A 200-225 seat NB that has the range to do European "smaller" cities like BER, GVA, NCE to Florida, that can do Texas to "smaller" cities in deep Latin America like MVD, ASU etc and can do Europe to "smaller" cities in India ought to do really well. Hub buster 2.0. I can think of many viable routes right now where a narrow body doesn't have the range but a wide body is too much aircraft. YUL-LIM, YVR-BOG, IAH-MVD, LAX POS, GVA NBO, BER MCO

WesternDC6B wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

797-200 Narrowbody 6ab, small Wing, around 180 passengers 2 Class, for up to 9/10h missions, also suitable for short/mediumhaul
797-300 Widebody 7ab, small Wing, around 200 passengers 2 Class, for up to 8/9h missions, also suitable for short/mediumhaul
797-400 Widebody 7ab, big Wing for more range, around 200 passengers 2 Class, for up to 12/13h missions
797-800 Widebody 7ab, big Wing, around 240 passengers 2 Class, for up to 13/14h missions

I Imagine this as a modular "Build/Configure your airplane" concept, where Airlines can choose from different fuselage lenghts/widths and Wings. I know this would mean a hell lot of certification and is most probably not doable.

The certification process of a mix-and-match like you propose would be beyond a nightmare.

Agreed, just reading that made me get a headache, as cool as it would be. Realistically, if they went with 2 models, it would be something similar to the 757/767 combo development.

Something simpler like:

6ab 797-250 sized somewhere between the 752/753 for up to 5,500nm (210-240 2-class layout) - Competes with A321XLR, but also B788 on some routes
8ab 797-350 sized somewhere between the 763/764 for up to 6,500nm (240-270 2-class layout) - Competes with A330, replaces 767, but also competes with B788/789 on some routes

Meanwhile Airbus gains totally unhealthy marketshare & margin in the huge <180 seats segment.

Is an NMA possible? Yes. A solution? No..

tlecam wrote:

There is a need for a 767 replacement but I think Boeing needs to figure out it’s 737 replacement as top priority. 737 replacement is existential.

Problem is with what's been invested in the MAX, their boards appetite may not have what it takes. Realistically a NB 180-250 Seat 737 replacement and a WB 767/NMA could be developed quite successfully in tandem, but maybe just not in Boeing's current financial state.

I don't see them trying anything in the sub-180 seat market in future

The fuselage would be carrying to much weight if based off the bigger models (think B737-600 / A318) so would likely need to be a brand new design ala A220

Another aspect is engine. If Boeing were to develop a 757-300 sized single aisle with 40meter wingspan and 100ton MTOW , current 33klb class engine can comfortably support, with some margin for MTOW growth. That's a huge risk reduction and development budget saver

No suitable engine in 50klb class exists for MoM/767/A300 space.

"Keesje manning up to launch new aircraft thread? A-Net thinks so."

As a long-time member, this is meant as nothing more than a good-natured ribbing.

In the end, a new aircraft launch by either manufacturer will require in no particular order: Money, Engineering knowledge and Market opportunity with available technology.

I think most realistic people would agree Airbus is better positioned in the first two areas, should Boeing look to make a move. While for the third requirement, it seems both sides are still trying to figure that one out.

Factor in the state of politics in the U.S., a stubborn virus that doesn't want to go away and global economic uncertainty, and a launch by either manufacturer in the near future is quite the tough sell.

LDRA wrote:

Another aspect is engine. If Boeing were to develop a 757-300 sized single aisle with 40meter wingspan and 100ton MTOW , current 33klb class engine can comfortably support, with some margin for MTOW growth. That's a huge risk reduction and development budget saver

No suitable engine in 50klb class exists for MoM/767/A300 space.

Not yet, but they are working on scaling up the GTF tech in coming years. I see no major barrier to a 45-55k GTF being developed. PW would do it if Boeing gave them exclusivity.

keesje wrote:

Meanwhile Airbus gains totally unhealthy marketshare & margin in the huge <180 seats segment.

Is an NMA possible? Yes. A solution? No..

Gain market share but lose market cap: the NMA

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

keesje wrote:

A me too Boeing A321, in a saturated market seems an up-hill, risky approach, probably surrendering the middle of the market.

This is exactly what I think too, this is why I think Boeing should build a 757-300 and 767-300 sized aircraft. This is where the actual gap is right now and midterm.

Boeings problem is they have to build two airplanes midterm, but seem to not even have the capacity to build one. This Problem would not exist if the 757 was still there ...

We've all discussed this ad nauseam, but you're right.

Had Boeing just gone clean sheet with a composite 753 proxy and new engines, they'd be further on up the road now than they were considering the MAX debacle, albeit ex post facto.

For the life of me, I still can't fathom Boeing strategy or vision. New CEO is another beancounter and they've lost their way. Shitcan the MAX 10 and go the 753 route. The 757 remains just such an incredible and capable aircraft and the 737 family and its 60 year old warmed over airframe just isn't going to compete on the big stage.

The market for the 757's unique capabilities is very limited. Most of what the 757 can do is being done by the A320neo, A321XLR or by the 737NG/Max family at a much cheaper price.
- How many units do you expect to sell to serve hot/high airports with short runways?
- How many units do you expect to sell for ETOPS routes just a bit longer than what a 737MAX-10 can do?

The 757 can go trans-Atlantic but once you need a relief flight crew the economics don't make as much sense, better to spread that additional cost over more passengers in a wide body. How big of a market is there for that unique mission?

Airlines will be willing to pay a premium for these unique characteristics but Boeing needs to make enough of them to pay for the development cost.

There is a reason why the 757 line was shut-down. The airplane wasn't built in sufficient numbers to drive the unit cost so low that it could compete on price with something that could do the mission for a lower acquisition cost. It was a narrow body hampered by a cost structure of its larger 767 sibling with which it shared systems.

I hope Boeing builds a widebody with 250-300 seats with a range under 4000 miles with a narrow wing span and where lie flats seats are prohibited. It makes no sense flying 25-50 737s per day in high density domestic markets when LDFs are over 90 percent yet in the 80s they were 55 percent and cost effective and cities were a fraction of the size they are today. No more excuses it's cheaper to fly two narrowbody wing tips. I also hope the configuration is 2x4x2 no exceptions.

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that Boeing will be launching a 787 freighter conversion program and/or a new build 787 freighter. The 767-300 Freighter cannot be built after 2028 as it will violate ICAO CO2 rules. And although Boeing allegedly is pursuing an extension, the optics are poor for Boeing to do so.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/singapore-airshow/boeing-seeks-exemption-looming-icao-767-production-ban

How does one make the claim that one is sustainable and environmentally conscious when one has been given plenty of notice that the rule is coming. I doubt that EU ministers are willing to bend the rules as well due to domestic politics.

I could also see Amazon Air/Prime wanting to commit to a lower fuel burn fleet than what they are currently flying, which is primarily 767-300ER converted freighters. A 2028 EIS might work well for their fleet planning.

There is a rumor that Calhoun has an all-team meeting scheduled for the week of June 13.

Possible other news could be:
- Resumption of 787 deliveries
- Progress on 737-10 certification
- TIA for 777-9
- Resumption of a new airplane program targeting ? segment
- Starliner ready for manned flight
- What Boeing is doing about Ukraine and Russian design centers and China delivery center

If BA wants to stay in the commercial business, then one of these years, one of these rumors may actually come true. Perhaps this is the one. Or perhaps not, like so many in the past.

afcjets wrote:

I hope Boeing builds a widebody with 250-300 seats with a range under 4000 miles with a narrow wing span and where lie flats seats are prohibited. It makes no sense flying 25-50 737s per day in high density domestic markets when LDFs are over 90 percent yet in the 80s they were 55 percent and cost effective and cities were a fraction of the size they are today. No more excuses it's cheaper to fly two narrowbody wing tips. I also hope the configuration is 2x4x2 no exceptions.

While some of what you say is correct, travelers, especially business travelers, prefer multiple frequencies throughout the day to suit their requirements. I would think any NMA would be wider than the 767 and be able to fit the standard LD containers used on the A330/787. So 8ab is the most likely config, although it may still be a touch narrower than the A330 fuselage. 4000nm is a bit light - you would need something that could comfortably do JFK-HNL for example. I think something around 5,500-6000nm is more likely.

I think the design target is to build the most capable airplane to fit in a 36m gate. Maybe folding wingtips, maybe not. Up to 105t MTOW with a single axle main gear. 3-3, 2-2-2, 2-3-2, whatever gets the job done for up to 3,000nm.

DenverTed wrote:

I think the design target is to build the most capable airplane to fit in a 36m gate. Maybe folding wingtips, maybe not. Up to 105t MTOW with a single axle main gear. 3-3, 2-2-2, 2-3-2, whatever gets the job done for up to 3,000nm.

If it is to compete with A321XLR, it better be more like 5,000nm I'm afraid.

Pythagoras wrote:

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that Boeing will be launching a 787 freighter conversion program and/or a new build 787 freighter. The 767-300 Freighter cannot be built after 2028 as it will violate ICAO CO2 rules. And although Boeing allegedly is pursuing an extension, the optics are poor for Boeing to do so.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/singapore-airshow/boeing-seeks-exemption-looming-icao-767-production-ban

How does one make the claim that one is sustainable and environmentally conscious when one has been given plenty of notice that the rule is coming. I doubt that EU ministers are willing to bend the rules as well due to domestic politics.

I could also see Amazon Air/Prime wanting to commit to a lower fuel burn fleet than what they are currently flying, which is primarily 767-300ER converted freighters. A 2028 EIS might work well for their fleet planning.

There is a rumor that Calhoun has an all-team meeting scheduled for the week of June 13.

Possible other news could be:
- Resumption of 787 deliveries
- Progress on 737-10 certification
- TIA for 777-9
- Resumption of a new airplane program targeting ? segment
- Starliner ready for manned flight
- What Boeing is doing about Ukraine and Russian design centers and China delivery center

The 787 is also getting due for an engine upgrade. The GEnx and Trent 1000 both reflect early-2000s technology. And with it being close to 20 years since the launch of the 787, it is time to look at incorporating the latest technology that can reduce fuel burn and extend on-wing time. And remember as well that the P&W geared turbofan now has gone through its initial teething problems and might now be under consideration.

The commitment to Sustainable Aviation Fuels as a global warming solution will make fuel efficiency even more important and might move up the timeline for an re-engine. It is easier to make SAF affordable if one uses less of it on each flight.

