Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 4:17 pm

https://leehamnews.com/2022/09/20/boein ... and-nma-f/

Leeham states a freighter version of the NMA was shown to the Fedex CEO. The CEO stated it was dual aisle and fit the same container as the 767. So the NMA or something like it is apparently still on the drawing board.

If FEDEX was shown this, no doubt UPS and DHL was shown it too.

The NMA was geared towards long thin routes originally, maybe the new concept is more of a domestic widebody with Trans Atlantic capability.
 
rj777
Posts: 1969
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:11 pm

Wonder if they showed it to any passenger carriers? Would seem weird to make a plane for just cargo carriers.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 5:16 pm

IMO.. NMA today is basically the NLT (assuming they go with twin aisle)

NLT at a point was what Boeing wanted to use to replace the whole 737 line. I don’t know how successful that would’ve been

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 71znCsc_bw
 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 6:25 pm

rj777 wrote:
Wonder if they showed it to any passenger carriers? Would seem weird to make a plane for just cargo carriers.


It would make sense that Boeing has and what technologies they are waiting for to mature before launching.

The fact that it was a twin aisle is big news here.

With airlines up gauging, a domestic widebody may hit the sweetspot.
 
User avatar
argentinevol98
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 7:04 pm

I do think (like many others) that the market potential for a 767 sized (particulary 763 but also 762) widebody with TATL+ range is quite large. Seeing the explosion in demand for higher frequency but lower capacity TATL airliners (namely the A321XLR), I have to think it is a good fit. NA to EU as well as NA/EU to SA has plenty of viable routes for such a sized aircraft. Right now you either go A321 or all the way up to 788/A332. I think there is rapidly growing demand right in the middle of that range, and COVID has probably actually aided with that.

I struggle to see that size being fit by a narrowbody, it would be an awkward and long aircraft at 3-3 Y, despite the negative opinions of a 2-3-2 fuse based on efficiency concerns, I think it could work. 2-4-2 at the size range aimed for sounds like it would be awkwardly chubby and less efficient (I'm a not an engineer however). Sounds like 2-3-3 could be what Boeing is looking for if the FX proposal uses the same bespoke containers as the 767.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3704
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:24 pm

They plan something like that for years. Why don't they just do it?
 
morrisond
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:28 pm

A 2-3-2 may not be as inefficient as one would assume if they adapt the "Ostrowers child" Double circle concept. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

One must also remember that the length of potentially heavier cross section is only about half the actual length of the aircraft - the Wing Box will have no issues being shaped like this nor the nose or the tail. Computers can help figure out the loads and if you design the cargo section correctly the interior walls can act like a big box beam helping to deal with the bending moment of the airframe, which would be higher as it would be wider than taller.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:28 pm

The 787F thread is simply sitting right next to this thread and now I'm confused for what is Boeing trying to do...
 
User avatar
argentinevol98
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:40 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:48 pm

Antaras wrote:
The 787F thread is simply sitting right next to this thread and now I'm confused for what is Boeing trying to do...


If the NMA is smaller than a 763…say 767-2C size, a separate NMA and 788F could work alongside each other. Or, even if the NMA is 763-ish sized the potential 787 freighter could be 789 sized. That ought to be a large enough gap between offerings.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:51 pm

Boeing and Airbus both have a library of concepts they discuss routinely with airlines. None of these are official programs that are receiving significant investment.

They use these to try to help decide what products might be worth pursuing. If they get sufficient good feedback (and have the resources to do so), they are likely to start detailed studies to more precisely define what the performance should be, and develop more detailed program cost estimates that are necessary to decide whether or not to formally launch the program.

It seems Boeing was in the second stage on NMA, but kicked it back to the first stage instead of proceeding to the third stage. The 787F has probably never left the first stage.

To be clear, I'm not aware of specific stages like I describe. I'm discussing it in simple terms to illustrate a general point.. Their actual internal decision making process is no doubt significantly more complicated.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5588
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:42 pm

rj777 wrote:
Wonder if they showed it to any passenger carriers? Would seem weird to make a plane for just cargo carriers.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think the Airplane might be a revisit of the 787-3 that nobody wanted. the 787-3 didn't have the extended wings nor wing tips and it was designed to fit into the USA's Domestic gates where the 787-3 might well sit on the same gates as the 767, A300, or DC10's sat side by side and flew Transcon and to Hawaii from the West Coast.. Or Europe from the East Coast. The airplane could fly intra-Asia or intra-Europe or all over Africa and South America with no problem. In the recent past everybody seemed to have been Banking on Range as the overriding criteria. Well? Now we have the range BUT? the airports are not getting any bigger in the USA, nor? Anywhere else for that matter, which seemed to be brought to light when the A380 came about, Airbus built it "bigger" but Bigger? Didn't necessarily mean success as it was far too big, too heavy to fit a lot of the airports and made it un-attractive to the Big US Carriers (whom they never consulted before building the airplane) They came ? We saw? and Passed on the airplane. It appears the airplane became a "status symbol" for the airlines that bought it, though I've only seen ONE airline that wants more built. so the question IS? Can the 787-3 or similar airplane be a domestic/regional workhorse to replace the 767, A330, or 777-200 Passenger-liners?
 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:48 pm

morrisond wrote:
A 2-3-2 may not be as inefficient as one would assume if they adapt the "Ostrowers child" Double circle concept. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

One must also remember that the length of potentially heavier cross section is only about half the actual length of the aircraft - the Wing Box will have no issues being shaped like this nor the nose or the tail. Computers can help figure out the loads and if you design the cargo section correctly the interior walls can act like a big box beam helping to deal with the bending moment of the airframe, which would be higher as it would be wider than taller.


