Always thought that a smaller wide body jet was an absolute waste of time so it is great hearing that they might be trending towards a new narrow body jet.

Would this be something assembled at Renton then?

Opus99 wrote:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/boeing-refocuses-single-aisle-counter-airbus-a321xlr

Okay some interesting information

It seems like Boeing is focusing on single aisle Instead of twin aisle

It seems they are going for the 757-200/300 seat count. Maybe in between or something

It also seems they are now looking at metal fuselage with composite wings.

And 5000NM range

So in other words playing it safe.

Now my question is, how do you build a better aircraft compared to what Airbus will bring. Boeing has said the efficiency must come from the frame and build because engine will not give them 15-20% cut in fuel burn.

So I’ll leave it to those more knowledgeable than me on the physics.

But with metal frame, composite wing, 757 size. What are we looking at?

As expected for a long time I would say. viewtopic.php?t=1433019 I guess many never believed in gaming changing technology that makes 7 abreast flat fusealge viable. Making it better then A321NEO versions should be doable, the A321 fuselage technology is 30 years old, the wing a compromise of gate envelopes, commonality. The A321XLR is still restricted in terms of capacity, payload range, premium class cabin flexibility, although Airbus is doing a lot to reduce those weak points. viewtopic.php?t=1369195


https://www.fs2000.org/2015/11/28/fsx-boeing-house-colors-boeing-797-10-v5/

I think Boeing must be careful to not over specify a new 797 250 seat NB. The A321 XLR has an empty weight of 51t (an A322 a few tonnes more) and operating costs of a mass produced A321. Ignore that & they'll could get buried..

Compared to 757 / XLR:
lighter materials, lower maintenance costs
wider fuselage to facilitate higher capacity versions
AKH options
up to 280 passengers
86+ inch GTF's, engine choice
crew rest behind cockpit
quieter
bigger wing tanks, avoiding fuselage tanks
higher cabin pressure
wider aisle, seats
higher cruising speed
better early stage cruise performance

But... still affordable and lean, specially on shorter flights. Because Airbus never sits on it's hands waiting what will happen. They'll probably pre empt. By the end of this decade A321XLR (& probably A322) will be low risk mature platforms in wide spread service, the cost efficient benchmarks.

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

That kills the MAX as well as the A321.

seahawk wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

That kills the MAX as well as the A321.

Boeing might have to at least kill the max 10 and max 9. They will want to differentiate from max 8 - their cash cow.

A OEW 5t below the A321 is very close to the OEW of a 737-8.

seahawk wrote:

A OEW 5t below the A321 is very close to the OEW of a 737-8.

Oh dear. Maybe their customers are telling them this is what they want .?

Opus99 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

That kills the MAX as well as the A321.

Boeing might have to at least kill the max 10 and max 9. They will want to differentiate from max 8 - their cash cow.

Skinnier plane? Maybe good for asians, not for me. I already boycott 737... Even skinnier 6ab would be a no go.

seahawk wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

That kills the MAX as well as the A321.

Better have your own product kill your own offering than letting others eat your lunch…

Kikko19 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That kills the MAX as well as the A321.

Boeing might have to at least kill the max 10 and max 9. They will want to differentiate from max 8 - their cash cow.

Skinnier plane? Maybe good for asians, not for me. I already boycott 737... Even skinnier 6ab would be a no go.

Skinnier than A32x, so something in between the 737 and A32x.

Reading the article, it sounds like Boeing is starting to lay the groundwork for the NSA/737RS and starting with where the current pain-point is: above 200 seats.

I do hope that a 5000nm Design Range is not the "baseline", but instead what the theoretical maximum is with an "ACT" and lower usable payload. I'd prefer a lower Design Range of around 3500nm as I believe that will allow a lighter structure more competitive with a re-winged A321/A322.

Opus99 wrote:

What are we looking at?

IMO what we are looking at is the wrong approach, aiming at the market that the A321XLR has already saturated, instead of aiming for the gap above it.

The article implies that the company is in no fiscal position to launch this any time soon, so I am not going to get too excited about it.

delete duplicate.

