Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7393
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:19 am

Opus99 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
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


Thanks for the link. I thought I had an up-to-date link for the 787 ACAP, but its obviously pointing at an older version where the 787-10 information was still TBA.

So, c. 4,200Nm still air for max payload range for the 787-10.
I guess the question it poses is the one I asked which is "what does full payload really mean", recognising that very few airliners leave the ground at maximum structural payload.
Not to divert too much, but if I add about 600Nm to your 4,900Nm for United, to get an ESAD of 5,500Nm, the chart gives the ZFW at that range of about 178 tonnes, compared to MZFW of 193 tonnes. So not Max Payload, but still a good one

I don't think there's a clear-cut answer, but this conversation relates to the efficacy of the additional R/P capability in a bigger widebody vs the lower weight/cost of NMA

Rgds
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:57 am

RJMAZ wrote:
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.


Yes let us look at the bad selling example of the 787 family, the shorter ranged 787-10. The well selling example of the 787 family, the 787-9 has heaps of range. That frame sells. The lower range 787-10 sold 187 and the high range 787-9 sold 886.

I never talk about 8,000 nm. Both the A340-500 and 777-200LR are build at a time were 8.000 nm mile range were bought with a huge extra amount of fuel. Virtuel flying tankers. Not a problem for a 787-9 or an A350.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14425
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 10:10 am

300-350 passengers with a healthy cargo load from a hot runway in Asia to Europe / US is a key market requirement these days. That seems a bit inbetween the 787-9 and the 777-9. Where the 787-10, 77W and 777-8 sit.

Image
keesje 2016

I always expected Boeing to upgrade the 787 into something like an 787-10ERX, adding 2hrs of flight. It seems the 787-8,-9,-10 wing is maxed out for that. So a significant modification would be required. But worth it IMO.

It's a big market segment & the competitor is stealing all the big 777 customers. AC, ANA, KAL, UA are scratching their heads, the rest already moved.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 12:00 pm

Couldn't they do a folding wing 777X-sytle for the 787 as well and increase the span?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 1:02 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
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.

Funny, we had the CEO of DL tell the media that he wanted DL to be the launch customer of NMA and his airline already has A321s in house. We had the CEO of QF say that they were very interested in NMA for the triangle route even though they have A321s within the QF group. There definitely is some interest in a MOM, the real question is can Boeing make them cheap enough to make a profit in that space.

I don't feel that the market dynamics of the past are all that relevant. If they were, A321 would be selling poorly and A320/738 would be the dominant product. We now have a world where A321 is selling well which gives rise to the idea that something a bit bigger with a bit more range and better efficiency would find a market. Comparisons to A300 aren't relevant, its market and value proposition are a thing of the past.

Noshow wrote:
Couldn't they do a folding wing 777X-sytle for the 787 as well and increase the span?

Of course they could, they are a giant corporation with access to all the money they need to do so, but why would they? With 777x they had an AL wing designed in the 90s and knew they needed an all-new wing to be competitive with A350's CFRP wing designed in the 00s. There's not that much room for improvement in the 787 wing, and the folding wing adds weight, cost and complexity. Personally I think we'll see an eventual 'neo' and maybe some aero tweaks since they will have to do flight testing anwyay, but I don't expect they will do a folding wing.
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
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 1:13 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.

Funny, we had the CEO of DL tell the media that he wanted DL to be the launch customer of NMA and his airline already has A321s in house. We had the CEO of QF say that they were very interested in NMA for the triangle route even though they have A321s within the QF group. There definitely is some interest in a MOM, the real question is can Boeing make them cheap enough to make a profit in that space.

I don't feel that the market dynamics of the past are all that relevant. If they were, A321 would be selling poorly and A320/738 would be the dominant product. We now have a world where A321 is selling well which gives rise to the idea that something a bit bigger with a bit more range and better efficiency would find a market. Comparisons to A300 aren't relevant, its market and value proposition are a thing of the past.


But I think there you see the conundrum for Boeing. QF wants the MoM to fly <2000nm route with as many passengers as possible, so a slimmed down 757-300 (that capacity but as light as possible), while DL seems to want a 767 replacement for TATL routes.

The Problem is, if you want comfortable TATL range with 767 capacity you get a really heavy aircraft that will not be able to fly the triangle route more efficient than the A321/MAX-10 (replacement). They both want a different category aircraft. One is a <40t OEW people mover the other is a >60t OEW middle to long haul aircraft. The 50k thrust requirement indicates that it will more likely be even over >70t OEW and over 150t MTOW. That is a really heavy aircraft and only serves a niche.

If they would look for a 40k thrust engine the story would be different, that could be for a maxed out NB (757-300) size aircraft on the long end and a 5000nm+ 757-200 sized smaller aircraft.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7393
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 1:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
I don't feel that the market dynamics of the past are all that relevant. If they were, A321 would be selling poorly and A320/738 would be the dominant product. We now have a world where A321 is selling well which gives rise to the idea that something a bit bigger with a bit more range and better efficiency would find a market. Comparisons to A300 aren't relevant, its market and value proposition are a thing of the past..


Not sure I understood this. A320/738 ARE the dominant product.
There are more A320NEO orders than A321's, and 737MAX-8 make up some 80% of the MAX order book

MAX -9/10 and A321NEO make up about 4,000 of some 11,000 MAX/NEO orders by my estimation

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 1:49 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
But I think there you see the conundrum for Boeing. QF wants the MoM to fly <2000nm route with as many passengers as possible, so a slimmed down 757-300 (that capacity but as light as possible), while DL seems to want a 767 replacement for TATL routes.

The Problem is, if you want comfortable TATL range with 767 capacity you get a really heavy aircraft that will not be able to fly the triangle route more efficient than the A321/MAX-10 (replacement). They both want a different category aircraft. One is a <40t OEW people mover the other is a >60t OEW middle to long haul aircraft. The 50k thrust requirement indicates that it will more likely be even over >70t OEW and over 150t MTOW. That is a really heavy aircraft and only serves a niche.

If they would look for a 40k thrust engine the story would be different, that could be for a maxed out NB (757-300) size aircraft on the long end and a 5000nm+ 757-200 sized smaller aircraft.

Definitely a conundrum, but also an opportunity. Both have A321 in house and wanted something better.

astuteman wrote:
Revelation wrote:
I don't feel that the market dynamics of the past are all that relevant. If they were, A321 would be selling poorly and A320/738 would be the dominant product. We now have a world where A321 is selling well which gives rise to the idea that something a bit bigger with a bit more range and better efficiency would find a market. Comparisons to A300 aren't relevant, its market and value proposition are a thing of the past..


Not sure I understood this. A320/738 ARE the dominant product.
There are more A320NEO orders than A321's, and 737MAX-8 make up some 80% of the MAX order book

MAX -9/10 and A321NEO make up about 4,000 of some 11,000 MAX/NEO orders by my estimation

Rgds

Poor wording on my part. A321 and XLR seem to be where the market growth potential is, especially for Boeing given that MAX10 is a simple stretch that trades range for payload. A320/738 are more for replacement.
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
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1181
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 1:52 pm

Stitch wrote:

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.


