fair enough but for steelchair to come and say Boeing listened to a few customers so the 787 is a failure, overbuilt and too much plane? Does that statement make sense to you? But it’s ME that is striking your eye?


777x order book weak and faltering.
Sounds reasonable to me...

No doubt the 787 has sold a lot of frames, but will never (cue endless accounting comments) make a dime.
LIke you agreed to, debatable.
It's waaaayyyy heavier than it was supposed to be.
initial estimates of the 7E7 were 93t MEW, it ended up ~100t. thats a lot.
Something like 50k more than a similarly equipped 767. 25 tons!
also true.

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.
Many people do consider this, I'd wager that the NG program was a complete success and this was after the launch of the 777.

Personally I disagree with what Steelchair had to say in terms of the few customers taking over the 787, as far as I can tell Boeing pulled a blinder by talking about the 767 and 757 during the development program and what they were actually targeting was the A330 territory, the noise of the "new 767" masked the fact that is was actually a "new A330"

Reason you feel picked on? Because you had a tantrum whilst accusing someone else of having one. It somehow felt more intellectually dishonest.

Fred

Except the 787 and 767 are not similarly equipped so they shouldn’t weigh the same which you agreed to. So why are you agreeing here. 767-400ER will not sit close to and cannot fly any where near as far as a 787-9. So pick one

As for composites not doing the job. I think they did because they did make a 787-9 lighter from what I’ve seen than a 330neo. Not a 330CEO but then that cannot even fly the payload at range of a 787 and we know what a beef up can do to OEW. The 330neo is what comes close and what should be compared and in that instance the composite delivers a lighter frame from what I’ve seen so far.

Why would I manufacture a figure from thin-air.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 1:58 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
... the LD3 is the standard and the LD2 the outlier.

... yet new 767s are still coming out of the factory and retired pax 767s are being converted to freighter at many places around the earth. Point is the world is not having a huge problem with more than one size container. If it was, 767 would have died a long time ago. Instead, Amazon based its whole operation around 767.

CRJockey wrote:
Yes, I give you that! :-) All this over-sobriety here bores me to death. As does the blind believe in everything that has been printed by mediocre journalists and is then used as "source".

The forum has rules on the first page of the site that say that links need to be provided, otherwise statements are just opinions. If this is too confining for you, maybe start your own forum. I think we've found here the need to produce a link at least makes people sanity check what they are saying, thus the rule. Links are sources, sources aren't guaranteed to be truthful, it's up to the reader to look at the link and decide if the author is credible or not. Overall I think the rule is a good one, although I have to say the media's standards have dropped over the years.

SteelChair wrote:
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.

Comparing aircraft solely by weight is a massive fail for you. Those efficient engines are a lot heavier than the old ones and 787 provides more range than A330. A350 is also heavier than A330, so what if it provides better fuel burn per pax over greater range?
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
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 2:26 pm

brindabella wrote:
797 will be shorter range and much, much lighter.
cheers


of course it will be... because it will be the single-aisle narrow body replacement to the 737. there will be no 7AB.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 3:33 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
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.

If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.

Opus99 wrote:
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.

Is the A350 not holding its own?
Opus99 wrote:
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.

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?
Opus99 wrote:
The 787 is damn good aircraft,

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).
Opus99 wrote:
a successful program

Debatable.
Opus99 wrote:
and anybody that tells you otherwise has too much salt in their mouth. 36 billion for 1500 frames in 12 years.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?
Opus99 wrote:

Or 36 billion for 250 frames. Imagine that was Boeing. Wow we will never hear the end of it.

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...
Opus99 wrote:

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.

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.
Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.

Does it?
Opus99 wrote:
You can check if you like.
Where?

Opus99 wrote:
The 787-9 comes in at about 7 tonnes lighter than the 330NEO.
Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Opus99 wrote:
Which is actually comparable size

330NEO order book is weak, faltering and fake. So?
Tantrum much?
Opus99 wrote:
Ultimately your Back to the topic at hand please.
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.
Opus99 wrote:

Single aisle vs Twin aisle NMA


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X


I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny. The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny. As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad? That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have. But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to


Why do you look at the A330neo only? Most of the time the 787 competed with the A330ceo. The A330neo is just the new model. When you talk about the 777 you also talk about the whole and not only one or two models.

So if we look at the real numbers:
Orders 787 1,489, orders A330 1,810
Deliveries 787 1,003, deliveries A330 1,514, Deliveries of A330 since the 787 starting to get delivered in 2011, 804.
So between 2011 and 2021 1003 787 and 804 A330 got delivered.
All that time the A330 had a rather small backlog compared to the 787.
Does backlog matter or deliveries? The whole order number or backlog?
It is no question that the 787 has to get quite a lot of orders and make a lot of deliveries to match the A330.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 4:20 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
If we are only looking to what is going to be most helpful in the future then yes, I'd agree the costs that have been spent have been spent and don't really matter but can we really judge a programs performance if we don't take account of what has been spent? Personally I would say it is bigger than both of those issue and comes down to whether Boeing, as a company is worth more for having done the 787 program than if it had not and personally I think it is. I don't think though that we should ignore the fact that Boeing absolutely dropped a bollock on the 787 implementation.


Is the A350 not holding its own?

Can you add any more detail or is this just a tantrum?

I totally agree (except for those stupid window blinds).

Debatable.

What is the $36bn figure? and how is it relevant to the 1500 frames? or the time frame?

