The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise). The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story.

source: Epson aviation

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

Well as explained in this post here :- https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
The 757 would only have realistically been able to manage 3000nm flights reliably in such a configuration and so was only really good for UK->US north east coast.

I have, in the past, flown to destinations from MAN and LHR on AA on their A330s that had very low load factors (row of 4 to myself overnight) those seem like the perfect candidates to be pemium heavy XLR contenders in the future. Doesnt Jetblue fly at the densities being spoke of TATL? 138 seats?

I guess if the XLR wasnt around AA would have ordered the A388 right?

Fred

I thought you dismissed those numbers as garbage - but now they are good?

By your logic in previous posts if the 388 had the lowest CASM at the time then I guess they would have.

keesje wrote:

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise).
The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story. https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.4ce25079933 ... ImgRaw&r=0

I'm sure it was not beyond the abilities of the airlines or Boeing at the time to install auxiliary fuel tanks. How many 757's flew with 130-140 seats premium heavy?

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

Yes, the market is not huge and that is why Boeing should be thanking Airbus every single day, that the A321LR killed the MoM. As the MoM would have been worse.

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess if the XLR wasnt around AA would have ordered the A388 right?

morrisond wrote:

By your logic in previous posts if the 388 had the lowest CASM at the time then I guess they would have.

Am aware that extant frames are offered for a small fraction of their usual price (would Airbus still build them one?) but it's highly doubtful AA could satisfy the Whale's enormous appetite by filling it with pax!

tvh wrote:

scbriml wrote:

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

AirAsiaX,Indigo,

AirAsiaX has both on order and their CEO said "Ismail says the A321XLRs will “address markets where an A330 with a high-density configuration is too much capacity”. He cites second-tier cities in China among examples of where the A321XLR, which recently performed its maiden test flight, could be deployed."
Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/air ... %20earlier.

Indigo, IMHO, is exactly the type of airline the XLR is aimed at. It affords them a very simple introduction into longer-haul flying without the added expense of introducing a new type. If a route outgrows a single XLR flight, then add frequency (we keep being told that's what everyone wants).

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

Well as explained in this post here :- https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
The 757 would only have realistically been able to manage 3000nm flights reliably in such a configuration and so was only really good for UK->US north east coast.

I have, in the past, flown to destinations from MAN and LHR on AA on their A330s that had very low load factors (row of 4 to myself overnight) those seem like the perfect candidates to be pemium heavy XLR contenders in the future. Doesnt Jetblue fly at the densities being spoke of TATL? 138 seats?

I guess if the XLR wasnt around AA would have ordered the A388 right?

Fred

I thought you dismissed those numbers as garbage - but now they are good?

There's certainly some truth to needing to take account of increased seat weights when necessary, likewise with wind. My major concern is apples to apples comparisons. Take account of wind or don't. If the XLR is only reasonable for ~3500nm reliably at those sorts of configurations and winter TATL winds then by adopting the same assumptions the 752 is only at 3000nm. Call it 4000 vs 4500 or 3000 vs 3500. Either is good for me.

morrisond wrote:

By your logic in previous posts if the 388 had the lowest CASM at the time then I guess they would have.

I did mean A338 but thats by the by now.

Since when have I suggested CASM is the be all and end all? If you are refering to the fact that when presented with a larger aircraft with a higher CASM that it will have a harder time gaining traction in the market then yes, i'd agree but a smaller aircraft can have a higher CASM and be well placed to succeed partly due to lower capex risk. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

Fred

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise).
The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story. https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.4ce25079933 ... ImgRaw&r=0

I'm sure it was not beyond the abilities of the airlines or Boeing at the time to install auxiliary fuel tanks. How many 757's flew with 130-140 seats premium heavy?

The lack of reliable TATL range precluded the need as the long range capabilities meant that not enough demand for long routes giving too small of a sub fleet.

Now there is an aircraft that can manage it reliably you can see AA and jetblue have such configurations both planned and in service, Exciting times!

Fred

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And you come to the conclusion how?

If the route fits into the range of an A321/A321LR airline would simply use those.
If the route is able to reasonably fill a A330/787 airlines would use those.

So that leaves routes that can not fill a A330/787 and are within the range of the A321XLR but outside the range of an A321LR. I can not imagine that there are many routes that would make economic sense that fall into that category and that can be commercially successful using a widebody flying at 55-60% load factor average.

