ewt340 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

Can’t see there is a need for a further 767 replacement when Boeing has the 787-8 already.

Thanks to it's technology, a 787-8 is more efficient than a 767-300ER even though it is a fairly larger frame.

Develop a new airframe similar in size to the 767-300ER with the technology of the 787 and it would be more efficient than the 787-8 and better-sized to the market.

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".

Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago. I still remembering seeing promotional photos of B787 with a weird 3-2-3 configurations for economy class cabin (here is the picture of it):

Some operators do fly the 787 in 8 abreast economy configurations.

The new airplane topic goes beyond individual programs.
Being needs to come up with some convincing future line up of commercial aircraft. And then they need to be credible to invest in them long term to create them. What happened now is too much empty production lines and a limited offering of final leg legacy programs that will need entirely new programs to follow. Better don't wait until everything needs replacement at the same time.

On a positive note: New cockpits can be used over the entire future line, as can be cabins and other systems and both Dreamliner and MAX lessons have been learnt.

Noshow wrote:

The new airplane topic goes beyond individual programs.
Being needs to come up with some convincing future line up of commercial aircraft. And then they need to be credible to invest in them long term to create them. What happened now is too much empty production lines and a limited offering of final leg legacy programs that will need entirely new programs to follow. Better don't wait until everything needs replacement at the same time.

On a positive note: New cockpits can be used over the entire future line, as can be cabins and other systems and both Dreamliner and MAX lessons have been learnt.

I am all with you but in my opinion the best thing for Boeing would be to consolidate down to two offers, 797 with 150-250 single class offer and 787 WB offer. After all the trouble with the different types and the hardship to close the NMA business case before the "global aviation reset", the best way forward is to consolidate on the products that really sell.

1. Design a new, future proof concept 2021-2025,
2. Design and engineer the assembly line of the future 21-2033
3. 2026 Announce the new NB (MAX replacement) with EIS in 2034
4. Design the most state of the art NB 2025-2034
5 Work on a major PiP for the 787 2025-2030

Have a fully future proof line up ready in 2034. Boeing can still produce MAX up to 2038 and actually make good money on them. I mean Airbus still produces CEOs and they earn them money, there is no problem for Boeing to have the MAX and 797 run parallel for a few years.

I know there is the 777X also around but besides this old ship that in my opinion will go the path of the A380 and 747-8, Boeing has two aircraft (three with the MAX), that are bound to print money left and right. It is a win win for everyone. The ego trip to offer a NMA just because there was the 767 before does not help the company, especially because the 767 shined because of its cargo capacity and not because it was a good people mover. That role went to the A330 and then the 787 and A321.

While Airbus is playing catch up on the WB front, Boeing is doing it on the NB front and the MAX is not catching up at all. So it is time to design a front runner in the most important segment of aviation and not a niche product that will outright also compromise the future of the top end NB offer and either be a loss because it cant position itself between the 787 and MAX-10 or take away sales from money making lines and jeopardize profits of the profitable lines.

If it is a hard business case to close then better move on towards a easier one.

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

Exactly, the MAX will give Boeing the time to develop a new NB and can without a problem be in Production up to the late 2030s while the new NB comes in early to mid 2030s. That is another 15 years of production at least and over 10 years without internal competition. Boeing and Airbus still sold NGs and CEOs after the MAX and NEO were announced.

Boeing does not need to do anything fast, it has time but it should not waste money on a NMA that might or might not be successful. A new narrow body will be and the MAX will still print money until then.

I know it is boring but Boeing wants to earn money for their owners (the share holders) and at the end if you can make a lot of money with a boring safe bet, you will do it.

Like VW with the golf and Transporter series. Boring boring boring but it prints money. Or the F series of Ford. At the end of the day having 2 base platforms NSA and 787 is the way forward. Simple and lean. Car manufacturers learned this the hard way too. I mean they have 100s of different "models" but they are all built on the same platforms, the whole VW group basically built their models on 3 (IIRC) platforms + a few fancy ones for their high end sports cars just for prestige.

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

Exactly, the MAX will give Boeing the time to develop a new NB and can without a problem be in Production up to the late 2030s while the new NB comes in early to mid 2030s. That is another 15 years of production at least and over 10 years without internal competition. Boeing and Airbus still sold NGs and CEOs after the MAX and NEO were announced.