Agreed, that was Airbus, and we don't hear the end of it. Nor should we. Those who ignore history are damned to repeat it. Good job Boeing got the management in order after the 787 debacle...

I agree, its a totally different class of airframe, it was initially planned at the 757/767 replacement level but I think airbus were caught napping when it really was an A330 sized machine.

Does it?
Where?

Does it? Can you tell me how you know?
Tantrum much?
I don't think accusing someone of having a tantrum then following it up with your own tantrum allows you to then shift the topic away with competely unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as facts left in the open.


As ever, if the mission requirements of an aircraft are known its relatively trivial to determine whether its single or twin aisle, the problem is no-one is defining it. A narrowbody works best below 300 seats all Y and a widebody above this. Having an aircraft family that crosses this risks one end of the capacity range being unoptimised enough vs incumbent and future models. A widebody at low capacity is too heavy and draggy, a narrowbody at 300+ becomes too long.

There may be a market there or there may not but physics doesn't care what the market wants.

Fred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X


I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny. The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny. As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad? That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have. But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to


Why do you look at the A330neo only? Most of the time the 787 competed with the A330ceo. The A330neo is just the new model. When you talk about the 777 you also talk about the whole and not only one or two models.

So if we look at the real numbers:
Orders 787 1,489, orders A330 1,810
Deliveries 787 1,003, deliveries A330 1,514, Deliveries of A330 since the 787 starting to get delivered in 2011, 804.
So between 2011 and 2021 1003 787 and 804 A330 got delivered.
All that time the A330 had a rather small backlog compared to the 787.
Does backlog matter or deliveries? The whole order number or backlog?
It is no question that the 787 has to get quite a lot of orders and make a lot of deliveries to match the A330.

Because the 330NEO is the answer to the 787. I thought that was common knowledge. The CEO cannot compete with the 787, if it did. Airbus won’t have bothered increasing the range to the extent that they did.

The 777 I don’t include the 777X which is why I said about 3300 for both. 1700 + 1500 = 3200. I mean I mean 777 is slightly more than and then 787 slightly less than so it balances out. So yes 3200.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 4:45 pm

Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.

As for 330NEO order book. Everybody here can agree that it’s weak as he pointed out for the 777X


I’ll take that I went into a tantrum myself, 350 IS holding its own but debating airbus backlog numbers is funny. The fact that airbus still counts Iran air’s 16 A350-1000s is funny. As well as counting 5 A350s for Aer Lingus and these are some examples of how it’s very difficult to know what the real backlog Is and I’m sure there are a few in there that are sketchy. This is just going off the top of my head. Etihad? That backlog as it stands will probably not take them to the 913 orders they claim they have. But if I were them way the hell would I show my true backlog if I didn’t have to


Why do you look at the A330neo only? Most of the time the 787 competed with the A330ceo. The A330neo is just the new model. When you talk about the 777 you also talk about the whole and not only one or two models.

So if we look at the real numbers:
Orders 787 1,489, orders A330 1,810
Deliveries 787 1,003, deliveries A330 1,514, Deliveries of A330 since the 787 starting to get delivered in 2011, 804.
So between 2011 and 2021 1003 787 and 804 A330 got delivered.
All that time the A330 had a rather small backlog compared to the 787.
Does backlog matter or deliveries? The whole order number or backlog?
It is no question that the 787 has to get quite a lot of orders and make a lot of deliveries to match the A330.

Because the 330NEO is the answer to the 787. I thought that was common knowledge. The CEO cannot compete with the 787, if it did. Airbus won’t have bothered increasing the range to the extent that they did.

The 777 I don’t include the 777X which is why I said about 3300 for both. 1700 + 1500 = 3200. I mean I mean 777 is slightly more than and then 787 slightly less than so it balances out. So yes 3200.


You try to compare apple to bananas to make your argument. Even looking at the 777 we see different engines and an increase in wingspan with winglets. So if you want to pick out some models of the A330 to compare, why use an engine and winglet change to define your numbers and not the whole run.
Furthermore the step between the 777 and 777X is far bigger than the step between the A330ceo and neo. So your argument you do not take the 777X into your calculation, again an apple and bananas comparison.

If you want to compare the 787 with the A330neo only, why do you than not look at orders since the A330 is on offer in 2014. 787 418 orders and A330neo 381 orders. since than, the other time the 787 was competing with the A330ceo. See looks straight away completely different.

You pick all the models of the 777 to compare it to two models of the A330. You want to use the order history of the 787 since 2004 and want to compare it with the order history of the A330neo since 2014.
The 787 was build to compete with the A330. An upgrade to the A330 does not change that.

Hand picking some strange data points, brings strange comparisons and results.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 4:54 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
...s far as I can tell Boeing pulled a blinder by talking about the 767 and 757 during the development program and what they were actually targeting was the A330 territory, the noise of the "new 767" masked the fact that is was actually a "new A330"


The original 7E7 was sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200. The 777 team was very protective of their space and did not want the 7E7 encroaching upon it and the 767 had been supplanted by the A330-200 in the marketplace so that is where the most immediate need was for a new model in Boeing's line-up.

As they spoke with airlines, the general consensus was they wanted a larger frame that could replace the A340-300 at 8-abreast and the 777-200ER at 9-abreast. With 777-200ER sales declining, but 777-300ER sales being very strong, Boeing decided to acquiesce to the customer base and allow the 7E7-9 to grow to the size and weights necessary to handle the 777-200ER mission profile.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 5:05 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Why do you look at the A330neo only? Most of the time the 787 competed with the A330ceo. The A330neo is just the new model. When you talk about the 777 you also talk about the whole and not only one or two models.

