Opus99 wrote:

Someone that knows the physics can maybe point out how Boeing can optimise a clean sheet single aisle to the point that Airbus cannot with a revised a322

The A321XLR is compromized. It will be Boeing challenge to beat it on key efficiencies and capabilities, without making it an expensive, heavy aircraft airlines from Europe, US and Asia won't order.

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

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

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

flyinggoat wrote:

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

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

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

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

Calhoun would agree with you. He keeps talking about market above it

keesje wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Someone that knows the physics can maybe point out how Boeing can optimise a clean sheet single aisle to the point that Airbus cannot with a revised a322

The A321XLR is compromized. It will be Boeing challenge to beat it on key efficiencies and capabilities, without making it an expensive, heavy aircraft airlines from Europe, US and Asia won't order.

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

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

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

Thanks for that. It’s going to be very tough. Especially on the part where the aircraft would need to be price competitive. You can use good and light materials but they come at a high cost. We have to see. I guess that’s why they talk about this MBSE. Maybe it will allow them use the materials they want but cheaper development cost and build cost overall

flyinggoat wrote:

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

All three of the US3 have large A321 orders. All three of the EU3 have A321. There really is no room in the market for a "me too" airplane. They need to do something different, something that gives the customers some good reasons to pick something other than the incumbent.

For Boeing studying an aircraft covering 265+ seats/ 5000 NM and continuing with the 737,
is like leaving Sylvester Stallone in the ring with Mike Tyson while getting a burger..

mjoelnir wrote:

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

Delay compensation is capped and only applies to frames actually delayed. If I have 100 MAX on order and only 40 are expected to be delayed, then I only get a discount on those 40 and my maximum discount will be on my earliest deliveries (which might only be 20 frames), And my final 60 will have their existing price escalation clauses in effect. If I cancel, I can re-negotiate the order with Boeing being more...incentivised...to offer me a sales price more reflective of what I would have been paying under the compensation clause for more than 20-40 frames. And yes, when I cancel I only get my deposits and any progress payments back, but I also don't have to keep making progress payments and I am not committed to taking frames I might not need for a time.

I mean we kind of saw something similar with Qantas and the 787. They ordered 65, received over $300 million in direct compensation for delivery delays, and then cancelled the entire order before Boeing built any because their traffic collapsed in part due to the Global Financial Crisis and they didn't want to be on the hook for a fleet of expensive new widebodies with nowhere to send them. And they eventually came back and did order the 787 and take delivery (albeit a decade later and at a vastly smaller scale).

Anyway, we're really off-topic with this side discussion so I say we table it and come back in 5-10 years and see where we stand on what those former MAX customers ordered in the end.

I suppose a single aisle midrange aircraft is a possibility. Not my favorite idea, but... Should be easy to outdo the A321xlr with a better wing, better rotation angle, and more payload. 120t MTOW, crank up the payload to 30t versus the xlr at 21t out to 4K range. Build a faster wing at 38m to 48m, maybe folding tips. Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

keesje wrote:

For Boeing studying an aircraft covering 265+ seats/ 5000 NM and continuing with the 737,
is like leaving Sylvester Stallone in the ring with Mike Tyson while getting a burger..

That's implying that the 737MAX isn't a good plane. It has had a horrific start, but I'm confident that it will do well going forward, or at least well enough to continue selling for the next 7-10 years while Boeing gets NMA out the door. It had over 5200 sales at one point, before all the cancelations over the last three years, but sales will pick back up again. The 737-7 has outsold the A319NEO and the 737-8 is doing fine. The A321XLR seems to have caught Boeing with their pants down, and Boeing needs to address that, but how they address that is what the discussion in this thread is about. Just because Boeing has no good competitor to the A321XLR doesn't mean the 737MAX program is a dud. That's like saying the A330/A340 program was a dud because Airbus couldn't make it a proper 77W or 77L competitor. Both manufactures have had their triumphs and failures, and that seems to be the ebb and flow of the aviation industry.

DenverTed wrote:

Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

Or they could even do both. But yes, if Boeing goes the narrow-body "757 replacement" route, I think there is a very good chance Airbus will launch a twin-aisle NMA, and once again, Boeing is going to be caught with their pants down. IMO, Boeing needs to be on the offensive here, and the only way to do that is to go the wide-body route with a A310/A300/763 sized mid-range twin-isle plane.

And on a separate note, I don't understand A.net's infatuation with TATL narrow-bodies. Traveling that far on a narrow-body sounds terrible to me, and I would actively avoid such a plane. I'd be a lot more excited over a super efficient sub 1500nm 150 seater.

DenverTed wrote:

Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

And FR will come begging Airbus to be launch customer for 250 of the type. Because, again, they value pax comfort so highly.

Stitch wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

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

Delay compensation is capped and only applies to frames actually delayed. If I have 100 MAX on order and only 40 are expected to be delayed, then I only get a discount on those 40 and my maximum discount will be on my earliest deliveries (which might only be 20 frames), And my final 60 will have their existing price escalation clauses in effect. If I cancel, I can re-negotiate the order with Boeing being more...incentivised...to offer me a sales price more reflective of what I would have been paying under the compensation clause for more than 20-40 frames. And yes, when I cancel I only get my deposits and any progress payments back, but I also don't have to keep making progress payments and I am not committed to taking frames I might not need for a time.

There are three iterations of MAX contracts and related compensation. The original, under where no grounding was foreseen, and two post-grounding. Some customers have at different times executed all three (the later replace earlier).

Under iteration three, compensation is not capped. Compensation continues to increase from the moment the original scheduled delivery is missed, until a new 'certain' delivery date is provided by Boeing. If Boeing misses the new date, compensation re-starts until a new delivery date is provided.

When Boeing provide a certain delivery date, compensation accrual pauses until the customer re-confirms they will take delivery.

If the customer negotiates a deferral, compensation is reduced using a time-based formula.

If the customer negotiates a cancellation, compensation credits are discounted. If undelivered aircraft are cancelled from an already partly delivered order, this affects retrospective volume credits on already delivered aircraft.

The options for using the credits are slightly different to those earned from volume, in respect to expiry, and the discounts applied if customers opt to take cash, or order non-MAX models, or opt to apply them to reduce milestone payments on existing MAX orders.

The calculation of the credits is very simple and elegant, and makes for an extremely persuasive argument for customers to complete MAX purchases, and order additional MAX aircraft.

smartplane wrote:

The calculation of the credits is very simple and elegant, and makes for an extremely persuasive argument for customers to complete MAX purchases, and order additional MAX aircraft.

This seems rather strange, how did Boeing have so much power in the contracts that they can be so "persuasive" in increasing the purchases in a way that doesn't result in Boeing selling the additional aircraft below cost (both build cost, but also opportunity cost of selling new aircraft)

JibberJim wrote:

smartplane wrote:

The calculation of the credits is very simple and elegant, and makes for an extremely persuasive argument for customers to complete MAX purchases, and order additional MAX aircraft.

This seems rather strange, how did Boeing have so much power in the contracts that they can be so "persuasive" in increasing the purchases in a way that doesn't result in Boeing selling the additional aircraft below cost (both build cost, but also opportunity cost of selling new aircraft)

I think its like giving you free money that you can only spend at Boeing.

flyinggoat wrote:

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

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

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

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

Basically, the length of the 757-300 with a wider fuselage to accommodate containers and wider seats/aisle with better payload range than the A321XLR and all required fuel stored in the wings. Can that be made light enough to get a significant per seat efficiency gain over the A321XLR without moon shot technology? I guess that's the key question.

flyinggoat wrote:

That's implying that the 737MAX isn't a good plane. It has had a horrific start, but I'm confident that it will do well going forward, or at least well enough to continue selling for the next 7-10 years while Boeing gets NMA out the door. It had over 5200 sales at one point, before all the cancelations over the last three years, but sales will pick back up again. The 737-7 has outsold the A319NEO and the 737-8 is doing fine.

Yep, WN just added another 34 MAX7 to the ones they just took a few weeks ago ( https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/southwe ... plane.html ) and now WN has plans to acquire 234 MAXes. We can confidently say there are more to come since they operate 736 737s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet ). To think at one point we had prominent a.net members suggesting MAX7 would never get built!

Bottom line: there is no way Boeing is going to kill off the MAX any time soon. Even after MCAS, COVID and ASC 606 pushed the numbers down the current backlog is enough to ensure they can produce MAX at rate 40 or more for the rest of the decade if they chose to do so. That is with no new orders coming in, which of course is not likely to be the case since all their big customers have yet to order enough to replace their fleets and there will be some competitive wins and new customers to come.

Revelation wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

That's implying that the 737MAX isn't a good plane. It has had a horrific start, but I'm confident that it will do well going forward, or at least well enough to continue selling for the next 7-10 years while Boeing gets NMA out the door. It had over 5200 sales at one point, before all the cancelations over the last three years, but sales will pick back up again. The 737-7 has outsold the A319NEO and the 737-8 is doing fine.

Yep, WN just added another 34 MAX7 to the ones they just took a few weeks ago ( https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/08/southwe ... plane.html ) and now WN has plans to acquire 234 MAXes. We can confidently say there are more to come since they operate 736 737s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_fleet ). To think at one point we had prominent a.net members suggesting MAX7 would never get built!

Bottom line: there is no way Boeing is going to kill off the MAX any time soon. Even after MCAS, COVID and ASC 606 pushed the numbers down the current backlog is enough to ensure they can produce MAX at rate 40 or more for the rest of the decade if they chose to do so. That is with no new orders coming in, which of course is not likely to be the case since all their big customers have yet to order enough to replace their fleets and there will be some competitive wins and new customers to come.

Not to talk of the quote last week from southwest CEO saying they’ll need about 500 planes to cater to their 17 new destinations and he said no they are not looking at other planes. You can be rest assured that is about 500 737s over the next few years from southwest for replacement and growth

smartplane wrote:

The calculation of the credits is very simple and elegant, and makes for an extremely persuasive argument for customers to complete MAX purchases, and order additional MAX aircraft.

Looks like Southwest agrees with you.

JibberJim wrote:

This seems rather strange, how did Boeing have so much power in the contracts that they can be so "persuasive" in increasing the purchases in a way that doesn't result in Boeing selling the additional aircraft below cost (both build cost, but also opportunity cost of selling new aircraft)

None of us know if the credits result in revenue below cost of production, but Boeing's motivation should be obvious, future credits for Boeing products are far easier to deal with than cash on the barrel now. It works for most customers since most are committed to MAX already, there is no workable Plan B for them.

Some comments from Leeham on some recent transactions on MAXes, including ones that were not taken by their original customer:

Pricing a 737-8 at $38m compares with the list price of $121.6m. This equals a discount of about 69%. The $41m offer price of the 737-9 compares with a list price of $128.9m, or a discount of about 68%.

Airbus stopped publishing list prices after 2018. Based on the 2018 list and factoring in historical 3% hikes in each of 2019 and 2020, the $41m price the customer wants equals a 70% discount. The price Airbus wants represents a discount of 65%.

With the discounts Boeing will be forced to make under the present distressed circumstances, can it make money on the 737?

Our answer is yes, even if Boeing must absorb the reconfiguration costs. Leeham Co., our consulting arm, calculates the all-in production cost for the 737 (as well as other aircraft at Boeing, Airbus and other OEMs). We won’t reveal these numbers (after all, that’s what our consulting side gets paid for). But we can comfortably say Boeing will make money. The margin gets squeezed.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2020/11/09/ponti ... ts-plunge/

Bottom line is there still is good money to be made for both A and B even as discounts from list approach 70%.

In the case of Boeing, a lot of the purchase price is in compensation credits, but Boeing has already taken large write offs for that in 2019 and 2020.

In the case of Airbus, they too will have to accept a low margin in competitive situations or they will not close the deal. We saw this was the case with A220 at WN ( ref: https://leehamnews.com/2021/03/29/hotr- ... r-for-max/ ).

By 2025 Airbus will be delivering 85-90 narrowbodies per month. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... all_ml_0-1 Research is going on on A220-500, A322 and probably other versions and upgrades. Not much competition for A220s and A321s, so healthy margins.

If Boeing would be convinced by an order of 35 additional 737-7 at unknown pricing to sole 737 operator Southwest that everything is ok in the NB segment this decade, that would surprise a lot of people. 35 is nice order (specially if profitable..https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/ ) but Boeing are 3000 behind and it doesn't look rosy (safety track record, quality, market preference, engine choice, capabilities).

The signals I'm seeing make me confident Boeing have turned away from the 5000NM twin aisle flat one, that nobody wanted to commit too. That's a positive! Boeing skipped the NSA, the CSeries & kept pushing the MAX. I think the beneficiaries of this NB strategy are bonus paid Boeing executives, stock holders (dividents) and Airbus (marketshare). The victims BCA employees, the Boeing supply chain, tax payers seeing their support vaporize and airlines having less choice.

Revelation wrote:

Bottom line is there still is good money to be made for both A and B even as discounts from list approach 70%.

By the mid-2010s, Airbus and Boeing were routinely starting discussions at half-off list for new customers or small top-up orders and if you were a "Favored Nation" customer a 60% discount was mandatory as an opening offer.

With a planned combined rate of over 100 frames a month, they needed constant and significant orders to keep those FALs full and such high production rates dropped their production costs so much that even at 60% or more off list, their margins were comfortably in the double-digits.

keesje wrote:

If Boeing would be convinced by an order of 35 additional 737-7 at unknown pricing to sole 737 operator Southwest that everything is ok in the NB segment this decade, that would surprise a lot of people.

Well it's costing them 23.5 million dollars a plane in 2022, but obviously you don't know how it impacts cash in other years, (Southwest saying their aircraft capital expenditure increasing after the order)

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Bottom line is there still is good money to be made for both A and B even as discounts from list approach 70%.

By the mid-2010s, Airbus and Boeing were routinely starting discussions at half-off list for new customers or small top-up orders and if you were a "Favored Nation" customer a 60% discount was mandatory as an opening offer.

With a planned combined rate of over 100 frames a month, they needed constant and significant orders to keep those FALs full and such high production rates dropped their production costs so much that even at 60% or more off list, their margins were comfortably in the double-digits.

I think discounts are largely based on supply and demand. Competition, commonality, order size, backlog's, slots, (lack of) alternatives play a roll.
Giving 60-70% discounts on A321NEO, A220-300.. why? Maybe not so much at this stage.


Photo: Airbus

Interesting times for Boeing, us. Sitting back doesn't seem a safe option.

keesje wrote:

By 2025 Airbus will be delivering 85-90 narrowbodies per month. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... all_ml_0-1 Research is going on on A220-500, A322 and probably other versions and upgrades. Not much competition for A220s and A321s, so healthy margins.

If Boeing would be convinced by an order of 35 additional 737-7 at unknown pricing to sole 737 operator Southwest that everything is ok in the NB segment this decade, that would surprise a lot of people. 35 is nice order (specially if profitable..https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/05/ponti ... us-to-bid/ ) but Boeing are 3000 behind and it doesn't look rosy (safety track record, quality, market preference, engine choice, capabilities).

I think the right perspective is that the course being chosen by Boeing for the MAX reflects the best possible outcome for the current situation.

I doubt they measure themselves by comparing backlogs, what they do measure is closing deals on their product and keeping their backlog healthy, which is what they are doing quite well under the circumstances.

Speaking of healthy backlogs, looks like WN pulled options forward and added more to the end:

Based on improving revenue trends and ongoing fleet modernization plans, the Company recently entered into a Supplemental Agreement with The Boeing Company (Boeing) to increase its 2022 firm orders by 34 Boeing 737 MAX 7 (MAX 7) aircraft (consisting of two 2022 options exercised and 32 options accelerated and exercised from later years), resulting in 234 firm orders for MAX 7 aircraft. Additionally, the Company accelerated 32 options into 2023, 16 options into 2024, 16 options into 2025, and added 32 new options into 2026 through 2027, bringing the total firm and option order book to 660 aircraft.

Ref: WN's 8-K statement

Just think, if Airbus had used all the clout some here suggest they have, a large slice of these orders could have been for A220s.

keesje wrote:

The signals I'm seeing make me confident Boeing have turned away from the 5000NM twin aisle flat one, that nobody wanted to commit too. That's a positive! Boeing skipped the NSA, the CSeries & kept pushing the MAX. I think the beneficiaries of this NB strategy are bonus paid Boeing executives, stock holders (dividents) and Airbus (marketshare). The victims BCA employees, the Boeing supply chain, tax payers seeing their support vaporize and airlines having less choice.

So much spin, it makes me dizzy.

All I will say is suggesting nobody wanted to commit to NSA is false, DL's CEO publicly said he wanted DL to be the launch customer.

I'm very skeptical about the long thin single aisle proposal as we now understand it. To me it provides no market differentiation and it plays to Airbus's biggest strength, the ability to produce similar aircraft in high volume thus low cost.

However I won't get too excited by it, I think it won't be on the market till 2023 at the earliest, if ever.

Alaska is buying 9s, United is buying 9s and 10s, Ryanair is buying 8200s and 10s. That is an indication that the market is moving up in capacity. Not sure that Boeing needs to focus on 100 seat to 150 seat aircraft, especially since they need to pay two pilots. I think that forces the efficiency to a 200 seat node. That goes for 3K nm or 5K nm aircraft. Which one is more pressing to build first, as each will require at least a different wing and engine.

Revelation wrote:

I doubt they measure themselves by comparing backlogs, what they do measure is closing deals on their product and keeping their backlog healthy, which is what they are doing quite well under the circumstances.

Indeed, yet here on a.net such is a fine art

Revelation wrote:

Just think, if Airbus had used all the clout some here suggest they have, a large slice of these orders could have been for A220s.

You know it was never going to happen, so interesting flamebait lol

CRJockey wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

And FR will come begging Airbus to be launch customer for 250 of the type. Because, again, they value pax comfort so highly.

They don't seemingly value it any less than many 'legacies' now do.

keesje wrote:

I think discounts are largely based on supply and demand. Competition, commonality, order size, backlog's, slots, (lack of) alternatives play a roll. Giving 60-70% discounts on A321NEO, A220-300.. why? Maybe not so much at this stage.

The A321 is a great plane, but it is not so great that Airbus can sell all they can build for close to List Price if they are also deeply-discounting the A320, much less so if Boeing is deeply discounting the 737-9 and 737-10 as you have consistently argued they have been doing.

Vicenza wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

And FR will come begging Airbus to be launch customer for 250 of the type. Because, again, they value pax comfort so highly.

They don't seemingly value it any less than many 'legacies' now do.

Nope. Wasn’t the point though. Ted from Denver argued some kind of strategy change by the likes of FR who suddenly come to value a twin aisle design.

DenverTed wrote:

I suppose a single aisle midrange aircraft is a possibility. Not my favorite idea, but... Should be easy to outdo the A321xlr with a better wing, better rotation angle, and more payload. 120t MTOW, crank up the payload to 30t versus the xlr at 21t out to 4K range. Build a faster wing at 38m to 48m, maybe folding tips. Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

I think someone will build a twin aisle along the lines of the NMA proposal, and it very well could be Airbus that does it before Boeing does. It's pretty clear Airbus will do A322 after XLR is done. Other potential projects are A350 freighter and/or A350neo and an eventual A320 family replacement but no rush to do any of these. They must see the A330neo is not doing well so they may decide a light twin aisle with more range and pax than A321/A322 can deliver is what the market needs next. It also could be their technology testbed for tech that will eventually make it onto the A320 family replacement.

Personally I think the electric and hydrogen projects are greenwashing. Politicians are happy to throw money at such projects so why not take it? They are R&D type programs where the outcome is already obvious, their range and performance penalties mean you'd be better off investing in rail and suffering some degree of ecological degradation where rail doesn't make sense. Throw money at it all via carbon taxes and the loudest critics will go silent. Team B is saying biofuel is their answer. It's the kind of greenwashing that keeps big agro happy.

Whatever Boeing does. They should do it so that Airbus responds with a clean sheet and not a derivative or if they respond with a derivative they will be at a clear disadvantage, if you want to level the playing field. That’s going to be very difficult but nothing in life is easy

Revelation wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I suppose a single aisle midrange aircraft is a possibility. Not my favorite idea, but... Should be easy to outdo the A321xlr with a better wing, better rotation angle, and more payload. 120t MTOW, crank up the payload to 30t versus the xlr at 21t out to 4K range. Build a faster wing at 38m to 48m, maybe folding tips. Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

I think someone will build a twin aisle along the lines of the NMA proposal, and it very well could be Airbus that does it before Boeing does. It's pretty clear Airbus will do A322 after XLR is done. Other potential projects are A350 freighter and/or A350neo and an eventual A320 family replacement but no rush to do any of these. They must see the A330neo is not doing well so they may decide a light twin aisle with more range and pax than A321/A322 can deliver is what the market needs next. It also could be their technology testbed for tech that will eventually make it onto the A320 family replacement.

Personally I think the electric and hydrogen projects are greenwashing. Politicians are happy to throw money at such projects so why not take it? They are R&D type programs where the outcome is already obvious, their range and performance penalties mean you'd be better off investing in rail and suffering some degree of ecological degradation where rail doesn't make sense. Throw money at it all via carbon taxes and the loudest critics will go silent. Team B is saying biofuel is their answer. It's the kind of greenwashing that keeps big agro happy.

I think your analysis is quite right. I do believe they can/will produce a flying prototype which will serve as a testbed for other interesting tech besides hydrogen, but at the end I expect them to kick the can to the next decade or so and declare the tech/infra etc is not ready and more fundamental research is needed. Nice thing with biofuel is that it needs little to implement from A or B perspective…

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I suppose a single aisle midrange aircraft is a possibility. Not my favorite idea, but... Should be easy to outdo the A321xlr with a better wing, better rotation angle, and more payload. 120t MTOW, crank up the payload to 30t versus the xlr at 21t out to 4K range. Build a faster wing at 38m to 48m, maybe folding tips. Airbus could put new gear and wing on the A321, or maybe they laugh at Boeing for taking the bait, and Airbus builds the twin aisle NMA and dominates the 3K to 5K market with the correct solution.

I think someone will build a twin aisle along the lines of the NMA proposal, and it very well could be Airbus that does it before Boeing does. It's pretty clear Airbus will do A322 after XLR is done. Other potential projects are A350 freighter and/or A350neo and an eventual A320 family replacement but no rush to do any of these. They must see the A330neo is not doing well so they may decide a light twin aisle with more range and pax than A321/A322 can deliver is what the market needs next. It also could be their technology testbed for tech that will eventually make it onto the A320 family replacement.

Personally I think the electric and hydrogen projects are greenwashing. Politicians are happy to throw money at such projects so why not take it? They are R&D type programs where the outcome is already obvious, their range and performance penalties mean you'd be better off investing in rail and suffering some degree of ecological degradation where rail doesn't make sense. Throw money at it all via carbon taxes and the loudest critics will go silent. Team B is saying biofuel is their answer. It's the kind of greenwashing that keeps big agro happy.

I think your analysis is quite right. I do believe they can/will produce a flying prototype which will serve as a testbed for other interesting tech besides hydrogen, but at the end I expect them to kick the can to the next decade or so and declare the tech/infra etc is not ready and more fundamental research is needed. Nice thing with biofuel is that it needs little to implement from A or B perspective…

I think it will also come down a bit to what their long term goal with ATR is and what the new EMB-Turboprop can deliver. Depending on that a conservative Approach from Airbus would be to use the "free" R&D Money to develop a hydrogen/hybrid/electric/whatever Turboprop as a testbed for a larger scale application.

Airbus has many ways forward due to their wide range of partnerships. Using ATR for new technologies, while moving the A320 market to the possible A225. Increase output of the A321/322 family as margins are high there and evolve the platform over the next 15 years. This leaves space for a new aircraft above the A225 (aka A320 replacement) implementing the technology from ATR. Then there is still the 350neo and what ever will happen in the space between the 350 and 322. And there has to be something there, the 350neo will be very capable and Airbus will need something below that capacity but above the 321/322. Cheap version might be a slimming of the A330 back to A300 weights and dimensions, expensive would be a new product.

Boeing on the other side is rather limited. The market below the MAX-7 is gone, and the MAX-7 will never secure new markets. It is good enough to be placed at 737 operators but it will not open anything new. So there are many holes that need to be addressed:

No regional turboprop (not necessary but a nice to have to test new propulsion systems and win research grants)
No regional jet (<MAX-7 size)
No competitive 200+ seat NB (again the MAX-10 will open sales to existing MAX customers but can not win new customers)
The MAX-8 replacement cycle has to be adressed with a new product (so 15 years from now)
Lot of tied up resources for certifying and fixing products (777X, MAX-10)
Strained finances from Covid and MAX-8 grounding

It is a tight ridge Boeing has to go along and the next step has to be carefully evaluated and executed perfect because otherwise the delays of new products will stack up (the rush of the MAX-8 delays now the -10 and 777X). A possible NMA launch is already delayed (if we believe the 2019 almost launch). It is hard to play catch up and if you do not deliver with the catch up product you have even more delays on the next product.

FluidFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think someone will build a twin aisle along the lines of the NMA proposal, and it very well could be Airbus that does it before Boeing does. It's pretty clear Airbus will do A322 after XLR is done. Other potential projects are A350 freighter and/or A350neo and an eventual A320 family replacement but no rush to do any of these. They must see the A330neo is not doing well so they may decide a light twin aisle with more range and pax than A321/A322 can deliver is what the market needs next. It also could be their technology testbed for tech that will eventually make it onto the A320 family replacement.

Personally I think the electric and hydrogen projects are greenwashing. Politicians are happy to throw money at such projects so why not take it? They are R&D type programs where the outcome is already obvious, their range and performance penalties mean you'd be better off investing in rail and suffering some degree of ecological degradation where rail doesn't make sense. Throw money at it all via carbon taxes and the loudest critics will go silent. Team B is saying biofuel is their answer. It's the kind of greenwashing that keeps big agro happy.

I think your analysis is quite right. I do believe they can/will produce a flying prototype which will serve as a testbed for other interesting tech besides hydrogen, but at the end I expect them to kick the can to the next decade or so and declare the tech/infra etc is not ready and more fundamental research is needed. Nice thing with biofuel is that it needs little to implement from A or B perspective…

I think it will also come down a bit to what their long term goal with ATR is and what the new EMB-Turboprop can deliver. Depending on that a conservative Approach from Airbus would be to use the "free" R&D Money to develop a hydrogen/hybrid/electric/whatever Turboprop as a testbed for a larger scale application.

Airbus has many ways forward due to their wide range of partnerships. Using ATR for new technologies, while moving the A320 market to the possible A225. Increase output of the A321/322 family as margins are high there and evolve the platform over the next 15 years. This leaves space for a new aircraft above the A225 (aka A320 replacement) implementing the technology from ATR. Then there is still the 350neo and what ever will happen in the space between the 350 and 322. And there has to be something there, the 350neo will be very capable and Airbus will need something below that capacity but above the 321/322. Cheap version might be a slimming of the A330 back to A300 weights and dimensions, expensive would be a new product.

Boeing on the other side is rather limited. The market below the MAX-7 is gone, and the MAX-7 will never secure new markets. It is good enough to be placed at 737 operators but it will not open anything new. So there are many holes that need to be addressed:

No regional turboprop (not necessary but a nice to have to test new propulsion systems and win research grants)
No regional jet (<MAX-7 size)
No competitive 200+ seat NB (again the MAX-10 will open sales to existing MAX customers but can not win new customers)
The MAX-8 replacement cycle has to be adressed with a new product (so 15 years from now)
Lot of tied up resources for certifying and fixing products (777X, MAX-10)
Strained finances from Covid and MAX-8 grounding

It is a tight ridge Boeing has to go along and the next step has to be carefully evaluated and executed perfect because otherwise the delays of new products will stack up (the rush of the MAX-8 delays now the -10 and 777X). A possible NMA launch is already delayed (if we believe the 2019 almost launch). It is hard to play catch up and if you do not deliver with the catch up product you have even more delays on the next product.

While I do believe B is in an ok position (not great, but the 737 and 787 will make money) their next product better be an homerun in execution and costs…

CRJockey wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

And FR will come begging Airbus to be launch customer for 250 of the type. Because, again, they value pax comfort so highly.

They don't seemingly value it any less than many 'legacies' now do.

Nope. Wasn’t the point though. Ted from Denver argued some kind of strategy change by the likes of FR who suddenly come to value a twin aisle design.

Yes, but referring to you saying FR "....they value pax comfort so highly" and obviously sarcastic, my point was they are no different in that regard to many legacies, so not particularly unique to FR. So why specify them?

Vicenza wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

They don't seemingly value it any less than many 'legacies' now do.

Nope. Wasn’t the point though. Ted from Denver argued some kind of strategy change by the likes of FR who suddenly come to value a twin aisle design.

Yes, but referring to you saying FR "....they value pax comfort so highly" and obviously sarcastic, my point was they are no different in that regard to many legacies, so not particularly unique to FR. So why specify them?

Sarcastic? You think?

JonesNL wrote:

While I do believe B is in an ok position (not great, but the 737 and 787 will make money) their next product better be an homerun in execution and costs…

Ironically, I think if you asked Boeing management what did they expect from the MAX program they'd say a homerun in execution and costs..

Revelation wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

While I do believe B is in an ok position (not great, but the 737 and 787 will make money) their next product better be an homerun in execution and costs…

Ironically, I think if you asked Boeing management what did they expect from the MAX program they'd say a homerun in execution and costs..

Everybody starts hopefully to reach success, but only a few reach the success they hoped for…

Question: so assuming Boeing goes ahead with this single aisle thing and does indeed make it Aluminum with carbon composite frame etc. I know the A220 made use of Aluminum lithium alloys for its fuselage. Now will that bring any strong benefits over the aluminium that the A320 uses? Is there any real weight savings there?

Opus99 wrote:

Question: so assuming Boeing goes ahead with this single aisle thing and does indeed make it Aluminum with carbon composite frame etc. I know the A220 made use of Aluminum lithium alloys for its fuselage. Now will that bring any strong benefits over the aluminium that the A320 uses? Is there any real weight savings there?

If there will be an advantage, it will be tiny. All the advantage should come from improved aerodynamics. If you look at the front end of a 737, A320 and A220, you see were the trend goes. You will find lift of the fuselage, maximized on an A220 without adding drag.

The advantage of a CFRP fuselage gets less on a smaller frame, because you get to the minimum thickness for the tubes or panels and hardly save weight over an aluminum fuselage. You also do not have the advantage of being able to make complicated shapes, as a tube is a tube.

The main advantage over continuing with the 737, will be a full blown FBW, an advantage that Boeing friends usually accept as an advantage on a 787, but not against a 737.

FluidFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think someone will build a twin aisle along the lines of the NMA proposal, and it very well could be Airbus that does it before Boeing does. It's pretty clear Airbus will do A322 after XLR is done. Other potential projects are A350 freighter and/or A350neo and an eventual A320 family replacement but no rush to do any of these. They must see the A330neo is not doing well so they may decide a light twin aisle with more range and pax than A321/A322 can deliver is what the market needs next. It also could be their technology testbed for tech that will eventually make it onto the A320 family replacement.

Personally I think the electric and hydrogen projects are greenwashing. Politicians are happy to throw money at such projects so why not take it? They are R&D type programs where the outcome is already obvious, their range and performance penalties mean you'd be better off investing in rail and suffering some degree of ecological degradation where rail doesn't make sense. Throw money at it all via carbon taxes and the loudest critics will go silent. Team B is saying biofuel is their answer. It's the kind of greenwashing that keeps big agro happy.

I think your analysis is quite right. I do believe they can/will produce a flying prototype which will serve as a testbed for other interesting tech besides hydrogen, but at the end I expect them to kick the can to the next decade or so and declare the tech/infra etc is not ready and more fundamental research is needed. Nice thing with biofuel is that it needs little to implement from A or B perspective…

I think it will also come down a bit to what their long term goal with ATR is and what the new EMB-Turboprop can deliver. Depending on that a conservative Approach from Airbus would be to use the "free" R&D Money to develop a hydrogen/hybrid/electric/whatever Turboprop as a testbed for a larger scale application.

Airbus has many ways forward due to their wide range of partnerships. Using ATR for new technologies, while moving the A320 market to the possible A225. Increase output of the A321/322 family as margins are high there and evolve the platform over the next 15 years. This leaves space for a new aircraft above the A225 (aka A320 replacement) implementing the technology from ATR. Then there is still the 350neo and what ever will happen in the space between the 350 and 322. And there has to be something there, the 350neo will be very capable and Airbus will need something below that capacity but above the 321/322. Cheap version might be a slimming of the A330 back to A300 weights and dimensions, expensive would be a new product.

Boeing on the other side is rather limited. The market below the MAX-7 is gone, and the MAX-7 will never secure new markets. It is good enough to be placed at 737 operators but it will not open anything new. So there are many holes that need to be addressed:

No regional turboprop (not necessary but a nice to have to test new propulsion systems and win research grants)
No regional jet (<MAX-7 size)
No competitive 200+ seat NB (again the MAX-10 will open sales to existing MAX customers but can not win new customers)
The MAX-8 replacement cycle has to be adressed with a new product (so 15 years from now)
Lot of tied up resources for certifying and fixing products (777X, MAX-10)
Strained finances from Covid and MAX-8 grounding

It is a tight ridge Boeing has to go along and the next step has to be carefully evaluated and executed perfect because otherwise the delays of new products will stack up (the rush of the MAX-8 delays now the -10 and 777X). A possible NMA launch is already delayed (if we believe the 2019 almost launch). It is hard to play catch up and if you do not deliver with the catch up product you have even more delays on the next product.

I think you are correct in stating the market below the 737-7 is gone. But what does that mean? I think that may mean the 100-150pax range is now a niche market. A220s, 640 orders in a decade. 737-7 not exactly flying off shelves yet. Might be the A320\737-8 are bottom ring for mass flying public. 100-150 seat market will be niche. Fill with A220s, Embraer and turboprops. What is happening in Europe with cutting off short routes will eventually spread around the world. Which further puts pressure on small jets role in air travel.

/shrug

Revelation wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

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

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

From Wiki's NMA page:

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

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

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

Elementalism wrote:

But imo narrow body makes sense in this segment.

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

I forgot about the RFP on those engines. Feel 45K would be at the top end of a 757 MAX.

I dont see how a small WB differentiates the product compared to the A321XLR. I feels like it adds complexity and weight for little gain. This plane is supposed to hit 5000nm range. A 757 today with engines that meet the RFP and no other modification would hit that mark at 225pax in the -200 and close enough in a -300. And that isnt even requiring extra fuel tanks. And it would not be weight restricted like the A321 XLR to make those performance numbers neither.

mjoelnir wrote:

The advantage of a CFRP fuselage gets less on a smaller frame, because you get to the minimum thickness for the tubes or panels and hardly save weight over an aluminum fuselage. You also do not have the advantage of being able to make complicated shapes, as a tube is a tube.

Do not discount the advantage of a CFRP fuselage on part consolidation and integration to reduce cost and weight. Those who do not work close to manufacturing have no concept of how expensive it is to engineer, qualify, source, and track individual parts. The integral frames and one-piece fuselage barrels on 787 are indicative on how CFRP can reduce overall part count, which reduces touch time and improves factory flows.

Pythagoras wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The advantage of a CFRP fuselage gets less on a smaller frame, because you get to the minimum thickness for the tubes or panels and hardly save weight over an aluminum fuselage. You also do not have the advantage of being able to make complicated shapes, as a tube is a tube.

Do not discount the advantage of a CFRP fuselage on part consolidation and integration to reduce cost and weight. Those who do not work close to manufacturing have no concept of how expensive it is to engineer, qualify, source, and track individual parts. The integral frames and one-piece fuselage barrels on 787 are indicative on how CFRP can reduce overall part count, which reduces touch time and improves factory flows.

...and manufacturing cost it reduces as well tremendously. So you can sell a lot of airliners for a very low count of millions. Does it not?

Pythagoras wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The advantage of a CFRP fuselage gets less on a smaller frame, because you get to the minimum thickness for the tubes or panels and hardly save weight over an aluminum fuselage. You also do not have the advantage of being able to make complicated shapes, as a tube is a tube.

Do not discount the advantage of a CFRP fuselage on part consolidation and integration to reduce cost and weight. Those who do not work close to manufacturing have no concept of how expensive it is to engineer, qualify, source, and track individual parts. The integral frames and one-piece fuselage barrels on 787 are indicative on how CFRP can reduce overall part count, which reduces touch time and improves factory flows.

The last AvWeek link we had above suggested Boeing is now leaning towards a metal fuse with CFRP wings on their "757-300 clone" next clean sheet.

Revelation wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

Do not discount the advantage of a CFRP fuselage on part consolidation and integration to reduce cost and weight. Those who do not work close to manufacturing have no concept of how expensive it is to engineer, qualify, source, and track individual parts. The integral frames and one-piece fuselage barrels on 787 are indicative on how CFRP can reduce overall part count, which reduces touch time and improves factory flows.

The last AvWeek link we had above suggested Boeing is now leaning towards a metal fuse with CFRP wings on their "757-300 clone" next clean sheet.

I wouldn't read too much into that as yet. It may just be that all the NMA work was done with a composite fuselage as baseline and so there needs to be more study as to what an aluminum fuselage might cost using the latest manufacturing technology. As was stated once when I was working in PD, one won't fully explore any technology under development unless one makes it the baseline.

It could also be that despite the benefits for composites that the issues of how to bring it to rate and incorporate automation are better known with aluminum. Or is could be that the suppliers for aluminum construction are better positioned for the capital expenditure that needs to happen with a new program. Or it could be that key narrow-body customers like Ryanair, Easyjet, and Southwest have doubts about the durability of a composite fuselage to ramp damage. Remember that these LCC have no experience with either the 787 and A350.

It is almost a certainty though that the wings will be CFRP though. The aero-performance guys need the ability to develop a high-aspect ratio wing to meet the range goals.

42 pages ago we started with Boeing CEO's comments on their next airplane.

Time for some more, via an interview conducted by AvWeek located by Opus99.

When asked about the new plane being a single aisle 757 replacement he said:

We are not really at any stage in calling out “Is it narrow, is it wide, how many seats?” and so forth. The big differentiator will be the technology airframers use to engineer the airplane, the simplicity with which they do it and the manufacturing techniques they use to get efficiency out of the cost.

We can’t just talk about an incremental or marginal improvement. It has to be fundamental. So you have to prove that your modeling capability can do the next airplane and the manufacturing techniques can be used at scale and are repeatable. You have seen the developmental composites on an airplane, and you see many things; 3D printing is finding its way into many of our applications. We have to call those things out as mature before I give our team license to call out the point design on that airplane.

When asked if the T-7's use of model based systems engineering helps make the business case for the next airplane he said:

Without a doubt. We have to do that on a very large scale and be able to repeat it. Step 1 for us is insertion of a technology like that into an existing program, because then we can prove it before we lock down on that next design. I think we have plenty of time to do this right. These are 30-, 40-, 50-year programs. You don’t want to mess up because you start one or two years early. You want to get it right, and I think COVID has given us a chance to stand back and get these pre-programs nailed down before we launch the airplane program.

On the general topic of the recovery of the aviation industry he says:

[Last year], we thought 3-5 years would be the best-case scenario for return to pre-COVID volumes. I have gotten more and more optimistic as time went on because of the vaccine. Our recovery is following the global distribution of that vaccine almost perfectly: Big, developed, domestic markets are returning the fastest because they got the greatest vaccine distribution the earliest. The U.S. market feels a little bit like the old days. I expect the long-haul recovery will be in full swing by the end of the next calendar year and into 2023. Given the state of supply chains and the aviation industry and the difficulty we had ramping before, I think this reramp is going to be another challenge. It’s actually most of what I think about.

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/forum/aerospac ... ing-boeing

So he speaks of needing not just an incremental improvement in design and manufacturing, but a fundamental improvement, one that has to be able to scale. He suggests both 3D printing and the use of composites at scale as needing more time to mature, and says that time has been created by the COVID crisis. He says the project team will not call out the design point (payload, range, width) till these things meet their maturity targets. His recovery timeline suggests to me at least that we won't see any new clean sheet announced before 2023.

Revelation wrote:

42 pages ago we started with Boeing CEO's comments on their next airplane.

Time for some more, via an interview conducted by AvWeek located by Opus99.

When asked about the new plane being a single aisle 757 replacement he said:

We are not really at any stage in calling out “Is it narrow, is it wide, how many seats?” and so forth. The big differentiator will be the technology airframers use to engineer the airplane, the simplicity with which they do it and the manufacturing techniques they use to get efficiency out of the cost.

We can’t just talk about an incremental or marginal improvement. It has to be fundamental. So you have to prove that your modeling capability can do the next airplane and the manufacturing techniques can be used at scale and are repeatable. You have seen the developmental composites on an airplane, and you see many things; 3D printing is finding its way into many of our applications. We have to call those things out as mature before I give our team license to call out the point design on that airplane.

When asked if the T-7's use of model based systems engineering helps make the business case for the next airplane he said:

Without a doubt. We have to do that on a very large scale and be able to repeat it. Step 1 for us is insertion of a technology like that into an existing program, because then we can prove it before we lock down on that next design. I think we have plenty of time to do this right. These are 30-, 40-, 50-year programs. You don’t want to mess up because you start one or two years early. You want to get it right, and I think COVID has given us a chance to stand back and get these pre-programs nailed down before we launch the airplane program.

On the general topic of the recovery of the aviation industry he says:

[Last year], we thought 3-5 years would be the best-case scenario for return to pre-COVID volumes. I have gotten more and more optimistic as time went on because of the vaccine. Our recovery is following the global distribution of that vaccine almost perfectly: Big, developed, domestic markets are returning the fastest because they got the greatest vaccine distribution the earliest. The U.S. market feels a little bit like the old days. I expect the long-haul recovery will be in full swing by the end of the next calendar year and into 2023. Given the state of supply chains and the aviation industry and the difficulty we had ramping before, I think this reramp is going to be another challenge. It’s actually most of what I think about.

Ref: https://aviationweek.com/forum/aerospac ... ing-boeing

So he speaks of needing not just an incremental improvement in design and manufacturing, but a fundamental improvement, one that has to be able to scale. He suggests both 3D printing and the use of composites at scale as needing more time to mature, and says that time has been created by the COVID crisis. He says the project team will not call out the design point (payload, range, width) till these things meet their maturity targets. His recovery timeline suggests to me at least that we won't see any new clean sheet announced before 2023.

Calhoun seems to now be more comfortable in his role as CEO. Seeing as his doing more interviews. But onto the details.

Yes, it seems to me that anything we see or single aisle or twin aisle. It’s just fluff. Boeing is looking at everything at the moment. That’s my take from that and they have not decided which way they’re going down.

Now, the part where they want to prove themselves at scale using an existing program. What program would that be?

Cool to see 3D printing and composite potentially making its way into the mix for them so that will obviously be a big part of NMA.

I also agree with your expected timeline. 2023 at the earliest

Pythagoras wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

Do not discount the advantage of a CFRP fuselage on part consolidation and integration to reduce cost and weight. Those who do not work close to manufacturing have no concept of how expensive it is to engineer, qualify, source, and track individual parts. The integral frames and one-piece fuselage barrels on 787 are indicative on how CFRP can reduce overall part count, which reduces touch time and improves factory flows.

The last AvWeek link we had above suggested Boeing is now leaning towards a metal fuse with CFRP wings on their "757-300 clone" next clean sheet.

I wouldn't read too much into that as yet. It may just be that all the NMA work was done with a composite fuselage as baseline and so there needs to be more study as to what an aluminum fuselage might cost using the latest manufacturing technology. As was stated once when I was working in PD, one won't fully explore any technology under development unless one makes it the baseline.

It could also be that despite the benefits for composites that the issues of how to bring it to rate and incorporate automation are better known with aluminum. Or is could be that the suppliers for aluminum construction are better positioned for the capital expenditure that needs to happen with a new program. Or it could be that key narrow-body customers like Ryanair, Easyjet, and Southwest have doubts about the durability of a composite fuselage to ramp damage. Remember that these LCC have no experience with either the 787 and A350.

It is almost a certainty though that the wings will be CFRP though. The aero-performance guys need the ability to develop a high-aspect ratio wing to meet the range goals.

Yes, ironically, the Boeing CEO is telling the AvWeek interviewers that we should not read too much into their earlier article.

It sounds like Boeing needs another year or two to make progress in the design and manufacturing space then they will focus more on the specifics of size, shape, materials, etc.

Who knows what if anything will come of this, but we do know the 757s and 767s will have almost totally aged out by the time they even announce their next airplane, and most of their replacements will already be on order.

In a way history is repeating itself in the fouled-up 787 program took out any hope of Y1 and Y3 ever being built and MCAS plus COVID has taken out NMA.

It seems like Boeing is in a position where they will have to move forward with MAX, 787 and 777X for quite a while to come.

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun seems to now be more comfortable in his role as CEO. Seeing as his doing more interviews. But onto the details.

Yes, it seems to me that anything we see or single aisle or twin aisle. It’s just fluff. Boeing is looking at everything at the moment. That’s my take from that and they have not decided which way they’re going down.

Now, the part where they want to prove themselves at scale using an existing program. What program would that be?

Cool to see 3D printing and composite potentially making its way into the mix for them so that will obviously be a big part of NMA.

I also agree with your expected timeline. 2023 at the earliest

It seems they are keeping their engineering talent busy with 777x (re-)certification, MAX7 and MAX10 certification, and these 'pre-programs' for the next clean sheet.

It sounds like a 77XF is soon to follow.

At some point they are going to have to do something with all this R&D, but I suspect that point won't be for at least another two years.

Revelation wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The last AvWeek link we had above suggested Boeing is now leaning towards a metal fuse with CFRP wings on their "757-300 clone" next clean sheet.

I wouldn't read too much into that as yet. It may just be that all the NMA work was done with a composite fuselage as baseline and so there needs to be more study as to what an aluminum fuselage might cost using the latest manufacturing technology. As was stated once when I was working in PD, one won't fully explore any technology under development unless one makes it the baseline.

It could also be that despite the benefits for composites that the issues of how to bring it to rate and incorporate automation are better known with aluminum. Or is could be that the suppliers for aluminum construction are better positioned for the capital expenditure that needs to happen with a new program. Or it could be that key narrow-body customers like Ryanair, Easyjet, and Southwest have doubts about the durability of a composite fuselage to ramp damage. Remember that these LCC have no experience with either the 787 and A350.

It is almost a certainty though that the wings will be CFRP though. The aero-performance guys need the ability to develop a high-aspect ratio wing to meet the range goals.

Yes, ironically, the Boeing CEO is telling the AvWeek interviewers that we should not read too much into their earlier article.

It sounds like Boeing needs another year or two to make progress in the design and manufacturing space then they will focus more on the specifics of size, shape, materials, etc.

Who knows what if anything will come of this, but we do know the 757s and 767s will have almost totally aged out by the time they even announce their next airplane, and most of their replacements will already be on order.

In a way history is repeating itself in the fouled-up 787 program took out any hope of Y1 and Y3 ever being built and MCAS plus COVID has taken out NMA.

It seems like Boeing is in a position where they will have to move forward with MAX, 787 and 777X for quite a while to come.

Opus99 wrote:

Calhoun seems to now be more comfortable in his role as CEO. Seeing as his doing more interviews. But onto the details.

Yes, it seems to me that anything we see or single aisle or twin aisle. It’s just fluff. Boeing is looking at everything at the moment. That’s my take from that and they have not decided which way they’re going down.

Now, the part where they want to prove themselves at scale using an existing program. What program would that be?

Cool to see 3D printing and composite potentially making its way into the mix for them so that will obviously be a big part of NMA.

I also agree with your expected timeline. 2023 at the earliest

It seems they are keeping their engineering talent busy with 777x (re-)certification, MAX7 and MAX10 certification, and these 'pre-programs' for the next clean sheet.

It sounds like a 77XF is soon to follow.

At some point they are going to have to do something with all this R&D, but I suspect that point won't be for at least another two years.

Yeah XF is definitely the next thing to come out probably maybe when MAX7 is done? So at least they can take some people off that and then focus on XF.

Anyway I see XF in the next 6-9 months.

I think Covid has bought them time. Article dropped today that max white tails have dropped from 100 to 10. So they’re basically sold out there. United will probably close out the 150-200 MAX orders. I also believe as the recovery improves more frames will be added to the backlog from the ASC606. So it’s not ALL doom and gloom for Boeing. They’re getting closer to some stability. They will need to get China on board though and of course get the 787 back on track. Calhoun says they have time to do that. Which they do. No airline is going to be angry that Boeing can’t deliver the 787s now. If you look at Airbus they are only pushing out 2-3 350s a month. So Calhoun looks like he wants to get that stabilised too.

So basically:

1. Stability
2. Get 777X and MAX10 out the way
3. Launch NMA

Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that all the "white tail" MAX have been delivered and only about 10 remain.

That didn't take long.

MDC862 wrote:

Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that all the "white tail" MAX have been delivered and only about 10 remain.

That didn't take long.

All good as long as you don't suggest that represents a form of momentum then you'll get lots of pushback, probably from the same people who said no one would every fly in a MAX ever again.

I read the articles. We are seeing a rebound on deliveries and sales for MAX as the post-Covid / post-MCAS recoveries happen a bit quicker than some pundits would have suggested earlier (at least for domestic travel in large mature markets). However, my impression is that might lead Mr Calhoun in to thinking that all is good between 150-230pax for Boeing. He might see this recovery as a long term trend, when in fact it might be a surge related to pent up demand and a motivated seller (look how quick they cleared out those white tails..wow). I hope we don't find ourselves in 2024 still wondering what Boeing's response to the 150-250 pax market will be as competitors continues to improve their product in that market.

Boeing appears really confident in the MAX10. We'll have to see just how good this plane is throughout the flight test campaign. I get that MAX needs to be given time to bring in cash for Boeing. So, we'll have to wait and see if there are other large blue-chip customers ready to purchase in good quantites beyond the usual suspects. Perhaps customers will be content with the combination of capability, commonality and compelling prices that the MAX family delivers. I may be wrong in my anxiousness to see Boeing move on to a new program quickly.

We'll watch and see some more.... I guess.... They've certainly had allot of time to evaluate and analyze all manner of material and production advances.... at some point all of these bags of tricks need to materialize in a product. But for now... It's a 3 plane company... MAX,787,777 with nothing newer in revenue service or perhaps even flight tests before 2030. Good thing us enthusiast have fun stuff like the Tecnam P2012 Traveller (electrification of that will be exciting) and Textron Cessna 408 Skycourier to keep us occupied.