Boeing does not need to do anything fast, it has time but it should not waste money on a NMA that might or might not be successful. A new narrow body will be and the MAX will still print money until then.

I know it is boring but Boeing wants to earn money for their owners (the share holders) and at the end if you can make a lot of money with a boring safe bet, you will do it.

Like VW with the golf and Transporter series. Boring boring boring but it prints money. Or the F series of Ford. At the end of the day having 2 base platforms NSA and 787 is the way forward. Simple and lean. Car manufacturers learned this the hard way too. I mean they have 100s of different "models" but they are all built on the same platforms, the whole VW group basically built their models on 3 (IIRC) platforms + a few fancy ones for their high end sports cars just for prestige.

What of the idea of launching a single aisle NMA that can be shrunk into a max replacement with the nee engine tech of the 2030s

Boeing must prove that they can manage upcoming programs and make them perfect. They have sort of ruined the promising 787, 747, 777 and 737 in the process. Something is wrong with the management approach putting imperative timelines and cost first and then ending up with imperfect products and budgets over and over again.
Don't ruin your next program. Boeing can do it right and they did it right many times before. They must go back to the old program approach. Like when they did the 757/767, the NG, the 777-300ER or the 747-400.

And I don't agree that two lines are enough for the future. The production system must be made flexible to built a choice of types at the same time efficient at low cost and various rates.

TTailedTiger wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Thanks to it's technology, a 787-8 is more efficient than a 767-300ER even though it is a fairly larger frame.

Develop a new airframe similar in size to the 767-300ER with the technology of the 787 and it would be more efficient than the 787-8 and better-sized to the market.

And before someone asks, Boeing is not too worried about shedding the 787-8 as the 787-9 and 787-10 are more profitable due to their commonality that is not shared with the 787-8 and if they feel they can sell more "new technology 767s".

Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago. I still remembering seeing promotional photos of B787 with a weird 3-2-3 configurations for economy class cabin (here is the picture of it):

Some operators do fly the 787 in 8 abreast economy configurations.

Please list them. I think I t’s going to be a very short list.

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago. I still remembering seeing promotional photos of B787 with a weird 3-2-3 configurations for economy class cabin (here is the picture of it):

Some operators do fly the 787 in 8 abreast economy configurations.

Please list them. I think I t’s going to be a very short list.

"Some" being the key word. I really enjoyed my flight on JAL's 787.

TTailedTiger wrote:

scbriml wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Some operators do fly the 787 in 8 abreast economy configurations.

Please list them. I think I t’s going to be a very short list.

"Some" being the key word. I really enjoyed my flight on JAL's 787.

I’m sure, but does anyone other than JAL? “One” is not “some”.

JAL seems to have 2+4+2 and 3+3+3 onboard their 787-8 in economy class. ANA looks like 3+3+3 to me.

I recently read about the Aurora D8 airliner concept, and apparently Boeing bought Aurora flight sciences years ago. Although the project has gone silent, cant help but wonder if they have still been working on it and might use some of the design in the future NMA design.

D8? There are some nasty pillars or struts inside that "double bubble" cabin. This won't work for airlines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtWB7kNaGgg

FluidFlow wrote:

Now Boeing denies that this is a 787-8 NMA, but it further squeezes the actual NMA market because if Boeing can offer cheap 787-8s it chips away some sales from the top of the NMA market, while MAX-10 and 321XLR chip away market form the bottom.

That's akin to saying Airbus's ability to offer cheap A330-800 chips away at sales of the A321XLR, when everyone knows the planes serve two different kinds of markets.

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

The main problem with that theory is China. I won't go into politics but I'll say the current situation is giving off bad vibes and leave it at that.

Opus99 wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

Exactly, the MAX will give Boeing the time to develop a new NB and can without a problem be in Production up to the late 2030s while the new NB comes in early to mid 2030s. That is another 15 years of production at least and over 10 years without internal competition. Boeing and Airbus still sold NGs and CEOs after the MAX and NEO were announced.

Boeing does not need to do anything fast, it has time but it should not waste money on a NMA that might or might not be successful. A new narrow body will be and the MAX will still print money until then.

I know it is boring but Boeing wants to earn money for their owners (the share holders) and at the end if you can make a lot of money with a boring safe bet, you will do it.