So if we look at the real numbers:
Orders 787 1,489, orders A330 1,810
Deliveries 787 1,003, deliveries A330 1,514, Deliveries of A330 since the 787 starting to get delivered in 2011, 804.
So between 2011 and 2021 1003 787 and 804 A330 got delivered.
All that time the A330 had a rather small backlog compared to the 787.
Does backlog matter or deliveries? The whole order number or backlog?
It is no question that the 787 has to get quite a lot of orders and make a lot of deliveries to match the A330.

Because the 330NEO is the answer to the 787. I thought that was common knowledge. The CEO cannot compete with the 787, if it did. Airbus won’t have bothered increasing the range to the extent that they did.

The 777 I don’t include the 777X which is why I said about 3300 for both. 1700 + 1500 = 3200. I mean I mean 777 is slightly more than and then 787 slightly less than so it balances out. So yes 3200.


You try to compare apple to bananas to make your argument. Even looking at the 777 we see different engines and an increase in wingspan with winglets. So if you want to pick out some models of the A330 to compare, why use an engine and winglet change to define your numbers and not the whole run.
Furthermore the step between the 777 and 777X is far bigger than the step between the A330ceo and neo. So your argument you do not take the 777X into your calculation, again an apple and bananas comparison.

If you want to compare the 787 with the A330neo only, why do you than not look at orders since the A330 is on offer in 2014. 787 418 orders and A330neo 381 orders. since than, the other time the 787 was competing with the A330ceo. See looks straight away completely different.

You pick all the models of the 777 to compare it to two models of the A330. You want to use the order history of the 787 since 2004 and want to compare it with the order history of the A330neo since 2014.
The 787 was build to compete with the A330. An upgrade to the A330 does not change that.

Hand picking some strange data points, brings strange comparisons and results.

Compare it anyway you want, I don’t really care. The point is that Boeing still dominates the widebody market. And that is because of their double success in the 777 and the 787.

787 and 330 EIS are almost 20 years apart, maybe that’s why I chose to compare it to the NEO.

Anyway in that. IMO the 787 has surpassed the 330CEO or NEO anyone you want both in capability and efficiency and that is shown by its quick sales.

330 over 25 years in service sits at 1800 orders. 1500 for the 787 12 years. Wonder how this discussion will balance when the 787 reaches 25 years. Maybe 2500? Who knows. That is just my opinion anyway. It doesn’t mean anything
 
astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 5:18 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Compare it anyway you want, I don’t really care. The point is that Boeing still dominates the widebody market. And that is because of their double success in the 777 and the 787.


I have a suspicion that the biggest contributor to Boeing's widebody "dominance", if that is what it is, is its success with freighters.
Over the last few years, I believe passenger widebody sales have been somewhat similar.

Rgds
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 5:20 pm

astuteman wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Compare it anyway you want, I don’t really care. The point is that Boeing still dominates the widebody market. And that is because of their double success in the 777 and the 787.


I have a suspicion that the biggest contributor to Boeing's widebody "dominance", if that is what it is, is its success with freighters.
Over the last few years, I believe passenger widebody sales have been somewhat similar.

Rgds

That is also very true and a good point. The 747-8F and 777F have not done a bad job recently actually
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 5:28 pm

EAARbrat wrote:
morrisond wrote:
I know your talking about production targets because it couldn't be quality targets as they never ever hit those on anything they produce.


You get what the Chinese producer was paid for.
.. What do you actually expect to get for "short to nothing" ?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 5:45 pm

Would building a dedicated short-haul aircraft allow Boeing to source engines that could do the quick turns needed for Hawaii, or would that still be an issue?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4125
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:11 pm

Stitch wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
...s far as I can tell Boeing pulled a blinder by talking about the 767 and 757 during the development program and what they were actually targeting was the A330 territory, the noise of the "new 767" masked the fact that is was actually a "new A330"


The original 7E7 was sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200. The 777 team was very protective of their space and did not want the 7E7 encroaching upon it and the 767 had been supplanted by the A330-200 in the marketplace so that is where the most immediate need was for a new model in Boeing's line-up.

As they spoke with airlines, the general consensus was they wanted a larger frame that could replace the A340-300 at 8-abreast and the 777-200ER at 9-abreast. With 777-200ER sales declining, but 777-300ER sales being very strong, Boeing decided to acquiesce to the customer base and allow the 7E7-9 to grow to the size and weights necessary to handle the 777-200ER mission profile.

That all makes sense, I think the fact that I was a drunk student during the whole transition from 7e7 through to empty shell roll out probably clouds my vision. It did always seem to be compared to the 767 though.

I do remember visiting airbus sites during the 2006/7 period and feeling like they weren’t in a good place from a management perspective and being outmanoeuvred on every angle by Boeing, the A340ng was failing and the point to point vs hub to hub model seemed like Boeing had it right.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:17 pm

There are multiple reasons weight matters. Boeing gets more $$ per pound, no wonder they want to sell bigger airplanes.....at the expense of the airlines. Landing fees, pilot pay, and fuel consumption all increase with more weight and airlines have to pay those costs in perpetuity. Engines have to run harder to carry more weight, thus they wear out faster, yet another operating cost that airlines pay forever....there are so many. So when Boeing builds airplanes spec'd out for the ME3, those airplanes are suboptimal for 80% (random guess) of the routes that other airlines need to use them on. So be it. Let Boeing choke on the ME3 (and Southwest for that matter, we saw how that worked out with the MAX).
 