Looking at Opus99's NLT link, I think its telling the FEDX CEO stated looking at a twin aisle plane, and not a long single aisle 757 like aircraft.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:29 pm

Noshow wrote:
They plan something like that for years. Why don't they just do it?

Well Boeing wasn't in the position to truly launch a new aircraft line because they've been dealing with the 737 and 787 problems also issues with the 777X. They are actually seeing cash flow again and while it won't stabilize until 2023 hopefully R&D starts developing projects. With the enhanced oversight(probably justified) from the FAA launching clean sheet aircraft must have executives apprehensive.
 
bwc833
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:52 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:55 pm

I just don't understand the decision to go to a clean slate? You already have a 787 line, does not shortening the 787-8 to a slightly smaller airframe not replace a 767 size airframe. Like a 787-3 version?
 
LDRA
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:56 am

Twin aisles? Freighters don't have aisles. The only relevant information is compatibility with 767 container
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 8324
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:29 am

Also worth noting from the article that Boeing is studying both -8F and -9F for the 787, and that FedEx is also evaluating the 77W conversion.

Me thinks they'd target the NMA-F to replace the 757 which, yeah, don't fly as much as their pax counterparts, but definitely aren't getting younger. The 787 would definitely be replacing the MD11s.

That said, I wonder how closely FX is looking at the A321 conversions, or if Airbus is working on a A321XLR-F behind the scenes. Boeing is of course needing all the good press they can get, FX is a company that weighs all options.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5588
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:51 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Also worth noting from the article that Boeing is studying both -8F and -9F for the 787, and that FedEx is also evaluating the 77W conversion.

Me thinks they'd target the NMA-F to replace the 757 which, yeah, don't fly as much as their pax counterparts, but definitely aren't getting younger. The 787 would definitely be replacing the MD11s.
That said, I wonder how closely FX is looking at the A321 conversions, or if Airbus is working on a A321XLR-F behind the scenes. Boeing is of course needing all the good press they can get, FX is a company that weighs all options.
and they should.

the question is? Will Airbus produce an A321 Based freighter? And? Can they bring it to market BEFORE Boeing produces a 737-9 or-10 Freighter?
 
moa999
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:37 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:11 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Will Airbus produce an A321 Based freighter? And? Can they bring it to market BEFORE Boeing produces a 737-9 or-10 Freighter?


Already has as an A321P2F
https://aircraft.airbus.com/en/aircraft ... rs/a321p2f

Not sure if the economics of a new build would stack up.
 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:20 am

LDRA wrote:
Twin aisles? Freighters don't have aisles. The only relevant information is compatibility with 767 container


Of course they don't but the FEDEX CEO made mention of it, so it must be widebody and not a narrowbody.
 
visual8L
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 8:17 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:21 am

Does the 767-2C have a different fuselage length or is it just the boom?

argentinevol98 wrote:
Antaras wrote:
The 787F thread is simply sitting right next to this thread and now I'm confused for what is Boeing trying to do...


If the NMA is smaller than a 763…say 767-2C size, a separate NMA and 788F could work alongside each other. Or, even if the NMA is 763-ish sized the potential 787 freighter could be 789 sized. That ought to be a large enough gap between offerings.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:27 am

My guess is a plane with a slightly wider fuselage than the 767 that fits 17 inch seats 8 abreast.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:28 am

visual8L wrote:
Does the 767-2C have a different fuselage length or is it just the boom?

argentinevol98 wrote:
Antaras wrote:
The 787F thread is simply sitting right next to this thread and now I'm confused for what is Boeing trying to do...


If the NMA is smaller than a 763…say 767-2C size, a separate NMA and 788F could work alongside each other. Or, even if the NMA is 763-ish sized the potential 787 freighter could be 789 sized. That ought to be a large enough gap between offerings.

It's the same 762 fuselage but with 763 wings and an updated flight deck.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:04 am

morrisond wrote:
A 2-3-2 may not be as inefficient as one would assume if they adapt the "Ostrowers child" Double circle concept. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

One must also remember that the length of potentially heavier cross section is only about half the actual length of the aircraft - the Wing Box will have no issues being shaped like this nor the nose or the tail. Computers can help figure out the loads and if you design the cargo section correctly the interior walls can act like a big box beam helping to deal with the bending moment of the airframe, which would be higher as it would be wider than taller.


If the FedEx CEO is right with what he is saying, the double circle is off the table because it would not fit 767 containers in the lower holds, or if it does in the lower holds, then the floor is to high up to fit the main deck cargo containers. Even the pallets will be limited in hight then.