Like VW with the golf and Transporter series. Boring boring boring but it prints money. Or the F series of Ford. At the end of the day having 2 base platforms NSA and 787 is the way forward. Simple and lean. Car manufacturers learned this the hard way too. I mean they have 100s of different "models" but they are all built on the same platforms, the whole VW group basically built their models on 3 (IIRC) platforms + a few fancy ones for their high end sports cars just for prestige.

What of the idea of launching a single aisle NMA that can be shrunk into a max replacement with the nee engine tech of the 2030s

I think it would be better to outright design 3 versions of the aircraft from the beginning (150/200/250) seat capacity instead of optimising for the largest variant and then "shrink". This would bring compromises again. I think the Airbus approach back in the 80s was brilliant by actually designing 2 aircraft of 1 platform from the get go. They afterwards never had to stretch anything any more. We see the troubles Airbus than had with the XWB -1000. It needed different gear, wing, etc. and was then bringing complexity into the production line. Same with the 787-8 vs 787-9/10.

So instead of doing it stepwise, Boeing should design 3 different sized aircraft based on one base plattform (wing/wingbox/tail). This would bring a lean production line and lower production cost due to low complexity. There is a reason for the speculations that Airbus will incorporate the changes made for the XLR into the base product (wing changes), because the production line needs to stay simple.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing must prove that they can manage upcoming programs and make them perfect. They have sort of ruined the promising 787, 747, 777 and 737 in the process. Something is wrong with the management approach putting imperative timelines and cost first and then ending up with imperfect products and budgets over and over again.
Don't ruin your next program. Boeing can do it right and they did it right many times before. They must go back to the old program approach. Like when they did the 757/767, the NG, the 777-300ER or the 747-400.

And I don't agree that two lines are enough for the future. The production system must be made flexible to built a choice of types at the same time efficient at low cost and various rates.

I agree and there is no better way forward than to get it right on the NSA by taking time to develop a winning product. There is no urgent need to replace MAX but in 10-12 years the MAX will be "old technology" and needs a replacement. So Boeing has time to deliver a lot of MAX and use the money earned to design a winner.

No good designing the NMA and than being caught off guard again with a new Airbus NB offer. Too long Boeing is playing catch up (NG as answer to CEO, MAX as an answer to NEO) and if Boeing has to catch up a third time it might be too late and the NB market is gone for Boeing.

Two base frames are more than enough to cover the 150-400 pax market with the 797-150/200/350 and 787-8/9/10. There would have been a third line if the EMB deal would have gone ahaed but Boeing opted to skip the lowest segment of the jet market and leave it to EMB and Airbus.

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Now Boeing denies that this is a 787-8 NMA, but it further squeezes the actual NMA market because if Boeing can offer cheap 787-8s it chips away some sales from the top of the NMA market, while MAX-10 and 321XLR chip away market form the bottom.

That's akin to saying Airbus's ability to offer cheap A330-800 chips away at sales of the A321XLR, when everyone knows the planes serve two different kinds of markets.

I would have stated the other way around, that the XLR takes away A330 market share by effectively replacing it on medium routes where the A330 is a bit too big or that are better served with 2 frequencies instead of one.

Airbus must have been aware that the XLR will reduce the sales potential of the A330 a bit.

FluidFlow wrote:

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Now Boeing denies that this is a 787-8 NMA, but it further squeezes the actual NMA market because if Boeing can offer cheap 787-8s it chips away some sales from the top of the NMA market, while MAX-10 and 321XLR chip away market form the bottom.

That's akin to saying Airbus's ability to offer cheap A330-800 chips away at sales of the A321XLR, when everyone knows the planes serve two different kinds of markets.

I would have stated the other way around, that the XLR takes away A330 market share by effectively replacing it on medium routes where the A330 is a bit too big or that are better served with 2 frequencies instead of one.

Airbus must have been aware that the XLR will reduce the sales potential of the A330 a bit.

If you look at it this way, NMA will take away market share from XLR and A330 at the cost of perhaps some sacrifice of slow-selling 788s, which is a trade off Boeing will gladly make.

The problem with waiting 10-12 years by skipping NMA and going to NSA is you won't have anything in that segment other than MAX10 and 788 and the gap is too huge based on where most people see the market going. NMA in 2028 then NSA in 2034 sounds better than nothing till 2031-33.