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

I would have to guess the American's would have been flying a lot more of those if they were viable.

IMO - the bigger use case may be to replace exactly what the 757 was/is being used for - shorter ranged missions but using the extra lift to pack it full of passengers and cargo(fish). It seems like it can lift about as much as an 752.

Yes it will open some routes that didn't exist before - but that probably only requires at most a few hundred frames.

Yes, the market is not huge and that is why Boeing should be thanking Airbus every single day, that the A321LR killed the MoM. As the MoM would have been worse.

I totally agree - it has never made sense to do a new clean sheet fuselage just for MOM, unless it could be reused for 737 replacement. The market is too small, and it would have cannibalized the 787 more-so than the XLR appears to be doing to 330NEO as it would have been a closer competitor.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Well as explained in this post here :- https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... 321xlr-do/
The 757 would only have realistically been able to manage 3000nm flights reliably in such a configuration and so was only really good for UK->US north east coast.

I have, in the past, flown to destinations from MAN and LHR on AA on their A330s that had very low load factors (row of 4 to myself overnight) those seem like the perfect candidates to be pemium heavy XLR contenders in the future. Doesnt Jetblue fly at the densities being spoke of TATL? 138 seats?

I guess if the XLR wasnt around AA would have ordered the A388 right?

Fred

I thought you dismissed those numbers as garbage - but now they are good?

There's certainly some truth to needing to take account of increased seat weights when necessary, likewise with wind. My major concern is apples to apples comparisons. Take account of wind or don't. If the XLR is only reasonable for ~3500nm reliably at those sorts of configurations and winter TATL winds then by adopting the same assumptions the 752 is only at 3000nm. Call it 4000 vs 4500 or 3000 vs 3500. Either is good for me.

morrisond wrote:

By your logic in previous posts if the 388 had the lowest CASM at the time then I guess they would have.

I did mean A338 but thats by the by now.

Since when have I suggested CASM is the be all and end all? If you are refering to the fact that when presented with a larger aircraft with a higher CASM that it will have a harder time gaining traction in the market then yes, i'd agree but a smaller aircraft can have a higher CASM and be well placed to succeed partly due to lower capex risk. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

Fred

If look on the 752 vs 321 Neo vs LR vs XLR - 752 would seem to be able to lift as much as 321NEO - presumably one could add extra tanks to it as well - just like LR - pushing the curve out.

No worries on the 338/388 - I was referencing your comparison of 781 vs XLR.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I thought you dismissed those numbers as garbage - but now they are good?

There's certainly some truth to needing to take account of increased seat weights when necessary, likewise with wind. My major concern is apples to apples comparisons. Take account of wind or don't. If the XLR is only reasonable for ~3500nm reliably at those sorts of configurations and winter TATL winds then by adopting the same assumptions the 752 is only at 3000nm. Call it 4000 vs 4500 or 3000 vs 3500. Either is good for me.

morrisond wrote:

By your logic in previous posts if the 388 had the lowest CASM at the time then I guess they would have.

I did mean A338 but thats by the by now.

Since when have I suggested CASM is the be all and end all? If you are refering to the fact that when presented with a larger aircraft with a higher CASM that it will have a harder time gaining traction in the market then yes, i'd agree but a smaller aircraft can have a higher CASM and be well placed to succeed partly due to lower capex risk. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder about it.

Fred

If look on the 752 vs 321 Neo vs LR vs XLR - 752 would seem to be able to lift as much as 321NEO - presumably one could add extra tanks to it as well - just like LR - pushing the curve out.

No worries on the 338/388 - I was referencing your comparison of 781 vs XLR.

I guess so but it seems it would be approaching MTOW limits. I guess you could increase the MTOW but I guess the market when that would have been a suitable proposition was different to today. The ubiquity of the 757 was nowhere near why the A32x/737 are/were. The 757 also is slightly hampered in its long range ops by a lower than optimal AR wing (7.8) compared to A32x (10.4) and NG (10.2). The 757 skews it’s performance by power rather than aerodynamic prowess. A757 now would be better with a 42-44m wing. (This is based from my phone so not actually looking at much data and somewhat intuiting it).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are the percentages of revenue miles, less than 3,000nm flights and more than 3.000nm flights? Building the MoM to beat the 787/A350 at 3,000 to 5,000nm may be possible, but there is probably a bigger market to make economic inroads at sub3K flights.