So if the FedEx CEO saw a presentation about an NMA with the ability to take unmodified 767 cargo containers it will be a circular cross section.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3704
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:04 am

Sounds like they need to redesign the NMA because they forgot about the freighter configuration requirements?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:20 am

argentinevol98 wrote:
I do think (like many others) that the market potential for a 767 sized (particulary 763 but also 762) widebody with TATL+ range is quite large. Seeing the explosion in demand for higher frequency but lower capacity TATL airliners (namely the A321XLR), I have to think it is a good fit. NA to EU as well as NA/EU to SA has plenty of viable routes for such a sized aircraft. Right now you either go A321 or all the way up to 788/A332. I think there is rapidly growing demand right in the middle of that range, and COVID has probably actually aided with that.


Doesn't this put us back in the same old argument though?
There's definitely a demand for a lower capacity TATL airliner - the growing use of narrowbodys across the pond shows this.
Unfortunately for NMA, these narrowbodys enjoy the HUGE benefit of being part of a much larger family.
That's how life for a dedicated small twin aisle gets much more difficult.

It is notable that the Leeham article states
a) FEDEX would like to see Airbus launch a new-build A321 freighter
b) Calhoun has clearly stated there is no NMA

If I can post this quote from the article..

at the Boeing pre-Farnborough Air Show media briefings, Brian Hermesmeyer, the Senior Director, Freighter Customer Leader, acknowledged one (an NMA) is under study.

“We look at a lot of different things in development and how to make sure we have a good medium widebody solution. Are we looking at different freighter platforms in that space? Absolutely. Is the 787 one of them? That’s a natural place for us to look,”


Much as I'd like to see something different, I don't see anything that has changed. Yet.

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:25 am

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
A 2-3-2 may not be as inefficient as one would assume if they adapt the "Ostrowers child" Double circle concept. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

One must also remember that the length of potentially heavier cross section is only about half the actual length of the aircraft - the Wing Box will have no issues being shaped like this nor the nose or the tail. Computers can help figure out the loads and if you design the cargo section correctly the interior walls can act like a big box beam helping to deal with the bending moment of the airframe, which would be higher as it would be wider than taller.


If the FedEx CEO is right with what he is saying, the double circle is off the table because it would not fit 767 containers in the lower holds, or if it does in the lower holds, then the floor is to high up to fit the main deck cargo containers. Even the pallets will be limited in hight then.

So if the FedEx CEO saw a presentation about an NMA with the ability to take unmodified 767 cargo containers it will be a circular cross section.


That would probably be a 767X then. Do what Boeing did to the 777X. New Wing, wingbox, tail, gear/engines, systems.

Basically take 787/777 tech and put it in a 767 Cross section. One would have to assume the ribs would be widened out like the 777X to allow more comfortable/less painful 8W seating in Y. 8W was an option in the 767.

Or just start with custom carbon cross section and adopted 787 nose/cockpit.

The wing would be custom (to be light enough for TATL passenger use) so no real issues putting a fold in it for the cargo carriers. It would help with gate space in the future as well at busy hubs.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5588
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:53 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
A 2-3-2 may not be as inefficient as one would assume if they adapt the "Ostrowers child" Double circle concept. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/

One must also remember that the length of potentially heavier cross section is only about half the actual length of the aircraft - the Wing Box will have no issues being shaped like this nor the nose or the tail. Computers can help figure out the loads and if you design the cargo section correctly the interior walls can act like a big box beam helping to deal with the bending moment of the airframe, which would be higher as it would be wider than taller.


If the FedEx CEO is right with what he is saying, the double circle is off the table because it would not fit 767 containers in the lower holds, or if it does in the lower holds, then the floor is to high up to fit the main deck cargo containers. Even the pallets will be limited in hight then.

So if the FedEx CEO saw a presentation about an NMA with the ability to take unmodified 767 cargo containers it will be a circular cross section.


That would probably be a 767X then. Do what Boeing did to the 777X. New Wing, wingbox, tail, gear/engines, systems.

Basically take 787/777 tech and put it in a 767 Cross section. One would have to assume the ribs would be widened out like the 777X to allow more comfortable/less painful 8W seating in Y. 8W was an option in the 767.

Or just start with custom carbon cross section and adopted 787 nose/cockpit.

The wing would be custom (to be light enough for TATL passenger use) so no real issues putting a fold in it for the cargo carriers. It would help with gate space in the future as well at busy hubs.

Boeing is striving to be all digital in their Building process, As I just read in Aviation Week Magazine. when that happens? they'll be cranking out airplanes like Candy. But? That's going to take some time as thousands of assembly drawings will need to be digitized to reduce the time from concept to Manufacture. Seems to me like this should have been already done, But? you havevto start to finish and Boeing has announced they're starting the process.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 21506
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:34 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

If the FedEx CEO is right with what he is saying, the double circle is off the table because it would not fit 767 containers in the lower holds, or if it does in the lower holds, then the floor is to high up to fit the main deck cargo containers. Even the pallets will be limited in hight then.