I'm not sure any of this discussion matters much. Boeing seems to have at least two more years of finishing MAX and 777X in its future while further refining what it will be doing with its next clean sheet in general and next new cockpit in particular. By the time all that comes together a lot of things could change.

Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure any of this discussion matters much. Boeing seems to have at least two more years of finishing MAX and 777X in its future while further refining what it will be doing with its next clean sheet in general and next new cockpit in particular. By the time all that comes together a lot of things could change.

This kind of logic would kill at least 50% of the threads on a.net...

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Revelation wrote:

That's akin to saying Airbus's ability to offer cheap A330-800 chips away at sales of the A321XLR, when everyone knows the planes serve two different kinds of markets.

I would have stated the other way around, that the XLR takes away A330 market share by effectively replacing it on medium routes where the A330 is a bit too big or that are better served with 2 frequencies instead of one.

Airbus must have been aware that the XLR will reduce the sales potential of the A330 a bit.

If you look at it this way, NMA will take away market share from XLR and A330 at the cost of perhaps some sacrifice of slow-selling 788s, which is a trade off Boeing will gladly make.

The problem with waiting 10-12 years by skipping NMA and going to NSA is you won't have anything in that segment other than MAX10 and 788 and the gap is too huge based on where most people see the market going. NMA in 2028 then NSA in 2034 sounds better than nothing till 2031-33.

I'm not sure any of this discussion matters much. Boeing seems to have at least two more years of finishing MAX and 777X in its future while further refining what it will be doing with its next clean sheet in general and next new cockpit in particular. By the time all that comes together a lot of things could change.

I agree with the upper part and the taking sales away is a two edged sword so the XLR takes A330neo sales and the A330neo takes XLR sales (but as the A330neo hardly sells it is pretty much the XLR takes away A330 sales). For the NMA it is the same but if if you have 1000 sales in the lower bracket and the MAX-10 takes 330 and the XLR takes 330 there are only 340 left for NMA. Then we have the upper bracket where the NMA also has to fight for sales. So the business case is based on the gap in the middle and it seems really hard to find enough sales there, hence Boing could not launch anything in the last 10 years.

The other problem I see is, that Boeing can not design a new cockpit, a new aircraft and new manufacturing methods in 7 years while they still need resources for the 77X and MAX-10 and then at one point have to shift resources also to the 787 improvements. The past shown a new aircraft needs 8-10 years from launch to EIS + they need new manufacturing + an all new cockpit. Thats why I estimate Boeing can have something new earliest around 2033. If this is the NMA, then the NSA will not be here before 2036+ and that might be years behind a new Airbus narrow body.

They must do a risk assessment that includes Airbus launching an all new NB 1-2 years after Boeing launches the NMA and what effect this would have on the future of the narrow body market. Boeing would be too late to the party again for the third and maybe final time. This can not happen.

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

Saudi Arabian airline Flyadeal switched from Max to Airbus.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... s-n1027441

I'm not sure any of this discussion matters much. Boeing seems to have at least two more years of finishing MAX and 777X in its future while further refining what it will be doing with its next clean sheet in general and next new cockpit in particular. By the time all that comes together a lot of things could change.

This would make the time now the perfect moment to think first and create a winning family for the future. Then come up with the talents and leaders to do it and get financing, strategic partners and customers aligned. The quiet times are the ones where things happen and have to happen.

FluidFlow wrote:

I agree with the upper part and the taking sales away is a two edged sword so the XLR takes A330neo sales and the A330neo takes XLR sales (but as the A330neo hardly sells it is pretty much the XLR takes away A330 sales). For the NMA it is the same but if if you have 1000 sales in the lower bracket and the MAX-10 takes 330 and the XLR takes 330 there are only 340 left for NMA. Then we have the upper bracket where the NMA also has to fight for sales. So the business case is based on the gap in the middle and it seems really hard to find enough sales there, hence Boing could not launch anything in the last 10 years.

The other problem I see is, that Boeing can not design a new cockpit, a new aircraft and new manufacturing methods in 7 years while they still need resources for the 77X and MAX-10 and then at one point have to shift resources also to the 787 improvements. The past shown a new aircraft needs 8-10 years from launch to EIS + they need new manufacturing + an all new cockpit. Thats why I estimate Boeing can have something new earliest around 2033. If this is the NMA, then the NSA will not be here before 2036+ and that might be years behind a new Airbus narrow body.