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess so but it seems it would be approaching MTOW limits. I guess you could increase the MTOW but I guess the market when that would have been a suitable proposition was different to today. The ubiquity of the 757 was nowhere near why the A32x/737 are/were. The 757 also is slightly hampered in its long range ops by a lower than optimal AR wing (7.8) compared to A32x (10.4) and NG (10.2). The 757 skews it’s performance by power rather than aerodynamic prowess. A757 now would be better with a 42-44m wing. (This is based from my phone so not actually looking at much data and somewhat intuiting it).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hold on there... the 757 with winglets has a 41 meter span and the aspect ratio is 9.2

744SPX wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess so but it seems it would be approaching MTOW limits. I guess you could increase the MTOW but I guess the market when that would have been a suitable proposition was different to today. The ubiquity of the 757 was nowhere near why the A32x/737 are/were. The 757 also is slightly hampered in its long range ops by a lower than optimal AR wing (7.8) compared to A32x (10.4) and NG (10.2). The 757 skews it’s performance by power rather than aerodynamic prowess. A757 now would be better with a 42-44m wing. (This is based from my phone so not actually looking at much data and somewhat intuiting it).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hold on there... the 757 with winglets has a 41 meter span and the aspect ratio is 9.2

Indeed, the problem with using phone

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

744SPX wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

I guess so but it seems it would be approaching MTOW limits. I guess you could increase the MTOW but I guess the market when that would have been a suitable proposition was different to today. The ubiquity of the 757 was nowhere near why the A32x/737 are/were. The 757 also is slightly hampered in its long range ops by a lower than optimal AR wing (7.8) compared to A32x (10.4) and NG (10.2). The 757 skews it’s performance by power rather than aerodynamic prowess. A757 now would be better with a 42-44m wing. (This is based from my phone so not actually looking at much data and somewhat intuiting it).

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hold on there... the 757 with winglets has a 41 meter span and the aspect ratio is 9.2

With winglets it has the 757 at about 4,300nm and 200 passengers.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... 57_200.php

morrisond wrote:

With winglets it has the 757 at about 4,300nm and 200 passengers.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... 57_200.php

But is it really 4300nm? I see 95kg assumption per passenger for weight there and I don't see what other assumptions they make to get it to that range. Think Fred's point still stands, when comparing the 2 aircraft the A321XLR will have an advantage on range compared to the 757. So any reductions on range you make to the A321neo for real world scenarios, you need to make the same to the 757 and go from there when comparing the 2.

enzo011 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

With winglets it has the 757 at about 4,300nm and 200 passengers.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... 57_200.php

But is it really 4300nm? I see 95kg assumption per passenger for weight there and I don't see what other assumptions they make to get it to that range. Think Fred's point still stands, when comparing the 2 aircraft the A321XLR will have an advantage on range compared to the 757. So, any reductions on range you make to the A321neo for real world scenarios, you need to make the same to the 757 and go from there when comparing the 2.

Airbus assumes 90KG per passenger in their assumptions, so I presume the payload range charts as well. 100KG seems to be the industry standard so should be used for both.

Look at the payload range charts at the top of the page. A321NEO and 757 without winglets start at the same point. Add winglets and some auxiliary tanks and the chart could look a lot more like LR or XLR.

I just question why it's never been done in bulk if it's such a great idea to fly that far in a SA with pretty low density. There are tons of 757's around that could have used for that if there was a market, especially pre-covid.

morrisond wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

With winglets it has the 757 at about 4,300nm and 200 passengers.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... 57_200.php

But is it really 4300nm? I see 95kg assumption per passenger for weight there and I don't see what other assumptions they make to get it to that range. Think Fred's point still stands, when comparing the 2 aircraft the A321XLR will have an advantage on range compared to the 757. So, any reductions on range you make to the A321neo for real world scenarios, you need to make the same to the 757 and go from there when comparing the 2.

Airbus assumes 90KG per passenger in their assumptions, so I presume the payload range charts as well. 100KG seems to be the industry standard so should be used for both.