So if the FedEx CEO saw a presentation about an NMA with the ability to take unmodified 767 cargo containers it will be a circular cross section.


That would probably be a 767X then. Do what Boeing did to the 777X. New Wing, wingbox, tail, gear/engines, systems.

Basically take 787/777 tech and put it in a 767 Cross section. One would have to assume the ribs would be widened out like the 777X to allow more comfortable/less painful 8W seating in Y. 8W was an option in the 767.

Or just start with custom carbon cross section and adopted 787 nose/cockpit.

The wing would be custom (to be light enough for TATL passenger use) so no real issues putting a fold in it for the cargo carriers. It would help with gate space in the future as well at busy hubs.

Boeing is striving to be all digital in their Building process, As I just read in Aviation Week Magazine. when that happens? they'll be cranking out airplanes like Candy. But? That's going to take some time as thousands of assembly drawings will need to be digitized to reduce the time from concept to Manufacture. Seems to me like this should have been already done, But? you havevto start to finish and Boeing has announced they're starting the process.


Lol, that’s exactly what they said about the 787 - it was going to change the way planes are built forever.
 
LeVerdad
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:34 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:44 pm

scbriml wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That would probably be a 767X then. Do what Boeing did to the 777X. New Wing, wingbox, tail, gear/engines, systems.

Basically take 787/777 tech and put it in a 767 Cross section. One would have to assume the ribs would be widened out like the 777X to allow more comfortable/less painful 8W seating in Y. 8W was an option in the 767.

Or just start with custom carbon cross section and adopted 787 nose/cockpit.

The wing would be custom (to be light enough for TATL passenger use) so no real issues putting a fold in it for the cargo carriers. It would help with gate space in the future as well at busy hubs.

Boeing is striving to be all digital in their Building process, As I just read in Aviation Week Magazine. when that happens? they'll be cranking out airplanes like Candy. But? That's going to take some time as thousands of assembly drawings will need to be digitized to reduce the time from concept to Manufacture. Seems to me like this should have been already done, But? you havevto start to finish and Boeing has announced they're starting the process.


Lol, that’s exactly what they said about the 787 - it was going to change the way planes are built forever.


It did....with some excruciatingly painful and expensive lessons along the way. Yes, the company was almost destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time they created a lot of value for shareholders
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:27 am

JohanTally wrote:
Well Boeing wasn't in the position to truly launch a new aircraft line because they've been dealing with the 737 and 787 problems also issues with the 777X. They are actually seeing cash flow again and while it won't stabilize until 2023 hopefully R&D starts developing projects. With the enhanced oversight(probably justified) from the FAA launching clean sheet aircraft must have executives apprehensive.


They were in the best position to launch 10 years ago, when there was no 737 debacle, 777X delays or 787 issues. They had tons of cash and engineers who had time, and they did not find the business case to launch a new clean sheet NMA. I doubt the current position, while better than 2 years ago, is anything like ripe to launch if 5-10 years before was not.

jeffrey0032j wrote:
My guess is a plane with a slightly wider fuselage than the 767 that fits 17 inch seats 8 abreast.


So a more efficient A330? That would kill the 787, at least at the lower end. We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:09 am

enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds
 
morrisond
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:36 am

astuteman wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


Well said. We are putting ourselves into pretzels because the Fedex says it will take 767 containers. Maybe whatever Boeing showed them is a lot smaller than we are assuming where it bumps into the A330/787 market and is still 2x3x2. No one said they fit 2 LD2's abreast downstairs in the concept they showed.

I haven't looked at it in detail - but I'm assuming two LD2's wide do not fit upstairs in an A320/737 tube - but maybe they would in an NMA with enough height down below for 1 wide.

If a 2x3x2 NMA is going to work it has to be very tight and light, with wings/gear/engines sized appropriately for the mission - something like 168"H and 186" wide, and 5,500NM max - basically not much more than 20-25% cross section than an A320.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:50 pm

bwc833 wrote:
I just don't understand the decision to go to a clean slate? You already have a 787 line, does not shortening the 787-8 to a slightly smaller airframe not replace a 767 size airframe. Like a 787-3 version?

It would also be significantly heavier than a 767.
 
JohanTally
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:10 pm

bwc833 wrote:
I just don't understand the decision to go to a clean slate? You already have a 787 line, does not shortening the 787-8 to a slightly smaller airframe not replace a 767 size airframe. Like a 787-3 version?

The 787-3 was the same 788 fuselage with smaller wings for regional Asian routes. It would of been lighter and optimized for short hops. If you want a 767 size freighter you have 5 years left to get one.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:10 pm

astuteman wrote:
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

Two things:
1. While these planes are bigger, a lot of that space is being taken up by larger and larger premium seats.
2. The top end size of the widebody market seems to be disappearing too, with planes like the 747 and A380 going away and the 777X struggling. Maybe the optimal widebody size is just around that 787/A350 cross section?
 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:20 pm

astuteman wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


The conversation has changed. The airlines are up gauging into the NMA's market, or do we think 200 pax 737-10/A321 size is the upper limit for domestic use. If Boeing can make efficient enough, why not? Airbus is no doubt looking at the same market for the A330 replacement.