They must do a risk assessment that includes Airbus launching an all new NB 1-2 years after Boeing launches the NMA and what effect this would have on the future of the narrow body market. Boeing would be too late to the party again for the third and maybe final time. This can not happen.

I'm not sure we can go with this type of counting and scheduling. It's OK if your opinion is different than mine. I've given my timeline. I'm probably giving more credit for work that is currently underway than you are, and am feeling resources that are used while planning a new aircraft are different than the ones currently being used to get MAX10/777X over the goal line. I could be too optimistic. Time will tell.

I don't see much overlap with MAX10. Customers ordering it are MAX loyalists wanting to maximize family benefits. It is a straight stretch with no more thrust so it sacrifices range. NMA customers won't just be MAX loyalists and will be interested in different missions than MAX10 customers. NMA will be far more efficient so it is not an apples to apples comparison.

The NMA business plan incorporated some sales due to market stimulation i.e. NMA could operate some city pairs that can't currently be operated by any other aircraft because it offers better economy. Granted this is a tough sell in the current market (no one wants more planes right now!) but two years from now the outlook may be different.

Yes, at some point they have to account for Airbus's next NB move, but keep in mind that Airbus has the goose laying the golden eggs and they won't want to kill it any sooner then they have to either. Announcing their next NB too soon would devalue the existing fleet as well as their own backlog and cause dissatisfaction and churn in their customer base. There will be great financial incentives to not kill the goose laying the golden eggs. While Airbus is not digging out from a tragedy like Boeing is, this still is the worst crisis in the last 30-40 years for them.

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I agree with the upper part and the taking sales away is a two edged sword so the XLR takes A330neo sales and the A330neo takes XLR sales (but as the A330neo hardly sells it is pretty much the XLR takes away A330 sales). For the NMA it is the same but if if you have 1000 sales in the lower bracket and the MAX-10 takes 330 and the XLR takes 330 there are only 340 left for NMA. Then we have the upper bracket where the NMA also has to fight for sales. So the business case is based on the gap in the middle and it seems really hard to find enough sales there, hence Boing could not launch anything in the last 10 years.

The other problem I see is, that Boeing can not design a new cockpit, a new aircraft and new manufacturing methods in 7 years while they still need resources for the 77X and MAX-10 and then at one point have to shift resources also to the 787 improvements. The past shown a new aircraft needs 8-10 years from launch to EIS + they need new manufacturing + an all new cockpit. Thats why I estimate Boeing can have something new earliest around 2033. If this is the NMA, then the NSA will not be here before 2036+ and that might be years behind a new Airbus narrow body.

They must do a risk assessment that includes Airbus launching an all new NB 1-2 years after Boeing launches the NMA and what effect this would have on the future of the narrow body market. Boeing would be too late to the party again for the third and maybe final time. This can not happen.

I'm not sure we can go with this type of counting and scheduling. It's OK if your opinion is different than mine. I've given my timeline. I'm probably giving more credit for work that is currently underway than you are, and am feeling resources that are used while planning a new aircraft are different than the ones currently being used to get MAX10/777X over the goal line. I could be too optimistic. Time will tell.

I don't see much overlap with MAX10. Customers ordering it are MAX loyalists wanting to maximize family benefits. It is a straight stretch with no more thrust so it sacrifices range. NMA customers won't just be MAX loyalists and will be interested in different missions than MAX10 customers. NMA will be far more efficient so it is not an apples to apples comparison.

The NMA business plan incorporated some sales due to market stimulation i.e. NMA could operate some city pairs that can't currently be operated by any other aircraft because it offers better economy. Granted this is a tough sell in the current market (no one wants more planes right now!) but two years from now the outlook may be different.

Yes, at some point they have to account for Airbus's next NB move, but keep in mind that Airbus has the goose laying the golden eggs and they won't want to kill it any sooner then they have to either. Announcing their next NB too soon would devalue the existing fleet as well as their own backlog and cause dissatisfaction and churn in their customer base. There will be great financial incentives to not kill the goose laying the golden eggs. While Airbus is not digging out from a tragedy like Boeing is, this still is the worst crisis in the last 30-40 years for them.