Rekoff
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue May 18, 2021 7:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:36 pm

Opus99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Opus99 wrote:
Bear in mind the 787-10 that is about 50 seats bigger than a 330NEO weigh the same.

Does it?
Opus99 wrote:
You can check if you like.

Where?

Opus99 wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.





Could you substantiate your 50 seats bigger at same weight claim Opus99, beyond just posting a link the wikipedia pages?

From your own links:
OEW of A330-900 is 300k lb, maximum passengers (1 class) = 460
OEW of 787-10 is 299k lb, maximum passengers (1 class) = 440

I surely hope the reason you come to a different conclusion is not based on your own criteria what makes for an acceptable passenger experience? This argument, after all, seems never valid for the 737 and 777-10ab.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue May 18, 2021 7:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
... the LD3 is the standard and the LD2 the outlier.

... yet new 767s are still coming out of the factory and retired pax 767s are being converted to freighter at many places around the earth. Point is the world is not having a huge problem with more than one size container. If it was, 767 would have died a long time ago. Instead, Amazon based its whole operation around 767.


That still does not change that the LD3 the standard is. While LD2 use increases in some freight airlines, LD2 use decreases rapidly at passenger airlines with the shrinking numbers of 767 in passenger service. A330, A350, 787 and 777 all use LD3. And we talk here not about a new freighter, but passenger frame with or without freight capabilities.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26335
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 1:40 am

SteelChair wrote:
There are multiple reasons weight matters.

No one said weight doesn't matter, all that was said was comparing aircraft solely by weight is a massive fail.

mjoelnir wrote:
That still does not change that the LD3 the standard is.

The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. Existence of "standard" Wintel PC didn't mean Mac disappeared. Growth of Android happened yet iOS still thrives. If an airplane sized around LD2 provides viable economics, it'll get produced.

Stitch wrote:
The original 7E7 was sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200. The 777 team was very protective of their space and did not want the 7E7 encroaching upon it and the 767 had been supplanted by the A330-200 in the marketplace so that is where the most immediate need was for a new model in Boeing's line-up.

As they spoke with airlines, the general consensus was they wanted a larger frame that could replace the A340-300 at 8-abreast and the 777-200ER at 9-abreast. With 777-200ER sales declining, but 777-300ER sales being very strong, Boeing decided to acquiesce to the customer base and allow the 7E7-9 to grow to the size and weights necessary to handle the 777-200ER mission profile.

Thanks for sharing, this matched my recollection 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: 2372
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 8:19 am

mjoelnir wrote:
That still does not change that the LD3 the standard is. While LD2 use increases in some freight airlines, LD2 use decreases rapidly at passenger airlines with the shrinking numbers of 767 in passenger service. A330, A350, 787 and 777 all use LD3. And we talk here not about a new freighter, but passenger frame with or without freight capabilities.

A container is around $1,000 each. I think we are putting in way too much emphasis on containers.

The A321 can't fit LD3 containers because it is too small and it has a unique container. Containers are so cheap that Boeing could also make a fully unique container for the 797. LD2 containers happen to perfectly fit a tight 8AB cross section so having commonality with the 767 is excellent. I don't see how anyone could see this as a negative.

LD3 containers in a MOM aircraft is ridiculous unless Boeing wants to relaunch the 787-3. Taking a huge efficiency hit just to fit a certain big container does not make sense.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1963
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 8:42 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.



Let's try to use some common sense here. The A330-300 on wikipedia has an OEW of 129t. You think the A339 weighs 6t more because Wikipedia says so. Are you sure you want to expose yourself like this here? Think carefully about those numbers again and think if you want to take the OEW of the A339 on Wikipedia as gospel.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2520
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 8:43 am

The transpacific range sized wing, just brutally chopped off, and the oversized structure killed the 787-3 not the fuselage diameter.
I still agree that something sized smaller is more promising. A CFRP 767.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 9:01 am

enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.



Let's try to use some common sense here. The A330-300 on wikipedia has an OEW of 129t. You think the A339 weighs 6t more because Wikipedia says so. Are you sure you want to expose yourself like this here? Think carefully about those numbers again and think if you want to take the OEW of the A339 on Wikipedia as gospel.

Am I taking it as die hard facts? He asked for where I saw my numbers that is where I saw it.

You people are not serious. If it’s Boeing that grew by 6 tonnes you will all sit down there and bring the breakdown of how they got there but for Airbus it is inconceivable.

Who knows what reinforcements they had to make

Or the larger wing that may I actually inform you is not composite. So that one just grew in weight. Only the wingtip is composite.

The engines are about 0.4 tonnes heavier

Lest we forget. 300 to 300ER grew by about 7 tonnes whilst still remaining in the same frame. And that is from Boeing’s own figures.

But this one is somehow inconceivable because Airbus are who? Please. See I’m not here to die on this hill. It may not be 6 tonnes, maybe it’s 5 maybe it’s 4 but if you think it didn’t grow significantly then you’re a joker
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 9:13 am

Opus99 wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A330neo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

There you go. If anybody has any other source to dispute it please bring it.



Let's try to use some common sense here. The A330-300 on wikipedia has an OEW of 129t. You think the A339 weighs 6t more because Wikipedia says so. Are you sure you want to expose yourself like this here? Think carefully about those numbers again and think if you want to take the OEW of the A339 on Wikipedia as gospel.