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

What are you 130lbs? Do you want tigher 6 abreast than already exist on the 737? Shoulder space man... A320 personal space is good.... and yes... I can tell the difference.

But heah, as others have stated:
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... aec3ca0a40

Let's hope they make this Sub Family One with two members as the 1st step that will lead to Sub Family Two with two members as the 2nd step that will later replace the MAX.

There are a few light lean 7 abreast advocates in this thread who will need condolences. Thing it's time to ignore what Calhoun said months ago and start another thread based on this new info.

Revelation wrote:

IMO what we are looking at is the wrong approach, aiming at the market that the A321XLR has already saturated, instead of aiming for the gap above it.
The article implies that the company is in no fiscal position to launch this any time soon, so I am not going to get too excited about it.

If this plane is 250pax with a range of 5000nm, then it is already shooting above the A321XLR market.... The A321XLR cannot do 4000nm with 200pax...

Stitch wrote:

Reading the article, it sounds like Boeing is starting to lay the groundwork for the NSA/737RS and starting with where the current pain-point is: above 200 seats.

I do hope that a 5000nm Design Range is not the "baseline", but instead what the theoretical maximum is with an "ACT" and lower usable payload. I'd prefer a lower Design Range of around 3500nm as I believe that will allow a lighter structure more competitive with a re-winged A321/A322.

I guess if it depends if they want to go after 250pax/5000nm... the mom space.... maybe they think there is a business case for it if it's development cost can be spread out among two closely related projects: ACT1 for the program is this plane... perhaps ACT2 follows on with the lower range, lower capacity variants (737 successor).

I guess we will wait and see...

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

What are we looking at?

IMO what we are looking at is the wrong approach, aiming at the market that the A321XLR has already saturated, instead of aiming for the gap above it.

The article implies that the company is in no fiscal position to launch this any time soon, so I am not going to get too excited about it.

Another interesting question is if Boeing is aiming at A321 spot, what are their next steps?
Usually shrinks are less successful than base model or stretches. If Boeing starts with 753 size as a base, and has any stretching plans - would they be selling ramp spools to wind stretch version for overnight parking?

I get a real kick at people who can noticeably tell the difference between a 320 and a 737 back in steerage class in terms of space. I mean I’m not a small person (5’10, 270) but if anything I appreciate the larger windows on the 737 and with the Sky interior on the newer 73’s, a more spacious feeling, modern cabin. The personal space is essentially the same. A half inch difference per seat, not really a big deal to me... seat comfort itself, legroom, and seat amenities are vastly more important when in coach. I’m not an Airbus hater, have flown on hundreds of 320 series on short and long flights, nice airplane - but to me it’s not “noticeably” more spacious than its American cousin. Maybe the aisle seems wider? Who knows.

One of the points that Anet doesn't discuss which is key for Boeing marketing is what are the city pairs that the airplane should be designed around. For the 777, United Airlines needed to fly from Denver to Honolulu on a hot day. For the 737NG, Southwest wanted trans-continental capability, as well as being able to integrate seamlessly into is existing 737-200/737-300 fleet. For 777-9, Emirates needs to fly from Dubai to Los Angeles with full payload on a hot day as well. Each of these airplanes were configured specifically to meet requirements for these markets.

So with the discussion surrounding NMA or the next Boeing airplane, what does Anet think are the city pairs that this airplane should be designed for? The wing size, fuselage diameter and passenger count is going to be dictated by the market that airplane is supposed to serve.

I think the only one able to explain this totally unforeseen development, is user Morrisond.

delete duplicate

SunsetLimited wrote:

I get a real kick at people who can noticeably tell the difference between a 320 and a 737 back in steerage class in terms of space. I mean I’m not a small person (5’10, 270) but if anything I appreciate the larger windows on the 737 and with the Sky interior on the newer 73’s, a more spacious feeling, modern cabin. The personal space is essentially the same. A half inch difference per seat, not really a big deal to me... seat comfort itself, legroom, and seat amenities are vastly more important when in coach. I’m not an Airbus hater, have flown on hundreds of 320 series on short and long flights, nice airplane - but to me it’s not “noticeably” more spacious than its American cousin. Maybe the aisle seems wider? Who knows.