Of course we should not have the same opinion, it would be so boring if we do. I base my timeline mainly on the last two clean sheet designs (A350, 787). Both had big work going into it before the launch and both had massive hickups and re-launches, the 787 had a grounding. Both still had the "easy" certification. That's why I guess it takes 10 years from official launch to EIS, if you want to make it right, because if they make it wrong it also takes 10 years and that was with easy certification and no demand for an all new cockpit philosophy.

And of course neither Airbus nor Boeing want to kill the golden goose, especially Airbus will try to make the goose lay eggs for as long as possible. But from a pure risk consultant standpoint, you need to think about replacing the goose when no more orders are coming for the eggs. If Airbus can not keep the backlog at 6000 units until 2024 (so sell as much as they produce over the next 3 years) they have to launch a replacement for 2035. This would give the flexibility of having something ready when all ordered units are produced. Every additional ordered unit after that is a "gift" but not necessary anymore. If too many operators want to convert to the new thing, Airbus will have no trouble finding a customer willinig to take the aircraft at line end pricing instead (see Delta with the 321ceo still on production, years after the official end of the ceo). Same will aplly for Boeing and the MAX

Revelation wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Now Boeing denies that this is a 787-8 NMA, but it further squeezes the actual NMA market because if Boeing can offer cheap 787-8s it chips away some sales from the top of the NMA market, while MAX-10 and 321XLR chip away market form the bottom.

That's akin to saying Airbus's ability to offer cheap A330-800 chips away at sales of the A321XLR, when everyone knows the planes serve two different kinds of markets.

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

The main problem with that theory is China. I won't go into politics but I'll say the current situation is giving off bad vibes and leave it at that.

Damn. I forgot about that, how many orders does the 737 get from China? 1000?

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

People forget before the grounding the max actually wasn’t doing that bad at all. It had north of 5000 orders. Will it get them back? I don’t know but i don’t think it’s smart to shut out the MAX. I’m assuming most that cancelled will order again when times are better. I don’t know of anyone that cancelled MAX and went on to order NEO

The main problem with that theory is China. I won't go into politics but I'll say the current situation is giving off bad vibes and leave it at that.

Damn. I forgot about that, how many orders does the 737 get from China? 1000?

Don't know, but signs are troubling ( ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/l ... 61.article )

777x freighter is a go. News will pick this up shortly

ewt340 wrote:

Boeing really corner themself with this one. The Old B787 used to be designed for 8-breast configuration. This would actually bring B787-8 capacity closer to B767-300ER and A300-600. Then they upgrade the design with 9-abreast configuration which bumped up the capacity to A330-200. If they had kept the 8-abreast design they would have the NMA long time ago.

Airlines pushed Boeing to increase capacity because they wanted an A330-300/A340-300 replacement, not a 767 replacement. Boeing also did not want to encroach into the 777-200ER/LR market, which is why the 7E7 was originally sized around the 767-300ER, 767-400ER and A330-200.

Revelation wrote:

The main problem with that theory is China. I won't go into politics but I'll say the current situation is giving off bad vibes and leave it at that.

Well to be fair, CASC could have cancelled orders even without a grounding.

In the end, China needs Boeing planes to help address their (Im)Balance of Payments with the United States (just as they need Airbus planes to help with the EU) and the new US Administration does not seem as adamant about blaming China for domestic problems as the last one so maybe we will again see a form of détente between the two nations and orders/deliveries will resume once again.

SkyLife wrote:

he 787 is built for longer missions and I’m assuming carries a lot of extra engineered weight for said missions.

It definitely does. The wing is sized to lift the fuel weight for long flights. The landing gear is sized to bear that weight on the ground. The engines are sized to lift all of this.

There is also the question, very actively debated in this and previous threads, about whether Boeing can create a fuselage better optimized for the NMA than a narrowbody or a conventional circular widebody. I would expect a horizontal oval or shallow double-bubble geometry would be significantly better than a circular widebody, but its most important competition will be from narrowbodies.

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

777x freighter is a go. News will pick this up shortly

Good news for the weekend then! Hope to learn if it is to be 779 or 778 sized, and if it gets the go ahead when a prototype might be assembled/in the air.

texl1649 wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

777x freighter is a go. News will pick this up shortly

Good news for the weekend then! Hope to learn if it is to be 779 or 778 sized, and if it gets the go ahead when a prototype might be assembled/in the air.

A 779 would look great in UPS colors. UPS likes the 747 so they obviously like large freighters. I don't know if FedEx needs anything that big though.