And we stop trying to parse the FEDEX CEO words, I believe he knows what a widebody look like when shown one.
 
Metchalus
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:12 pm

morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


Well said. We are putting ourselves into pretzels because the Fedex says it will take 767 containers. Maybe whatever Boeing showed them is a lot smaller than we are assuming where it bumps into the A330/787 market and is still 2x3x2. No one said they fit 2 LD2's abreast downstairs in the concept they showed.

I haven't looked at it in detail - but I'm assuming two LD2's wide do not fit upstairs in an A320/737 tube - but maybe they would in an NMA with enough height down below for 1 wide.

If a 2x3x2 NMA is going to work it has to be very tight and light, with wings/gear/engines sized appropriately for the mission - something like 168"H and 186" wide, and 5,500NM max - basically not much more than 20-25% cross section than an A320.


Would it make sense for the NMA to take 2 LD2s up top and 45s in the bottom?
Then it could have the option of being bulkloaded for pax carriers, whilst also working for Fedex and UP' 767 fleets.

I can't imagine it being large enough to take 2 LD3s.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:52 pm

Metchalus wrote:
morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:

If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


Well said. We are putting ourselves into pretzels because the Fedex says it will take 767 containers. Maybe whatever Boeing showed them is a lot smaller than we are assuming where it bumps into the A330/787 market and is still 2x3x2. No one said they fit 2 LD2's abreast downstairs in the concept they showed.

I haven't looked at it in detail - but I'm assuming two LD2's wide do not fit upstairs in an A320/737 tube - but maybe they would in an NMA with enough height down below for 1 wide.

If a 2x3x2 NMA is going to work it has to be very tight and light, with wings/gear/engines sized appropriately for the mission - something like 168"H and 186" wide, and 5,500NM max - basically not much more than 20-25% cross section than an A320.


Would it make sense for the NMA to take 2 LD2s up top and 45s in the bottom?
Then it could have the option of being bulkloaded for pax carriers, whilst also working for Fedex and UP' 767 fleets.

I can't imagine it being large enough to take 2 LD3s.


Maybe, but then again if you had a cicrular cross section at say about 185" you might be able to squeeze two LD2's in the belly and 2x3x2 up top with a composite fuselage. That's about 81% of the cross section of the 767, and about 34.5% more than an A320. It certainly would carry a lot more than an A320 - would be oversized for Y - but premium seating could be 50% higher.

Who knows what they do.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:07 pm

How close are RR or GE/Snecma to delivering a 45K or 50K geared fan engine?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:47 pm

william wrote:
astuteman wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


The conversation has changed. The airlines are up gauging into the NMA's market, or do we think 200 pax 737-10/A321 size is the upper limit for domestic use. If Boeing can make efficient enough, why not? Airbus is no doubt looking at the same market for the A330 replacement.

And we stop trying to parse the FEDEX CEO words, I believe he knows what a widebody look like when shown one.


I'd like to think I'm an NMA sceptic, rather than a detractor.

There's no question that the average size of narrowbodys is increasing - I expect to see sales of the 737-10 grow going forward.
I feel there is a lot more to making a case for NMA than that though.

I think it was poster Revelation that coined the phrase "Commoditised" for the A320 series and 737 series.
    They are ubiquitous - absolutely everywhere.
    worldwide parts distribution
    Worldwide maintenance
    HUGE pools of pilots, crew, maintenance staff etc
    Huge experience of the infrastructure in managing them.

It feels to me like the market is driving for this gap to be filled from below by ever more capable variants of these "universal" families.
I cite the evidence of ever bigger percentages of A32X's being A321's (I expect the 737-10 to follow suit) and yet neither OEM has been able to close a case for a dedicated small widebody. Yet.

I have heard arguments for NMA being the "tight 7-abreast" twin aisle, and being the larger version of a model that will extend down into 737- 8/9/10 space
Eventually.
With the 737-7 possibly being replaced by an A220 look-alike.

I see the logic being presented. Some good arguments being made, especially given long-term growth trends.
The journey to get there, starting with the NMA model, in the teeth of hordes of A321's and 737-10's, at a time when Boeing look very committed to the future of the MAX range... :scratchchin:
Feels like a really hard slog to me - at least for now.
It would take some real cojones...

Not sure I understood your comment about parsing FEDEX CEO's words. I don't recall referencing them in any way.
Happy to be enlightened.

Rgds
 
meh130
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:52 pm

argentinevol98 wrote:
I do think (like many others) that the market potential for a 767 sized (particulary 763 but also 762) widebody with TATL+ range is quite large. Seeing the explosion in demand for higher frequency but lower capacity TATL airliners (namely the A321XLR), I have to think it is a good fit. NA to EU as well as NA/EU to SA has plenty of viable routes for such a sized aircraft. Right now you either go A321 or all the way up to 788/A332. I think there is rapidly growing demand right in the middle of that range, and COVID has probably actually aided with that.