Rubbish again

No 330neos are that heavy.

https://hifly.aero/public/uploads/2019/ ... -TKY-1.pdf
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 2:14 pm

Noshow wrote:
Couldn't they do a folding wing 777X-sytle for the 787 as well and increase the span?

The folding wingtips on the 777X were to keep within the code E gate limit of 65m.

Boeing already has larger wing tips designed for the 787-9 and 787-10 to bring them up to the code E gate limit. Boeing decided not to fit them and keep the smaller 787-8 wing tips.

Many people do not understand the advantages and disadvantages of something as simple as bigger wing tips. Bigger wingtips increase empty weight which then requires some fuel to be removed to keep within the same max takeoff weight. Range might increase by as little as 100nm due to the reduced fuel.

Putting some rough estimates on the bigger tips for the 787 family. Bigger wingtips on the 787-10 might see fuel burn become 1% worse on a 2,000nm flight due to increased empty weight but 1% better on a 6,000nm flight due to improved lift to drag ratio. The crossover point might then be over 4,000nm where the bigger tips provide an advantage. Now if more than half of the 787-10 flights are under 4,000nm then Boeing should not fit the bigger wingtips. This is why they decided not to fit the bigger tips.

The A350 design is effectively like a 787 with very big wingtips. It is optimised for longer flights and there would be a crossover point where the A350 holds a fuel burn advantage over the 787.

Now let's say the crossover point of bigger wingtips on the 787-10 was 4,000nm. Once the 787-10NEO comes out the brochure range might go from 6,430nm to 7,000nm from weight and fuel burn improvements. This means the 787-10 will start to operate longer routes and more than half of the flights might now be over the 4,000nm crossover point. Boeing should now fit the bigger wingtips.

Once the 797 launches as a small widebody for medium range flights then the 787 will stick to longer flights. This makes the bigger wing tips on the 787 even more likely to appear as the average flight lengths will be well past the crossover point.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 2:24 pm

Thanks, very interesting considerations.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 2:37 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Now let's say the crossover point of bigger wingtips on the 787-10 was 4,000nm. Once the 787-10NEO comes out the brochure range might go from 6,430nm to 7,000nm from weight and fuel burn improvements. This means the 787-10 will start to operate longer routes and more than half of the flights might now be over the 4,000nm crossover point. Boeing should now fit the bigger wingtips.

This is kind of true but not quite. The Larger span reduces induced drag (however the larger area (assuming extension) increases skin friction drag ) and the extra length increases weight. However the savings to be made from an operational perspective are fuel use and the cross over point is defined only by range as it is a rough proxy for weight (longer flight has higher average weight). In the instance of reduced fuel burn through more advanced engines the range will increase not because of weight changes but because of a higher specific range value and so the crossover weight (not range) will increase broadly linearly with the overall increase in range. An increase in weights (or indeed average weights i.e. increase the average flight length vs maximum) are what would lead one to an increased span making sense.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 3:34 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
The A350 design is effectively like a 787 with very big wingtips. It is optimised for longer flights and there would be a crossover point where the A350 holds a fuel burn advantage over the 787.

Now let's say the crossover point of bigger wingtips on the 787-10 was 4,000nm. Once the 787-10NEO comes out the brochure range might go from 6,430nm to 7,000nm from weight and fuel burn improvements. This means the 787-10 will start to operate longer routes and more than half of the flights might now be over the 4,000nm crossover point. Boeing should now fit the bigger wingtips.

Once the 797 launches as a small widebody for medium range flights then the 787 will stick to longer flights. This makes the bigger wing tips on the 787 even more likely to appear as the average flight lengths will be well past the crossover point.

Interesting points.

Winglets got added to early 757, 767, and 737s because those wings were designed before the benefits became clear. A350 and 787 were designed once the entire issue of wing tip vortices and better wing tip treatments were well understood, so the benefits of adding improved wing tip treatments now are small.

I think 777x is a new case, benefit of span and issue of wingtip vortices are well understood, but the aircraft is almost always being bought for extreme range, so the folding wing tips were studied as a part of an all-new wing design and "paid their way" on to the 777x. We can't assume they would earn their way onto NMA, and the few renderings we have do not seem to show any folding wing tip on them. Of course this doesn't prove if they will or will not be on a future MOM product.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 3:50 pm

Say you would want to use tight 757 or 767 gate parking spaces but now use some modern wing with less wing sweep and high span. Wouldn't a folding wingtips make perfect sense for NMA? Especially now that any possible teething troubles got ironed out on the 777X.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10297
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 3:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.

Funny, we had the CEO of DL tell the media that he wanted DL to be the launch customer of NMA and his airline already has A321s in house. We had the CEO of QF say that they were very interested in NMA for the triangle route even though they have A321s within the QF group. There definitely is some interest in a MOM, the real question is can Boeing make them cheap enough to make a profit in that space.

I don't feel that the market dynamics of the past are all that relevant. If they were, A321 would be selling poorly and A320/738 would be the dominant product. We now have a world where A321 is selling well which gives rise to the idea that something a bit bigger with a bit more range and better efficiency would find a market. Comparisons to A300 aren't relevant, its market and value proposition are a thing of the past..


The A321 is a less-than-ideal solution for the NMA market. Airlines are eager to get a properly optimized product for the market segment. The quotes you mentioned show this.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 4:12 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Rubbish again...No 330neos are that heavy.


https://hifly.aero/public/uploads/2019/ ... 9H-SZN.pdf

From that PDF: Typical Dry Operating Weight: 132,505kg

And for the record, I did note CS-TKY's lower OEW in my original post:

Stitch wrote:
The Hi-Fly A330-900s configured with a small Business Class and the rest Economy (18C | 353Y) have an OEW of 126,000kg.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26290
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 4:20 pm

Noshow wrote:
Say you would want to use tight 757 or 767 gate parking spaces but now use some modern wing with less wing sweep and high span. Wouldn't a folding wingtips make perfect sense for NMA? Especially now that any possible teething troubles got ironed out on the 777X.

You list the advantages. The disadvantages are extra weight, extra production cost, extra certification cost, extra maintenance cost, extra training cost. One more thing to break at some distant out station. Boeing will do a trade study to see if the benefits outweigh the costs. None of us know the answer now.
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
 
astuteman
Posts: 7393
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 8:41 pm

Stitch wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
Rubbish again...No 330neos are that heavy.


https://hifly.aero/public/uploads/2019/ ... 9H-SZN.pdf

From that PDF: Typical Dry Operating Weight: 132,505kg

And for the record, I did note CS-TKY's lower OEW in my original post:

Stitch wrote:
The Hi-Fly A330-900s configured with a small Business Class and the rest Economy (18C | 353Y) have an OEW of 126,000kg.


A DOW of 132.5 tonnes would suggest an OEW in the region of 128 - 129 tonnes....

I'd guess typical A350 OEW's to be in the region of 136 - 137 tonnes

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27608
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:15 pm

astuteman wrote:
A DOW of 132.5 tonnes would suggest an OEW in the region of 128 - 129 tonnes....