It's more than a half inch.... Boeing plays tricks with seat width.. by narrowing the armrest and widening the cushion.... your shoulder still strike your fellow passengers... 17.8" on 737s much tighter than 18.5" on A320 becuase you get the benefit of better spacing... and the wider aisle means your shoulder/elbow isn't getting clipped everytime someone wals by as you lean a bit to give your fellow passenger room. I don't pay much attention to 'seat width'... I pay attention to distance from centerline of armrest to centerline of armrest... that's the definition of personal space that I have.... and in the A320... It's 1" extra per person and an additional 1" for the aisle (obviously dependent on airline configuration).

If you look at the 777X... You are going to find the distance center of armrest to center of armrest is greater than the equivalent in the 737... They are't doing 17.8" cushions with a 1" armrest. Most of us run out of elbow and shoulder space before butt space.

OK... now to tie this back into CEOs comments.... I'm sure whatever Boeing builds, they will aim for aisle and seat widths on par or slightly better than the A320.. with the additional advantage of larger windows. It's not 1960 anymore.. and the 707/727/737 internal fuselage widths were determined when folks were allot smaller...

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

I get a real kick at people who can noticeably tell the difference between a 320 and a 737 back in steerage class in terms of space. I mean I’m not a small person (5’10, 270) but if anything I appreciate the larger windows on the 737 and with the Sky interior on the newer 73’s, a more spacious feeling, modern cabin. The personal space is essentially the same. A half inch difference per seat, not really a big deal to me... seat comfort itself, legroom, and seat amenities are vastly more important when in coach. I’m not an Airbus hater, have flown on hundreds of 320 series on short and long flights, nice airplane - but to me it’s not “noticeably” more spacious than its American cousin. Maybe the aisle seems wider? Who knows.

It's more than a half inch.... Boeing plays tricks with seat width.. by narrowing the armrest and widening the cushion.... your shoulder still strike your fellow passengers... 17.8" on 737s much tighter than 18.5" on A320 becuase you get the benefit of better spacing... and the wider aisle means your shoulder/elbow isn't getting clipped everytime someone wals by as you lean a bit to give your fellow passenger room. I don't pay much attention to 'seat width'... I pay attention to distance from centerline of armrest to centerline of armrest... that's the definition of personal space that I have.... and in the A320... It's 1" extra per person and an additional 1" for the aisle (obviously dependent on airline configuration).

If you look at the 777X... You are going to find the distance center of armrest to center of armrest is greater than the equivalent in the 737... They are't doing 17.8" cushions with a 1" armrest. Most of us run out of elbow and shoulder space before butt space.

OK... now to tie this back into CEOs comments.... I'm sure whatever Boeing builds, they will aim for aisle and seat widths on par or slightly better than the A320.. with the additional advantage of larger windows. It's not 1960 anymore.. and the 707/727/737 internal fuselage widths were determined when folks were allot smaller...

Boeing is playing tricks with seat(pan) width, armrest widths, aisle width all the time. The thing is, you can't adjust, if you have an existing fuselage. So diversions, "depends", generalizations, apples oranges and confusing come in as alternatives.

A320s are significantly wider, giving airlines options. E.g. Short haul Easyjet A321 have 235 but also 25 inch wide aisle, 6 inch makes a lot of difference (de)boarding.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cro ... _314672064

Boeing probably will go with at least A320 cabin width, also providing space for AKH containers, pallets used everywhere except in USA (historical 727,737, 757 interchangeability).

CRJockey wrote:

I think the only one able to explain this totally unforeseen development, is user Morrisond.

And I'll be most curious, as always, in the answer from someone who is not a pilot, engineer, designer or indeed has ever had any role in aviation.

SunsetLimited wrote:

I get a real kick at people who can noticeably tell the difference between a 320 and a 737 back in steerage class in terms of space. I mean I’m not a small person (5’10, 270) but if anything I appreciate the larger windows on the 737 and with the Sky interior on the newer 73’s, a more spacious feeling, modern cabin. The personal space is essentially the same. A half inch difference per seat, not really a big deal to me... seat comfort itself, legroom, and seat amenities are vastly more important when in coach. I’m not an Airbus hater, have flown on hundreds of 320 series on short and long flights, nice airplane - but to me it’s not “noticeably” more spacious than its American cousin. Maybe the aisle seems wider? Who knows.