Am I taking it as die hard facts? He asked for where I saw my numbers that is where I saw it.

You people are not serious. If it’s Boeing that grew by 6 tonnes you will all sit down there and bring the breakdown of how they got there but for Airbus it is inconceivable.

Who knows what reinforcements they had to make

Or the larger wing that may I actually inform you is not composite. So that one just grew in weight. Only the wingtip is composite.

The engines are about 0.4 tonnes heavier

Lest we forget. 300 to 300ER grew by about 7 tonnes whilst still remaining in the same frame. And that is from Boeing’s own figures.

But this one is somehow inconceivable because Airbus are who? Please. See I’m not here to die on this hill. It may not be 6 tonnes, maybe it’s 5 maybe it’s 4 but if you think it didn’t grow significantly then you’re a joker

Leehams Bjorn Fehrn also states the 330NEO grew by about 5 tonnes from CEO to NEO
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 9:44 am

enzo011 wrote:
Let's try to use some common sense here. The A330-300 on wikipedia has an OEW of 129t. You think the A339 weighs 6t more because Wikipedia says so.

The MTOW did increase by 9t. This rarely comes for free and will most likely add 2,000kg to 3,000kg to the empty weight in the main wingbox, upgraded brakes etc. The new wing tips while small always require significant wing strengthening as the lift is moving outwards. So the wing tips themselves and the strengthening across the entire wing will easily be another 1,000kg. The Trent 7000 engines are another 1,000kg.

So 6,000kg OEW increase seems only slightly on the high side. Remember the 777X gains significant empty weight but the greater wingspan and higher bypass ratio engines more than makes up for this weight increase.

So the 787 has an empty weight around 4-5% lighter despite having the exact same cabin area. The 787-9 has a MTOW 1% higher and a payload 14% higher. Carbon fiber has allowed the 787 to be significantly lighter.

Let's assume two flights with the 787-9 and A330-900 both with the same payload weight and fuel loaded. It means the 787-9 takes off 6t lighter straight off the bat. So at every point of the flight the 787-9 is flying 2% lighter. This means it will burn less fuel on the trip.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1963
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 3:02 pm

If the A339 OEW is 135t it is dead. It is not the 787 that would have killed it but the A359. A longer aircraft able to take more passengers at the same weight. So let me get this right, Airbus has positioned the A339 at the same OEW as the A359 with less passengers because they feel like it?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27615
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 3:20 pm

enzo011 wrote:
If the A339 OEW is 135t it is dead. It is not the 787 that would have killed it but the A359. A longer aircraft able to take more passengers at the same weight. So let me get this right, Airbus has positioned the A339 at the same OEW as the A359 with less passengers because they feel like it?


Hi-Fly A330-900 has an OEW of 133,000kg
Finnair A350-900 has an OEW of 134,000kg

Mind you, both are configured with large Business Class cabins and also have Premium Economy so that ups the weight. The Hi-Fly A330-900s configured with a small Business Class and the rest Economy (18C | 353Y) have an OEW of 126,000kg.

For reference, the ex-SQ A330-300s Hi-Fly operate have an OEW of 124,000kg with 30C and 255Y.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed May 19, 2021 3:49 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Let's try to use some common sense here. The A330-300 on wikipedia has an OEW of 129t. You think the A339 weighs 6t more because Wikipedia says so.

The MTOW did increase by 9t. This rarely comes for free and will most likely add 2,000kg to 3,000kg to the empty weight in the main wingbox, upgraded brakes etc. The new wing tips while small always require significant wing strengthening as the lift is moving outwards. So the wing tips themselves and the strengthening across the entire wing will easily be another 1,000kg. The Trent 7000 engines are another 1,000kg.

So 6,000kg OEW increase seems only slightly on the high side. Remember the 777X gains significant empty weight but the greater wingspan and higher bypass ratio engines more than makes up for this weight increase.

So the 787 has an empty weight around 4-5% lighter despite having the exact same cabin area. The 787-9 has a MTOW 1% higher and a payload 14% higher. Carbon fiber has allowed the 787 to be significantly lighter.

Let's assume two flights with the 787-9 and A330-900 both with the same payload weight and fuel loaded. It means the 787-9 takes off 6t lighter straight off the bat. So at every point of the flight the 787-9 is flying 2% lighter. This means it will burn less fuel on the trip.


You talk about the things that increase the weight from the A330ceo to the A330neo, but there were other things done that decrease the weight., AKA removing all features used on the A340 only. There were the provision and strengthening for the middle MLG. Provisions preparing the wing for the four engines.
As the A330 had the same wing box as the 275 t A340, I can hardly imagine the neo needing a heavier wingbox than the ceo.
The new CAD programs allow also a more serious reevaluation of needed strength in certain areas. Airbus went on a weight watcher program with the A330neo.
So IMO the changes to fuselage and wing, apart from the new engines and wingtip devices, were near weight neutral. So a 6t OEW increase between the A330ceo and neo seem to me on the high side. I could imagine 2 to 4t.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 2:54 am

Some additional reasons why LD2 containers are perfect for the 797. The standard large pallets and square containers commonly used are rectangle. In the short direction they fit the 767 width perfect and in the long direction they fit A330/787 width perfect. No wasted space.

Image

After doing some research less than a quarter of ULD containers are LD3. Mainly passenger airlines that never operated the 747. The 747 and MD-11 containers also don't fit the A330 cross section and have to go sideways. But at 88inch wide sideways these containers in the 125inch wide floor of the A330 has lots of wasted space. The 767 at 96inch wide floor is a perfect fit.