I struggle to see that size being fit by a narrowbody, it would be an awkward and long aircraft at 3-3 Y, despite the negative opinions of a 2-3-2 fuse based on efficiency concerns, I think it could work. 2-4-2 at the size range aimed for sounds like it would be awkwardly chubby and less efficient (I'm a not an engineer however). Sounds like 2-3-3 could be what Boeing is looking for if the FX proposal uses the same bespoke containers as the 767.


There is a need for a 767-300F class freighter replacement.

There is a need for something between the 170 seat, 4,500nm range A321XLR, and the 240 seat, 7,500nm range B787-8.

There is a reason Delta and United are continuing to use their 767-300ERs.

At a 767-300 passenger capacity with 767 width fuselage would have less drag than an A330 or 787 width fuselage.

Clearly the 767-300 is an efficient freighter in terms of its internal volume. I don't know how it compares to an A300-600F, which would be roughly the size of a 767-300.

I really think there is a need for a 6,000nm range airplane in the 767-300/A300-600 passenger capacity range. If you did this with a narrow-body, you would need something the size of a 757-300, which would not provide the same benefits to the freight market.

I also think there is a need for a larger aircraft for the domestic market. I think both Delta and United wish they had more 757-300s. The pilot shortage is only going to get worse. That is why the A321new is popular, and 737 MAX 10 will become popular. Up-gauging will continue in the sub-200 seat market, but a bigger airplane is needed for denser markets.

We are in a weird situation where both Boeing and Airbus have a big gap in the middle of the market.
 
meh130
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:12 pm

morrisond wrote:
astuteman wrote:
None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).


If you look back over the last 30 years, the DC-10 and L-1011 were phased out of US domestic markets in the 1990s and replaced with the 767-300. All of those airplanes had about 250 seats in a domestic seating arrangement. In the late 1990s and early 2000s Delta heavily used their 767-400s on domestic routes. Delta regularly used wide-body airplanes on the Atlanta-Orlando route, and 767-300s on LAX-ATL and SFO-ATL. But also during that era there was a shift to frequency. The airlines went from several wide-body flights between a heavily travelled city pair to twice as many 737-800s. Fortunately Delta through the Northwest merger, and United through the Continental merger gained a limited number of 757-300s, which is also a 250 seat aircraft. This gives them some flexibility for heavily travelled routes.

The airlines could do that because there was a huge increase in military pilots in the 1980s due to the Cold War, then the Cold War ended, the military did not need as many pilots, and the economy was booming, so many military pilots left for the airlines. The airlines were flush with pilots. However, after the Cold War the military dramatically reduced their pilot production to less than 60% of what it was in the 1980s. So there are far fewer military pilots to draw from, and those military pilots who left for the airlines in the 1990s when they were in their mid-30s are approaching retirement age. There is going to be a wave of airline pilot retirements over this decade.

I think the airlines are going to have to go back to larger domestic aircraft. The problem is there really isn't a good solution right now. All of the current wide-body aircraft are big, long-range designs. Perhaps Airbus will build a 757-300 sized "A322". I think that would sell to the Big 3 airlines. But I do not think that could address the international need or the freighter need.
 
User avatar
william
Topic Author
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 4:38 pm

astuteman wrote:
william wrote:
astuteman wrote:

If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


The conversation has changed. The airlines are up gauging into the NMA's market, or do we think 200 pax 737-10/A321 size is the upper limit for domestic use. If Boeing can make efficient enough, why not? Airbus is no doubt looking at the same market for the A330 replacement.

And we stop trying to parse the FEDEX CEO words, I believe he knows what a widebody look like when shown one.


I'd like to think I'm an NMA sceptic, rather than a detractor.

There's no question that the average size of narrowbodys is increasing - I expect to see sales of the 737-10 grow going forward.
I feel there is a lot more to making a case for NMA than that though.

I think it was poster Revelation that coined the phrase "Commoditised" for the A320 series and 737 series.
    They are ubiquitous - absolutely everywhere.
    worldwide parts distribution
    Worldwide maintenance
    HUGE pools of pilots, crew, maintenance staff etc
    Huge experience of the infrastructure in managing them.

It feels to me like the market is driving for this gap to be filled from below by ever more capable variants of these "universal" families.
I cite the evidence of ever bigger percentages of A32X's being A321's (I expect the 737-10 to follow suit) and yet neither OEM has been able to close a case for a dedicated small widebody. Yet.

I have heard arguments for NMA being the "tight 7-abreast" twin aisle, and being the larger version of a model that will extend down into 737- 8/9/10 space
Eventually.
With the 737-7 possibly being replaced by an A220 look-alike.

I see the logic being presented. Some good arguments being made, especially given long-term growth trends.
The journey to get there, starting with the NMA model, in the teeth of hordes of A321's and 737-10's, at a time when Boeing look very committed to the future of the MAX range... :scratchchin:
Feels like a really hard slog to me - at least for now.
It would take some real cojones...

Not sure I understood your comment about parsing FEDEX CEO's words. I don't recall referencing them in any way.
Happy to be enlightened.

Rgds


You are right to be a sceptic, Boeing has been talking about for years and no action. We all thought the idea was dead.