The difference in aisle width is easy to notice. Do a connecting flight from an A320 family to a 737 family one will notice a difference in cabin between the two, whether someone cares about it is a different story.

Count me in as one of the 7 seat, double aisle advocate who is sadden by this new rumor, though no surprised. You can't cheat physics but one can get close. So Boeing is going to build a A321 clone..........I am beyond excited. Boeing might as well roll out the work they did for a 737 replacement when the A320NEO was announced................................Oh crap.

On a positive note, Airbus next project is an A330 replacement, it would be ironic again if Airbus carves out another niche and has the domestic people hauler segment to itself again.

Opus99 wrote:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/boeing-refocuses-single-aisle-counter-airbus-a321xlr

Okay some interesting information

It seems like Boeing is focusing on single aisle Instead of twin aisle

It seems they are going for the 757-200/300 seat count. Maybe in between or something

It also seems they are now looking at metal fuselage with composite wings.

And 5000NM range

So in other words playing it safe.

Now my question is, how do you build a better aircraft compared to what Airbus will bring. Boeing has said the efficiency must come from the frame and build because engine will not give them 15-20% cut in fuel burn.

So I’ll leave it to those more knowledgeable than me on the physics.

But with metal frame, composite wing, 757 size. What are we looking at?

757 MAX? But is there a new engine in the 40-45K thrust range?

Lets see what happens. I have always been skeptical of a small wide body from the getgo. Maybe Boeing will surprise me and produce their version of the A300. But imo narrow body makes sense in this segment.

Opus99 wrote:

But with metal frame, composite wing, 757 size. What are we looking at?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1440759

Elementalism wrote:

757 MAX? But is there a new engine in the 40-45K thrust range?

I would guess that a 110-115t MTOW jet would have a 155-160m^2 wing with a span of 42-44m and require a thrust of around 38-39klb. I think the current gen narrow body engines may be able to grow to that level within the time frame we are looking at.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Elementalism wrote:

But is there a new engine in the 40-45K thrust range?

The avleak report mentioned talks with suppliers, presumably the most important ones are the engine suppliers.

From Wiki's NMA page:

Boeing issued a request for proposals (RFP) with a June 27, 2018 deadline for a 45,000 lbf (200 kN) engine with a thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) 25% lower than the 757's engines.[49] At least two engine-makers want exclusivity for the $2 billion program cost. Even if its thrust crept to 52,000 lbf (230 kN), GE and Safran will bid through their CFM joint venture with a 3D-woven-resin transfer molding fan like the Leap instead of a GEnx/GE9X-type carbon-fiber composite.[82]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane

Would not be surprised if we saw a CFM engine sized for this market and for the A321++/A322 that gets a lot of media speculation.

Elementalism wrote:

But imo narrow body makes sense in this segment.

It doesn't to me. It will be an easy target for the current A321XLR and future stretched A322 with WoT to attack. Productized version of WoT will fix one of the A32x family weaknesses, relatively small fuel capacity. It plays to all of Airbus's strengths and does not provide the market differentiation that Boeing would need to establish its product, IMO. Airbus can sit back and let WoT R&D wrap up in 2023, watch Boeing lay down its cards, then attack with precision.

JonesNL wrote:

A tight 6 abreast skinnier and lighter than A32x fuselage with smaller container option and optimized wing? 5t OEW advantage over the A321 should be enough to be quite competitive on the market...

No way is it going to be skinnier than the A320 fuselage, at least interior diameter-wise.

Revelation wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

But is there a new engine in the 40-45K thrust range?

The avleak report mentioned talks with suppliers, presumably the most important ones are the engine suppliers.

From Wiki's NMA page:

Boeing issued a request for proposals (RFP) with a June 27, 2018 deadline for a 45,000 lbf (200 kN) engine with a thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) 25% lower than the 757's engines.[49] At least two engine-makers want exclusivity for the $2 billion program cost. Even if its thrust crept to 52,000 lbf (230 kN), GE and Safran will bid through their CFM joint venture with a 3D-woven-resin transfer molding fan like the Leap instead of a GEnx/GE9X-type carbon-fiber composite.[82]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Ne ... e_Airplane

Would not be surprised if we saw a CFM engine sized for this market and for the A321++/A322 that gets a lot of media speculation.