Here is a PDF showing how the big pallets and containers fit in the 767 sideways.

https://www.airtransport.cc/wp-content/ ... ations.pdf

So bring on a tight 8AB cross section designed for LD2. 82% of the frontal cross section of the A330. Nice and slim to hit that smaller capacity.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 3:05 am

Imho it's much easier to compare OEW(BOW) at a single airline that operates both types that you are comparing (similar interiors/same seats and galleys).

I've wondered about weights and tried to find accurate weights for years. I would love to know how the weight of the composite A220 wing compares to the aluminum MD80 series wing since they have exactly the same wing area.

And yes, newer engines with their bigger fans and fan cases weigh more, but that doesn't mean that a lighter airframe wouldn't help burn even further. Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 4:18 am

SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10307
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 7:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.


Perfect analysis.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 7:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.


The push for range is and was according to what the airlines would buy. Sales increase with increased range capabilities. The 787 has had more range than its years long competitor, the A330ceo.

If a medium range light wide body would be the way to go, the A300 should still sell, but airlines wanted more range, ergo the A330. The A330-300 sold first really well at an increased range.

You can look for the same happening to the 767, the ER models sold better.

The A321ceo sells like hot cakes soon double the numbers of the A321ceo, guess what more range than the A321ceo.

Otherwise it gets easier and easier to design new frames for more range. Range is not the same weight factor as years ago. The same fuel amounts on a similar sized frame gives significantly more range with the newer engines. Or like the 777-9 you decrease the weight for fuel and keep the range.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2520
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:02 am

The dogma was, everything needs 8000 NM range. The 787-8 and the 747-8 (remember that is what the -8 was used for). The pair was intended to do over the Pacific what the 767 and 747-400 did over the Atlantic.
It would be quite interesting to now see (selected) lower range Boeings and higher range Airbus planes. Basically a smart move to not late copy the A321neo.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:06 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Some additional reasons why LD2 containers are perfect for the 797. The standard large pallets and square containers commonly used are rectangle. In the short direction they fit the 767 width perfect and in the long direction they fit A330/787 width perfect. No wasted space.

Image

After doing some research less than a quarter of ULD containers are LD3. Mainly passenger airlines that never operated the 747. The 747 and MD-11 containers also don't fit the A330 cross section and have to go sideways. But at 88inch wide sideways these containers in the 125inch wide floor of the A330 has lots of wasted space. The 767 at 96inch wide floor is a perfect fit.

Here is a PDF showing how the big pallets and containers fit in the 767 sideways.

https://www.airtransport.cc/wp-content/ ... ations.pdf

So bring on a tight 8AB cross section designed for LD2. 82% of the frontal cross section of the A330. Nice and slim to hit that smaller capacity.


Very interesting your post. Could you perhaps tell me what container the MD-10 or MD-11 is using for belly freight that does not fit the belly of the A300 or A330? Or tell me why when the bigger 777 uses the LD3 for belly freight and not a bigger MD family container?

The LD3 is used on the A300, A310, A330, A340, A350, A380 and 777, 787, MD-10, MD-11 and the 747. The 747 can use the LD1 that is mostly the same dimensions but higher and to my information only sporadically used today. There is one wide body family that can not use the LD3, the 767.
In regards to the A320 family, yes they use a propriety container the LD3-45. But look at the sheer number of frames in use.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:07 am

Airlines like flexibility. Range is not an enemy when the same frame can be used for a 7 hour trip one day and back and the next trip is 15 hours.

They want it all at the right capacity.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:24 am

seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.


Perfect analysis.


Indeed. Except for the small detail that it actually isn't.

As others have pointed out, increasing efficiency has led to more range providing more flexibility with a much smaller increase in cost that makes the trade-off worthwhile to airlines.

Putting more efficient engines on the both 787 and A350 won't change the relationship they have to each other at a specific range.
Also, the nominal 8,000Nm or so ranges are exactly that - nominal.

The A350-900 has a max payload range of 5,700Nm
Boeing don't publish the max payload range of the 787-10, but the 787-9's is 5,500Nm.

The 787-10's will be at least 1,000Nm less than that, say 4,500Nm.
So anywhere above 4,500Nm still air - i.e. about 3,700Nm - 3,800Nm real world, the A350-900 will carry a greater payload.

Those are not huge ranges. And a re-engine will only add about 10% to that figure, so say, 4,100Nm - 4,200Nm. I'm sure that will help the 787-10 - not much doubt about that.
But I don't think it will materially change the market dynamic

Rgds
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:31 am

astuteman wrote:
seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.


Perfect analysis.


Indeed. Except for the small detail that it actually isn't.

As others have pointed out, increasing efficiency has led to more range providing more flexibility with a much smaller increase in cost that makes the trade-off worthwhile to airlines.

Putting more efficient engines on the both 787 and A350 won't change the relationship they have to each other at a specific range.
Also, the nominal 8,000Nm or so ranges are exactly that - nominal.

The A350-900 has a max payload range of 5,700Nm
Boeing don't publish the max payload range of the 787-10, but the 787-9's is 5,500Nm.

The 787-10's will be at least 1,000Nm less than that, say 4,500Nm.
So anywhere above 4,500Nm still air - i.e. about 3,700Nm - 3,800Nm real world, the A350-900 will carry a greater payload.

Those are not huge ranges. And a re-engine will only add about 10% to that figure, so say, 4,100Nm - 4,200Nm. I'm sure that will help the 787-10 - not much doubt about that.
But I don't think it will materially change the market dynamic

Rgds

The 787-10 can go much further than that real world. 4500NM IS real world btw. It does it every day with United even pre Covid with full loads at 4900NM

So yes a re-engine will move the 787-9 and 350 to even more range but range to carry you where you don’t even need to go
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:37 am

The thing is, I do not see this MoM actually existing. We had aircraft that size (A300, 767) and people now thing because they existed, there has to be a replacement in that area, but the only reason we had them aircraft with their size was, that it was not possible to built bigger twin engine aircraft that had more range. The engines did not permit the 767 to be bigger. Only with the engine technology improving bigger twin engine aircraft were possible (A330/777). As soon as this was possible the 767 and A300 were dead. The demand was all but gone.

There is just no real route profile where you need more capacity than an A321/MAX-10 below 3000nm. If you need more you just add a second A321/MAX-10. Frequency is king and to few airports have restrictions.

The fact that special versions of NBs added range just increased the sales potentials but you can not build an aircraft that has more than 50t OEW that in any way or form can compete with the 737/A321. So as soon that it is heavier than that it needs to be able to lift a lot more to make it worth while because no airline will want a sub fleet of aircraft able to fly 1000nm more than a single aisle. The 787-9 is so popular because it covers everything a single aisle can not cover. You do not need a special solution for 4000-5000nm that is uncompetitive outside this range when you can use A321 from 50nm to 4500nm and 787s for the rest of the missions.

If Boeing can build an aircraft able to fly 5500nm with an OEW of <60t than it will be super competitive but that is not a MoM aircraft but the next iteration of a single aisle to replace the MAX. That would have been a killer for Boeing together with the E2s but they blew that JV so Boeing will be out of the small single aisle market.

The other option is to launch a <40t OEW single aisle with up to 3000nm range. That would make Boeing big money. They fortunately have about 7 more years before a launch. Plenty of time to milk the MAX and get the 787 back on track and profitable. Thats all Boeing has to do.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7404
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:46 am

Opus99 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Perfect analysis.


Indeed. Except for the small detail that it actually isn't.

As others have pointed out, increasing efficiency has led to more range providing more flexibility with a much smaller increase in cost that makes the trade-off worthwhile to airlines.

Putting more efficient engines on the both 787 and A350 won't change the relationship they have to each other at a specific range.
Also, the nominal 8,000Nm or so ranges are exactly that - nominal.

The A350-900 has a max payload range of 5,700Nm
Boeing don't publish the max payload range of the 787-10, but the 787-9's is 5,500Nm.

The 787-10's will be at least 1,000Nm less than that, say 4,500Nm.
So anywhere above 4,500Nm still air - i.e. about 3,700Nm - 3,800Nm real world, the A350-900 will carry a greater payload.

Those are not huge ranges. And a re-engine will only add about 10% to that figure, so say, 4,100Nm - 4,200Nm. I'm sure that will help the 787-10 - not much doubt about that.
But I don't think it will materially change the market dynamic

Rgds

The 787-10 can go much further than that real world. 4500NM IS real world btw. It does it every day with United even pre Covid with full loads at 4900NM

So yes a re-engine will move the 787-9 and 350 to even more range but range to carry you where you don’t even need to go


That depends on what your definition of "full loads" means, I guess.
It almost certainly doesn't mean maximum structural payload.
As I said, the Boeing ACAP has the 787-9 MSP range at 5,500Nm still-air, so real world will be shorter than that.
Have you thought of having a word with Boeing? :)

Rgds
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:46 am

mjoelnir wrote:
The push for range is and was according to what the airlines would buy. Sales increase with increased range capabilities.

False. The 777LR and A340-500 both had over 8,000nm and the sales were very low. Airlines seem to historically prefer large widebody aircraft with 6,000nm to 7,000nm range. On Pacific routes this allows a full passenger load with light cargo. On Atlantic routes this allows a full passenger load with a full cargo hold. As aircraft gets smaller the range sweet spot moves lower. Narrowbody aircraft seem to need minimum 3,000nm otherwise they get no sales. Small widebodies need minimum 4,500nm otherwise they get no sales. Large widebodies seem to need 6,000nm or they get no sales.

The 777LR for example with extreme range could take off with a full passenger and full cargo load on most Pacific routes. It would also be taking off below MTOW on most routes. All that extra structure for the high MTOW was going to waist and was just reducing efficiency.

The A330-300 sales increased once range entered that 6,000nm sweet spot.

mjoelnir wrote:
The 787 has had more range than its years long competitor, the A330ceo.

The A330-200 has much more range than the 787-10 and nearly the same as the 787-8. The A330-300 only has 80nm less range than the 787-10. The 787 family was aimed at the A330, A340 and 777-200ER replacement markets.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:55 am

seahawk wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.


Perfect analysis.


I thought the same, thanks RJMAZ

Up until the 77W, 787, A330neo, and A350 it was a challenge to get enough range into planes, the 747 was popular because it had the long range, not so much for its capacity. Narrow bodies needed fuel stops some times going transcon, that is very rare right now, Hawaii was only the 757 or WB until the NB's range improved.

A lot of the popularity of NB's is airlines enjoying their added range so more flights are near optimum. But the widebodies are now covering routes often far under the airplanes capability. Flexibility is great, no real penalty right now as a lot of the options all have plenty of range, no choice for the very optimized except when the routes get within the current NB capability, then it is a fast race for the smaller plane.