I'd guess typical A350 OEW's to be in the region of 136 - 137 tonnes

Rgds


Fair enough and sounds about right. Turkish publicly posted their weight sheets for various models in their fleet that listed the average OEW and average DOW and for the 777-300ER the difference between the two was 3000kg. And Emirates OEW and DOW posted figures for the 777-200ER and 777-200LR were about 7000 kg with 5000kg of that being pantry weight.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu May 20, 2021 9:53 pm

Noshow wrote:
Say you would want to use tight 757 or 767 gate parking spaces but now use some modern wing with less wing sweep and high span. Wouldn't a folding wingtips make perfect sense for NMA? Especially now that any possible teething troubles got ironed out on the 777X.

My analysis shows that a NMA would look like a 767 sized fuselage sitting on top of a 757 sized wing. With a wingspan of only 40m or so I think folding tips will be highly beneficial as it will allow it to squeeze into 737 and A320 gates.

For short haul efficiency it is best to have a small wing relative to the fuselage size. The A321 has a very small wing relative to the MTOW. On of the few aircraft where the wing has a smaller area than the cabin area.

The 767-200 had a MTOW of 142.9t with a range of 3,900nm. It was carrying big wing and most of the structure for the ER model. A fully optimised 767 back then for such short range probably would have had a MTOW of closer to 130t. It definitely would have had a much smaller wing if there was no plan for an ER model.

The 757-300 is already at 123t MTOW with the small 38m wingspan. So it makes sense that a clean sheet NMA with a cross section a few inches wider than the 767 to allow tight 8AB would have a MTOW below 140t.

Folding tips would be definitely worth the weight and maintenance penalty if it can squeeze it into 737 gates.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 3:33 am

Why are we not talking about a 737 with a conventional high wing that could fit any engine the manufacturers could want?

I'm not suggesting we should be discussing this. If it were viable, one of the many people more knowledgeable than I would have brought it up. It's also obvious that the only successful large aircraft that use high mounted wings are freighters with low cargo.

What's the physics behind this, and why would the transonic truss-braced wing be different?
 
JohanTally
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 4:09 am

NameOmitted wrote:
Why are we not talking about a 737 with a conventional high wing that could fit any engine the manufacturers could want?

I'm not suggesting we should be discussing this. If it were viable, one of the many people more knowledgeable than I would have brought it up. It's also obvious that the only successful large aircraft that use high mounted wings are freighters with low cargo.

What's the physics behind this, and why would the transonic truss-braced wing be different?

It wouldn't be a 737 because a high mounted winged aircraft would have to be a clean sheet aircraft. The 737 could completely redesign the wheel wells and landing gear to accommodate larger engines but it would also need over wing evacuation slides. Boeing has milked everything they could out of the 737 and it's time to move on once the Max backlog starts to deplete.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 5:02 am

NameOmitted wrote:
Why are we not talking about a 737 with a conventional high wing that could fit any engine the manufacturers could want?

I'm not suggesting we should be discussing this. If it were viable, one of the many people more knowledgeable than I would have brought it up. It's also obvious that the only successful large aircraft that use high mounted wings are freighters with low cargo.

What's the physics behind this, and why would the transonic truss-braced wing be different?

That is exactly what Boeing will make for the NSA or 737 replacement in around 2035.

Flying slower reduces trip fuel burn by a fair amount. On a 2 hour flight an extra 20 minutes is insignificant. However on an 8 hour flight an extra 80 minutes becomes very significant as additional crew is required.

This is why the NMA or 797 small widebody makes sense. It will fly at faster widebody speeds. The 787 flies 9% faster than the relatively slow A321 narrowbody. The A321XLR has reached a point where additional crew is required. This becomes a huge bottleneck. The faster and higher cruising 797 allows around 400nm higher range with a single set of crew.

Having a small fast widebody allows Boeing to cover medium range flights very efficiently. It then allows Boeing to make a NSA or 737 replacement that is fully optimised for short stage lengths under 2 hours. Boeing can use less wing sweep, slower cruising speed and ultra high bypass ratio engines to make the A321 totally uncompetitive on short haul. Remember around 90% of narrowbody routes are under 1,000nm.

I actually expect this ultra short haul aircraft to be hybrid/electric. A single gas turbine generator in the tail with huge electric ducted fans under a high wing is what I think will work. The gas turbine will be sized to provide just enough power to maintain cruise only and for emergency loitoring. A battery pack in the wings will provide most of the extra electricity for takeoff and climb. On flights under 1 hour the aircraft can operate fully electric.

Electric propulsion will be common next decade. The NMA/797 is critical to handle the current long narrowbody flights that an electric aircraft could not fly.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 5:15 am

RJMAZ wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
Why are we not talking about a 737 with a conventional high wing that could fit any engine the manufacturers could want?

I'm not suggesting we should be discussing this. If it were viable, one of the many people more knowledgeable than I would have brought it up. It's also obvious that the only successful large aircraft that use high mounted wings are freighters with low cargo.

What's the physics behind this, and why would the transonic truss-braced wing be different?

That is exactly what Boeing will make for the NSA or 737 replacement in around 2035.

Flying slower reduces trip fuel burn by a fair amount. On a 2 hour flight an extra 20 minutes is insignificant. However on an 8 hour flight an extra 80 minutes becomes very significant as additional crew is required.

This is why the NMA or 797 small widebody makes sense. It will fly at faster widebody speeds. The 787 flies 9% faster than the relatively slow A321 narrowbody. The A321XLR has reached a point where additional crew is required. This becomes a huge bottleneck. The faster and higher cruising 797 allows around 400nm higher range with a single set of crew.

Having a small fast widebody allows Boeing to cover medium range flights very efficiently. It then allows Boeing to make a NSA or 737 replacement that is fully optimised for short stage lengths under 2 hours. Boeing can use less wing sweep, slower cruising speed and ultra high bypass ratio engines to make the A321 totally uncompetitive on short haul. Remember around 90% of narrowbody routes are under 1,000nm.

I actually expect this ultra short haul aircraft to be hybrid/electric. A single gas turbine generator in the tail with huge electric ducted fans under a high wing is what I think will work. The gas turbine will be sized to provide just enough power to maintain cruise only and for emergency loitoring. A battery pack in the wings will provide most of the extra electricity for takeoff and climb. On flights under 1 hour the aircraft can operate fully electric.

Electric propulsion will be common next decade. The NMA/797 is critical to handle the current long narrowbody flights that an electrifc aircraft could not fly.
For airlines, fuel is the biggest cost they incur. Burning less fuel thus trumps having additional crew.

Second reason why fasyer flights may be an issue is slot timings especially at busy airports. Get out at the same time and arrive early, then have to circle as you wait for ATC to get an opportunity? Or do you change slot timing and with it lose flexibility?

Current slots work just fine regardless of what plane you fly because you know how long it takes, and it works across multiple aircraft types.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 6:14 am

I don't see all those technologies coming together combined in the next airliner generation. This is just too much at a time.
What is needed is a reliable workhorse not some experiment. New engine, new wing, new aerodynamic layout, new materials, new production methods AND electric, hybrid? Unlikely.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 7:06 am

Presumably a short range only specialist model needs to be a low enough capital cost that it's okay to sit it on the ground during the periods when you can't realistically fly short range distances (middle of the night flights not having much demand / blocked by curfews anyway)

Is there any info on how much this changes the value - how much does it impact the cost such that it's worth having another fraction of an aircraft sat on the ground?
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 7:10 am

Would this be a STOL layout in any way opening up new airports for use? Limiting the range to what (jet supported) battery power can do and will be able to do feels not long enough.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 8:31 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Second reason why fasyer flights may be an issue is slot timings especially at busy airports. Get out at the same time and arrive early, then have to circle as you wait for ATC to get an opportunity? Or do you change slot timing and with it lose flexibility?