Look at the payload range charts at the top of the page. A321NEO and 757 without winglets start at the same point. Add winglets and some auxiliary tanks and the chart could look a lot more like LR or XLR.

I just question why it's never been done in bulk if it's such a great idea to fly that far in a SA with pretty low density. There are tons of 757's around that could have used for that if there was a market, especially pre-covid.

Because the 757 is a heavy gas guzzler. The more inefficient an aircraft is, the more fuel you need to bring just to fly that fuel further. OEW seems to be 8t higher for the 757 than the A321 (58tvs50t) and MTOW is 14t higher (115tvs101t). So with a payload of 20t the 757 can bring roughly 37t of fuel and the A321 31t.

I think at this point both aircraft are actually limited as payload eats into fuel volume. But anyway, the 757 will need way more fuel to bring the same payload approximately the same distance.

morrisond wrote:

I just question why it's never been done in bulk if it's such a great idea to fly that far in a SA with pretty low density. There are tons of 757's around that could have used for that if there was a market, especially pre-covid.

Because the 757 is heavy and, by today's standards, a fuel guzzler. There's a reason why only around 170 757-200s are left in regular airline passenger service.

I didn't see any response to my question:

scbriml wrote:

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

I just question why it's never been done in bulk if it's such a great idea to fly that far in a SA with pretty low density. There are tons of 757's around that could have used for that if there was a market, especially pre-covid.

Because the 757 is heavy and, by today's standards, a fuel guzzler. There's a reason why only around 170 757-200s are left in regular airline passenger service.

I didn't see any response to my question:

scbriml wrote:

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Provide the full list of XLR sales and then we can have a highly theoretical discussion. I can't find one.

However, by inference if a SA now makes a point to point route feasible it means that there will be less demand on WB trunk routes, meaning less frames needed. 1,400ish A330CEO's were sold, the 787 will of course not replace all of them. Right now it seems as though that market is being split by XLR for Airbus and 787 for Boeing.

morrisond wrote:

[...]
However, by inference if a SA now makes a point to point route feasible it means that there will be less demand on WB trunk routes, meaning less frames needed. 1,400ish A330CEO's were sold, the 787 will of course not replace all of them. Right now it seems as though that market is being split by XLR for Airbus and 787 for Boeing.

Using as usual my favorite 3915nm TATL seasonal route, UA, which is the only nonstop operator, has plenty of 787 and 777, but doesn't want to use them in the winter, presumably because it doesn't make enough money.

If an XLR (or a 757, or some 737 MAX, so you are happy) makes it feasible, two things may happen (IMHO will happen):
(a) UA might decide that it can make enough money by operating a NB over the winter (and use the WB to fly people to somewhere else warm, or do maintenance, or rent it out for weddings) and convert the service from seasonal to year round.
(b) a new entrant might decide that it wants to challenge UA on that route and start offering nonstop service
Both cases will introduce service where there is none, hence more frames needed.

morrisond wrote:

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Of course we're talking about today's standards. Markets have changed significantly, twenty years ago airlines wanted everything to go through their hubs, very few 757s were being used on long, thin routes.

morrisond wrote:

Provide the full list of XLR sales and then we can have a highly theoretical discussion. I can't find one.

Oh wow, really? You were so adamant about your claim but now you can't even offer anything to support it.

morrisond wrote:

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Because as you quite rightly say it was different standards. With higher specific fuel burns (UL/D/TSFC) each unit of range gained for each unit of payload removed was lower and so the equation was different. Todays aircraft have lower detriment to being abused at the top end of their range then yesterdays, tomorrows will have even less. This is quite a pertinent point as its the real reason why a dedicated MOM will likely never exist, the gap is shrinking. Where once a a 737 and the 757 and the 767 and the 777 and the 747 existed the new result is that the 737 will cover the old 737-757 space the 787 will cover the 767-777 space and the 777X will cover the old 777+space.

Fred

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Of course we're talking about today's standards. Markets have changed significantly, twenty years ago airlines wanted everything to go through their hubs, very few 757s were being used on long, thin routes.

morrisond wrote:

Provide the full list of XLR sales and then we can have a highly theoretical discussion. I can't find one.

Oh wow, really? You were so adamant about your claim but now you can't even offer anything to support it.

Nice selective quoting. I mentioned pre-covid - not twenty years ago.