Then out of the blue a WB smaller than the 787 is shown to a CEO. A concept yes, but a concept we thought dead. We are all here speculating trying to fill in the information holes.
 
User avatar
tlecam
Posts: 1848
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:01 pm

astuteman wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We still have the same problems for the NMA, whether freighter or passenger, than before. The reason there is a big gap in that spot in the market is that there isn't a good solution that the 2 OEM's could find in all the time they have been studying it.


If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds



Well put - you articulated some of my observations and questions clearly.

Two other contributors jump out at me:

- The relative prioritization of different aircraft segments over time - I wonder how much of this is cyclical because Boeing/Airbus can't solve for every segment all at once, all the time. Seems like there was focus on the large WB segment (e.g. 380/350/787) and then continued focused investment in the narrow body segments (e.g. the MAX/NEO investments plus the C-series acquisition). I think part of Boeing's debate is whether to continue to invest in the new single aisle or in the smaller wide body segment. Maybe the timing is right for focus on the small wide body segment since the 767s are aging, the A300s are no longer being sold etc...

- The changes in the consumer market - there have been significant macro-economic factors that have evolved over the last couple of decades that seem to be changing how airlines think of their route networks and seat configurations. For example, more of the public at large is flying in general, and there seems to be more leisure demand for premium products - Delta and UA have been pretty vocal about this last bit. Also, the broader macro-economic trend of growth and revitalization in cities growth in cities/metro areas seems to have launched more P2P flying from non-traditional fortress hubs (e.g. DL from BOS, SEA; DL and AA from RDU - although remains to be seen what happens there post-covid).
 
JonesNL
Posts: 870
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:05 pm

astuteman wrote:
william wrote:
astuteman wrote:

If I can highlight this bit of your post. It talks directly to the dilemma that I see.

None of the posters on here seem to ask why the "Middle of the Market Gap" appeared in the first place.
There used to be quite a few planes inhabiting this space (e.g. 767 pax, A300, A310, possibly later versions of planes like 707, DC8 etc), but they have all disappeared over time, and ended up being shunted into freighter duty (where the 46m wingspan limit seems to become a dominant factor).

When the A380 was being built, a lot of its detractors focussed on
a) the average size of planes decreasing
b) fragmentation.

But it seems to me that most of these comments were aimed at promoting the 787.
Whilst of itself that is not an unvalid stance, for me it missed a fundamental truth.
The average size of widebodys seems to have been going UP, not down, with 767's, A300's, A310's, DC10/MD11, L1011 all disappearing.
Smallest widebody passenger jets today are the 787-8 and A330-200/800, both of which are substantially larger than any of the above aircraft.

So why the paradox? I believe it is due to the absolute explosion of narrowbodys in unprecedented (at one time unthinkable) quantities.
Not to mention that at every iteration, these narrowbodys become more and more capable

And for me that has cut the market for smaller widebodys off at the knees.
I could well be mistaken in this, but I feel that the MOM gap is actually a structural characteristic of the mature market, and I've seen no argument yet put forward by MOM/NMA promoters that dents this belief - yet.

And's I think it explains why, despite decades of study, neither OEM has found a marketable dedicated solution - yet

Rgds


The conversation has changed. The airlines are up gauging into the NMA's market, or do we think 200 pax 737-10/A321 size is the upper limit for domestic use. If Boeing can make efficient enough, why not? Airbus is no doubt looking at the same market for the A330 replacement.

And we stop trying to parse the FEDEX CEO words, I believe he knows what a widebody look like when shown one.


I'd like to think I'm an NMA sceptic, rather than a detractor.

There's no question that the average size of narrowbodys is increasing - I expect to see sales of the 737-10 grow going forward.
I feel there is a lot more to making a case for NMA than that though.

I think it was poster Revelation that coined the phrase "Commoditised" for the A320 series and 737 series.
    They are ubiquitous - absolutely everywhere.
    worldwide parts distribution
    Worldwide maintenance
    HUGE pools of pilots, crew, maintenance staff etc
    Huge experience of the infrastructure in managing them.

It feels to me like the market is driving for this gap to be filled from below by ever more capable variants of these "universal" families.
I cite the evidence of ever bigger percentages of A32X's being A321's (I expect the 737-10 to follow suit) and yet neither OEM has been able to close a case for a dedicated small widebody. Yet.

I have heard arguments for NMA being the "tight 7-abreast" twin aisle, and being the larger version of a model that will extend down into 737- 8/9/10 space
Eventually.
With the 737-7 possibly being replaced by an A220 look-alike.

I see the logic being presented. Some good arguments being made, especially given long-term growth trends.
The journey to get there, starting with the NMA model, in the teeth of hordes of A321's and 737-10's, at a time when Boeing look very committed to the future of the MAX range... :scratchchin:
Feels like a really hard slog to me - at least for now.
It would take some real cojones...

Not sure I understood your comment about parsing FEDEX CEO's words. I don't recall referencing them in any way.
Happy to be enlightened.

Rgds


To expand; the ubiquitousness makes them a no brainer. Even if the 737 or A320 are 10% less efficient per passenger/ton, they are vastly more cheaper at all other expenses. There is huge competition on MRO, staff, resale, financing, etc.