Current slots work just fine regardless of what plane you fly because you know how long it takes, and it works across multiple aircraft types.
It is funny how you have twisted this against the 797. You actually have it the wrong way around. You'll have to change slots for the slower A321XLR.

If it is an existing 4,000nm to 4,500nm route it would be currently flown by a fast widebody. You'll need to bump the landing slot back an hour for the A321XLR.

If it is a new thin route opening up then landing slots have not been allocated so it is the same probability for both aircraft.

There are a huge number of widebody routes between 4,000nm and 4,500nm. If the A321XLR has to spend the first couple hours of the flight at 29,000 feet due to its tiny wing and also requires additional crew due to the extra hour flight time then the 797 will win this battle.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2496
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 8:39 am

One is a family mass product built ten times the number and the other one a custom specialist at best. This will affect the cost as well.

Has Boeing proven that they can earn money as in make profits with the 787? This will indicate what the 797 can do.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 9:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Second reason why fasyer flights may be an issue is slot timings especially at busy airports. Get out at the same time and arrive early, then have to circle as you wait for ATC to get an opportunity? Or do you change slot timing and with it lose flexibility?

Current slots work just fine regardless of what plane you fly because you know how long it takes, and it works across multiple aircraft types.
It is funny how you have twisted this against the 797. You actually have it the wrong way around. You'll have to change slots for the slower A321XLR.

If it is an existing 4,000nm to 4,500nm route it would be currently flown by a fast widebody. You'll need to bump the landing slot back an hour for the A321XLR.

If it is a new thin route opening up then landing slots have not been allocated so it is the same probability for both aircraft.

There are a huge number of widebody routes between 4,000nm and 4,500nm. If the A321XLR has to spend the first couple hours of the flight at 29,000 feet due to its tiny wing and also requires additional crew due to the extra hour flight time then the 797 will win this battle.
When airlines had the chance, they could have had Concorde. Only 14 were delivered to 2 airlines i.e. Air France and British Airways.

The next opportunity for faster flight came with the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines told Boeing to scrap that idea and just make a plane that was slower and more efficient.

Airlines long ago learnt the lesson that people would rather fly cheap, even take a connecting itinerary as opposed to flying faster. Efficiency has always carried the day, and going forward, it will always carry the day. The world's issues with inequality and stagnant wages are not going away and as such, OEM's and airlines must be cognizant of the economic environment they operate in.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 9:34 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Second reason why fasyer flights may be an issue is slot timings especially at busy airports. Get out at the same time and arrive early, then have to circle as you wait for ATC to get an opportunity? Or do you change slot timing and with it lose flexibility?

Current slots work just fine regardless of what plane you fly because you know how long it takes, and it works across multiple aircraft types.
It is funny how you have twisted this against the 797. You actually have it the wrong way around. You'll have to change slots for the slower A321XLR.

If it is an existing 4,000nm to 4,500nm route it would be currently flown by a fast widebody. You'll need to bump the landing slot back an hour for the A321XLR.

If it is a new thin route opening up then landing slots have not been allocated so it is the same probability for both aircraft.

There are a huge number of widebody routes between 4,000nm and 4,500nm. If the A321XLR has to spend the first couple hours of the flight at 29,000 feet due to its tiny wing and also requires additional crew due to the extra hour flight time then the 797 will win this battle.
When airlines had the chance, they could have had Concorde. Only 14 were delivered to 2 airlines i.e. Air France and British Airways.

The next opportunity for faster flight came with the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines told Boeing to scrap that idea and just make a plane that was slower and more efficient.

Airlines long ago learnt the lesson that people would rather fly cheap, even take a connecting itinerary as opposed to flying faster. Efficiency has always carried the day, and going forward, it will always carry the day. The world's issues with inequality and stagnant wages are not going away and as such, OEM's and airlines must be cognizant of the economic environment they operate in.


Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
Image
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 9:42 am

It is very interesting to read about the supper efficient light 797, that is a perfect short range mass transport and at the same time a high speed medium to long range frame. That on the one side is not build for taking belly freight to be light and on the other side the perfect freighter with LD2 or a dedicated container. I thing the problem is that nobody knows what the 797 is supposed to be.

In the mean time the A321neo together with the frame it's replaces is filling up the area where a supposed 797 is to operate. There are some 1,700 A321ceo operating as it is and over 500 A321neo delivered. Furthermore there are around 3,000 A321neo on backlog.
IMO when Boeing will one day prepare to offer the 797 in whatever form, the market will be saturated with rathere new frames.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 9:45 am

Noshow wrote:
I don't see all those technologies coming together combined in the next airliner generation. This is just too much at a time.
What is needed is a reliable workhorse not some experiment. New engine, new wing, new aerodynamic layout, new materials, new production methods AND electric, hybrid? Unlikely.

Airlines should pick what they want. Everybody is looking for 15-20% step change every generation. It’s obvious everybody will take less reliability for more fuel efficiency case in point the 787. Especially on engines. You want more pressure ratio well it won’t be as durable as the last.

Everything is about fighting for cost step change both in operating the jet and in building the jet.

Like I’ve said everybody in this industry is running a business.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 10:06 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
It is funny how you have twisted this against the 797. You actually have it the wrong way around. You'll have to change slots for the slower A321XLR.

If it is an existing 4,000nm to 4,500nm route it would be currently flown by a fast widebody. You'll need to bump the landing slot back an hour for the A321XLR.

If it is a new thin route opening up then landing slots have not been allocated so it is the same probability for both aircraft.

There are a huge number of widebody routes between 4,000nm and 4,500nm. If the A321XLR has to spend the first couple hours of the flight at 29,000 feet due to its tiny wing and also requires additional crew due to the extra hour flight time then the 797 will win this battle.
When airlines had the chance, they could have had Concorde. Only 14 were delivered to 2 airlines i.e. Air France and British Airways.

The next opportunity for faster flight came with the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines told Boeing to scrap that idea and just make a plane that was slower and more efficient.

Airlines long ago learnt the lesson that people would rather fly cheap, even take a connecting itinerary as opposed to flying faster. Efficiency has always carried the day, and going forward, it will always carry the day. The world's issues with inequality and stagnant wages are not going away and as such, OEM's and airlines must be cognizant of the economic environment they operate in.


Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster. Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

Staff costs can be managed, even if it means declaring bankruptcy. Fuel costs are entirely market driven. Airlines noticed this long ago.

Finally, the NMA will be flying to some of the bigger airports given what the capacity is, or flying from at least one. Considering slot allocations, type of slot pair, and whether an airline is a hub carrier, how does saving a bit of time lead to better utlization?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 10:20 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
When airlines had the chance, they could have had Concorde. Only 14 were delivered to 2 airlines i.e. Air France and British Airways.

The next opportunity for faster flight came with the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines told Boeing to scrap that idea and just make a plane that was slower and more efficient.