No - I'm being serious, I can't find one and you again selectively quoted me and ignored my point that XLR's on point to point routes will reduce demand and need for more widebodies on the trunk routes.

The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Because as you quite rightly say it was different standards. With higher specific fuel burns (UL/D/TSFC) each unit of range gained for each unit of payload removed was lower and so the equation was different. Todays aircraft have lower detriment to being abused at the top end of their range then yesterdays, tomorrows will have even less. This is quite a pertinent point as its the real reason why a dedicated MOM will likely never exist, the gap is shrinking. Where once a a 737 and the 757 and the 767 and the 777 and the 747 existed the new result is that the 737 will cover the old 737-757 space the 787 will cover the 767-777 space and the 777X will cover the old 777+space.

Fred

Good points, however it just seems weird that with Blended wingtips and extra fuel tanks 757's could have been used to try some of these routes out and never were to any large extent, even between 2015 and 2020 when fuel costs were low. As I have said before I can definitely see a few hundred frames used for new point to point but beyond that how many routes actually exist where this capability could be utilized?

With air travel resuming and presumably growth we will soon be back in a position where slots become a big problem again. For example AC can send XLR's from YYZ to many secondary cities - but will they have the slots for them for what they have on order or if they wanted to expand the XLR fleet significantly?

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

But we are not talking about Today's standards. Why was it never done in the past when 100's were in existence?

Because as you quite rightly say it was different standards. With higher specific fuel burns (UL/D/TSFC) each unit of range gained for each unit of payload removed was lower and so the equation was different. Todays aircraft have lower detriment to being abused at the top end of their range then yesterdays, tomorrows will have even less. This is quite a pertinent point as its the real reason why a dedicated MOM will likely never exist, the gap is shrinking. Where once a a 737 and the 757 and the 767 and the 777 and the 747 existed the new result is that the 737 will cover the old 737-757 space the 787 will cover the 767-777 space and the 777X will cover the old 777+space.

Fred

Good points, however it just seems weird that with Blended wingtips and extra fuel tanks 757's could have been used to try some of these routes out and never were to any large extent, even between 2015 and 2020 when fuel costs were low. As I have said before I can definitely see a few hundred frames used for new point to point but beyond that how many routes actually exist where this capability could be utilized?

With air travel resuming and presumably growth we will soon be back in a position where slots become a big problem again. For example AC can send XLR's from YYZ to many secondary cities - but will they have the slots for them for what they have on order or if they wanted to expand the XLR fleet significantly?

They did try it, kind of. As mentioned above, the required fuel in aux tanks was not worth it as you’d have to drop more pax per mile gained. Plus there was no container based aux tank so no drop in solution I doubt. I think the winglets gave the 4knm spec range up from 3800 without rather than on top. So the same actions taken on a 757 as the A321neo would not result in the same outcomes. Could they have tried it yes (and they sort of did) but that doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. If I put an extra 40litre tank on my Kia I’ll go about 600miles, if I put a 40 litre tank on my iveco I’ll get about 100miles.

I know CO served BRS (highlight of my spotting trips as a student). AA and united did EDI and GLA and I think AA even served NCL for a while with the 757.

So they tried with an aircraft that was superficially similar but had a different fuel/payload dynamic.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Because as you quite rightly say it was different standards. With higher specific fuel burns (UL/D/TSFC) each unit of range gained for each unit of payload removed was lower and so the equation was different. Todays aircraft have lower detriment to being abused at the top end of their range then yesterdays, tomorrows will have even less. This is quite a pertinent point as its the real reason why a dedicated MOM will likely never exist, the gap is shrinking. Where once a a 737 and the 757 and the 767 and the 777 and the 747 existed the new result is that the 737 will cover the old 737-757 space the 787 will cover the 767-777 space and the 777X will cover the old 777+space.

Fred

Good points, however it just seems weird that with Blended wingtips and extra fuel tanks 757's could have been used to try some of these routes out and never were to any large extent, even between 2015 and 2020 when fuel costs were low. As I have said before I can definitely see a few hundred frames used for new point to point but beyond that how many routes actually exist where this capability could be utilized?

With air travel resuming and presumably growth we will soon be back in a position where slots become a big problem again. For example AC can send XLR's from YYZ to many secondary cities - but will they have the slots for them for what they have on order or if they wanted to expand the XLR fleet significantly?

They did try it, kind of. As mentioned above, the required fuel in aux tanks was not worth it as you’d have to drop more pax per mile gained. Plus there was no container based aux tank so no drop in solution I doubt. I think the winglets gave the 4knm spec range up from 3800 without rather than on top. So the same actions taken on a 757 as the A321neo would not result in the same outcomes. Could they have tried it yes (and they sort of did) but that doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. If I put an extra 40litre tank on my Kia I’ll go about 600miles, if I put a 40 litre tank on my iveco I’ll get about 100miles.

I know CO served BRS (highlight of my spotting trips as a student). AA and united did EDI and GLA and I think AA even served NCL for a while with the 757.

So they tried with an aircraft that was superficially similar but had a different fuel/payload dynamic.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it will work this time. It can't hurt to try, assuming they have enough slots - and as many of us forget the other pressing constraint - enough pilots.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Good points, however it just seems weird that with Blended wingtips and extra fuel tanks 757's could have been used to try some of these routes out and never were to any large extent, even between 2015 and 2020 when fuel costs were low. As I have said before I can definitely see a few hundred frames used for new point to point but beyond that how many routes actually exist where this capability could be utilized?

With air travel resuming and presumably growth we will soon be back in a position where slots become a big problem again. For example AC can send XLR's from YYZ to many secondary cities - but will they have the slots for them for what they have on order or if they wanted to expand the XLR fleet significantly?

They did try it, kind of. As mentioned above, the required fuel in aux tanks was not worth it as you’d have to drop more pax per mile gained. Plus there was no container based aux tank so no drop in solution I doubt. I think the winglets gave the 4knm spec range up from 3800 without rather than on top. So the same actions taken on a 757 as the A321neo would not result in the same outcomes. Could they have tried it yes (and they sort of did) but that doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. If I put an extra 40litre tank on my Kia I’ll go about 600miles, if I put a 40 litre tank on my iveco I’ll get about 100miles.

I know CO served BRS (highlight of my spotting trips as a student). AA and united did EDI and GLA and I think AA even served NCL for a while with the 757.

So they tried with an aircraft that was superficially similar but had a different fuel/payload dynamic.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it will work this time. It can't hurt to try, assuming they have enough slots - and as many of us forget the other pressing constraint - enough pilots.

Can we all just get in a circle, hold hands, and repeat ad infinitum, "There is no pilot shortage at major airlines?"

keesje wrote:

Many seem to doubt the need for a NMA. I think there is. The 3000 A300/310/757/767s weren't given away and aviation quadrupled since then.

I think the biggest need / requirement for a middle of the market aircraft comes from the airlines. They are now flying around thousands of 6000-8000NM, 250-400 seat capable aircraft weighing 120-150t empty. For flights requiring 200-300 seats for most <4500NM flights. To fill up these capable WB aircraft, cheap tickets, package deals and freight are sold at low margins, to spread out the high costs.


Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-flights-by-length_fig1_267304989

An aircraft optimized for 200-300 people up to 4000NM, would weigh empty ~80-100t (ref. 767 - A300). Being able to reduce environmental footprint by operating more direct flights without dragging along 20t-40t dead weight of over specified, over flexible platforms, would massively reduce fossil fuel consumption and environmental footprint (20-25%?) for many operators.

Looking at that graph and trying to adjust for seat miles, I would roughly say:
<500nm, 20%
500nm to 3,000nm, 50%
3,000nm to 5,000nm, 20%
>5,000nm, 10%
So it's either try to beat the 787/A350 in the midrange 3K to 5K, build a better mousetrap for .5K to 3K, or maybe a new short range aircraft? I'm surprised at the number of flights and seats less than 500nm.

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

They did try it, kind of. As mentioned above, the required fuel in aux tanks was not worth it as you’d have to drop more pax per mile gained. Plus there was no container based aux tank so no drop in solution I doubt. I think the winglets gave the 4knm spec range up from 3800 without rather than on top. So the same actions taken on a 757 as the A321neo would not result in the same outcomes. Could they have tried it yes (and they sort of did) but that doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. If I put an extra 40litre tank on my Kia I’ll go about 600miles, if I put a 40 litre tank on my iveco I’ll get about 100miles.

I know CO served BRS (highlight of my spotting trips as a student). AA and united did EDI and GLA and I think AA even served NCL for a while with the 757.

So they tried with an aircraft that was superficially similar but had a different fuel/payload dynamic.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe it will work this time. It can't hurt to try, assuming they have enough slots - and as many of us forget the other pressing constraint - enough pilots.

Can we all just get in a circle, hold hands, and repeat ad infinitum, "There is no pilot shortage at major airlines?"

And hope it goes away?

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

seahawk wrote:

So down to semantics again? First you argue that airlines would fly A330NEO on the routes they plan on using A321XLRs or LRs which clearly is a about fleet planing and then you come up with individual load factors of single flight. So to make it more easy for you:

Given normal yields, no airline will plan to schedule an aircraft on a route, if it seems likely that they won´t exceed a 60% load factor on average.



Considering there is no A320LR for airline use, it is unlikely that range was ever a reason to choose an A320NEO over and A321LR.

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

You beat me to it. This is a weird convo unless we’re talking about an airline that actually ordered the XLR, and even then we can only hypothesize that they “would” have ordered the 330 as opposed to another aircraft or nothing.

tlecam wrote:

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Of course not. But there aren't that many routes in the world that require exactly that capacity, that won't soon grow into big enough for a WB, and you are ignoring my main point - if the A321XLR did not exist - A330NEO would have a lot better backlog (probably).

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

You beat me to it. This is a weird convo unless we’re talking about an airline that actually ordered the XLR, and even then we can only hypothesize that they “would” have ordered the 330 as opposed to another aircraft or nothing.

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

morrisond wrote:

tlecam wrote:

scbriml wrote:

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

You beat me to it. This is a weird convo unless we’re talking about an airline that actually ordered the XLR, and even then we can only hypothesize that they “would” have ordered the 330 as opposed to another aircraft or nothing.

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

Phew!, Thank god BAs 78Xs are saved from that.

Fred

morrisond wrote:

tlecam wrote:

scbriml wrote:

In your opinion, which A321XLR customers realistically might have bought A330neos instead?

You beat me to it. This is a weird convo unless we’re talking about an airline that actually ordered the XLR, and even then we can only hypothesize that they “would” have ordered the 330 as opposed to another aircraft or nothing.

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

How many 330NEOs did DL not order because JetBlue is flying to LHR?

tlecam wrote:

morrisond wrote:

tlecam wrote:

You beat me to it. This is a weird convo unless we’re talking about an airline that actually ordered the XLR, and even then we can only hypothesize that they “would” have ordered the 330 as opposed to another aircraft or nothing.

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

How many 330NEOs did DL not order because JetBlue is flying to LHR?

That's a strawman argument. Economically, there is substitution. Students learn that in microeconomics 101. Just because JetBlue is small relative to DL's Atlantic JV doesn't mean there's no effect. Imagine WIZZ, Ryanair, EasyJet, Spirit and others joined.

xl0hr wrote:

tlecam wrote:

morrisond wrote:

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

How many 330NEOs did DL not order because JetBlue is flying to LHR?

That's a strawman argument. Economically, there is substitution. Students learn that in microeconomics 101. Just because JetBlue is small relative to DL's Atlantic JV doesn't mean there's no effect. Imagine WIZZ, Ryanair, EasyJet, Spirit and others joined.

This is the point at which speculation marketing and economic theory meets objective reality.

Neither of you are wrong here.

In theory the A321XLR could be eating eating into the A330neos market resulting in it not getting orders.

However in a real world case like the Heathrow example it most likely hasn't had any effect on Delta's fleet planning.

It's a bit like the 787 hub and spoke/p2p arguments.


Back to MOM talk. It's interesting that you bring up EasyJet and Wizz etc. Most of the MOM talk other the years has been centered around Delta and United and a 757 replacement. But what about the potential for airlines that never had those. (I know Easyjet briefly had 757s)

Right now FR and Wizz etc all operate a single fleet type.
Thats a key part of their business plan, however they like many fscs are upgauging to larger aircraft.

Demand is still growing, sooner or later they'd require an aircraft larger than an A321/737?

Of course they could and another frequency, however airport constraints apply to them aswell and that may not always be a viable option.

Not saying that FR are going to upgauge to Dreamliners that's far too much for them.

