par13del wrote:

So Boeing announces a 737 replacement now for EIS when 2025/2030 time frame, what do you expect them to do with the MAX frames already produced, the existing orders will not be taken and the market share will take an even greater hit.

I would imagine Boeing could offer airlines the option to convert future MAX orders to 797 orders, seeing as it will almost certainly be a clean-sheet 737/757 replacement at this point.

MartijnNL wrote:

I do wonder though what Boeing would call their next aircraft type after the 797.

808?

NameOmitted wrote:

One of the things I like about this site is I am surrounded by people who know a lot more than I do. So, understanding that I come from a place of ignorance, why couldn't either A or B design an airframe now that could be offered with a new engine later?

Airframes and engines now are designed effectively in lock-step to maximize their performance synergy. This is why we have seen the airframe and engine OEMs tending towards mutual exclusives on airframe+engine combinations: part of this is financial de-risking, but it also allows the two to optimize each part to make a better whole.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

I do wonder though what Boeing would call their next aircraft type after the 797.

808?

Like BOB?

MartijnNL wrote:

As long as it doesn't have dimmable windows...

A new 757/767 combi would be nice. I do wonder though what Boeing would call their next aircraft type after the 797.

They’ll begin to add additions to old numbers. Like 777 and 777X. Well I think

Cdydatzigs wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

I do wonder though what Boeing would call their next aircraft type after the 797.

808?

Currently it’s 404..not found

[/quote]
Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..[/quote]

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?

Stitch wrote:

Airframes and engines now are designed effectively in lock-step to maximize their performance synergy. This is why we have seen the airframe and engine OEMs tending towards mutual exclusives on airframe+engine combinations: part of this is financial de-risking, but it also allows the two to optimize each part to make a better whole.

At the same time, this increases risk for both the aircraft OEM and the engine supplier if one of them runs into problems. Often, this means engine troubles; these have plagued the A400M with its new, custom, engine. It can also mean EIS delays, as recently seen on the 777-9. On the other side, airframe issues like the 737MAX groundings can put the engine supplier in financial trouble too. Luckily for CFM, they were already on the A320 and had a second source of income. Likewise, Airbus seemed to be pretty happy to have two engine options on the neo during the initial GTF issues.

Vicenza wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..[/quote]

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?[/quote]

I don't think I typed that correctly. Maybe the same type certificate but basically certified as all new and no system not looked at again and no grandfathering.

morrisond wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?[/quote]

I don't think I typed that correctly. Maybe the same type certificate but basically certified as all new and no system not looked at again and no grandfathering.[/quote]

That is not a problem if you know it. It adds a bit of cost and time but when you know where the goal is you can score. For the 777-9 the goal was moved half way. If Airbus has to jump the hoop to get it done on the same type certificate then they will. I even think they will if they dont and then adapt the changes down so over time all aircraft will be on the same.

morrisond wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?

I don't think I typed that correctly. Maybe the same type certificate but basically certified as all new and no system not looked at again and no grandfathering.

Why would there be no grandfathering? My understanding was that the benefit of experience of operation is as worthy as new certification standards? What changed?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

morrisond wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X ...

If I am not wrong, you said this more than once, so can you give some reasoning.

Why would 322 will have a wingspan of 777X?

flyboy80 wrote:

I imagine a cabin between the 757/737 and 767- but retaining at six across in Y, with 18” seats, and with TWO aisles (2-2-2.) Obviously, the thinner fuselage design would only allow for either center or outboard overhead bins, but I imagine such a configuration would be quite spacious and could be, at operator discretion, converted to a terrible 7 abreast single aisle (4-3) if desired.

4-3 is not permitted. 14 CFR 25.817 prohibits more than 3 seats on either side of an aisle. This limits any passenger from having to climb over, or rescuers from having to assist across any more than two seats during an emergency evacuation. So 2-3-2 is really the only practical 7 abreast option.

Discussion about 7-abreast options generally revolves around the concepts Boeing has shown for a fuselage that is wider than it is tall. This is atypical due structural and volume optimization issues that I won't go into here. It was a point of regular contention in threads speculating what the NMA would be like.

planecane wrote:

Biofuel is certainly "cleaner" than fossil fuels. To what extent is still a question.

There have been a significant number of life cycle analyses performed on this topic of the last decade or so. These normally include not only carbon emitted due to energy use during production of the fuel, but also due to land-use effects and fertilizer production, for example. The results concur that biofuels have lower carbon emissions. How much lower varies depending on the study, the feed stock, and the production method. For example, if I remember right, simple hydrolytic conversion of natural plant oils tends to come out around a 40-50% reduction in net carbon emissions compared to petroleum, while Fischer-Tropsch conversion of waste cellulose (such as corn stocks from crops already being grown) could potentially achieve over 80% reduction in net carbon emissions.

In other words, depending which option is used, there could be a 3:1 difference in the amount carbon emitted, but all of them should still be a meaningful improvement over petroleum. So far, I'm not aware of any organization getting close to competitive pricing on the processes that achieve the highest CO2 reductions.

par13del wrote:

So Boeing announces a 737 replacement now for EIS when 2025/2030 time frame, what do you expect them to do with the MAX frames already produced, the existing orders will not be taken and the market share will take an even greater hit.

Deliver them as planned. Every new aircraft faces this problem. Unless basically everyone who has put serious effort into forecasting the post-COVID demand is very wrong about the long term outlooks, although the airlines can't afford to take many deliveries right now, later on they will need them. Airbus will only be able to ramp up so fast, and airlines won't want to wait years to meet demand.

par13del wrote:

Now if you somehow believe that Boeing will be able to invent an a/c that is 100% better than any existing Airbus product and Airbus will be unable to create a counter for the next 10 years allowing Boeing to recapture market share, that some great analysis.

Boeing's new aircraft does not have to be 100% better than what Airbus can counter with. It has be enough better, in enough metrics, to enough airlines, to be reasonably profitable.