Airlines long ago learnt the lesson that people would rather fly cheap, even take a connecting itinerary as opposed to flying faster. Efficiency has always carried the day, and going forward, it will always carry the day. The world's issues with inequality and stagnant wages are not going away and as such, OEM's and airlines must be cognizant of the economic environment they operate in.


Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster. Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

Staff costs can be managed, even if it means declaring bankruptcy. Fuel costs are entirely market driven. Airlines noticed this long ago.

Finally, the NMA will be flying to some of the bigger airports given what the capacity is, or flying from at least one. Considering slot allocations, type of slot pair, and whether an airline is a hub carrier, how does saving a bit of time lead to better utlization?


The thing is, as long as you are below the speed of sound, you can increase the speed of an aircraft with relative small increase in fuel consumption. So you can gain efficiency by flying faster compared to more economical. Do not forget, even when the aircraft is designed for M0.9 cruise, you can still fly M0.85 and actually be very economical or fly "full speed" if time is of the essence.

The moment you fly past the speed of sound the physics change (not really of course the physics are always the same) and increasing speed comes at a massive fuel burn cost (with current engine technology). So there is no incentive to go faster than the speed of sound but having the ability to fly as fast as economically possible is a great feature for a long haul aircraft. For short flights it can be neglected.

If Boeing wants to design the MoM for short people moving they can design it slow (what Quantas wants), if it needs to fly TATL (what Delta wants) then it needs to have the ability to fly fast. Both come with trade offs.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 10:31 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster. Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

Staff costs can be managed, even if it means declaring bankruptcy. Fuel costs are entirely market driven. Airlines noticed this long ago.

Finally, the NMA will be flying to some of the bigger airports given what the capacity is, or flying from at least one. Considering slot allocations, type of slot pair, and whether an airline is a hub carrier, how does saving a bit of time lead to better utlization?


The thing is, as long as you are below the speed of sound, you can increase the speed of an aircraft with relative small increase in fuel consumption. So you can gain efficiency by flying faster compared to more economical. Do not forget, even when the aircraft is designed for M0.9 cruise, you can still fly M0.85 and actually be very economical or fly "full speed" if time is of the essence.

The moment you fly past the speed of sound the physics change (not really of course the physics are always the same) and increasing speed comes at a massive fuel burn cost (with current engine technology). So there is no incentive to go faster than the speed of sound but having the ability to fly as fast as economically possible is a great feature for a long haul aircraft. For short flights it can be neglected.

If Boeing wants to design the MoM for short people moving they can design it slow (what Quantas wants), if it needs to fly TATL (what Delta wants) then it needs to have the ability to fly fast. Both come with trade offs.
Airlines will fly faster if they got off late and need to try and make some time. This is perfectly normal, but it often comes nes at cost of some efficiency. You also need to stay within speed limits because going beyond causes flutter, and no one wants that.

Like you, I do not see a use case for faster flying on shorter routes, you would be making up negligible time. On longer routes, how much time could you make up? How does that link with your connections?

The 797 will be an airline favored by hub carriers for the most part and it is thus hard to see a use case where flying faster is of any benefit in a bank system at any hub.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 10:36 am

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
When airlines had the chance, they could have had Concorde. Only 14 were delivered to 2 airlines i.e. Air France and British Airways.

The next opportunity for faster flight came with the Sonic Cruiser. Airlines told Boeing to scrap that idea and just make a plane that was slower and more efficient.

Airlines long ago learnt the lesson that people would rather fly cheap, even take a connecting itinerary as opposed to flying faster. Efficiency has always carried the day, and going forward, it will always carry the day. The world's issues with inequality and stagnant wages are not going away and as such, OEM's and airlines must be cognizant of the economic environment they operate in.


Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster.

I disagree, Its the low specific cost per unit distance that's important, hence CASM, Cost per Available Seat Mile, not Fuel per Available Seat Mile.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.

Fuel is often the largest cost but that isn't to say that an increase in fuel due to flying faster cannot and is not more than offset by reduced labour, insurance, maintenance asset depreciation/leasing costs. A typical example of a medium to long haul direct operating cost breakdown(without airline overheads) would have about 40% of costs due to fuel 40-50% if the costs due to time based factors and the remaining 10-20% based on per trip/cycles factors.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

I wont disagree that fuel burn per unit distance will increase when flying faster than maximum specific range speed but the increase in fuel burn can be traded against the time based costs to an optimum.
You are also probably right in that the cheaper means of flying beats the faster means however I think you have incorrectly made a direct inverse correlation between speed and cost. you can go faster AND it be cheaper.
incidentally as you point out the high capital cost environment with relatively low fuel costs actually favors flying faster due to a bigger portion of the costs coming from time based sources.

if my optimum speed for fuel burn is M0.83 but by flying at M0.84 I spend an extra $100 on fuel for the flight but save $200 on crew costs and capital costs. As CFO which would you hope the planning department go for?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14425
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 11:11 am

I think that if a 797 can do 5000NM, it will hard hard to compete with an A321 doing 2 hr trips. 5,6 a day.

Empty weight should be much above 50t, not 70t. And it needs a very attractive price level.

Image
https://www.youtube.com/embed/24_S9EuLsEk

If a 797 would be much bigger, heavier, it will miss a big part of the market with all consequences of that.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10297
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 11:18 am

Why should it be a problem to beat the 30 year old Airbus design with a new design and new engines? The A321 is not some kind of miracle, it is simply the only offering in the segment at the moment, but it is old, dated and not optimized for the modern needs of airlines.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 11:36 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Slower != Cheaper. you need to factor in asset utilisation. (Employees = assets in this instance). It is basically always cheaper to fly faster then the maximum specific range speed as you can reduce time based casts quicker than fuel use increases. When designing a jet from scratch the tradeoffs are different in that the geometries needed for going fast generally increase weight. people want cheap not fuel economy.

Aside from this the utilisation of assets is important on the air framer side too, as you increase production you can realise savings. As no show correctly stated 10 vs 60/month makes a big difference to potential purchase costs.

Fred
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster.

I disagree, Its the low specific cost per unit distance that's important, hence CASM, Cost per Available Seat Mile, not Fuel per Available Seat Mile.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.

Fuel is often the largest cost but that isn't to say that an increase in fuel due to flying faster cannot and is not more than offset by reduced labour, insurance, maintenance asset depreciation/leasing costs. A typical example of a medium to long haul direct operating cost breakdown(without airline overheads) would have about 40% of costs due to fuel 40-50% if the costs due to time based factors and the remaining 10-20% based on per trip/cycles factors.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

I wont disagree that fuel burn per unit distance will increase when flying faster than maximum specific range speed but the increase in fuel burn can be traded against the time based costs to an optimum.
You are also probably right in that the cheaper means of flying beats the faster means however I think you have incorrectly made a direct inverse correlation between speed and cost. you can go faster AND it be cheaper.
incidentally as you point out the high capital cost environment with relatively low fuel costs actually favors flying faster due to a bigger portion of the costs coming from time based sources.

if my optimum speed for fuel burn is M0.83 but by flying at M0.84 I spend an extra $100 on fuel for the flight but save $200 on crew costs and capital costs. As CFO which would you hope the planning department go for?

Fred

We have decades of data to fall back to. Airlines fly slower, have told OEM's that they want to fly slower, buy airlines that fly slower.