Elementalism wrote:

But imo narrow body makes sense in this segment.

It doesn't to me. It will be an easy target for the current A321XLR and future stretched A322 with WoT to attack. Productized version of WoT will fix one of the A32x family weaknesses, relatively small fuel capacity. It plays to all of Airbus's strengths and does not provide the market differentiation that Boeing would need to establish its product, IMO. Airbus can sit back and let WoT R&D wrap up in 2023, watch Boeing lay down its cards, then attack with precision.

If Boeing goes down that route, the speculation about a new wing for the A320 starts to make sense. If that is the NSA, Airbus can be quite confident in matching it with a re-winged A320.

I’ve wondered if part of the delays on Boeing’s NMA/NSA/new plane centers around when CFM/GE get to use a geared design; Pratt’s patents expire sometime in the next few years.

They know all about the gearbox; GE’s own Avios makes it. A geared CFM design using Ge9X tech for the fan with the latest CFM components in this range might be a real game changer, and would give GE a leg up/project to work through prior to any widebody versions pending RR coming out with ultrafan (probably more toward 2030-2035 for 787NEO/A350NEO).

This might be very well the reason why they haven't started the NSA.
Boeing needs to wait for some next generation engine for NSA and for the MAX to generate the expected sales, production numbers and parts and services revenue.
With the MAX crisis and Covid the 737 still might lose some planned revenue years.

FluidFlow wrote:

And there lies the real business case problem for Boeing. The same engine will be available and ready for Airbus too and it seems Airbus has the tech ready to make the A321 able to use it. So Boeing will have to built an aircraft that competes with the A321 that will have the same engine and same generation wing. Only on the fuselage Boeing can improve over Airbus but it will also come with a 10bn$ difference in cost and Airbus can produce the A321 for around 40-50 from the get go.

This article suggests Boeing is heading towards a metal fuselage so even that won't have any reasonable expectation of superiority.

My thought of having something along the lines of NMA-6X i.e. lightweight tight wide body with the size of a 767-200 and with growth to -300 would mean an engine bigger/heavier than what Airbus would want for A321/A322 so Airbus would stick with enhanced/PIP'd versions of the current PW and CFM engines. That too could have provided a differentiation for the NMA. I don't think it would have made massive amounts of money, but it would have been a solid step on the path to an eventual MAX replacement.

Instead, with the narrow body 757-300 target we'll get the "devil's bowling alley" narrow body with the same engines that could readily work on a A321/A322. It doesn't make sense to me. What growth options do you have for something that is already long and thin? Better to save your money while MAX runs its course then do a clean MAX-8/9/10 replacement with EIS in the 2030s.

In fact this could be where it's all heading, with these NMA plans all being exercises to keep customers and engineers engaged without any actual aircraft emerging for another decade or so then we get a MAX replacement.

It reminds me of one of John Leary's most cutting lines, when he referred to Boeing as "the paper airplane company". Still waiting for JL's book to emerge. Maybe he has a five year NDA to wait out?

Revelation wrote:

This article suggests Boeing is heading towards a metal fuselage so even that won't have any reasonable expectation of superiority.

My thought of having something along the lines of NMA-6X i.e. lightweight tight wide body with the size of a 767-200 and with growth to -300 would mean an engine bigger/heavier than what Airbus would want for A321/A322 so Airbus would stick with enhanced/PIP'd versions of the current PW and CFM engines. That too could have provided a differentiation for the NMA. I don't think it would have made massive amounts of money, but it would have been a solid step on the path to an eventual MAX replacement.

Instead, with the narrow body 757-300 target we'll get the "devil's bowling alley" narrow body with the same engines that could readily work on a A321/A322. It doesn't make sense to me. What growth options do you have for something that is already long and thin? Better to save your money while MAX runs its course then do a clean MAX-8/9/10 replacement with EIS in the 2030s.