OH WOW. 777X freighter a go?! NICE!

TTailedTiger wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

777x freighter is a go. News will pick this up shortly

Good news for the weekend then! Hope to learn if it is to be 779 or 778 sized, and if it gets the go ahead when a prototype might be assembled/in the air.

A 779 would look great in UPS colors. UPS likes the 747 so they obviously like large freighters. I don't know if FedEx needs anything that big though.

If they do launch it, it’s surely not a Cargolux order, so I’d expect at least one of FedEx/ups.

I think it might be QR? If it’s a go ahead that means there are customers right?

I'm more curious if it just a plain cargo aircraft with side doors.... of if it will have the drop tail for oversized cargo that I understand that they at least studied as a number of aircraft companies said they need something past the 748 that can load oversized cargo.

I always figured that their would be a 7778/9 cargo aircraft...

Edited to add: my understanding is that what they studied (at least in concept) only had a tail that dropped flat for loading of long items. Not a ramp that reached the ground.

Have a great day,

A swing tail? Looking at the Dreamlifter this would require major changes in the design and kill the commonality with the passenger version. I don't think it is likely to happen.

2175301 wrote:

I'm more curious if it just a plain cargo aircraft with side doors.... of if it will have the drop tail for oversized cargo that I understand that they at least studied as a number of aircraft companies said they need something past the 748 that can load oversized cargo.

I always figured that their would be a 7778/9 cargo aircraft...

Edited to add: my understanding is that what they studied (at least in concept) only had a tail that dropped flat for loading of long items. Not a ramp that reached the ground.

Have a great day,

The drop tail idea is interesting. However looking at side images of the 777X it looks like the floor is quite high relative to where the drop section could be.

Could it possibly be for loading stuff in the aft lower cargo compartment? According to the ACAP they could get something about 55-60' in there.

They did design a new tail section for the 777X so maybe this was already taken into account.

Look at Section 2.6 for Cargo Compartment dimensions.

https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... X_RevB.pdf

Noshow wrote:

A swing tail? Looking at the Dreamlifter this would require major changes in the design and kill the commonality with the passenger version. I don't think it is likely to happen.

I also think it is not likely to happen, but it won't kill commonality with the pax version any more than any other P2F conversion kills compatibility with its pax version. After all, Dreamlifter used pax frames as their starting point.

The real issue with swing tails is they are a problem operationally. The huge tail fin acts like a sail in the wind and puts a huge load on the hinges. You have to deal with wind speed limits otherwise you risk breaking or twisting the hinges and then you have a challenging repair on your hands. You need a lot of specialized machinery to load and unload it safely.

I don't think this works operationally. You really need what the Antonovs have, the ability to load and unload themselves. If not, you have to move around a bunch of ground support equipment to be in place when you arrive, or you can only fly between a fixed set of stations the way Dreamliner does.


Ref: By ERIC SALARD from PARIS, FRANCE - N780BA PAE, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=45331046

Revelation wrote:

Noshow wrote:

A swing tail? Looking at the Dreamlifter this would require major changes in the design and kill the commonality with the passenger version. I don't think it is likely to happen.

I also think it is not likely to happen, but it won't kill commonality with the pax version any more than any other P2F conversion kills compatibility with its pax version. After all, Dreamlifter used pax frames as their starting point.

The real issue with swing tails is they are a problem operationally. The huge tail fin acts like a sail in the wind and puts a huge load on the hinges. You have to deal with wind speed limits otherwise you risk breaking or twisting the hinges and then you have a challenging repair on your hands. You need a lot of specialized machinery to load and unload it safely.

I don't think this works operationally. You really need what the Antonovs have, the ability to load and unload themselves. If not, you have to move around a bunch of ground support equipment to be in place when you arrive, or you can only fly between a fixed set of stations the way Dreamliner does.


Ref: By ERIC SALARD from PARIS, FRANCE - N780BA PAE, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=45331046

What if the tail flipped up 90 Degrees supported by Hydraulics? You would be bringing the COG forward and that would seem to have less of a load path issue.

It would also not require any special equipment as everything to open it up would be onboard the aircraft.

morrisond wrote:

What if the tail flipped up 90 Degrees supported by Hydraulics? You would be bringing the COG forward and that would seem to have less of a load path issue.

It would also not require any special equipment as everything to open it up would be onboard the aircraft.

Might be better, but you would still have wind load on the hinges to deal with, and the lifting mechanism would need reinforced mounting points since it would be supporting the weight of the tail and this adds weight. I suppose this is why Boeing went with the horizontal swing rather than vertical.

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What if the tail flipped up 90 Degrees supported by Hydraulics? You would be bringing the COG forward and that would seem to have less of a load path issue.

It would also not require any special equipment as everything to open it up would be onboard the aircraft.

Might be better, but you would still have wind load on the hinges to deal with, and the lifting mechanism would need reinforced mounting points since it would be supporting the weight of the tail and this adds weight. I suppose this is why Boeing went with the horizontal swing rather than vertical.

If the plane is pressurized, the aft bulkhead has huge thrusts on it. A swing tail or a lifting tail would require a substantial 'flange'. handling 38,000 feet differential (44k - 6k) which is about 10 psi, a 10'-2" radius is just 452,160 pounds thrust. That is a huge amount of latching, plus the clamping force of the gasket needs to be added in.

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

What if the tail flipped up 90 Degrees supported by Hydraulics? You would be bringing the COG forward and that would seem to have less of a load path issue.

It would also not require any special equipment as everything to open it up would be onboard the aircraft.

Might be better, but you would still have wind load on the hinges to deal with, and the lifting mechanism would need reinforced mounting points since it would be supporting the weight of the tail and this adds weight. I suppose this is why Boeing went with the horizontal swing rather than vertical.

The hinges could be external on the top of the fuselage - bumps up top on Aircraft don't seem to hurt them that much. Or like on the C5 hinges could be at something like 2 O'clock and 10 O'clock so you have two hinge points.

The C5 looks like the hydraulics are up top.

Mount the Hydraulics right at the Floor beams then where the Cross section is presumably the strongest? Basically then you are "Splitting the Floor" and it hinges on the upper part of the fuselage? You then have the two Hydraulic Cylinders and the hinge(s) at the top supporting the tail section. The COG of the Tail section would be forward of where the Hydraulics are and possibly the hinge(s) due to the Vertical stabilizer.

Yes it could add significant weight. But it doesn't seem that hard given they did it over 50 years ago on the C5. You would have to have to cut the fuselage in a shape like the C5 if you use two hinges to have enough clearance for it to swing up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHnUfcdxhSw

I think it might be the -8F with the bumped up MTOW to 788,000 lbs. Maybe launch at this years Dubai airshow?

Alternatively, freight haulers could buy 777x aircraft without the expensive nose door and nurse their 747s for the next 40 years.

Just neo the An-124 and use the 777-8F for more normal cargo.

Let us not forget. Boeing will want to keep this freighter as simple as possible. Especially with certification going through a lot of changes now that aren’t even finalised yet. So I imagine it will be a more capable more fuel efficient 777F. I.e. 777XF - 777-8F

This is maybe a stupid question/covered here earlier, but do NMA and NSA really have to be separate planes? Airlines don’t seem to like the smaller 737/A320 family members any more. Why not make the base model of the plane be something 737-900/A321 sized and then offer stretches to reach up into the 757-300 sized market as well as shrinks down to the 737-7 size. It’s two markets with one bird. I’m curious what others thoughts on this are.

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

This is maybe a stupid question/covered here earlier, but do NMA and NSA really have to be separate planes? Airlines don’t seem to like the smaller 737/A320 family members any more. Why not make the base model of the plane be something 737-900/A321 sized and then offer stretches to reach up into the 757-300 sized market as well as shrinks down to the 737-7 size. It’s two markets with one bird. I’m curious what others thoughts on this are.

The difference is not just size, but optimized range. Optimizing the NSA for NMA range could make it a bad for for most NSA missions.

What if NMA just ends up being the MAX replacement in itself?

A twin aisle short haul aircraft? Maybe weighs similarly to a single aisle. More capacity burns similar fuel. I’m not very good with the physics of aircraft but those with better knowledge can maybe tell me why it’s a bad idea or why it can be a good idea.

What if Boeing wants their whole product line up to be twin aisle. That’s why they’re breaking their backs for MBSE

Why would they want twin aisle in any case? It's less efficient for certain sizes. If they would keep -say- the wing span within a certain limit that would make more sense. Less efficient in terms of drag but helpful for airport operations.