These are the penny pinchers penny pincher we are talking about and even they have not seen a scenario where flying faster (without the tail winds) sees staff costs falling faster than fuel costs. And we are not debating some marginal speed bump either because you do not need a whole new aircraft for that. It does not mean that airports are going to be more efficient, or that it suits bank systems either.

Airlines desire one thing and that is ever better fuel economy across the spectrum and smaller wide bodies in the upper end. If we get the NMA, it will travel at around mach 0.85 which is around what we generally see. To go something like mach 0.95, which would save time is largely a non starter.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 1:04 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
The planes with the lowest fuel economy are most desired, not those that fly faster.

I disagree, Its the low specific cost per unit distance that's important, hence CASM, Cost per Available Seat Mile, not Fuel per Available Seat Mile.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Fuel is the single largest cost over the life of an aircraft and it is this cost that mainly keeps airlines awake at night. What the jet costs is always lower than the fuel the airlines burns be it a lease or straight out acquisition. Thus, fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.

Fuel is often the largest cost but that isn't to say that an increase in fuel due to flying faster cannot and is not more than offset by reduced labour, insurance, maintenance asset depreciation/leasing costs. A typical example of a medium to long haul direct operating cost breakdown(without airline overheads) would have about 40% of costs due to fuel 40-50% if the costs due to time based factors and the remaining 10-20% based on per trip/cycles factors.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
This is still a high capex, low margin business and the cheapest way to fly will always beat the faster means of flying. Going faster means more thrust is needed, thus greater fuel burn.

I wont disagree that fuel burn per unit distance will increase when flying faster than maximum specific range speed but the increase in fuel burn can be traded against the time based costs to an optimum.
You are also probably right in that the cheaper means of flying beats the faster means however I think you have incorrectly made a direct inverse correlation between speed and cost. you can go faster AND it be cheaper.
incidentally as you point out the high capital cost environment with relatively low fuel costs actually favors flying faster due to a bigger portion of the costs coming from time based sources.

if my optimum speed for fuel burn is M0.83 but by flying at M0.84 I spend an extra $100 on fuel for the flight but save $200 on crew costs and capital costs. As CFO which would you hope the planning department go for?

Fred

We have decades of data to fall back to.

Image

Here is chart showing Type EIS vs Cruise speed. During the late 70s/early 80s (Fuel Crisis driving design?) we see a drop in cruise speed of new airliners only for it to rise again.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Airlines fly slower, have told OEM's that they want to fly slower, buy airlines that fly slower.

But yet that isn't happening? Curious.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

These are the penny pinchers penny pincher we are talking about and even they have not seen a scenario where flying faster (without the tail winds) sees staff costs falling faster than fuel costs.

They do and they even have a setting for it in the flight planning ops, cost index. The optimal specific fuel burn is a tangential point on the speed vs drag curve from a point of zero speed. therefore as the time based costs vary inversely linearly with speed then there must be a point where the rate of change of fuel cost with respect to speed is lower than the reduction in cost due to time based influences. That's just Maths.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
And we are not debating some marginal speed bump either because you do not need a whole new aircraft for that. It does not mean that airports are going to be more efficient, or that it suits bank systems either.

You said
fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.


This is not true.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Airlines desire one thing and that is ever better fuel economy across the spectrum

They actually more closely desire is to maximise "Number_OF_PAX *(RASM-CASM)" The higher speed aircraft mentioned (Sonic cruiser and Concorde) were a play on the RASM part of this equation.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
and smaller wide bodies in the upper end.
Is that a statement or an opinion?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If we get the NMA, it will travel at around mach 0.85 which is around what we generally see.

We would expect smaller (lighter) aircraft to fly slower at approximately W^(1/6) as described by Tennekes. The fact that we see it lower than this is likely to do with compressability effects. what we definately aren't seeing is slowing but a convergence toward ~0.85 at the larger end and ~0.8 at the narrow body end. It's hardly surprising that just as designs are converging towards the vanilla twin engined low mounted swept wing designs that the speeds are converging to an optimised point too.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
To go something like mach 0.95, which would save time is largely a non starter.
Agreed, but airlines are not clamoring to go slower, which is what you said. The cruise speeds we have are already where they are because of optimisation of costs (which involves fuel) in the round. Unless fuel costs change dramatically then I cannot see a reason why the optimisations would fall very far from where they have landed today.

Outside of a very specific set of circumstances, under which an aircraft must already be en-route, an airline CANNOT save money by going slower than LRC.

Fred
Image
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 1:41 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

I disagree, Its the low specific cost per unit distance that's important, hence CASM, Cost per Available Seat Mile, not Fuel per Available Seat Mile.

Fuel is often the largest cost but that isn't to say that an increase in fuel due to flying faster cannot and is not more than offset by reduced labour, insurance, maintenance asset depreciation/leasing costs. A typical example of a medium to long haul direct operating cost breakdown(without airline overheads) would have about 40% of costs due to fuel 40-50% if the costs due to time based factors and the remaining 10-20% based on per trip/cycles factors.

I wont disagree that fuel burn per unit distance will increase when flying faster than maximum specific range speed but the increase in fuel burn can be traded against the time based costs to an optimum.
You are also probably right in that the cheaper means of flying beats the faster means however I think you have incorrectly made a direct inverse correlation between speed and cost. you can go faster AND it be cheaper.
incidentally as you point out the high capital cost environment with relatively low fuel costs actually favors flying faster due to a bigger portion of the costs coming from time based sources.

if my optimum speed for fuel burn is M0.83 but by flying at M0.84 I spend an extra $100 on fuel for the flight but save $200 on crew costs and capital costs. As CFO which would you hope the planning department go for?

Fred

We have decades of data to fall back to.

Image

Here is chart showing Type EIS vs Cruise speed. During the late 70s/early 80s (Fuel Crisis driving design?) we see a drop in cruise speed of new airliners only for it to rise again.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Airlines fly slower, have told OEM's that they want to fly slower, buy airlines that fly slower.

But yet that isn't happening? Curious.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

These are the penny pinchers penny pincher we are talking about and even they have not seen a scenario where flying faster (without the tail winds) sees staff costs falling faster than fuel costs.

They do and they even have a setting for it in the flight planning ops, cost index. The optimal specific fuel burn is a tangential point on the speed vs drag curve from a point of zero speed. therefore as the time based costs vary inversely linearly with speed then there must be a point where the rate of change of fuel cost with respect to speed is lower than the reduction in cost due to time based influences. That's just Maths.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
And we are not debating some marginal speed bump either because you do not need a whole new aircraft for that. It does not mean that airports are going to be more efficient, or that it suits bank systems either.

You said
fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.


This is not true.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Airlines desire one thing and that is ever better fuel economy across the spectrum

They actually more closely desire is to maximise "Number_OF_PAX *(RASM-CASM)" The higher speed aircraft mentioned (Sonic cruiser and Concorde) were a play on the RASM part of this equation.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
and smaller wide bodies in the upper end.
Is that a statement or an opinion?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If we get the NMA, it will travel at around mach 0.85 which is around what we generally see.