Pythagoras wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that Boeing will be launching a 787 freighter conversion program and/or a new build 787 freighter. The 767-300 Freighter cannot be built after 2028 as it will violate ICAO CO2 rules. And although Boeing allegedly is pursuing an extension, the optics are poor for Boeing to do so.

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/singapore-airshow/boeing-seeks-exemption-looming-icao-767-production-ban

How does one make the claim that one is sustainable and environmentally conscious when one has been given plenty of notice that the rule is coming. I doubt that EU ministers are willing to bend the rules as well due to domestic politics.

I could also see Amazon Air/Prime wanting to commit to a lower fuel burn fleet than what they are currently flying, which is primarily 767-300ER converted freighters. A 2028 EIS might work well for their fleet planning.

There is a rumor that Calhoun has an all-team meeting scheduled for the week of June 13.

Possible other news could be:
- Resumption of 787 deliveries
- Progress on 737-10 certification
- TIA for 777-9
- Resumption of a new airplane program targeting ? segment
- Starliner ready for manned flight
- What Boeing is doing about Ukraine and Russian design centers and China delivery center

The 787 is also getting due for an engine upgrade. The GEnx and Trent 1000 both reflect early-2000s technology. And with it being close to 20 years since the launch of the 787, it is time to look at incorporating the latest technology that can reduce fuel burn and extend on-wing time. And remember as well that the P&W geared turbofan now has gone through its initial teething problems and might now be under consideration.

The commitment to Sustainable Aviation Fuels as a global warming solution will make fuel efficiency even more important and might move up the timeline for an re-engine. It is easier to make SAF affordable if one uses less of it on each flight.

The work on a GTF for the 787 would back-port into something for a NMA

If Boeing were to build a new a/c now, who would certify it? The FAA is busy reviewing paperwork for the MAX7, cannot decide on the MAX10, the 777X is now in FAA undefined territory and the 787 is also being reviewed, add to the fact that they have not yet decided or hinted on what the new cockpit layout will be, but they will know it when Boeing provides something.
The FAA as of now in my opinion is the major risk factor in Boeing building a new a/c, no idea how long they would take and since Boeing must no longer be involved, it will be long.....

par13del wrote:

If Boeing were to build a new a/c now, who would certify it? The FAA is busy reviewing paperwork for the MAX7, cannot decide on the MAX10, the 777X is now in FAA undefined territory and the 787 is also being reviewed, add to the fact that they have not yet decided or hinted on what the new cockpit layout will be, but they will know it when Boeing provides something.
The FAA as of now in my opinion is the major risk factor in Boeing building a new a/c, no idea how long they would take and since Boeing must no longer be involved, it will be long.....

Relax, they are not going to build now. It takes a few years between a launch and building a prototype and actual certification, which is usually the last step before EIS.

Boeing hasn't shown much project management competency since the 777 and 777-300.

Chemist wrote:

Boeing hasn't shown much project management competency since the 777 and 777-300.

So you mean when MCDD took over

keesje wrote:

https://hastydata.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... t-lengths/

Nice graph, but that is the result of decades of legacy aircraft. What this graph shows is all the feeder flights going into the hub. Small towns can then get to popular destinations with a single stop at a hub. Emirates did this on a global scale with their hub and spoke model but we are moving to point to point with smaller, longer range aircraft. So that graph is irrelevant.

So two small feeder flights to the hub using regional aircraft will get replaced with one long range narrowbody flight that goes direct to the destination. The widebody aircraft at the hub loses this feeder traffic so they downsize to small widebodies also.

It is like a graph saying the electricity grid needs more high voltage cables yet if we started from scratch today each house just have a solar and battery setup with maybe 1% of the total network wiring.

Most of that short haul traffic on the graph will disappear. We will see growing demand in 4000+nm narrowbody aircraft. We are seeing large long range wide bodies downgauge to smaller and smaller long range widebodies. The industry is waiting to downgauge to an efficient aircraft smaller than the 787 but the A321XLR is simply is just too big of a step in both range and capacity.

In 30 year time I could see an efficient cleansheet 6000nm range A310, 767-200 size/weight aircraft capturing the majority of the routes currently flown by 777, A330, 787 and A350. The 787 being the smallest of the widebodies listed means it will be the last to be effected.

Each of these small long haul aircraft will replace a couple small regional and medium sized narrowbody aircraft as the smaller cities get direct flights. This has been the trend for decades.

This aircraft will surely launch within the decade. This is what the MOM/797 business case was showing. Every year that market is growing make the business case easier. It is inevitable.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

https://hastydata.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... t-lengths/

Nice graph, but that is the result of decades of legacy aircraft. What this graph shows is all the feeder flights going into the hub. Small towns can then get to popular destinations with a single stop at a hub. Emirates did this on a global scale with their hub and spoke model but we are moving to point to point with smaller, longer range aircraft. So that graph is irrelevant.

So two small feeder flights to the hub using regional aircraft will get replaced with one long range narrowbody flight that goes direct to the destination. The widebody aircraft at the hub loses this feeder traffic so they downsize to small widebodies also.

It is like a graph saying the electricity grid needs more high voltage cables yet if we started from scratch today each house just have a solar and battery setup with maybe 1% of the total network wiring.

Most of that short haul traffic on the graph will disappear. We will see growing demand in 4000+nm narrowbody aircraft. We are seeing large long range wide bodies downgauge to smaller and smaller long range widebodies. The industry is waiting to downgauge to an efficient aircraft smaller than the 787 but the A321XLR is simply is just too big of a step in both range and capacity.

In 30 year time I could see an efficient cleansheet 6000nm range A310, 767-200 size/weight aircraft capturing the majority of the routes currently flown by 777, A330, 787 and A350. The 787 being the smallest of the widebodies listed means it will be the last to be effected.

Each of these small long haul aircraft will replace a couple small regional and medium sized narrowbody aircraft as the smaller cities get direct flights. This has been the trend for decades.

This aircraft will surely launch within the decade. This is what the MOM/797 business case was showing. Every year that market is growing make the business case easier. It is inevitable.

While point-to-point will certainly grow, you assume in this post capacity is available at airports/airspace. Already many cities are maxing out or close. There is simply no way most current wide body routes get downgauged considering capacity constraints that cannot be ignored. I’m clearly not saying the A380 is going to be necessary, but acknowledging this entirely point-to-point with small widebodies isn’t possible as presented.

Also, I do agree that chart is as compelling as presented. The market is changing and designing an aircraft around the current market would be a mistake.

LDRA wrote:

If Boeing were to develop a 757-300 sized single aisle with 40meter wingspan and 100ton MTOW , current 33klb class engine can comfortably support

Sure, but then what would the capability be? I'm sure composites could help get the weight down, but seeing as the A321N is already there, that's asking a lot from a frame the size of a 753.

Sure it doesn't need TATL-like range, but seems it'd need another 5-10ish tonnes MTOW to play with, in order to squeak-in attractive performance while still remaining (using the A320-to-A321 ratio as an example) competitive.

77west wrote:

PW would do it if Boeing gave them exclusivity.

But who in their right mind would do such a thing?

...i.e. bet an entire program's viability, on PW getting-it-right from the start.

It's been more than a quarter century since PW was even allowed (as a standalone) on a new widebody model or variant, for example. After so many F-ups on PW's behalf, even today's Boeing isn't reckless enough to trust the 737 replacement to them and them alone-- we'd hope.

Pythagoras wrote:

The market for the 757's unique capabilities is very limited. Most of what the 757 can do is being done by the A320neo, A321XLR or by the 737NG/Max family at a much cheaper price.
- How many units do you expect to sell to serve hot/high airports with short runways?

Can this please be made into a sticky??

afcjets wrote:

I hope Boeing builds a widebody with 250-300 seats with a range under 4000 miles with a narrow wing span and where lie flats seats are prohibited.

One small problem. The market for such is about....... zero.

And how (or better yet: why) would you "prohibit" lie flat seats? That makes no sense.

LAX772LR wrote:

LDRA wrote:

If Boeing were to develop a 757-300 sized single aisle with 40meter wingspan and 100ton MTOW , current 33klb class engine can comfortably support

Sure, but then what would the capability be? I'm sure composites could help get the weight down, but seeing as the A321N is already there, that's asking a lot of such a frame.

Sure it doesn't need TATL-like range, but seems it'd need another 5-10ish tonnes MTOW to play with in order to squeak in max performance offering while still remaining (using the A320-to-A321 ratio as an example) competitive.

77west wrote:

PW would do it if Boeing gave them exclusivity.

But who in their right mind would do such a thing?

...i.e. bet an entire program's viability, on PW getting-it-right from the start.

It's been more than a quarter century since PW was even allowed (as a standalone) on a new widebody model or variant, for example. After so many F-ups on PW's behalf, even today's Boeing isn't reckless enough to trust the 737 replacement to them and them alone-- we'd hope.

Pythagoras wrote:

The market for the 757's unique capabilities is very limited. Most of what the 757 can do is being done by the A320neo, A321XLR or by the 737NG/Max family at a much cheaper price.
- How many units do you expect to sell to serve hot/high airports with short runways?

Can this please be made into a sticky??

afcjets wrote:

I hope Boeing builds a widebody with 250-300 seats with a range under 4000 miles with a narrow wing span and where lie flats seats are prohibited.

One small problem. The market for such is about....... zero.

I think the waters have been muddied a bit here. There are two markets to serve here from what I can see - the 180-250 seat, narrowbody, B737-8/A320 to B757-300 size with range up to ~5,000nm, and the 230-280 seat B767/A330 market with range around ~6,000nm. A "757" replacement would not necessarily have to meet all of what the 757 did, including the hot n high performance. Even if it just matched the A321XLR runway performance would generally be fine. There are arguments that existing frames cover 90% of the routes, but with the increase in point to point travel, and the 737 needing an eventual replacement, the 787-8 being suboptimal for shorter routes, there does appear to be a market here, however grey-area it might be. Hence the large volume of topics raised on this subject..