The A320NEO is not the perfect aircraft that can never be competed with. It is a very good aircraft, though, with more potential to be unlocked, so it is critical for Boeing to define the next aircraft very judiciously. I'm certain they realized this when they put the NMA on hold.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

if they are 100x cleaner than fossil fuels

Just for the sake of encouraging habitual precision, that should be 99% cleaner. 100x cleaner is mathematically impossible. Despite the fact that it has become a colloquial way to express what you're getting at, it is technically incorrect. In some contexts it can generate confusion.

dtw2hyd wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X ...

If I am not wrong, you said this more than once, so can you give some reasoning.

Why would 322 will have a wingspan of 777X?

I think I get what morrisond is saying. Not the same wingspan, but analogously the same level of design change.

The 777X got a longer fuselage, new carbon fiber wing, and new engines. Boeing has applied for amended type certificate instead of a completely new type certificate. Some have expressed opinions against grandfathering and believe either a new type certificate is need, or at least for the certification to examine more than just the parts that have changed.

An A322 would presumably get a longer fuselage, a new carbon fiber wing, and new engines. It's a very similar scope of change, so whatever level of certification effort the 777X is held to would presumably apply to the A322. That factors into the considerations of what the new Boeing aircraft would be competing against.

Vicenza wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?

I believe you and others are misquoting what the FAA told Boeing about the proposed NMA aircraft approaching launch at the time (which I understand was going to use the 787 cockpit).

The FAA told Boeing that any new clean-sheet design aircraft would need an improved cockpit based on the lessons learned from the 737Max investigation, and none of the existing approved Boeing cockpits were adequate. That was a big hit to the NMA project which had been delayed for board presentation and approval due to the 737Max issues; and with a added delay caused by serious rethinking and redesign of the cockpit and change in CEO's the NMA program was sent back to the study phase and the pre-production NMA team was largely disbanded (although I understand that Boeing started an advanced cockpit team). That was actually fortunate timing for Boeing given the Covid-19 crises.

Existing aircraft families could be continued to be modified with their existing cockpits. I know that Boeing is working in the background (have an active team) on a 764F using the engines from the 748 as the current 763F does not meet the 2028 emissions standards - and the 748 engines are retrofitable on the longer landing geared 764 but not the 763 (timing of launch will depend largely on FedEx and UPS).

As such: A332, B764, and other model upgrades can occur. Just no new clean-sheet using existing cockpits (although I wonder if the A220 cockpit would meet the new standards that the international working group envisioned, or not).

Have a great day,

Vicenza wrote:

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?

I think it is implied in the name A322 means the same type certificate. Typically Airbus has used the ten's place for different type certificates using the same fuselage, A300, A310, A330, in the 3-series line of passenger jets.
A new type certificate on the A320 fuselage might be an A360, A370, or A390, if this convention is followed.

The market needs an airplane that falls between the 170 seat Airbus A321XLR and 240 seat Boeing 787-8, with a 5,500-6,000nm no-wind range.

That is about 350,000lb-400,000lb (160t-180t) MTOW, with two 55,000lbf-60,000lbf engines.

It really needs to be a clean-sheet, all composite 767-300ER equivalent with 12:1 or greater bypass geared turbofans. Something that could be stretched to replace the early 787-8s (range depending) like the 787-9s are replacing 777-200s, and something that could eventually have a dedicated freighter variant to replace early 767-300Fs when they age out, as well as future military derivatives.

At this point, composite manufacturing is highly advanced. The airplane would provide the opportunity for something like the Rolls-Royce UltraFan with a bypass ratio of 15:1. Putting technologies like these together would maximize the benefit to the airlines. Significant improvements over legacy airplanes (767-300ER, 767-400ER, A330-200, A330-300), and normal generational improvements over current airplanes (787-8, 787-9, A330-800neo, A330-900neo) should be achievable, while also enabling a return to more point-to-point flights which the 767-300ER pioneered.

And to add. The idea of yet another stretch of the A320 for the TATL or longer market is not the ideal solution. That is like making a 757-300ER or a return to the DC-8-63. Yes, some things have changed with travel, which make wide bodies less advantageous, but two aisles is a big benefit for boarding and disembarking. Back before jet bridges were the norm, the airlines boarded 707s and DC-8s from front and back doors simultaneously using airstairs.

The market is happy to "abuse" other airframes for those routes, a widebody with such little range has no value at all stop dreaming. A new aircraft programm has to recoup it's costs and a run below 1500 (low cost derivates included) will not be able to do it today, we live in an age of horizontal market diversification.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

VV wrote:

did you guys note that concerning the future aircraft M Calhoun used many words to say basically nothing?

And you are trying to interpret his words in a way that I cannot understand.

In my opinion, he basically said, "Thank you for your question but I have other more important things to think about and to do."

Yeah, we are aware that we are grasping for straws....excited by the prospect of an all new anything in the single aisle category from Boeing. It's been 40 years since Boeing developed a clean sheet single aisle plane (757)... (The 717 doesn't count as they were just taking over the MD95 program... which was just a shrink/rework of the MD90 anyway...)

LIkewise, we are also giddy over a re-engine/rewing/stretch of the A321 as an A322..

I guess as fans of all things aeronautics, we can't help but get excited by developments in the single-aisle programs... We've had nothing but re-engines, wing tip devices, and cabin refreshes for decades and decades from A and B (yeah I know there has been other incremental improvements, carbon brakes, CRT to LCDs, etc...). Embraer gave us something good in the EJets and Bombardier in the C-Series.... but it's the prospect of new planes that pack well more than 150pax, fly accross the continents, and sell in the thousands that excite us the most.

I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.

Bombardier built the C Series from scratch but failed miserably to make any money out of it.

What can you expect from single aisle aircraft today? Not much.

The dream about the A322 is what it is, a dream.

VV wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

VV wrote:

did you guys note that concerning the future aircraft M Calhoun used many words to say basically nothing?

And you are trying to interpret his words in a way that I cannot understand.

In my opinion, he basically said, "Thank you for your question but I have other more important things to think about and to do."