We would expect smaller (lighter) aircraft to fly slower at approximately W^(1/6) as described by Tennekes. The fact that we see it lower than this is likely to do with compressability effects. what we definately aren't seeing is slowing but a convergence toward ~0.85 at the larger end and ~0.8 at the narrow body end. It's hardly surprising that just as designs are converging towards the vanilla twin engined low mounted swept wing designs that the speeds are converging to an optimised point too.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
To go something like mach 0.95, which would save time is largely a non starter.
Agreed, but airlines are not clamoring to go slower, which is what you said. The cruise speeds we have are already where they are because of optimisation of costs (which involves fuel) in the round. Unless fuel costs change dramatically then I cannot see a reason why the optimisations would fall very far from where they have landed today.

Outside of a very specific set of circumstances, under which an aircraft must already be en-route, an airline CANNOT save money by going slower than LRC.

Fred
1. There wasn't much competition in the 70's and 80's. The deregulation act in 78' and various open sky agreements brought competition never before seen. Efficiency, trimming costs is the name of the game.

2. Concorde flights for the most part never made profits. That so few were ordered showed it as an engineering marvel but a commercial disaster. People did not care how fast it was if the cost was prohibitive. Boeing thought that they would release a jet that went under the speed of sound but saved on time. Airlines didn't care and they went back to the drawing board and they brought in a game changer in the 787. The Sonic Cruiser was supposed to go up to mach 0. 98. Airlines passed on this and we are still nowhere near the sound barrier.

Coincidence? I think not. Efficiency rules. Since then, no one has bothered flying vastly faster than what we currently have, not Airbus, not Boeing, not Embraer, not Bombardier. You have some small startups doing what will be niche products like Boom, Aerion etc but none of these will be huge in commercial aviation.

3. Talk was we can save 80 minutes on something above 8 hours that requires extra crew by flying faster. Again, it doesn't matter when your slots are determined and banks set. You will have idle time parking an aircraft, paying parking. Flying is one cost, not the only cost and not the only consideration made.

On short haul trips this does not make any sense because the time being made up is marginal. So, yes, we are flying slower, far slower than what we see being proposed on some posts on here. And it is similar to range discussions where I am of the opinion that range wont matter just as it currently is not an issue. Airlines will take excess range and flights of similar speed profile as we now have if it is the most efficient route.

None of this is false because it is what we see happening.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14425
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 1:47 pm

seahawk wrote:
Why should it be a problem to beat the 30 year old Airbus design with a new design and new engines? The A321 is not some kind of miracle, it is simply the only offering in the segment at the moment, but it is old, dated and not optimized for the modern needs of airlines.


That's correct. And Boeings answer so far is offering 737. Less capable, even 20 years older, no engine choice, no container option, noisier, less comfortable and a weak safety track record.

So responding to "Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane", my suggesting would be: stop being the deer in the headlights, instead of fantasying on what airlines might need. They already told with their orders and cancellations.

Image
https://www.freeteacher.co.uk/game.aspx?qf=game_maths_fractions_to_tenths_&showIntro=yes

( I tried to find / link a recent pie-chart on the NB backlog and/or deliveries marketshare. => It seems it doesn't exist. Media stopped making/publishing them, because nobody wants to know or see. Including the Airbus camp, keeping it low profile. )
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
kalvado
Posts: 3158
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 1:47 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Agreed, but airlines are not clamoring to go slower, which is what you said. The cruise speeds we have are already where they are because of optimisation of costs (which involves fuel) in the round. Unless fuel costs change dramatically then I cannot see a reason why the optimisations would fall very far from where they have landed today.

Fred

Passenger time is also a factor. Maybe not as direct and linear, but there is a point when lower ticket cost is no longer a factor, especially for business.
As far as I can tell, fuel cost is in ballpark of $20/seat per hour for 737. Passengers who earn $50-100, or more, should not be uncommon. Saving a bit on a ticket and wasting time is net negative for them - even if they can do some work on a plane.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 1:57 pm

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Why should it be a problem to beat the 30 year old Airbus design with a new design and new engines? The A321 is not some kind of miracle, it is simply the only offering in the segment at the moment, but it is old, dated and not optimized for the modern needs of airlines.


That's correct. And Boeings answer so far is offering 737. Less capable, even 20 years older, no engine choice, no container option, noisier, less comfortable and a weak safety track record.

So responding to "Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane", my suggesting would be: stop being the deer in the headlights, instead of fantasying on what airlines might need. They already told with their orders and cancellations.

Image
https://www.freeteacher.co.uk/game.aspx?qf=game_maths_fractions_to_tenths_&showIntro=yes

( I tried to find / link a recent pie-chart on the NB backlog and/or deliveries marketshare. => It seems it doesn't exist. Media stopped making/publishing them, because nobody wants to know or see. Including the Airbus camp, keeping it low profile. )

Airlines did not cancel the MAX because they don’t want it. That narrative is so weak. Lets not forget in 2019 cancellations were not bad at all. Airlines cancelled the MAX because of the detrimental effect Covid had on their balance sheet and because of the grounding the MAX was an easy commitment to kill off. Those customers that cancelled the MAX how many of them have gone on to buy a replacement that is the 320NEO family. I do agree that yes the jet needs to be replaced but this narrative of airlines don’t like it is so weak and unproven. Please try another argument.


The fact that a 60 year old non-fly by wire design can still compete today is a testament in itself. Imagine the crash did not happen (assuming proper design and implementation of the aircraft) which would’ve meant the MAX10 would be up and about by now the MAX would be be in a much better position that it is now. It was already at 5000 orders. If the MAX10 came online and was very good that could’ve gone to 6000 for all we know.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10297
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 2:08 pm

And in 2021 the MAX is seeing more orders than the NEO. This trend could easily continue.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 2:14 pm

seahawk wrote:
And in 2021 the MAX is seeing more orders than the NEO. This trend could easily continue.

It is likely to continue. How many airlines are going to wait as long to get a NEO? The backlog eventually becomes an impediment for future business.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4116
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 2:16 pm

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
We have decades of data to fall back to.

Image

Here is chart showing Type EIS vs Cruise speed. During the late 70s/early 80s (Fuel Crisis driving design?) we see a drop in cruise speed of new airliners only for it to rise again.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
Airlines fly slower, have told OEM's that they want to fly slower, buy airlines that fly slower.

But yet that isn't happening? Curious.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

These are the penny pinchers penny pincher we are talking about and even they have not seen a scenario where flying faster (without the tail winds) sees staff costs falling faster than fuel costs.

They do and they even have a setting for it in the flight planning ops, cost index. The optimal specific fuel burn is a tangential point on the speed vs drag curve from a point of zero speed. therefore as the time based costs vary inversely linearly with speed then there must be a point where the rate of change of fuel cost with respect to speed is lower than the reduction in cost due to time based influences. That's just Maths.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
And we are not debating some marginal speed bump either because you do not need a whole new aircraft for that. It does not mean that airports are going to be more efficient, or that it suits bank systems either.

You said
fuel efficient aircraft always beat aircraft that fly faster.


This is not true.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Airlines desire one thing and that is ever better fuel economy across the spectrum

They actually more closely desire is to maximise "Number_OF_PAX *(RASM-CASM)" The higher speed aircraft mentioned (Sonic cruiser and Concorde) were a play on the RASM part of this equation.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
and smaller wide bodies in the upper end.
Is that a statement or an opinion?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:
If we get the NMA, it will travel at around mach 0.85 which is around what we generally see.

We would expect smaller (lighter) aircraft to fly slower at approximately W^(1/6) as described by Tennekes. The fact that we see it lower than this is likely to do with compressability effects. what we definately aren't seeing is slowing but a convergence toward ~0.85 at the larger end and ~0.8 at the narrow body end. It's hardly surprising that just as designs are converging towards the vanilla twin engined low mounted swept wing designs that the speeds are converging to an optimised point too.
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
To go something like mach 0.95, which would save time is largely a non starter.
Agreed, but airlines are not clamoring to go slower, which is what you said. The cruise speeds we have are already where they are because of optimisation of costs (which involves fuel) in the round. Unless fuel costs change dramatically then I cannot see a reason why the optimisations would fall very far from where they have landed today.

Outside of a very specific set of circumstances, under which an aircraft must already be en-route, an airline CANNOT save money by going slower than LRC.

Fred
1. There wasn't much competition in the 70's and 80's. The deregulation act in 78' and various open sky agreements brought competition never before seen. Efficiency, trimming costs is the name of the game.

2. Concorde flights for the most part never made profits. That so few were ordered showed it as an engineering marvel but a commercial disaster. People did not care how fast it was if the cost was prohibitive. Boeing thought that they would release a jet that went under the speed of sound but saved on time. Airlines didn't care and they went back to the drawing board and they brought in a game changer in the 787. The Sonic Cruiser was supposed to go up to mach 0. 98. Airlines passed on this and we are still nowhere near the sound barrier.

Coincidence? I think not. Efficiency rules. Since then, no one has bothered flying vastly faster than what we currently have, not Airbus, not Boeing, not Embraer, not Bombardier. You have some small startups doing what will be niche products like Boom, Aerion etc but none of these will be huge in commercial aviation.

3. Talk was we can save 80 minutes on something above 8 hours that requires extra crew by flying faster. Again, it doesn't matter when your slots are determined and banks set. You will have idle time parking an aircraft, paying parking. Flying is one cost, not the only cost and not the only consideration made.

On short haul trips this does not make any sense because the time being made up is marginal. So, yes, we are flying slower, far slower than what we see being proposed on some posts on here. And it is similar to range discussions where I am of the opinion that range wont matter just as it currently is not an issue. Airlines will take excess range and flights of similar speed profile as we now have if it is the most efficient route.

None of this is false because it is what we see happening.


What you are agreeing with is that airlines don't like costs, I have no issue with that. You are the one who is suggesting that airlines want to go slower. I don't think the airlines (as businesses) care all that much about saving fuel by going slower if ultimately it increases costs, if that's even true.

Why do you think going slower would be cheaper?

Fred
Image
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 2:28 pm

keesje wrote:
I think that if a 797 can do 5000NM, it will hard hard to compete with an A321 doing 2 hr trips. 5,6 a day.

Empty weight should be much above 50t, not 70t. And it needs a very attractive price level.

If a 797 would be much bigger, heavier, it will miss a big part of the market with all consequences of that.

I think that if a A350 can do 8000nm, it will be hard to compete with a 797 doing 6 hour trips, 2 a day.

Empty weight should be much above 70t, not 135t. And it needs a very attractive price level.

If a A350 would be much bigger, heavier, it will miss a big part of the market with all the consequences of that.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri May 21, 2021 2:30 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Gremlinzzzz wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Image

Here is chart showing Type EIS vs Cruise speed. During the late 70s/early 80s (Fuel Crisis driving design?) we see a drop in cruise speed of new airliners only for it to rise again.

But yet that isn't happening? Curious.

They do and they even have a setting for it in the flight planning ops, cost index. The optimal specific fuel burn is a tangential point on the speed vs drag curve from a point of zero speed. therefore as the time based costs vary inversely linearly with speed then there must be a point where the rate of change of fuel cost with respect to speed is lower than the reduction in cost due to time based influences. That's just Maths.

You said

This is not true.

They actually more closely desire is to maximise "Number_OF_PAX *(RASM-CASM)" The higher speed aircraft mentioned (Sonic cruiser and Concorde) were a play on the RASM part of this equation.
Is that a statement or an opinion?


We would expect smaller (lighter) aircraft to fly slower at approximately W^(1/6) as described by Tennekes. The fact that we see it lower than this is likely to do with compressability effects. what we definately aren't seeing is slowing but a convergence toward ~0.85 at the larger end and ~0.8 at the narrow body end. It's hardly surprising that just as designs are converging towards the vanilla twin engined low mounted swept wing designs that the speeds are converging to an optimised point too.
Agreed, but airlines are not clamoring to go slower, which is what you said. The cruise speeds we have are already where they are because of optimisation of costs (which involves fuel) in the round. Unless fuel costs change dramatically then I cannot see a reason why the optimisations would fall very far from where they have landed today.

Outside of a very specific set of circumstances, under which an aircraft must already be en-route, an airline CANNOT save money by going slower than LRC.

Fred
1. There wasn't much competition in the 70's and 80's. The deregulation act in 78' and various open sky agreements brought competition never before seen. Efficiency, trimming costs is the name of the game.

2. Concorde flights for the most part never made profits. That so few were ordered showed it as an engineering marvel but a commercial disaster. People did not care how fast it was if the cost was prohibitive. Boeing thought that they would release a jet that went under the speed of sound but saved on time. Airlines didn't care and they went back to the drawing board and they brought in a game changer in the 787. The Sonic Cruiser was supposed to go up to mach 0. 98. Airlines passed on this and we are still nowhere near the sound barrier.

Coincidence? I think not. Efficiency rules. Since then, no one has bothered flying vastly faster than what we currently have, not Airbus, not Boeing, not Embraer, not Bombardier. You have some small startups doing what will be niche products like Boom, Aerion etc but none of these will be huge in commercial aviation.

3. Talk was we can save 80 minutes on something above 8 hours that requires extra crew by flying faster. Again, it doesn't matter when your slots are determined and banks set. You will have idle time parking an aircraft, paying parking. Flying is one cost, not the only cost and not the only consideration made.

On short haul trips this does not make any sense because the time being made up is marginal. So, yes, we are flying slower, far slower than what we see being proposed on some posts on here. And it is similar to range discussions where I am of the opinion that range wont matter just as it currently is not an issue. Airlines will take excess range and flights of similar speed profile as we now have if it is the most efficient route.

None of this is false because it is what we see happening.


What you are agreeing with is that airlines don't like costs, I have no issue with that. You are the one who is suggesting that airlines want to go slower. I don't think the airlines (as businesses) care all that much about saving fuel by going slower if ultimately it increases costs.

Why do you think going slower would be cheaper?

Fred
We are traveling ling slower than Concorde or proposed Sonic Cruiser, are we not?

Typical speeds on narrow body is mach 0.78 to mach 0.82 if I remember correctly. Speeds on wide body are in and around mach 0.85. Not huge variation and I do not think that wenare going to see aircraft that will be economical and blow these off the water in terms of speed.

You seem to think I am arguing something entirely different. The comment about traveling slower was always in context of the proposed speed bump where you can save 80 or so minutes on what is slightly over 8 hours flight time.

How that is not clear is honestly beyond me.

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