Weren't there rumors of Alaska almost very nearly buying 787-8s? Boeing supposedly told them not to which is why they didn't, but still, there is no way they aren't at least considering something similar (like this) for high frequency, high capacity routes. Look at SEA-ANC during the summer. 20, 30 daily flights on 737s on AS, all for a market that is very leisure-driven and low-yielding. Why not buy the 797 to cut frequencies and increase capacity? Especially in a market like ANC, a widebody works because it is full of LD3s moving cargo. It also frees up tons upon tons of 737s for more appropriate 737 missions. I doubt Alaska would be the only one interested in this. United stated that they were still evaluating options for 753 and 767 replacement. Although they have ordered a bunch of large NBs and could easily top up on more 787s, it highlights the demand for a specifc-sized aircraft going into the future since current options are all just stopgaps. IMO Hawaiian also needs something to replace their A332s. They said that their 332s and 789s will work alongside each other, and that the latter will not be used to replace the former. Either they go for the XLR, or they go for the 797. And this is just the US market. I imagine the 797 could be key in Asia, Australia, Canada, etc. The question is whether a clean sheet plane is worth it, or whether airlines wish to conserve money and just abuse 787s/A321neos/737MAXs to cover network gaps. This hiring that Leeham speaks of is a good sign, regardless.

jbs2886 wrote:

While point-to-point will certainly grow, you assume in this post capacity is available at airports/airspace. Already many cities are maxing out or close.

The exact opposite happens. Most of the flights going into these smaller hubs are feeder flights from smaller cities or large towns. Once these smaller cities get point to point routes then the nearby hub get a significant reduction in flights and passengers. So even when the long haul widebody flights leaving the hub downsize there will still be an overall reduction in flights.

In the 1990's we saw megahubs getting maxed out in number of slots causing widebody routes to upside to even bigger aircraft. This caused Airbus to launch the A380. Some say the 787 changed the direction of the entire industry but I think the industry was already demanding a smaller 7000nm range widebody long before the 787 launched.

Right now passengers are demanding point to point. They pay a premium for point to point. Airlines are demanding an even smaller long haul aircraft. Covid has advanced this trend by a decade in my opinion. The A321XLR sales are just the tip of the iceberg. The Boeing 797 NMA small widebody being talked about before covid the market might want even smaller capacity now.

I think it may even have reached the point where a 7,000nm carbon narrowbody could possibly be launched.
Say two models:
1) 757-200 length with a wider aisle 6500+ nm range.
2) 757-300 length with a wider aisle 5000+ nm range.

Call me crazy but then I think some short range hybrid/electric will then do all the short flights.

Imagine routes like Adelaide or Hobart to Hawaii on these long haul narrowbody. No need to the traffic to go to Melbourne or Sydney hubs. Also business traffic say Dallas Texas to Fukuoka Japan as they are both cities with new technology startups.

flyinggoat wrote:

Once Boeing develops this MOM plane, it can focus on a new NSA.

It's that easy, huh?

Boeing has been talking about a "middle of the market" plane since 2003. Nearly 20 years. A sane person might be tempted to ask why they haven't built it if it's as easy as some folks here seem to think.

I do business travel as well and I am different. Early in and late out is what I need and get. I do not change my flights. I am sort of never done early with business meetings. If I still need to kill time I talk longer to people or sit down at the airport with my laptop waiting for the pre planned flight (airside). I am not paying those flights myself but if one big airplane flight would be cheaper instead of five small plane flights during the day I'd accept the big one - if it is not too early.

jbs2886 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

https://hastydata.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... t-lengths/

Nice graph, but that is the result of decades of legacy aircraft. What this graph shows is all the feeder flights going into the hub. Small towns can then get to popular destinations with a single stop at a hub. Emirates did this on a global scale with their hub and spoke model but we are moving to point to point with smaller, longer range aircraft. So that graph is irrelevant.

So two small feeder flights to the hub using regional aircraft will get replaced with one long range narrowbody flight that goes direct to the destination. The widebody aircraft at the hub loses this feeder traffic so they downsize to small widebodies also.

It is like a graph saying the electricity grid needs more high voltage cables yet if we started from scratch today each house just have a solar and battery setup with maybe 1% of the total network wiring.

Most of that short haul traffic on the graph will disappear. We will see growing demand in 4000+nm narrowbody aircraft. We are seeing large long range wide bodies downgauge to smaller and smaller long range widebodies. The industry is waiting to downgauge to an efficient aircraft smaller than the 787 but the A321XLR is simply is just too big of a step in both range and capacity.

In 30 year time I could see an efficient cleansheet 6000nm range A310, 767-200 size/weight aircraft capturing the majority of the routes currently flown by 777, A330, 787 and A350. The 787 being the smallest of the widebodies listed means it will be the last to be effected.

Each of these small long haul aircraft will replace a couple small regional and medium sized narrowbody aircraft as the smaller cities get direct flights. This has been the trend for decades.

This aircraft will surely launch within the decade. This is what the MOM/797 business case was showing. Every year that market is growing make the business case easier. It is inevitable.

While point-to-point will certainly grow, you assume in this post capacity is available at airports/airspace. Already many cities are maxing out or close. There is simply no way most current wide body routes get downgauged considering capacity constraints that cannot be ignored. I’m clearly not saying the A380 is going to be necessary, but acknowledging this entirely point-to-point with small widebodies isn’t possible as presented.

Also, I do agree that chart is as compelling as presented. The market is changing and designing an aircraft around the current market would be a mistake.

If you combine Europe, China, India domestic & US East Coast that probably 80-90% of flights. Most flight are under 1000NM there.

1000NM ranges from ATL, FRA, ATL, DEL & PEK
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=1000NM%40 ... 0x360&PM=*

Ignore, build an awesome capable 250 seat 4000-5000NM aircraft; you are filling a niche & loosing the bulk of the market.

Where the other guys turn the margins you might expect without serious competition.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... authuser=0

scbriml wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

Once Boeing develops this MOM plane, it can focus on a new NSA.

It's that easy, huh?

Boeing has been talking about a "middle of the market" plane since 2003. Nearly 20 years. A sane person might be tempted to ask why they haven't built it if it's as easy as some folks here seem to think.

It is probably not difficult to design and build it, it is just not economically justified. Not sure why this point is hard to grasp by many here for years and years on. This MOM airplane would be a niche airplane. Airlines want flexibility of missions for their aircraft. Any mission that this plane would address can be flown by either a bigger or a smaller plane, which airlines already have. The savings of having this optimized-for-certain-missions aircraft do not appear to be compelling.

As to Boeing, it is not really in a financial position to launch a new program. Boeing needs to make its current programs deliver cash.

Furthermore, the macro-economic trends favor bigger planes and less frequency: environmentally friendly, fewer pilots needed, oil would be higher for the foreseeable future, depressed business travel. This trend plays well for both manufacturers - they have B787s, A330Neos, A350s to sell. Neither of them has any incentive to address this niche MOM market.

keesje wrote:

If you combine Europe, China, India domestic & US East Coast that probably 80-90% of flights. Most flight are under 1000NM there.

Flights not passenger or dollars.

Eight 50 seat regional jets doing 500nm flights stand out on that graph opposed to a single 777-300ER with 400 seats doing a long haul flight. That graph is misleading if you changed the X axis to say number of passengers which represents money in the airlines pocket it would be look totally difference.

keesje wrote:

Ignore, build an awesome capable 250 seat 4000-5000NM aircraft; you are filling a niche & loosing the bulk of the market.

Where the other guys turn the margins you might expect without serious competition.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... authuser=0

The way the market is going Airbus would be better off doing a A320XLR as a straight shrink of the A321XLR. Build it and they shall come.

Most budget airlines that are A320 customers could instantly break into the long haul market without going to a widebody.

The A320XLR, A321XLR and A322 would all share the same 101t MTOW and have 99% commonality. The A320XLR would have 5,500nm with 150 passengers or 6,000nm with 100 passengers. The straight stretch A322 would get a much larger range hit than most people think. A 5 metre stretch would drop range down to 3,500nm.

I think one of the cut-offs for narrowbody long haul, as stated up-thread, will be crew rests. Once you need crew rest facilities and additional crew, the economics starts to fall off a cliff vs a widebody with crew rests in the roof space or hold. Something to think about is a 787-8 with overhead crew rests for flight and cabin crew sacrifices next to no space on the main deck or hold, whereas a 757-300/767-200 sized narrowbody NMA would really start to struggle with blocked seats, dedicated rest areas etc. This may limit the max usefulness of a narrowbody XLR type airplane. The A321XLR may well be at that point now.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

If you combine Europe, China, India domestic & US East Coast that probably 80-90% of flights. Most flight are under 1000NM there.

Flights not passenger or dollars.

Eight 50 seat regional jets doing 500nm flights stand out on that graph opposed to a single 777-300ER with 400 seats doing a long haul flight. That graph is misleading if you changed the X axis to say number of passengers which represents money in the airlines pocket it would be look totally difference.

keesje wrote:

Ignore, build an awesome capable 250 seat 4000-5000NM aircraft; you are filling a niche & loosing the bulk of the market.

Where the other guys turn the margins you might expect without serious competition.
https://groups.google.com/group/aviatio ... authuser=0

The way the market is going Airbus would be better off doing a A320XLR as a straight shrink of the A321XLR. Build it and they shall come.

Most budget airlines that are A320 customers could instantly break into the long haul market without going to a widebody.

The A320XLR, A321XLR and A322 would all share the same 101t MTOW and have 99% commonality. The A320XLR would have 5,500nm with 150 passengers or 6,000nm with 100 passengers. The straight stretch A322 would get a much larger range hit than most people think. A 5 metre stretch would drop range down to 3,500nm.

That is actually quite a interesting proposition. A320XLR with 5500nm range would be a killer of wide bodies. Everything below 5000nm would be A32x territory...

We’ll, unless they are thinking about hitting a home run out of the box (blended wing concept) I wouldn’t even bother. They’ll come a day when a tube with wings has met it match with fuel and lifting efficiency. I wouldn’t keep competing with Airbus the way they are. Unless they want to bring back the 314 then I am in..

JonesNL wrote:

That is actually quite a interesting proposition. A320XLR with 5500nm range would be a killer of wide bodies. Everything below 5000nm would be A32x territory...

Indeed. If Airbus also launches the A322 as just a simple stretch of the A321XLR then airline could operate the A322 and A320XLR as a combo. I wouldn't even order the current A321XLR.

The A322 could have a two class cabin with a few rows of recliner business class seats up front for around 220 seats. This would be the aircraft for domestic work.

The A320XLR would have a 3 class widebody style cabin. Proper widebody layflat business class beds upfront in 1-1 in the front third of the cabin. 2-2 premium economy recliners in the middle third of the cabin and 3-3 economy seats in the back third of the cabin. Around 100 seats and that would give it a range closer to 6,000nm.

The A320 has a cabin area of 101m2. A 787-9 is 265m2. Qantas has 236 seats and New Zealand 302 seats in their 787-9. So in a A320XLR that would mean only 90 or 115 seats with similar density. I would develop a two crew bunk bed directly behind the cockpit for crew rest. 100 passenger seats to optimise for flight attendants. The A321XLR is giving airlines a taste to long haul narrowbody operations. I could see the A320XLR launch out of no where with 500+ order/conversions.

Hundreds of 787-8 are due for replacement in 5-10 years. And with the downsizing trend the A322 could replace the domestic short haul 787-8 flights and the A320XLR could replace the long haul flights. Also 20 years ago the A330-300 only had a range of around 5,500nm. It was only 10 years ago when it got a 242t MTOW to get the 6,340 nm range on Wikipedia. So the A320XLR could do all of the A330-300 routes and when combined with the 787-8 replacement cycle that would be 1000+ aircraft.

I see no place for an A320XLR, Boeing floated a 737-8ER concept awhile back and airlines were pretty numb to it. Just simply far too small. Also I feel like this thread is just way off topic at this point.

United Airlines will replace 150 A319s and 737-700s, 125-150 seats.

- Airbus offers A220-300/500s and A320 NEOs (same cockpit as UA A321NEOs/XLRs) + more A321NEOs slots, stop gab if e.g. 737-10s are delayed.

Another ( ) wake-up call? Nah

- Boeing enters the room with 737-7 no one wants and another iteration of a MoM/NMA they presented over the last 7 years, telling UA to up-gauge..


And there are many Uniteds out there.

I just hope they finally launch something, and that they build it outside of the IAM751 footprint in Washington.

keesje wrote:

United Airlines will replace 150 A319s and 737-700s, 125-150 seats.

- Airbus offers A220-300/500s and A320 NEOs (same cockpit as UA A321NEOs/XLRs) + more A321NEOs slots, stop gab if e.g. 737-10s are delayed.

Another ( ) wake-up call? Nah

- Boeing enters the room with 737-7 no one wants and another iteration of a MoM/NMA they presented over the last 7 years, telling UA to up-gauge..


And there are many Uniteds out there.

UA might as well replace with MAX8/320. Makes perfect sense with everything else going on - oil, crew, leisure, competitors' up-gauge.

keesje wrote:

United Airlines will replace 150 A319s and 737-700s, 125-150 seats.

- Airbus offers A220-300/500s and A320 NEOs (same cockpit as UA A321NEOs/XLRs) + more A321NEOs slots, stop gab if e.g. 737-10s are delayed.

Another ( ) wake-up call? Nah

- Boeing enters the room with 737-7 no one wants and another iteration of a MoM/NMA they presented over the last 7 years, telling UA to up-gauge..


And there are many Uniteds out there.

UA has shown zero interest in buying new planes in that category for quite some time (instead opting for used A319s and 73Gs, albeit some now being scrapped instead of being placed into service because of Covid). Bulk of their replacement will probably be Max8s and A320neos.

Not sure why in your scenario Airbus is pitching A225 and A320neo yet Boeing can only pitch the smaller 737-7.

the elephant in the room. WN. they will have substantial say in the final construct of the new NMA.

LightChop2Chop wrote:

the elephant in the room. WN. they will have substantial say in the final construct of the new NMA.

That would be a real good idea, let Southwest play a major role is specifying a new aircraft.
- minimum training requirements, stick to proven systems
- No crew rest options
- No cargo container/pallet options
- one good engine option: CFM
- 3500NM range for US transcon

What possibly could go wrong? https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploa ... -30-21.png, https://www.wsj.com/articles/southwest- ... 1652353202

I guess it makes more sense review global requirements and market if you want to sell thousands.

RJMAZ wrote:

keesje wrote:

If you combine Europe, China, India domestic & US East Coast that probably 80-90% of flights. Most flight are under 1000NM there.

Flights not passenger or dollars.

Eight 50 seat regional jets doing 500nm flights stand out on that graph opposed to a single 777-300ER with 400 seats doing a long haul flight. That graph is misleading if you changed the X axis to say number of passengers which represents money in the airlines pocket it would be look totally difference.

I agree, it makes a distorted view of what the market for the aircraft actually is. In one sense the x axis should be a square function to represent the approximate length of time an aircraft spends doing a flight to get the market size for the aircraft them selves (assuming approximate linearity between distance and time) and the also factoring in the approximate number of seats on those longer flights. Both together this would give an approximate indication (assuming uniform RASM) of the distribution of available dollars for the market spread. These factors would skew the data further from the shorter end towards the longer.

MAN-DXB once a day on an A380 is 1.8*10^6 paxnm
MAN-AMS 6 times a day on a737 is 3*10^5paxnm

but the second shows up as 6 times bigger...

In terms of the next boeing move there is a gap between the upper end of 6 abreast (~300 all econ) to the lower end of 8 abreast (~400) because of physics. There is a gap in the market because of a meeting of regulations and physics that is difficult to fill economically. Boeing are very unlikely to target this gap successfully and so will need to go for either a narrow body at 6 abreast or make a real widebody at 8/9 abreast. I don't believe they will do the latter.

If it were my money I would go for something 6 abreast with the lengths of the 752 as a stating point and use the lessons learned at relatively low rates to understand the nuances of high rate production and use that as a strategic advantage when the time comes for replacing the 737. I would aim at a wingspan of 36m (folded) and then aim for a 32m(folded) wingspans for the smaller versions of the future. the 787 is Boeing's future long range model, the 777X is on life support, the lower end needs sorting.

Fred

keesje wrote:

- No crew rest options
- No cargo container/pallet options
- one good engine option: CFM
- 3500NM range for US transcon

What possibly could go wrong?

So…a Boeing A220? (just swap CFM with PW).

Isn’t that what you were essentially advocating for earlier? Why exactly does your extreme short haul focused jet need crew rest options?

Just to be fully clear- you want a 150-200 seat jet with max range around 2000nm that somehow happens to be 10-12% more efficient than today’s most advanced narrow bodies whole still having enough bloat to allow for crew rests (for these sub 2000 nm flights) and cargo containers?

The task for Boeing is to design the aircraft that makes the most economic sense to have in the portfolio in 2030. So where do we place that aircraft?

In 2030 Boeing will have
- the 777X in it's portofolio generating small amounts of profits if there are no more hick ups
- a re-engined (or soon to be re-engined) 787 shouldering all the WB profits
- a 737 with a backup that is almost dried up

So in the medium and large WB market the line up is pretty good. The 777X is there if needed but will slowly fade away as the 787 becomes more and more capable and is way more economical than the 777X for airlines. IMHO there is no small WB market anymore. The reason this market existed in the first place was that in the 70s and 80s, range could only be achieved with larger aircraft. The 767 and A300/A310 where a product of engine and fuel issues. To fly 200 pax over the Atlantic was not possible with a narrow body with 2 engines and the 747 was for most routes overkill. Fast forward to the future, NB aircraft can fly 200+ pax over 5000nm+ with the right design (757/A321 cabin size, modern engines, large wings with space for enough fuel).

The question is now: How long can Boeing hang on to the 737? If they think can hold out until 2035 with a replacement, then they have the time to design a long range single aisle. If they think the 737 needs a replacement in 2030 Boeing needs to start very very soon with the works for a short to medium range 737 replacement. I dont think both can be tackled at the same time if Boeing wants a smooth EIS for the first time since the 777.

It will be a pure calculation of how much money can Boeing make with the 737 over the next few years what will decide their next step.

What I think Boeing can not do is launch a small WB aircraft. The 767 does not need a replacement (if it would, it would have been launched long time ago), but there was never enough market demand to justify a launch of anything in that category (The US3 are not enough market for a unique aircraft), and large NBs can replace the 767s on many routes, the rest can be done with 787s.
IMHO it would be the worst mistake for Boeing to launch a small WB aircraft in 2023. This launch would give Airbus a 5-6 years headstart towards the large NB replacement cycle, even more if the new Boeing aircraft does not make money fast. The new Boeing aircraft will eat the profits of the 737 without making money until 2030 when the small WB finally starts printing money. In the early 2030s it will be too late to compete in the NB market because a new product will not be ready untill a few years later.
Boeing simply can not affort two $20bn+ developments during the 2023-2030 period. $40bn+ in seven years is over $6bn a year, that will not be achievable, especially with the background of the 777X most probably not being profitable until late in the decade and also a few billions needed to upgrade the 787. This means that if Boeing goes the small WB way there is no money to build a NB. A new NB would only be ready very late into the 2030s effectively reducing Boeing to only build WB aircraft. Why do I think that way? Well Boeing has $60bn of liabilities (debt) and would have to spend $40bn+ on two new programs + a few billions (lets say 5) to continuously improve the 787 (reengine) and the 777X. Reducing the liabilities to a healthy $20bn while spending 45bn$ on developments of new products would cost about 85bn$ in 8 years. At current rates Boeing spends about $1.5-2bn into R&D. Taking this into account, Boeing would need to spend about $8bn a year for 8 years to achieve this path. Even in the best years Boeing did not post $8bn profit a year.
So Boeing can at best afford one new aircraft design until 2030 and then another one with EIS in 2036-2038. Can the 737 shoulder the NB segment for Boeing until then? If yes, then a small WB can be done. If no, then we know what is on the table, a NB aircraft that replaces the 737. Chances are, it will be larger than the 737, probably with a -8200 style as the smallest member and a 757-300 size as the largest one.

Yes Boeing will cede the market below to Airbus (A220) but that is not as bad as fully giving away the NB segment.

keesje wrote:

The MoM is dead for years, airlines want a competitive NB.

I believe the MAX is a competitive NB based on the graph of stage lengths you linked. From everything that has been published to date, the MAX has lower operating costs vs the A32XNEO on the vast majority of the routes airlines actually fly (shorter stage lengths) according to your own graph.

https://hastydata.wordpress.com/2015/05 ... t-lengths/

WesternDC6B wrote:

LDRA wrote:

Boeing already has a platform for 120-180 seats - 717.

Put on a pair of CRFP wings and "pusher" unducted fans in the back, you have a very competitive 717NG

Is the tooling still around?

They have tooling for it in China. They use it to build the Comac ARJ21. It's a shortened MD-80/90 with CF34 engines and Antonov wings.