Yeah, we are aware that we are grasping for straws....excited by the prospect of an all new anything in the single aisle category from Boeing. It's been 40 years since Boeing developed a clean sheet single aisle plane (757)... (The 717 doesn't count as they were just taking over the MD95 program... which was just a shrink/rework of the MD90 anyway...)

LIkewise, we are also giddy over a re-engine/rewing/stretch of the A321 as an A322..

I guess as fans of all things aeronautics, we can't help but get excited by developments in the single-aisle programs... We've had nothing but re-engines, wing tip devices, and cabin refreshes for decades and decades from A and B (yeah I know there has been other incremental improvements, carbon brakes, CRT to LCDs, etc...). Embraer gave us something good in the EJets and Bombardier in the C-Series.... but it's the prospect of new planes that pack well more than 150pax, fly accross the continents, and sell in the thousands that excite us the most.

I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.

Bombardier built the C Series from scratch but failed miserably to make any money out of it.

What can you expect from single aisle aircraft today? Not much.

The dream about the A322 is what it is, a dream.

It may well stay a dream too. Airbus don’t need to build it, the biggest strength is that they could build it. Boeing could build a superb aircraft in any market it chooses, the struggle they have is determining the market. Giving Boeing clarity on their next move may not be a great move for airbus.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With the Yellowstone concept Boeing had plans for a promising family. They would need something like that again. Now including future robot and automation fabrication requirements.
Beefing up old frames will work for some time but one day you will have to jump. Waiting or even hesitating for too long will only make it more and more costly to get things going again. There is a heavy toll you pay for short term savings.
Whenever the market can move back to normal it will be the moment to launch the NMA and NSA. Both can be prepared without any rush and in full perfection right now.

I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

No mention in the article of all of the big MAX 10 changes that were pondered in this A.net thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453525&hilit=MAX10&start=100

VV wrote:

[
I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.

Yes, they are. I was referring to the E-170, E-175, E-190, E-195 which were the original four members of the clean-sheet E-Jets family, launched less than 20 years ago.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

No mention in the article of all of the big MAX 10 changes that were pondered in this A.net thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453525&hilit=MAX10&start=100

VV wrote:

[
I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.

Yes, they are. I was referring to the E-170, E-175, E-190, E-195 which were the original four members of the clean-sheet E-Jets family, launched less than 20 years ago.

Article is paywalled, please provide a fair-use summary or find a non-paywalled source.

The FlightGlobal article notes that EASA would have preferred a physical third AoA sensor, but has accepted that the angle-of-attack ‘integrity enhancement’ to be developed and certified by Boeing fully meets their wishes which is why they signed off on it. This design included a combination of enhanced angle-of-attack monitors and addition of a manual switch to select the air data source.

The modifications will be implemented in the 737-10 from the start of production and retrofitted to the other in-service Max variants. So all the MAX models will have this angle-of-attack ‘integrity enhancement’.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

planecane wrote:

I share your question. Biofuels are certainly not "zero carbon" if that's what you are interested in but neither is wind, solar or any other renewable energy. Hydroelectric is probably the closest because the infrastructure lasts so long that the energy to build the dam is amortized over a very long time.

Even if renewable energy sources aren't 100% carbon neutral, if they are 100x cleaner than fossil fuels then they must (and will eventually) be implemented. This is not politics, these are facts. For those who are against green energy because of what party is pushing it or because they have stocks in oil companies, it be wise to suggest to fossil fuel makers to start transitioning their technology and workforce to something that is not reliant on oil production. The future is coming quickly and most of us aren't going to shed a tear if anyone from big oil is left behind.

I think you misunderstood my comment. The post I was responding to seemed to be saying that biofuels weren't beneficial. I was simply saying that if lower CO2 is what you are interested in, biofuels are better than fossil fuel even if they are not zero carbon. My comment was saying that no energy source is zero carbon on a lifecycle basis (with the exception of maybe direct solar heat or solar oven) so we shouldn't dismiss biofuels for aviation just because they aren't zero carbon. They are still lower carbon than fossil fuels and make far more sense than battery or H2 energy storage for aircraft.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I was surprised to see that Boeing is still focused on the MAX 10. In fact, some of the additional work required for certification, will see itself trickled down to the 7,8,9 models.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

No mention in the article of all of the big MAX 10 changes that were pondered in this A.net thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453525&hilit=MAX10&start=100

VV wrote:

[
I think the E190-E2, E195-E2 and E175-E2 are all derivative aircraft.

Yes, they are. I was referring to the E-170, E-175, E-190, E-195 which were the original four members of the clean-sheet E-Jets family, launched less than 20 years ago.

Of note is the mention of the very dated crew alert system being upgraded - ECAS??

barney captain wrote:

Of note is the mention of the very dated crew alert system being upgraded - ECAS??

I think if EICAS could have been implemented without significant difficulty, it might have been.

The article says "The work to recertify the Max, it says, has highlighted “several weaknesses” in the crew alerting system and mitigated them by introducing new procedures to provide a “more structured” method for the pilots to interact with it."

To me, this sounds like the existing 737 crew alert system will remain, but Boeing will do some re-work to reduce the number of cascading / simultaneous alerts and improve the alert checklists to make them easier to follow.

It sounds like the goal is to not overwhelm the flight crew with too many simultaneous or cascading alerts which confuses them to the point they are not able to identify the most important flight-safety issues and work on resolving them.

Cdydatzigs wrote:

planecane wrote:

I share your question. Biofuels are certainly not "zero carbon" if that's what you are interested in but neither is wind, solar or any other renewable energy. Hydroelectric is probably the closest because the infrastructure lasts so long that the energy to build the dam is amortized over a very long time.

Even if renewable energy sources aren't 100% carbon neutral, if they are 100x cleaner than fossil fuels then they must (and will eventually) be implemented. This is not politics, these are facts. For those who are against green energy because of what party is pushing it or because they have stocks in oil companies, it be wise to suggest to fossil fuel makers to start transitioning their technology and workforce to something that is not reliant on oil production. The future is coming quickly and most of us aren't going to shed a tear if anyone from big oil is left behind.

These are not facts, they are thoughts. Pushing thoughts as facts won't make a desired outcome. If/when power sources outside of fossil fuels are able to power needs in a manner more efficiently, durably and at lower costs, they will overtake the current market due to demand, not force or hatred of another "style".

Boeing stating that Biofuels are the bet going forward for at least another 30 years if a massive statement. The best minds are working there and the "green" desire can't do what is promised. If it did, the market would jump just like it did when we stopped riding horses and moved to cars.

Revelation wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/boe ... 49.article

Article is paywalled, please provide a fair-use summary or find a non-paywalled source.

Rev,
I don't have a paid subscription with FlightGlobal and I was able to read the entire article. I do have an account, so I log in, but I've never paid for anything. Anyone can establish an account that permits you to read some of the articles.

744SPX wrote:

B would be better off going for the Transonic Truss Braced Wing at this point. A "me too" isn't going to cut it

That is just a bunch of bull sh.t bingo words. Boeing PR with NASA fodder.

morrisond wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Given that a 322 with a new wing would effectively be the same as 77W to 777X I find it hard to believe they can do it on the same type certificate given the new regulatory environment and the FAA's comments that any future new certifications after 777X will have to include a lot more modern cockpit. 2025 is a pipe dream I think at this point..

Can you point me to where it was stated that they they would be on the same type certificate, or this this an assumption by you?[/quote]

I don't think I typed that correctly. Maybe the same type certificate but basically certified as all new and no system not looked at again and no grandfathering.[/quote]

( did the FAA really talk about all newish planes to have HI improvements?
or did it primarily touch on the cave men's dream 737*)

grandfathering is about not having to conform to current, modern certification requirements.
( i.e. like lacking in obstacle clearance, steam gauges, layer cake hardware und UI 9g fuselages ... )

grandfathering is about not looking beyond direct impact of changes.

an upcoming certification of the 737-10 would require current obstacle clearance and fuselage g-forces tolerance.
( ok I'll dream on

Stitch wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Of note is the mention of the very dated crew alert system being upgraded - ECAS??

I think if EICAS could have been implemented without significant difficulty, it might have been.

The article says "The work to recertify the Max, it says, has highlighted “several weaknesses” in the crew alerting system and mitigated them by introducing new procedures to provide a “more structured” method for the pilots to interact with it."

To me, this sounds like the existing 737 crew alert system will remain, but Boeing will do some re-work to reduce the number of cascading / simultaneous alerts and improve the alert checklists to make them easier to follow.

It sounds like the goal is to not overwhelm the flight crew with too many simultaneous or cascading alerts which confuses them to the point they are not able to identify the most important flight-safety issues and work on resolving them.

Interestingly, this pic of a Navy P-8 sure appears to have something resembling EICAS displayed on that center DU next to the engine instruments.

https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-airv ... n-navy-p-8

Eiszeit wrote:

The market is happy to "abuse" other airframes for those routes, a widebody with such little range has no value at all stop dreaming. A new aircraft programm has to recoup it's costs and a run below 1500 (low cost derivates included) will not be able to do it today, we live in an age of horizontal market diversification.

I disagree. I did collected a lot of data on this. The market is desperate for a 5000-6000nm small widebody.

We can look at the flight range of passenger widebody and create a bell curve. 20 years ago the middle 95% of the bell curve contained aircraft with ranges between 4,050nm and 7,370nm. The A300R on the low end and 777-300ER on the high end. The mean range was around 6500nm.

On the low range side sales data of the A330-200 and A330-300 show airlines prefer a model over 6000nm. Once the A330-300 got a MTOW increase the sales switched to that model.

On the high range side the 777LR and A340-500 had a range over 8000nm. Both of these sold very poorly as nearly all airlines preferred more efficient aircraft that were either bigger 777W and smaller A330.

With the A330NEO all airlines prefer the larger aircraft with shortage range. With the A350 the airlines prefer the smaller model with shorter range. The common connection here is airlines prefer shorter range.

The A330-800 and both A350 model have a range over 8000nm. When the A350NEO comes out both models will fly 9000nm. Historically airlines avoided such long aircraft but if they are an Airbus customer they have no choice.

Likewise the 787NEO will see the 787-9 fly well over 8000nm. Lucky for Boeing they have the 787-10 which will remain in the sweetspot for decades. Most members expect the 787-10 to become the most popular family member once improved engines arrive. However with the 787-10 becoming the most popular model that create a giant gap in Boeing's lineup.

Designing a small widebody with 5000-6000nm range is ideal. Fast forward another 20 years and this small widebody family will be 5500-6500nm, that is right in the sweet spot.

RJMAZ wrote:

Eiszeit wrote:

The market is happy to "abuse" other airframes for those routes, a widebody with such little range has no value at all stop dreaming. A new aircraft programm has to recoup it's costs and a run below 1500 (low cost derivates included) will not be able to do it today, we live in an age of horizontal market diversification.

I disagree. I did collected a lot of data on this. The market is desperate for a 5000-6000nm small widebody.

We can look at the flight range of passenger widebody and create a bell curve. 20 years ago the middle 95% of the bell curve contained aircraft with ranges between 4,050nm and 7,370nm. The A300R on the low end and 777-300ER on the high end. The mean range was around 6500nm.

On the low range side sales data of the A330-200 and A330-300 show airlines prefer a model over 6000nm. Once the A330-300 got a MTOW increase the sales switched to that model.

On the high range side the 777LR and A340-500 had a range over 8000nm. Both of these sold very poorly as nearly all airlines preferred more efficient aircraft that were either bigger 777W and smaller A330.

With the A330NEO all airlines prefer the larger aircraft with shortage range. With the A350 the airlines prefer the smaller model with shorter range. The common connection here is airlines prefer shorter range.

The A330-800 and both A350 model have a range over 8000nm. When the A350NEO comes out both models will fly 9000nm. Historically airlines avoided such long aircraft but if they are an Airbus customer they have no choice.

Likewise the 787NEO will see the 787-9 fly well over 8000nm. Lucky for Boeing they have the 787-10 which will remain in the sweetspot for decades. Most members expect the 787-10 to become the most popular family member once improved engines arrive. However with the 787-10 becoming the most popular model that create a giant gap in Boeing's lineup.

Designing a small widebody with 5000-6000nm range is ideal. Fast forward another 20 years and this small widebody family will be 5500-6500nm, that is right in the sweet spot.

I completely agree. It would be very easy for either manufacturer to build a 2-3-2 aircraft in this range to fragment that market and take it over, just as the 787 and A350 made quick inroads on the 747, 777, and A380.
A 52m high aspect carbon wing will be much lighter and more efficient than the 767 wing. Even without an oval fuselage, a 16' diameter fuselage is less than the 16.5 x 17.25' 767, 5% less surface area and 11% less frontal area. The only hold up for Airbus or Boeing, is the 45K engine, which I believe will have to be a geared fan engine.

I always say a tight 2-4-2 cabin is best as it hits the half way point between the current widebody and narrowbody aircraft. We are looking at an aircraft with cabin area half way between an A321 and 787-8.

A321 6abreast with 34.4m cabin length
787-8 9abreast with 42.3m cabin length.

Half way between these would be a 38.4m cabin length with 7.5ab. 7.5ab means we need to either go 7ab with a longer cabin or 8ab with a shorter cabin. 8ab would need a 33m cabin and 7ab would need a 44m cabin.

The 7ab 767-400 has a cabin 46.86m long. If a new tight 7ab design is slightly skinnier than the 767 then we would have a very skinny fuselage like the 767-400. A future stretch would then be very difficult.

If we assume the 787-8 is discontinued and the Boeing 797 has to sit half way between the A321 and 787-9 then a 7ab aircraft would require a cabin fractionally longer than the 767-400 to hit that mid point.

A tight 8ab would not have to be as stubby as the A310 and it would allow for a future stretch quite easily.

I think we both agree most of the efficiency gains will come from optimising for a shorter range. If we look at the A330-300 going to the 777-200LR the MTOW increased by 45% but the cabin area is only 7% larger.

[quote="RJMAZ"][/quote]
The real question is whether there is, in an effectively completely fungible market, a niche between what the A32X/737 class and a B787class are capable of and is that niche capable of supporting the development costs of an entirely new jet. “Business case not closing” happens for a reason.

I would agree that there is ‘some’ additional weight carried for longer range but significant amounts of that in the example you list also include significantly higher payload capabilities (about 45% higher?) so, as you have advocated for previously maybe we should instead look at the fuel use per kg of available payload?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Stitch wrote:

NameOmitted wrote:

One of the things I like about this site is I am surrounded by people who know a lot more than I do. So, understanding that I come from a place of ignorance, why couldn't either A or B design an airframe now that could be offered with a new engine later?

Airframes and engines now are designed effectively in lock-step to maximize their performance synergy. This is why we have seen the airframe and engine OEMs tending towards mutual exclusives on airframe+engine combinations: part of this is financial de-risking, but it also allows the two to optimize each part to make a better whole.

And the conundrum for BA includes a calculation of just how much market-dominance the A321neo/A322(?) might permanently sequester if left unchallenged.
So maybe the lock-step will have to be abandoned and the 797 will have an all-new (mostly) plastic airframe and all-new systems; but with exactly the same engines as are available to the (constantly-evolving) A32xx family.
Exactly the same challenge that has kept reappearing - and which previously BA has always ducked, choosing to keep the 737 line going.
My - BA can't duck the challenge much longer and stay competitive.
Just have to bite the bullet.
And of course AB will drop prices and BA will have to endure many years of lowered margins.

But it is either that or cash the chips in.


I suggested a couple of years ago that:
1) the BA design process would involve a very close re-capitulation of the parallel development of the 757/767 families.
2) the NB and small WB families would be designed together and to be mutually supportive. This would gather much synergy and the benefit of increased scale.
3) where the NB was concerned, the evolving danger from the A321neo was such that the first of the NB family to roll-out might in fact be the "stretch" - the direct competitor to what is now called the A321neo/A321LR/A321XLR.

cheers

meh130 wrote:

The market needs an airplane that falls between the 170 seat Airbus A321XLR and 240 seat Boeing 787-8, with a 5,500-6,000nm no-wind range.

That is about 350,000lb-400,000lb (160t-180t) MTOW, with two 55,000lbf-60,000lbf engines.

It really needs to be a clean-sheet, all composite 767-300ER equivalent with 12:1 or greater bypass geared turbofans. Something that could be stretched to replace the early 787-8s (range depending) like the 787-9s are replacing 777-200s, and something that could eventually have a dedicated freighter variant to replace early 767-300Fs when they age out, as well as future military derivatives.

At this point, composite manufacturing is highly advanced. The airplane would provide the opportunity for something like the Rolls-Royce UltraFan with a bypass ratio of 15:1. Putting technologies like these together would maximize the benefit to the airlines. Significant improvements over legacy airplanes (767-300ER, 767-400ER, A330-200, A330-300), and normal generational improvements over current airplanes (787-8, 787-9, A330-800neo, A330-900neo) should be achievable, while also enabling a return to more point-to-point flights which the 767-300ER pioneered.

It is a while back now, but IIRC, BA called for proposals from the engine OEMs for a new engine of 50,000lbf+.
cheers

morrisond wrote:

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Operating efficiency isn't the be all and end all. Where Boeing can gain a lot is by optimizing a new design for very efficient production and use an awful lot of automation on the assembly line to reduce labour cost. Plus do it in SC where Labour costs are lower anyways and you put yourself in a position where you can have a large pricing advantage.

A fully up to date SA more state of the art Aero and lightweight structure should be better than A320/321 with a new wing but maybe a maximum of 3-5% better.

Large pricing advantage will only come after spending the $billions to get that new production method up and running at full production volume across the supply chain. The 3-5% gain can be addressed by a new wing for Team A. The transition period will be fraught with peril for Team B. Customers will stop buying MAX once they know Boeing is moving on from it. 787, MAX and now 777X gives customers a lot of reasons to wonder if Boeing can deliver on a clean sheet or not. It would take giant cajones for an executive to decide to be in the front of the line to get what IMO will largely be a "me too" product. The transition time would be perfect for Team A to steal some key customers. Tell them that B is leaving them stranded because no money will be spent on MAX, meanwhile A can sell the current product as a known quantity at sharp prices while making a much smaller transition to a new wing while keeping the rest of the supply chain in place.

It was a 3-5% advantage vs a 320 with a new wing. It would not be a me to product as it would be far more advanced than the by then Ancient A320 series (from a Systems standpoint).

I still believe they do Big Wing/Small Wing Versions with the Big Wing LR Version First which sits in a slot above MAX and does not Cannibalize it sales. Just as Calhoun stated today - the next aircraft is somewhere between MAX and 787.

However the program can be expensed for as one under program accounting (Big Wing + Small Wing) so all those billions in Industrialization costs can be spread over a very large block of frames (5,000+) further helping what you can sell it for.

Given the new regulatory environment I highly doubt Airbus can do a rewinged 320 as a Derivative - unless they don't ever want to sell it with FAA approval. If the FAA is demanding a more advanced cockpit than 787/777X for Boeing they will never allow Airbus to not meet that standard either. Which basically means Airbus will need to do a clean sheet as well or substantially a new clean sheet as once they start having to redo the cockpit systems you might as well modernize everything else.

Besides - if Boeing doesn't do this (and it could be truss based wing if ready) what else do you think they will/should do?

2175301 gets it - without radical new aero design this will be about production cost where Boeing already has an advantage. We must also remember that Boeing just cut their overhead materially. Airbus has not done that to the same extent.

What is Boeing's alternative?

I started at the end of the thread then went back to the start & then regretted not starting at the start!
Sorry for repetition.

Yep, Rev makes a great "Devil's Advocate".

But it's not quite so black.

The A32xx is now also "frozen in time".
IMHO the A322 getting a lovely new CFRP wing without being forced to build what would amount to
a new type is extremely unlikely. Then the subject of a 2021-compliant Flight Deck would perforce also raise it's ugly head.
Maybe AB could have fitted on a new wing on to an A322 - no problems - before BA had to undertake those (agonizing) years of the FAA/EASA/others taking their own sweet time to come to their conclusions, but not now.


Matter of fact, given the stakes at issue, I find myself thinking that the basic equation has not changed:

A) STAND-ALONE NMA?
Business case fails.

B) JOINTLY-DESIGNED NMA/NB FAMILIES SHARING ADVANCED DIGITAL DESIGN AND PRODUCTION?




cheers

PS - my earlier post about a joint design project for the NMA/737 replacement always envisaged 3 wings across the two families.
Sound extravagant?
Not if you are optimising across two families with ultimately 6+ members, from say 130-260 seats and 1,000-6,000 NM.
Competitive in all segments.

And across thousands and thousands of frames over say 30 years.
In short, my conclusion is that the NMA/NB solution is still the one.

Post on Strategic advantage follows.

"Strategic Advantage".

Strategists caution that the moment of (apparently) greatest success can be very dangerous.
I characterised the A32xx family as being "frozen in time".
And I would add, the frames are produced across many lines in a number of countries.
Great inertia.
Very hard to turn around. (Like a Supertanker, say).

Where the speculation about BA Automation advantages is concerned, then that is exactly what BA was already addressing when it proposed to get the production system right while producing the NMA - and then start the new NB with that essential element in the can.

THIS IS NOT A MINOR ITEM!

My memory is failing me - sorry -but I recall the (successful) BA Production Manager around 2013 explain that the MAX decision was necessary for many reasons, one of which was that he still could not get his head around how to build 50-60-70 CFRP NB frames/Month.

I surmise that absolutely nothing has changed.

Whichever of AB/BA can get this system right will have a massive ongoing advantage.
And in strategic terms, BA may have the advantage.

Why?

Because BA have to change.

AB, in contrast, have every reason not to change.

And may not even realise that the moment to change is upon them

cheers

Sharing advanced what?

Sorry, but buzzwords do not make a business case and while a common type rating might have been amazing in the times of analogue cockpits, they are rather standard in times of FBW systems and widely available cockpit avionics families to choose from.

brindabella wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Large pricing advantage will only come after spending the $billions to get that new production method up and running at full production volume across the supply chain. The 3-5% gain can be addressed by a new wing for Team A. The transition period will be fraught with peril for Team B. Customers will stop buying MAX once they know Boeing is moving on from it. 787, MAX and now 777X gives customers a lot of reasons to wonder if Boeing can deliver on a clean sheet or not. It would take giant cajones for an executive to decide to be in the front of the line to get what IMO will largely be a "me too" product. The transition time would be perfect for Team A to steal some key customers. Tell them that B is leaving them stranded because no money will be spent on MAX, meanwhile A can sell the current product as a known quantity at sharp prices while making a much smaller transition to a new wing while keeping the rest of the supply chain in place.

It was a 3-5% advantage vs a 320 with a new wing. It would not be a me to product as it would be far more advanced than the by then Ancient A320 series (from a Systems standpoint).

I still believe they do Big Wing/Small Wing Versions with the Big Wing LR Version First which sits in a slot above MAX and does not Cannibalize it sales. Just as Calhoun stated today - the next aircraft is somewhere between MAX and 787.

However the program can be expensed for as one under program accounting (Big Wing + Small Wing) so all those billions in Industrialization costs can be spread over a very large block of frames (5,000+) further helping what you can sell it for.

Given the new regulatory environment I highly doubt Airbus can do a rewinged 320 as a Derivative - unless they don't ever want to sell it with FAA approval. If the FAA is demanding a more advanced cockpit than 787/777X for Boeing they will never allow Airbus to not meet that standard either. Which basically means Airbus will need to do a clean sheet as well or substantially a new clean sheet as once they start having to redo the cockpit systems you might as well modernize everything else.

Besides - if Boeing doesn't do this (and it could be truss based wing if ready) what else do you think they will/should do?

2175301 gets it - without radical new aero design this will be about production cost where Boeing already has an advantage. We must also remember that Boeing just cut their overhead materially. Airbus has not done that to the same extent.

What is Boeing's alternative?

I started at the end of the thread then went back to the start & then regretted not starting at the start!
Sorry for repetition.

Yep, Rev makes a great "Devil's Advocate".

But it's not quite so black.

The A32xx is now also "frozen in time".
IMHO the A322 getting a lovely new CFRP wing without being forced to build what would amount to
a new type is extremely unlikely. Then the subject of a 2021-compliant Flight Deck would perforce also raise it's ugly head.
Maybe AB could have fitted on a new wing on to an A322 - no problems - before BA had to undertake those (agonizing) years of the FAA/EASA/others taking their own sweet time to come to their conclusions, but not now.


Matter of fact, given the stakes at issue, I find myself thinking that the basic equation has not changed:

A) STAND-ALONE NMA?
Business case fails.

B) JOINTLY-DESIGNED NMA/NB FAMILIES SHARING ADVANCED DIGITAL DESIGN AND PRODUCTION?




cheers

PS - my earlier post about a joint design project for the NMA/737 replacement always envisaged 3 wings across the two families.
Sound extravagant?
Not if you are optimising across two families with ultimately 6+ members, from say 130-260 seats and 1,000-6,000 NM.
Competitive in all segments.

And across thousands and thousands of frames over say 30 years.
In short, my conclusion is that the NMA/NB solution is still the one.

Post on Strategic advantage follows.

That's a very good summation.

Whether or not it's one cross section or two or two wings or three the next Boeing product family needs to cover that range.

You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.

morrisond wrote:

brindabella wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It was a 3-5% advantage vs a 320 with a new wing. It would not be a me to product as it would be far more advanced than the by then Ancient A320 series (from a Systems standpoint).

I still believe they do Big Wing/Small Wing Versions with the Big Wing LR Version First which sits in a slot above MAX and does not Cannibalize it sales. Just as Calhoun stated today - the next aircraft is somewhere between MAX and 787.

However the program can be expensed for as one under program accounting (Big Wing + Small Wing) so all those billions in Industrialization costs can be spread over a very large block of frames (5,000+) further helping what you can sell it for.

Given the new regulatory environment I highly doubt Airbus can do a rewinged 320 as a Derivative - unless they don't ever want to sell it with FAA approval. If the FAA is demanding a more advanced cockpit than 787/777X for Boeing they will never allow Airbus to not meet that standard either. Which basically means Airbus will need to do a clean sheet as well or substantially a new clean sheet as once they start having to redo the cockpit systems you might as well modernize everything else.

Besides - if Boeing doesn't do this (and it could be truss based wing if ready) what else do you think they will/should do?

2175301 gets it - without radical new aero design this will be about production cost where Boeing already has an advantage. We must also remember that Boeing just cut their overhead materially. Airbus has not done that to the same extent.

What is Boeing's alternative?

I started at the end of the thread then went back to the start & then regretted not starting at the start!
Sorry for repetition.

Yep, Rev makes a great "Devil's Advocate".

But it's not quite so black.

The A32xx is now also "frozen in time".
IMHO the A322 getting a lovely new CFRP wing without being forced to build what would amount to
a new type is extremely unlikely. Then the subject of a 2021-compliant Flight Deck would perforce also raise it's ugly head.
Maybe AB could have fitted on a new wing on to an A322 - no problems - before BA had to undertake those (agonizing) years of the FAA/EASA/others taking their own sweet time to come to their conclusions, but not now.


Matter of fact, given the stakes at issue, I find myself thinking that the basic equation has not changed:

A) STAND-ALONE NMA?
Business case fails.

B) JOINTLY-DESIGNED NMA/NB FAMILIES SHARING ADVANCED DIGITAL DESIGN AND PRODUCTION?




cheers

PS - my earlier post about a joint design project for the NMA/737 replacement always envisaged 3 wings across the two families.
Sound extravagant?
Not if you are optimising across two families with ultimately 6+ members, from say 130-260 seats and 1,000-6,000 NM.
Competitive in all segments.

And across thousands and thousands of frames over say 30 years.
In short, my conclusion is that the NMA/NB solution is still the one.

Post on Strategic advantage follows.

That's a very good summation.

Whether or not it's one cross section or two or two wings or three the next Boeing product family needs to cover that range.

You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

I think the talk is not about the scale o the changes but rather the scale of the oversight by the regulator. Is there evidence that this occurred at airbus too?

morrisond wrote:

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

Who says Boeing’s FBW system isn’t good enough? And even if it isn’t the differences go beyond level of technology and in to the design philosophy. Other then fanboys trying to win points I can’t see either philosophy needing any changes.

morrisond wrote:

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.

So airbus would find it too much to do a stretch and a new wing for the A322 because of certification requirements but Boeing could do new wing and stretch on a 787? Lol, is that because of magic carbon?

‘Grandafathering’ rules were fine, the issue is that too much trust was handed to the OEM. Now a lot of things are being checked after the fact because the FAA were caught napping and Boeing were caught supplying comfy beds to nap in.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boeing failures in business line after business line does not seem to grab the attention it should. New fine payouts for drones, inexcusable rocket software failures, 767 tanker failures (I am uncertain how much of that was Boeing and how much unrealistic requirements from the USAF) also people going to prison over bidding crimes. The long term financial failures of the 787 (the plane is great and will continue to sell at a profit, but doubt program accounting will ever show a profit for a long time), minor financial failures for the 748 and 77X (but both good planes), and disastrously failing in the MAX, incorporating bad long term strategy, poor design, and tragic crashes. The MAX likely will recover and the 8 is stellar. The military jet trainer may hold some technology and manufacturing key processes that could point to the way out of all of this. *

Boeing desperately needs another great success in the civil market. Something bigger than the MAX 8 seems to be the space. Can Boeing afford it? Will the board let them? Can they for sure eke out some net profit? Another question, can the existing back log and future orders of existing models pay off most of the debt?

I have not documented and provided links for this. All of it can be sourced from the Seattle Times and other threads on this site.

Boeing will recover for sure. They can be very innovative if their board permits it. The A320-family, while constantly boeing updated, is aging. This leaves room for some clean sheet from Boeing. Combine this with new manufacturing and you have the efficiencies needed to invest and to trigger demand.

Sure, they could not close the business case to attack the CEO with a new design, but attacking the NEO is an easy target.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Boeing failures in business line after business line does not seem to grab the attention it should. New fine payouts for drones, inexcusable rocket software failures, 767 tanker failures (I am uncertain how much of that was Boeing and how much unrealistic requirements from the USAF) also people going to prison over bidding crimes. The long term financial failures of the 787 (the plane is great and will continue to sell at a profit, but doubt program accounting will ever show a profit for a long time), minor financial failures for the 748 and 77X (but both good planes), and disastrously failing in the MAX, incorporating bad long term strategy, poor design, and tragic crashes. The MAX likely will recover and the 8 is stellar. The military jet trainer may hold some technology and manufacturing key processes that could point to the way out of all of this. *

Boeing desperately needs another great success in the civil market. Something bigger than the MAX 8 seems to be the space. Can Boeing afford it? Will the board let them? Can they for sure eke out some net profit? Another question, can the existing back log and future orders of existing models pay off most of the debt?

I have not documented and provided links for this. All of it can be sourced from the Seattle Times and other threads on this site.

A good summary. However the 787 has already provided a ton of Net Profit to the Bottom Line specifically due to Program Accounting. That may have to be adjusted in the short run, but I would also assume that 787 has probably another 1,000 frames ahead of it with a re-engine. It will make a lot of money for Boeing at least on a go forward basis.

Analysts are already speculating that Boeing may do a large equity issue ($30B) to clean up the books and fund new developments. The money is available if they are brave enough to take the chance and go cleansheet.

morrisond wrote:

You also articulated exactly what I was trying to say about a potential new wing 322. It would be kind of shocking if it did not have to be done on a new type certificate or with a full certification effort as the scale of changes needed to accommodate a new larger wing plus possibly a higher MTOW, new gear - new tail, are about as extensive in terms of structural changes as Boeing made to 77W/L to make the 777X.

I believe there have been very various comments/opinions on here and in the media that that scale of change would never be allowed again without a full certification effort. I then made the logical/illogical leap that if the A322 is effectively a new type then no way would the 1980's cockpit be allowed. The systems changes would have to be extensive and by that point you might as well go cleansheet. Boeing also changed a lot of systems on the 777X.

I think the only thing that may pass muster now and be certified as a derivative without a full certification would be something like a simple stretch. Something like an A322 but with the existing cockpit/systems/wing/gear/tail and MTOW. I can see that happening if it's only 12 seats. However, it would not be that competitive with a clean sheet Boeing response and still take at 4-5 years.

So I agree I don't think it's as bleak for Boeing as many are making it out. I highly doubt that the envisioned new wing A322 can be done as fast or easily as people think in the new regulatory regime. It could possibly be allowed by EASA but the FAA would never allow it. Boeing's lobbyists and Congress would ensure that.

If Boeing's FBW system isn't good enough for a new type then the A320's surely isn't.

In any case given the scale of changes on the 777X I don't think it should ever have been allowed to be certificated as a derivative and should have been clean sheet certification effort from day 1 - which if the FAA had any balls and insisted on that may have caused Boeing to do the simpler big wing (or at least higher MTOW version of the 787) - the 787-11/12 using the same systems. Or given that the 787 wing is supposedly good for 280T - higher thrust engines/new gear maybe new longer tips could have gotten them to an -11 length with a nice range (call it 789 range, A351 Capacity) - much like 777E to 777W, or A359 to A351, and an -10 with range/capacity about the same as the A359.

It is praise worthy that you are being consistent in saying that 777x shouldn't have been allowed as a derivative, but that's not what happened in the real world. It was allowed and as such it has now set a precedent, one that will be difficult to ignore should Airbus choose to do a similar project like the A322 that has been suggested here and in the aviation media.

I also have pointed out the FAA statements on next generation cockpit tech and Boeing CEO's response to them, but I think they will apply for the next generation clean sheets rather than 777X or A322. Maybe they will get a lot more regulatory attention than what they saw on their last project akin to what 777X is now getting, but that should all be for the good.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Boeing failures in business line after business line does not seem to grab the attention it should. New fine payouts for drones, inexcusable rocket software failures, 767 tanker failures (I am uncertain how much of that was Boeing and how much unrealistic requirements from the USAF) also people going to prison over bidding crimes. The long term financial failures of the 787 (the plane is great and will continue to sell at a profit, but doubt program accounting will ever show a profit for a long time), minor financial failures for the 748 and 77X (but both good planes), and disastrously failing in the MAX, incorporating bad long term strategy, poor design, and tragic crashes. The MAX likely will recover and the 8 is stellar. The military jet trainer may hold some technology and manufacturing key processes that could point to the way out of all of this. *

Boeing desperately needs another great success in the civil market. Something bigger than the MAX 8 seems to be the space. Can Boeing afford it? Will the board let them? Can they for sure eke out some net profit? Another question, can the existing back log and future orders of existing models pay off most of the debt?

I have not documented and provided links for this. All of it can be sourced from the Seattle Times and other threads on this site.

I think your comments are negative but fair. I myself am more negative where it comes to Boeing these days. They have been making a lot of mistakes and they have not found a good way to explain them. In fact they've been downright evasive. They keep doubling down on the evasion strategy and expecting people to just trust they know what they are doing, while they keep making the kinds of mistakes that reduce or destroy the trust they've built up over the decades. It's not to the point where I worry about getting on a Boeing airplane, but I can see why other more sensitive people do. I can also see why customers would not want to be early adopters of their next clean sheet. There's really no evidence that suggests they will pull it off without some major painful shortcomings that the customer will have to work through, and Boeing's evasive strategy suggests they'll protect their reputation while making the customer deal with damage to their reputation more or less on their own.

The design philosophy behind the Airbus FBW and the Boeing FBW is so different, that I would be careful to say that they are in the same boat when it comes to safety standards.