Average plane size is increasing, as it should, so getting an efficient plane in the 250 pax count size that is also optimized for sub 5,000 routes should be a disruptor. It also reduces the competition as it has unique capabilities.

Airlines choose additions to the fleet to compliment what they already have. WN stopped buying the -700, instead getting the -800 as it had different capabilities, now replacing older -700's have new MAX 7's on order.

The 797 not able to take the LD-3's seems fine as it is targeting a different spot. Fitting freight capabilities can mess up the optimum passenger plane. Look to other capabilities that are outside the common path. Things like short field, hot & high, fitting into smaller gates, added room for future higher bypass engines, etc. Keeping the plane simple to build and maintain will also increase orders.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:56 am

RJMAZ wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Imho, the push for range has really been harmful. It seems there aren't any relatively short range airliners built any longer....think DC9 or A300.

Lots of efficiency has been left on the table due to that push for range.

With a fully optimised design reducing design range by 10% reduces OEW by about 3-4% and improves fuel burn per seat by 2-3% with the same engines. It also goes the other way when increasing design range.

A good case of this is if we look at the 787-10 versus A350-900. The 787-10 has 20% less design range. The 787-10 then weighs 7% less per seat as it has 3% extra cabin area and 4% less OEW using my airline data. The 787-10 has a 3-4% fuel burn advantage per seat on shorter stage lengths.

Optimising for longer design range isn't as simple as scaling up the design either. While the A350 increased MTOW by 10% over the 787-10 it increased wing area by 17%. This big wing improves lift to drag ratio and allows the A350 to burn the same fuel as the lighter 787-10 on longer stage lengths.

The 8,100nm and 8,700nm range of the A350-900 and A350-1000 respectively is extremely high. As engine technology improves they will have too much range and move beyond the sweet spot in the market. The 787 family has a lower design range and the 787-10 will be selling like hot cakes in a decade or so.

The NMA/797 being built with 30-40% less range than the current widebodies should see a big fuel burn advantage per seat without adding any fancy technology.

Likewise the NSA if designed for sub 2,000nm flights will gain a big advantage over any future A321 variant.
Airlines buy aircraft based on a lot of parameters.

If the market segment is small, they fly a smaller jet that they can fill. If the length is long, they get a wide body jet that can go the distance.

If they are slot constrained and it is a trunk route, they just fly the biggest aircraft. If it is a trunk route and they have desired slots, they fly right size aircraft and give consumers choice.

The 787 and A350 dominate routes where their range is excessive, but this is also true for the 737 and A320. The 787 is particular was so fantastic when it launched because you no longer needed a huge jet to link city pairs that did not have as much demand.

In this same regard, increased efficiency means that there are added applications for the 787-10 on routes that it did not have enough range to service and this is a bonus. It is will not take away from the A350. Airlines will buy re-engined jets for their efficiency even if it means they are flying the same routes. The 'sweet spot' has always and will always efficiency and flexibility, and for some edge cases bigger capacity.

There is a reason why airlines are flying same routes with narrow bodies that have better range, and why the longer range A321 is popular. There is also a reason why airlines are flying longer range wide bodies on the same routes they flew the 767 or A330, or even the 777. Range has never and will never be an impediment.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:02 am

astuteman wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
astuteman wrote:

Indeed. Except for the small detail that it actually isn't.

As others have pointed out, increasing efficiency has led to more range providing more flexibility with a much smaller increase in cost that makes the trade-off worthwhile to airlines.

Putting more efficient engines on the both 787 and A350 won't change the relationship they have to each other at a specific range.
Also, the nominal 8,000Nm or so ranges are exactly that - nominal.

The A350-900 has a max payload range of 5,700Nm
Boeing don't publish the max payload range of the 787-10, but the 787-9's is 5,500Nm.

The 787-10's will be at least 1,000Nm less than that, say 4,500Nm.
So anywhere above 4,500Nm still air - i.e. about 3,700Nm - 3,800Nm real world, the A350-900 will carry a greater payload.

Those are not huge ranges. And a re-engine will only add about 10% to that figure, so say, 4,100Nm - 4,200Nm. I'm sure that will help the 787-10 - not much doubt about that.
But I don't think it will materially change the market dynamic

Rgds

The 787-10 can go much further than that real world. 4500NM IS real world btw. It does it every day with United even pre Covid with full loads at 4900NM

So yes a re-engine will move the 787-9 and 350 to even more range but range to carry you where you don’t even need to go


That depends on what your definition of "full loads" means, I guess.
It almost certainly doesn't mean maximum structural payload.
As I said, the Boeing ACAP has the 787-9 MSP range at 5,500Nm still-air, so real world will be shorter than that.
Have you thought of having a word with Boeing? :)

Rgds

Obviously within United’s seating. Which is at 318 seats


https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... pdf#page38


Boeing has the -10 Figures which is at MAX around what you said.

It now becomes a discussion of who needs to go how far. Thing is the -10 can handle a lot right now. If the range increases by 10% it makes it even more viable. If the 350-900 and 787-9 go onto reach whatever range they do it becomes a question of who actually needs it.

I think the -10 can go on to be the 300ER of its time. But that’s just my opinion. We would have to see
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:11 am

Boeing and Airbus show up with a wide body aircraft and state that you have 20-25% efficiency gain........lower fuel cost is all the airlines will see.

No one will be worried about range. What would matter is capacity.

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