In fact this could be where it's all heading, with these NMA plans all being exercises to keep customers and engineers engaged without any actual aircraft emerging for another decade or so then we get a MAX replacement.

It reminds me of one of John Leary's most cutting lines, when he referred to Boeing as "the paper airplane company". Still waiting for JL's book to emerge. Maybe he has a five year NDA to wait out?

Agree. The MAX should be a cashflow cow again, and later a cash cow.

A book by John Leahy would be interesting, but seems unlikely. Is 'Leary' an accident or pun?

smartplane wrote:

Agree. The MAX should be a cashflow cow again, and later a cash cow.

A book by John Leahy would be interesting, but seems unlikely. Is 'Leary' an accident or pun?

More like a brain fart. The man really has faded from the scene. Hope he is happy and healthy and enjoying retirement.

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

And there lies the real business case problem for Boeing. The same engine will be available and ready for Airbus too and it seems Airbus has the tech ready to make the A321 able to use it. So Boeing will have to built an aircraft that competes with the A321 that will have the same engine and same generation wing. Only on the fuselage Boeing can improve over Airbus but it will also come with a 10bn$ difference in cost and Airbus can produce the A321 for around 40-50 from the get go.

This article suggests Boeing is heading towards a metal fuselage so even that won't have any reasonable expectation of superiority.

My thought of having something along the lines of NMA-6X i.e. lightweight tight wide body with the size of a 767-200 and with growth to -300 would mean an engine bigger/heavier than what Airbus would want for A321/A322 so Airbus would stick with enhanced/PIP'd versions of the current PW and CFM engines. That too could have provided a differentiation for the NMA. I don't think it would have made massive amounts of money, but it would have been a solid step on the path to an eventual MAX replacement.

Instead, with the narrow body 757-300 target we'll get the "devil's bowling alley" narrow body with the same engines that could readily work on a A321/A322. It doesn't make sense to me. What growth options do you have for something that is already long and thin? Better to save your money while MAX runs its course then do a clean MAX-8/9/10 replacement with EIS in the 2030s.

In fact this could be where it's all heading, with these NMA plans all being exercises to keep customers and engineers engaged without any actual aircraft emerging for another decade or so then we get a MAX replacement.

It reminds me of one of John Leary's most cutting lines, when he referred to Boeing as "the paper airplane company". Still waiting for JL's book to emerge. Maybe he has a five year NDA to wait out?

What if the current sales/backlog split between the MAX and neo is the reality? Both producers could produce more frames than they can deliver in the near future, with Airbus just raising production if slots are needed. So slot scarcity is as it is no reason to not buy the A320 family.
Can Boeing live with a 2 to 1 split in this mostly bigger narrow body market, the biggest slice of the commercial aircraft market? The A320neo holds it's own in numbers against the whole 737MAX lineup, while the A321neo is about to reach the sales numbers of the A320neo.
Can Boeing add enough sales with the MOM, or whatever it is called, or does Boeing need a smaller frame to draw at least even with the A320 family.

It seems obvious that you can not get a big advantage out of the fuselage. A new wing and new engines can be countered by Airbus. Anything, like a morphing wing has Airbus already in the drawer and running in the FBW on a different frame.
The big dream of a huge jump by Boeing past the A320 family, is IMO just a dream. Waiting for new technics will just extend the wait for Boeing to bridge the gap.

Here on a.net is a lot of talk about the 737MAX, while Airbus is delivering. 1223 A320neo and 530 A321neo by today. Installed base does matter.

IMO Boeing needs a new narrow body family just to compete.

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Boeing needs a new narrow body family just to compete.

MAX had significant orders prior to the grounding and the "COVID Collapse", and I doubt that was because airlines preferred another ~5000 A320 than Airbus could deliver.

Once airline traffic recovers, MAX should start selling again in significant numbers.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

IMO Boeing needs a new narrow body family just to compete.

MAX had significant orders prior to the grounding and the "COVID Collapse", and I doubt that was because airlines preferred another ~5000 A320 than Airbus could deliver.

Once airline traffic recovers, MAX should start selling again in significant numbers.

Could, but will it?