The moment a 737 or A320 can do 8000nm, the complete widebody market is as good as dead in the water...
 
Metchalus
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2021 9:46 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 7:29 pm

JonesNL wrote:
astuteman wrote:
william wrote:

The conversation has changed. The airlines are up gauging into the NMA's market, or do we think 200 pax 737-10/A321 size is the upper limit for domestic use. If Boeing can make efficient enough, why not? Airbus is no doubt looking at the same market for the A330 replacement.

And we stop trying to parse the FEDEX CEO words, I believe he knows what a widebody look like when shown one.


I'd like to think I'm an NMA sceptic, rather than a detractor.

There's no question that the average size of narrowbodys is increasing - I expect to see sales of the 737-10 grow going forward.
I feel there is a lot more to making a case for NMA than that though.

I think it was poster Revelation that coined the phrase "Commoditised" for the A320 series and 737 series.
    They are ubiquitous - absolutely everywhere.
    worldwide parts distribution
    Worldwide maintenance
    HUGE pools of pilots, crew, maintenance staff etc
    Huge experience of the infrastructure in managing them.

It feels to me like the market is driving for this gap to be filled from below by ever more capable variants of these "universal" families.
I cite the evidence of ever bigger percentages of A32X's being A321's (I expect the 737-10 to follow suit) and yet neither OEM has been able to close a case for a dedicated small widebody. Yet.

I have heard arguments for NMA being the "tight 7-abreast" twin aisle, and being the larger version of a model that will extend down into 737- 8/9/10 space
Eventually.
With the 737-7 possibly being replaced by an A220 look-alike.

I see the logic being presented. Some good arguments being made, especially given long-term growth trends.
The journey to get there, starting with the NMA model, in the teeth of hordes of A321's and 737-10's, at a time when Boeing look very committed to the future of the MAX range... :scratchchin:
Feels like a really hard slog to me - at least for now.
It would take some real cojones...

Not sure I understood your comment about parsing FEDEX CEO's words. I don't recall referencing them in any way.
Happy to be enlightened.

Rgds


To expand; the ubiquitousness makes them a no brainer. Even if the 737 or A320 are 10% less efficient per passenger/ton, they are vastly more cheaper at all other expenses. There is huge competition on MRO, staff, resale, financing, etc.

The moment a 737 or A320 can do 8000nm, the complete widebody market is as good as dead in the water...

I doubt it.
It's a tough fit putting 180 large bags on an A320, with the amount of space fuel tanks are taking up on the 321lr by the time these aircraft are reaching 8000nm there's not gonna be much space left for bags let alone cargo.

Also the amount of premium seating space on these aircraft is limited.
 
meh130
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:53 pm

JonesNL wrote:
To expand; the ubiquitousness makes them a no brainer. Even if the 737 or A320 are 10% less efficient per passenger/ton, they are vastly more cheaper at all other expenses. There is huge competition on MRO, staff, resale, financing, etc.

The moment a 737 or A320 can do 8000nm, the complete widebody market is as good as dead in the water...


Only if these 8,000nm range narrow-body airplanes are drones.

The pilot shortage is real.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:26 pm

How would a 2-2-2 seating aircraft work for cargo? This would give a 163" interior width for a new pallet or container size, and LD3-45 containers below. A 100t MTOW with a 36m wing with winglets for sub 3K nm. A heavier version for passenger and freight with up to a 52m wing with 150t MTOW for 5K nm.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 11612
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:48 pm

meh130 wrote:
There is a reason Delta and United are continuing to use their 767-300ERs.


Yes, they have a bunch of them, and pilots to fly them. They may as well wear them out. You might observe that AA had just a few of them and was happy to retire them (and their few 757s, too) to eliminate a pilot work group. AA and UA have lots of 787s on order. DL has quite a few A330neos on order. UA and DL have lots of 737-10s on order. DL and AA have lots of 321neos on order. There's nothing magic about the size of a 767. As has been obvious from a decade of Boeing's dithering, this size class is squeezed by 321/737-10 from below and 787-8 from above. It's tough to justify the (what, $20 Billion?) investment in 2-sizes of passenger widebody plus a freighter.
 
Opus99
Posts: 3553
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing's NMA back on?

Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:55 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
meh130 wrote:
There is a reason Delta and United are continuing to use their 767-300ERs.


Yes, they have a bunch of them, and pilots to fly them. They may as well wear them out. You might observe that AA had just a few of them and was happy to retire them (and their few 757s, too) to eliminate a pilot work group. AA and UA have lots of 787s on order. DL has quite a few A330neos on order. UA and DL have lots of 737-10s on order. DL and AA have lots of 321neos on order. There's nothing magic about the size of a 767. As has been obvious from a decade of Boeing's dithering, this size class is squeezed by 321/737-10 from below and 787-8 from above. It's tough to justify the (what, $20 Billion?) investment in 2-sizes of passenger widebody plus a freighter.

Realistically, A better priced 787-8 CAN swallow the rest of the 767 market. (UA, DL, JAL etc)

It would be good to have something new though

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos