While many feel Boeings needs everything it has, and more, to resume 787 delivery , 737-10 & 777x certifiied, Leeham news feels Boeing might be up to something.

Boeing’s hiring spree points to progress toward Next Boeing Airplane. https://leehamnews.com/2022/05/30/boein ... more-39288


https://leehamnews.com/2021/02/03/final ... direction/

It would be great if Boeing can offer a new NB beating existing aircraft on efficiency by a good percentage (10%?). It seems clear focus on a key market segment and optimizing capacity, payload and propulsion could create such an aircraft.

The trackl record of hiding behind game changing technology not being available, while consuming free cash flow seems to have the preferred strategy since 2012. And has brought the company where it stands today.

Restoring market confidence & a series of financial injections would be required I think. Not sure how strong hope or fact based the article is, I can't access. We have seen Boeing several launches (NSA, MoM, NMA, NBA) close by for some time. Hopefully it's real and w'll see an Authority to Offer soon.

I agree with this thought, in an ideal scenario, the 787 should have deliveries flowing by the end of the year along with the MAX 10 and 7 being certified. Which would leave the 777X to be finished up and higher weight 787s to be focused on. I could see something being announced/leaked out within a year.

Eh, could just be counteracting Kyiv and Moscow closing

You do realize the article quoted is almost a year and a half old?

MDC862 wrote:

You do realize the article quoted is almost a year and a half old?

The primary article he is referring to was posted today. The year and half year old article is just where he took the image from

NMA has been talked about for ages it still would be great news if they would launch something. After so many years of planning they might have some smart product concept at hand already. The manufacturing will be the interesting part.

The other (first) photo in the linked Leeham article shows what look like 737MAX wings on the new smallest member of the proposed family

To be honest Leeham doesn't mention a specific type/ category, just NBA, new Boeing Aircraft.

IMO Boeing best opportunity lies around 150-200 seats, superior 500-2000NM, probably 90+% of the NB market.
Lean, quiet and optimized, 10-12% more efficient than the A320NEO, slightly bigger than A220.

A me too Boeing A321, in a saturated market seems an up-hill, risky approach, probably surrendering the middle of the market.
The MAX will sell 25 here, 60 there, with unknown discounts. Not sustainable.


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


https://blog.flight-report.com/infograp ... -tomorrow/

If Boeing wants to build >8000 NB's in the next 20 years, NMA territory probably isn't the place to aim for.
Assuming an A220-500 and A320 growth version as a given, instead of an unknown to be ignored.

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 ...

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 ...

Aren't both well covered by the 787-8?

Much depends on an assumption the Max will be just fine for the next 15 years, or not.

FatCat 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 ...

Aren't both well covered by the 787-8?

A 787/A330 is twice as heavy and expensive, burns twice as much & flies twice as far. So not real good replacement for a 757.

keesje wrote:

To be honest Leeham doesn't mention a specific type/ category, just NBA, new Boeing Aircraft.

IMO Boeing best opportunity lies around 150-200 seats, superior 500-2000NM, probably 90+% of the NB market.
Lean, quiet and optimized, 10-12% more efficient than the A320NEO, slightly bigger than A220.

A me too Boeing A321, in a saturated market seems an up-hill, risky approach, probably surrendering the middle of the market.
The MAX will sell 25 here, 60 there, with unknown discounts. Not sustainable.


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


https://blog.flight-report.com/infograp ... -tomorrow/

If Boeing wants to build >8000 NB's in the next 20 years, NMA territory probably isn't the place to aim for.
Assuming an A220-500 and A320 growth version as a given, instead of an unknown to be ignored.

An aircraft at this capacity makes 0 sense to go after currently, that capacity range is the strongpoint the MAX. There is 0 chance that is what Boeing would go after.

keesje wrote:

To be honest Leeham doesn't mention a specific type/ category, just NBA, new Boeing Aircraft.

IMO Boeing best opportunity lies around 150-200 seats, superior 500-2000NM, probably 90+% of the NB market.
Lean, quiet and optimized, 10-12% more efficient than the A320NEO, slightly bigger than A220.

A me too Boeing A321, in a saturated market seems an up-hill, risky approach, probably surrendering the middle of the market.
The MAX will sell 25 here, 60 there, with unknown discounts. Not sustainable.


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


https://blog.flight-report.com/infograp ... -tomorrow/

If Boeing wants to build >8000 NB's in the next 20 years, NMA territory probably isn't the place to aim for.
Assuming an A220-500 and A320 growth version as a given, instead of an unknown to be ignored.

We are constantly hearing about how Airbus should build a A320.5 to better compete with the Max 8/200, and now we are being told Boeing should just completely replace the Max 8 with a slightly smaller plane closer in size to the A320 that is somehow 10-12% more efficient? And Boeing should just ignore the market where they have the largest competitive gap (~A321 sized longer range)? How does any of this make sense?

I will say you are setting up an argument that said jet would be a competitive failure though, since Airbus has an optimized A220 to directly compete while having the A320neo family for larger and longer range flights…

I think it would be great if Boeing designs and builds a NMA 200-260 seats up to 4500NM, MoM afterall and sell a nice 1000-2000 ships in 20 years. They certainly can do it.

But it would get even uglier on the lower site of the NB segment, where the money is. A game changer is needed there for Boeing. I think Boeing understands by now. Qantas, KLM, Delta and United told them. https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 31.article

If you can't build an aircraft that can beat an A220, A320 and A321 at once, better aim at the big chunk in the middle, 150-200 seat, 500-2000NM. And make it unbeatable there.

keesje wrote:

I think it would be great if Boeing designs and builds a NMA 200-260 seats up to 4500NM, MoM afterall and sell a nice 1000-2000 ships in 20 years. They certainly can do it.

But it would get even uglier on the lower site of the NB segment, where the money is. A game changer is needed there for Boeing. I think Boeing understands by now. Qantas, KLM, Delta and United told them. https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-int ... 31.article

But the primary driver for Qantas, KLM, and DL was the…A321, especially in regards to 737-10 availability. I’m not sure why you are including UA in the conversation. They have far more Maxes on order and every time you bring up the A321neo order you completely ignore how they ordered even more Maxes at exactly the same time.

In fact the very opinion you link to says:

the embattled US airframer needs to cut the advantage held by Airbus with its hot-selling A321neo-model twinjets.

You talk about this “hot selling” lower NB market without actually providing evidence it exists. Because take a look at number of A320neo or Max orders vs A220 orders. Your charts about average stage length say nothing about aircraft size. It appears airlines really like using A321 sized aircraft on those <2000nm routes, based on the combined A220/A320neo/A321neo order distribution. You have apparently just assumed that airlines want 150-200 seaters for their 500-2000nm flights.

We can see most flights are 500-2000NM. Regardless of capability offered. If someone can offer an aircraft clearly superior for those markets (e.g. Europe, China, US East coast), that seems a better strategy than sticking to old, often very old payload range guidelines/ requirements.

I would qualify the A321 as a 200 seats aircraft, because that's what we mostly see. People tend to take the maximum capacity, ranges of aircraft as reference often, while average operational numbers tell a different story.. Tomorrows aircraft will be specified on todays requirements and expectations, not on those of 30-40 years ago.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pas ... _281933127

keesje wrote:

I would qualify the A321 as a 200 seats aircraft, because that's what we mostly see. People tend to take the maximum capacity, ranges of aircraft as reference often, while average operational numbers tell a different story.. Tomorrows aircraft will be specified on todays requirements and expectations, not on those of 30-40 years ago.


https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pas ... _281933127

And conversely today’s data may be based on requirements and expectations from 20-30 years ago, so you have to be careful using it for future product planning You have airlines such as DL who are open about how they are upsizing in the future (they replaced 150+ MD-80s/MD-90s primarily with larger 739ERs/A321s). All these staffing and fuel price issues further encourages upgauging.


It doesn’t matter what you consider the A321 size to be. You said Boeing should aim for just larger than the A220 (the A321 is more than “just larger” than the A220). Based on today’s orders, it appears A321 sized is in far more demand than just larger than the A220 (which would be similar to A320 or max 7).

You threw up a chart of aircraft capacities. Congrats that chart is meaningless because it says nothing about sales and popularity. It’s just a list of products that have been available over the past 20 years. Ironically you seemed to pull it from a paper that is advocating for a super large, but short range, aircraft

This is like predicting that it will rain at some point in Seattle. A new BA commercial jet to replace the 737 is a given imho. Looking 10 years out, the only Boeing commercial jet that's a 100% assured given is the 787. It occupies a market segment where the competition is weaker (A330 neo) and the target market is fairly large and growing. The 777X might have a future at the larger end of the capacity curve but the a380 replacement market isn't really that big or profitable. At the lower end, it's just not competitive to the A350. The 737MAX is already uncompetitive without huge discounts and the idea of continuing to hack a 70 year old design without full FBW into the next decade is just stupid. The best approach would be to target the entire NB market from A220-300 all the way to A321XLR with a modular, all composite single aisle design with incrementally more efficient engines able to enter service in the early 2030s. Nothing too radical or risky like a small WB, just a more modern, better A32x that's able to pre empt Airbus sizing up the A22x. They're not really in a position to take huge risks here.

jetlaggedAF wrote:

The best approach would be to target the entire NB market from A220-300 all the way to A321XLR with a modular, all composite single aisle design with incrementally more efficient engines able to enter service in the early 2030s. Nothing too radical or risky like a small WB, just a more modern, better A32x that's able to pre empt Airbus sizing up the A22x. They're not really in a position to take huge risks here.

I agree, and the larger variants are likely to be the first ones available (as the Max 8 is generally competitive and can hold its own the best in the Max family) with smaller variants trickling down as Boeing ramps up NB production and ramps down Max.

The only new airplane priority for Boeing right now has to be a MAX replacement. Boeing has to go big or go home if they are to survive in the commercial market. A "mini" 787 is not going to be enough, and neither is MOM unless its based off the MAX replacement. That means Transonic Truss Braced Wing with Ultrafan or open rotor. Period.
That airframe-engine combination will, in the case of Ultrafan gain 12-15% over the Neo and in the case of open rotor, 20%+.

757-300 size narrow body with extra wide aisle is where it's at

Seeing the current situation, I think for Boeing to aim >200 seats >2000NM and leave the MAX to deal <200 seats would be very brave..


https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/8/10/300/htm

We would likely face NB market dominance by one manufacturer as we haven't seen for a very long time.

Newer design, comparatively fuel efficient aircrafts are best deployed on longer sectors, to take advantage of fuel consumption advantage. Shorter stages are less sensitive to fuel cost, just use older last gen aircrafts

FatCat 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 ...

Aren't both well covered by the 787-8?

On some longer routes the 787-8 may be a decent 767-300ER replacement, but still quite an upgrade in terms of capacity and especially in terms of OEW, the 787-8 is one third heavier than a 767-300ER. With its enormous range its not the very best fit for 6-8/9 hour flights, which the majority of transatlantic flights for example are.
And regarding the 757 the A321XLR is a much more appropriate replacement, but this is not the way Boeing likes it ...

Ideal would be an aircraft that can replace both the 757 and 767. This would ultimatively lead to the discussion "Narrowbody or Widebody?" again.
I still think that a small Widebody with 7 abreast could be the solution. With 2 different sets of Wings, one for the 767-like airplane and one for the 757-like airplane. This 757-like airplane could be offered as a Narrowbody as well with the same Wing, is that possible? This would make a direct competitor to the A321neo and a 757-300 replacement with the small Wing and 767 replacement with the big Wing.

Like:

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.

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

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 strategy has been to drive the stock price as high as possible in the short run, long run be damned. This is what happens when you manage a balance sheet, not a business.

keesje wrote:

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

Says who? Show me where airlines are looking for a new MAX 8 or A320neo

keesje wrote:

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

If I read this correctly then I agree. A "new 757" segment is NOT convincing.

In a world with A321 NEO in it, a "special 757 segment clean sheet" is less compelling than ever! There isn't need for it.

This amounts to re-litigating the 737 MAX decision. Boeing already looked at this, and the 737 MAX is their answer. It is pretty capable, it's here now, and if you need to leap big oceans, then they have the 787.

It does not make sense to launch a slightly bigger A321 at a gigantic cost while being unable to amortize it and compete on cost with Airbus. That's a non viable opportunity. There is no business opportunity there. IMO. Boeing should ride the 737 MAX out. That's the decision they made. It is not viable to change, reinvest and duplicate the A320/A220 at a cost of 30-40 billion.

Whatever B does it will be very costly. A can rewing the a32x with smaller investment and throw under the new wing whatever magic new engine will be developed for the new NB. In addition they could revive the A300 with smaller wing and engines in case... We the looming recession, stagflation and all global troubles will hamper any new plans.

I think the 757 sized narrow body makes the most sense. We’ve seen each generation that the size has increased, meaning the next on the chopping block is a320/738 sized. This would “duplicate” the 737-10 size a bit but that’s the weakest point of the current product and where the market is heading. They could then see what the market does and either do a 767ish wide body or a common smaller narrow body if enough demand remains. The 738 will still be more than competitive in that size category and more than likely any future propulsion would start being incorporated there first.

The 737 Max is doing just fine now, and the only Airbus product that is really dominating is the A321. I think the best move for Boeing is a small wide-body about the size of a 767-250 (230 pax three class) with a stretch to about the size of a 767-350 (270 pax in three classes). Range would around 6000nmi.

Boeing doesn’t necessarily need to take on the A321 head-on. A slightly larger aircraft by Boeing will really dominate the A321 XLR.

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

A smaller wide body would be a gamble that Boeing just cannot afford to take at this point. In a new era of tight labor supply, airlines will be loathe to increase crew sizes to manage a fleet of small wide bodies to replace their single aisle aircraft. A smaller wide body would also make the on board passenger experience worse by cramming even more people in to even narrower seats to make it work. Boeing is already pushing the limit for how bad that can get with the MAX and I doubt they'd want to look even worse in the future.

The simple fact is that Boeing needs something to compete with everything from the A223 all the way up to the 321XLR. The MAX isn't competitive any more - its sales are more a reflection of Airbus' manufacturing capacity constraints and Boeing's very aggressive discounting than anything it offers competitively. The volumes in this market will continue to come from 150-200 passengers flying 1000-2000 nm regardless of all the hype on longer range/higher capacity routes. Boeing needs something that can do it all and the quickest to market, easiest to develop and most competitive offering would be an incrementally better copy of the A220 with 3-3 seating and more capacity, wing and range options. It doesn't hurt that Airbus would not be able to respond immediately by developing the A220 into a proper A320 replacement because of their backlog and the investments they're making to expand production of their cash cow.

The MAX-10 is dead in the water. They need a MAX replacement that begins with the largest iteration and then scales down so not to cannibalize the life of the MAX 8 and 9 lines. Airlines will have to deal with the crew incompatibility issue if they want to fly the most advanced narrow body available….while in the future slowly replacing their existing MAX 8 fleet with this new, bitchin’ 737 or whatever they call it. Ditch the numbers and give it a name?

If the previous 4 posters have it right, Airbus is facing a golden decade.

Near exclusivety 120-180 seats. Look at above graphics to estimate what percentage of the market 120-180 seats represents..

While Boeing goes after a niche A already fully dominates with a lean affordable 40 aircraft / month offering build in US/China/Europe.

Slightly OT but…if the majors wanted to bring more regional routes back to mainline, are there any good choices out there currently for the 70 to 100 seat range? I’m thinking F70 and F100 sized planes that could me flown by mainline. Could Boeing go in that direction since this late in the game I don’t see them being able to compete with the A321. Might allow WN to look at smaller markets. Just speculating. Be nice.

keesje wrote:

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

And they have one, it's called the A321neo.

It's not suave, it's not sexy, and it really likes bumming around in the high 20s and early 30s so you get some nice views of the ground, but it's going to be ubiquitous for the next 50 years as the true 757 replacement.

If Boeing wants a competitive NB they're going to be sniping from their own MAX orders for an aircraft that, if it's a clean sheet, is going to be a 2040s bird at best. Air travel is pretty well cemented as a fact of life for the foreseeable future, but I would not want to be speculating 20 years out with a new clean sheet in a climate where all the heavy hitters have their order books padded with either the new Airbus product, or the new Boeing product that you're now cannibalizing.

Boeing's tremendous lack of preparation for the competition from the neo, and subsequent rush job of the MAX program, has put them at a pretty enduring and massive competitive disadvantage. I genuinely don't know how they recover the market share or if they can. I can't imagine Boeing delivering on a credible competitor to the A21N.

DLHAM wrote:

FatCat wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

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 ...

Aren't both well covered by the 787-8?

On some longer routes the 787-8 may be a decent 767-300ER replacement, but still quite an upgrade in terms of capacity and especially in terms of OEW, the 787-8 is one third heavier than a 767-300ER. With its enormous range its not the very best fit for 6-8/9 hour flights, which the majority of transatlantic flights for example are.
And regarding the 757 the A321XLR is a much more appropriate replacement, but this is not the way Boeing likes it ...

Ideal would be an aircraft that can replace both the 757 and 767. This would ultimatively lead to the discussion "Narrowbody or Widebody?" again.
I still think that a small Widebody with 7 abreast could be the solution. With 2 different sets of Wings, one for the 767-like airplane and one for the 757-like airplane. This 757-like airplane could be offered as a Narrowbody as well with the same Wing, is that possible? This would make a direct competitor to the A321neo and a 757-300 replacement with the small Wing and 767 replacement with the big Wing.

Like:

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.

Wingspan is a critical parameter for aerodynamic design of the wing system. Changing the width of center section of wing effectively changes wingspan. I doubt it will work well

keesje wrote:

If the previous 4 posters have it right, Airbus is facing a golden decade.

Near exclusivety 120-180 seats. Look at above graphics to estimate what percentage of the market 120-180 seats represents..

While Boeing goes after a niche A already fully dominates with a lean affordable 40 aircraft / month offering build in US/China/Europe.

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

I’m not sure I’m seeing the connection that Airbus has a golden decade coming and the MAX is a failure just because Boeing is hiring people quickly to replace engineers who had been working in Ukraine and Russia. It appears that Leeham will quickly find reason to say the MAX is a failure any time Boeing does anything. Is there any actual new news going on regards to new airplane development?

I think it's quite obvious what they should do.

Use the R&D from the Dreamliner.

Build a new narrowbody in the 150 to 250 seat category.

Three or four lengths. One aisle. Two sets of wings with similar wing box and plumbing.

First delivery in 2027-2030.

I guess if Boeing wants to go bankrupt for good, a new program that likely won't recover development cost but covers the MOM against a A322 with new wings is the way to go. Or a replacement for the max, that won't recover development cost against a A225 which only needs to be launched.

Unless Boeing has an infinite money tree, a new program won't make sense. A stock dilution also makes no sense currently.

At this point, the only move that even remotely makes sense is to recover as much loss incurred with the current programs, not start another program or two where demand is not really there, maybe cannibalizing sales from other programs, and where their only competitor already has a cheap answer in their backdrawer. On top of that, the recent track record of Boeing does not lend itself to much optimism in terms of returning a profit.

Airbus knows that Boeing won't be stupid to launch another program, so they are free to milk as much from their profit-making programs as possible without having to start one themselves. Classic Nash equilibrium. Sorry, but this decade, we will at most see some small improvements, no big exciting ones.

The recent hiring spree by Boeing probably has to do with engineers in Moscow and Kyiv not being able to do their jobs anymore, as well as trying to get the max 10, 7 as well as the 787 ready to fly.

There are limited resources working on Product Development. However, Boeing mostly needs massive resources to get the 737-7, 737-10, and 777-9 certified first.

Boeing has been so poorly managed by greedy and incompetent executives that they can’t even get the 787, 777-9, or 737-10 delivered and/or certified. So needs to hire a lot to support those programs first. Having said that, the FAA is making things unnecessarily difficult for Boeing, especially on the 777-9 program so lots of resources are needed for that too.

It's good to know the fast rubber stamping has ended. No more errors under time and cost pressure please.

LDRA wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the previous 4 posters have it right, Airbus is facing a golden decade.

Near exclusivety 120-180 seats. Look at above graphics to estimate what percentage of the market 120-180 seats represents..

While Boeing goes after a niche A already fully dominates with a lean affordable 40 aircraft / month offering build in US/China/Europe.

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

You'd have a very loud 717. Noise requirements at urban airports are only getting tighter.

Inducted fans are likely a no go.

The 767F needs replacing. Building an NmA/MOM, would allow Boeing to develop
Some of the new technology that'll go into their new narrowbody. As well as any new production techniques.

The biggest barrier right now is Boeings current products.

Problem with warming up things is one day you end up with many things in need of replacement. The all new 787 was the better approach.

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.

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?