There was a lot of talk about the big backlog at Airbus for the A320 family and the difficulties to get one in a reasonable timeframe. Now the backlog of the MAX has mainly shrunk by cancelations and the neo backlog by deliveries. Many neo have been deferred and that opens up slots.

If the airlines having ordered the MAX earlier would speculate to get the MAX later, why cancel and not defer?

I still think the future lies in an optimal 200 seat twin aisle with 3K range. Single class for WN, and multi class for DL. 100t, single axle main gear, 36m wing with split tips. The baseline comfortable people mover for majority of 2hr to 4hr flights. Four aisle seats per row is what will differentiate it from the A321/A322. But if the airlines want an A321 copy from Boeing, so be it. I'm still betting on a coalition of the willing to launch a 3K twin aisle made up of DL, WN, FR, and a few others.

DenverTed wrote:

I still think the future lies in an optimal 200 seat twin aisle with 3K range. Single class for WN, and multi class for DL. 100t, single axle main gear, 36m wing with split tips. The baseline comfortable people mover for majority of 2hr to 4hr flights. Four aisle seats per row is what will differentiate it from the A321/A322. But if the airlines want an A321 copy from Boeing, so be it. I'm still betting on a coalition of the willing to launch a 3K twin aisle made up of DL, WN, FR, and a few others.

I think any portfolio planner at Boeing better takes market availabiulity of a lean, affordable A322 from ~2025 as a starting point. IMO an A322 is included in the XLR 101t MTOW, RCT, wing modification business case approved in 2019. A320 operators quickly ordering / converting to 500 A322's should be in the plan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWBNu0zLLY

Boeing has to get a new aircraft real lean and mean to beat it. Twin aisles isn't lean and mean under ~280 seats..

DenverTed wrote:

I'm still betting on a coalition of the willing to launch a 3K twin aisle made up of DL, WN, FR, and a few others.

Especially with FRs extensive history of valueing passenger comfort over low CASM, I absolutely believe you got a well thought through point there…

FR did not like NMA in its original form at all.

“First, let’s start with Ryanair, which is pessimistic about the idea of a 767 replacement, the 797. Ryanair, the largest 737-800 operator for starters, thinks that the 797 isn’t cost effective enough for them. More specifically, the CEO of Ryanair, Michael O’Leary stated that “We only want the most efficient aircraft” and that the 797 wouldn’t be good enough for them. What he means is that for the price that it would cost, the 797 wouldn’t be able to make enough money to cover the operating cost. This in a way makes sense because Ryanair operates mostly short-haul routes with high-density 737s, so to have a plane that is much larger and can fly longer on those short routes wouldn’t be fuel efficient and cost-effective.“

https://airtravelanalysis.com/boeing-797-what-we-know/

Ryanair needs constant fast turnaround times because they want to fly more legs per day and a/c. 25 minutes max in and out is what they aim for. This is why they don't want to have to handle to many passengers per flight and aircraft. They already moved up from 189 to 200 paid passenger seats son the -8-200. They still seem to consider the even bigger -10 as well.

NMA or 787 might still be something for their long range project under some different brand.

mjoelnir wrote:

If the airlines having ordered the MAX earlier would speculate to get the MAX later, why cancel and not defer?

Because they needed to reduce their near-term capital exposure due to the "COVID collapse" and the grounding of MAX likely triggered clauses in the sales contract that allowed them to cancel with little to no penalty. There might also have been a mercenary angle where airlines expected that MAX ASPs would drop due to the grounding and they could place new orders at more favorable prices and/or on more favorable financing terms then their existing sales contracts had.

But we will know over the next few years which scenario was the more accurate prediction as all those customers who cancelled MAX place new orders for either the MAX again or instead move to the A320neo.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

If the airlines having ordered the MAX earlier would speculate to get the MAX later, why cancel and not defer?

Because they needed to reduce their near-term capital exposure due to the "COVID collapse" and the grounding of MAX likely triggered clauses in the sales contract that allowed them to cancel with little to no penalty. There might also have been a mercenary angle where airlines expected that MAX ASPs would drop due to the grounding and they could place new orders at more favorable prices and/or on more favorable financing terms then their existing sales contracts had.

But we will know over the next few years which scenario was the more accurate prediction as all those customers who cancelled MAX place new orders for either the MAX again or instead move to the A320neo.

I find your explanation rather unlikely. Canceling the frames cut the discount that Boeing gives on delayed frames. The max the airlines can collect from Boeing are the payments with the order and progress payments. All such compensation by Boeing is paid as discount on frames delivered.

keesje wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I still think the future lies in an optimal 200 seat twin aisle with 3K range. Single class for WN, and multi class for DL. 100t, single axle main gear, 36m wing with split tips. The baseline comfortable people mover for majority of 2hr to 4hr flights. Four aisle seats per row is what will differentiate it from the A321/A322. But if the airlines want an A321 copy from Boeing, so be it. I'm still betting on a coalition of the willing to launch a 3K twin aisle made up of DL, WN, FR, and a few others.

I think any portfolio planner at Boeing better takes market availabiulity of a lean, affordable A322 from ~2025 as a starting point. IMO an A322 is included in the XLR 101t MTOW, RCT, wing modification business case approved in 2019. A320 operators quickly ordering / converting to 500 A322's should be in the plan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWBNu0zLLY

Boeing has to get a new aircraft real lean and mean to beat it. Twin aisles isn't lean and mean under ~280 seats..

Definitely agree. If the goal of a Boeing design is to compete in the A321-A322 space, it has to be an optimized single aisle that is more efficient than an A321 with a new wing (or an A322 with that wing) and more capable. Just matching won't let Boeing get any price premium and they need some kind of price premium to make the investment worth it vs. just a new wing that Airbus has to do.

I see people recognizing Boeing shelved the NMA, but thinking about the future, come back to MoM/ NMA specifications, 275 seats, 5000NM, even twin aisles. While Calhoun ID's A321 as a target.

I think lean, optimized, low cost environment and an alliance partner are much more on the agenda than another locally build NMA.

5% Lower operating costs is a way more valuable capability than 20% more range.

planecane wrote:

keesje wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I still think the future lies in an optimal 200 seat twin aisle with 3K range. Single class for WN, and multi class for DL. 100t, single axle main gear, 36m wing with split tips. The baseline comfortable people mover for majority of 2hr to 4hr flights. Four aisle seats per row is what will differentiate it from the A321/A322. But if the airlines want an A321 copy from Boeing, so be it. I'm still betting on a coalition of the willing to launch a 3K twin aisle made up of DL, WN, FR, and a few others.

I think any portfolio planner at Boeing better takes market availabiulity of a lean, affordable A322 from ~2025 as a starting point. IMO an A322 is included in the XLR 101t MTOW, RCT, wing modification business case approved in 2019. A320 operators quickly ordering / converting to 500 A322's should be in the plan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RWBNu0zLLY

Boeing has to get a new aircraft real lean and mean to beat it. Twin aisles isn't lean and mean under ~280 seats..

Definitely agree. If the goal of a Boeing design is to compete in the A321-A322 space, it has to be an optimized single aisle that is more efficient than an A321 with a new wing (or an A322 with that wing) and more capable. Just matching won't let Boeing get any price premium and they need some kind of price premium to make the investment worth it vs. just a new wing that Airbus has to do.

But that’s what we are all arguing right. How can they achieve that with a single aisle. When they have to spend 5 times what Airbus is going to spend to bring a product that will basically their version of the same thing. Someone that knows the physics can maybe point out how Boeing can optimise a clean sheet single aisle to the point that Airbus cannot with a revised a322

Personally, I feel like Boeing trying to compete head-on with the A321XLR is a bad move, at least for now.

IMO, It makes more sense to fend off the A321XLR from above, and also fill in the gap once occupied by the A300/A310/767. I think a big reason why the A321XLR is selling so well is because it is simply the largest aircraft with TATL capability below the 788/A338. The original 230-270 seat NMA proposal would’ve fit the hole nicely.

If Boeing can compete with the A321XLR from above, then I think the only thing the A321XLR has going for it is commonality with the A320. Either way, theres nothing Boeing can do about that.

Once Boeing decides to do NSA, they can develop a competitor to the A321 then. It makes no sense to try to compete 1:1 with the A321 right now. That’s a dumb business move, IMO.