But they'll need something bigger like a 762 but optimised for low costs.

It wouldn't be something that they'd be looking to purchase now. But when the 737 and A320s need to be replaced and if the NMA has the same type rating as their replacements. They could very well go for it.

There are also lcc airlines such as Pegasus. Unlike Ryanair and Easyjet they carry a lot of hold luggage and cargo.

It's a very tight squeeze getting that onboard so they'd be very interested in a wIdebody MOM.

A widebody doesn't have to have the same economics as a narrowbody. Thats just not how phsyics really works. The aircraft just needs to be viable within their business model.

xl0hr wrote:

tlecam wrote:

morrisond wrote:

As I replied above:

"The existence of the XLR on new point to point routes does not mean that 100% of those seats are creating new demand out of thin air. It will create some new demand, however the vast majority will be offset by reduced demand on trunk routes via a 1 or 2 stop.

One airline putting XLR's on TATL routes (such as JetBlue) could mean another (such as Delta) needs fewer 330NEO's for its TATL trunk routes. X number of passengers need to be moved - if the XLR did not exist that lift would have had to come from somebody."

How many 330NEOs did DL not order because JetBlue is flying to LHR?

That's a strawman argument. Economically, there is substitution. Students learn that in microeconomics 101. Just because JetBlue is small relative to DL's Atlantic JV doesn't mean there's no effect. Imagine WIZZ, Ryanair, EasyJet, Spirit and others joined.

That is assuming facts that aren’t present. Do try to keep up.

The statement up thread was made that the intro of the XLR impacted 330 NEO sales. The numbers of sales are posted as well.

The assertion is that the XLR is impacting the 330NEO sales.

Another poster and I made similar posts asking for specific examples.

An example that has been provided is the B6/DL example.

I asked for more information.

I don’t deny that XLR could impact 330NEO sales, although the existence of an airplane impacting the sales of a different airplane is broadly true as an economic principle, since we’re pedantically wading there. And since we’re also (incorrectly) wading into logical fallacies, it’s worth noting the logical fallacy of deductive reasoning in looking at sales numbers for the two planes and stating that the causation for the difference is the existence of the other. An inductive argument is considerably more logically sound and persuasive.

And the XLR could also impact sales of the 787,777 and A350. Considering that the A330NEO is the worst selling of the 4, it is highly unlikely that it would get all the deals if there would be no XLR.

In fact, I would even say, that the 777s, A350s and A380s used on routes within the XLRs envelope are the the types most at risk, when or if the traffic flow changes and more point-to-point connections are opened.

tlecam wrote:

xl0hr wrote:

tlecam wrote:

How many 330NEOs did DL not order because JetBlue is flying to LHR?

That's a strawman argument. Economically, there is substitution. Students learn that in microeconomics 101. Just because JetBlue is small relative to DL's Atlantic JV doesn't mean there's no effect. Imagine WIZZ, Ryanair, EasyJet, Spirit and others joined.

That is assuming facts that aren’t present. Do try to keep up.

The statement up thread was made that the intro of the XLR impacted 330 NEO sales. The numbers of sales are posted as well.

The assertion is that the XLR is impacting the 330NEO sales.

Another poster and I made similar posts asking for specific examples.

An example that has been provided is the B6/DL example.

I asked for more information.

I don’t deny that XLR could impact 330NEO sales, although the existence of an airplane impacting the sales of a different airplane is broadly true as an economic principle, since we’re pedantically wading there. And since we’re also (incorrectly) wading into logical fallacies, it’s worth noting the logical fallacy of deductive reasoning in looking at sales numbers for the two planes and stating that the causation for the difference is the existence of the other. An inductive argument is considerably more logically sound and persuasive.

I am, thanks.

The strawman I see is you asking for specific examples. You don't observe the counterfactual (no XLR available). As you pointed out yourself, you will never be able to prove causality of A321XLR reducing sales of A330neo unless someone invents a statistical method that can identify causality with 2 goods, few time periods, and two huge macroeconomic shocks screwing up whole economies.

Last time I checked researchers in industrial organization couldn't.

But I'm happy that you "broadly" accept the concept.

(Side note: Even if DL announced they cancelled A339 in favor of A321XLR that would of course be cheap talk and no proof, wouldn't it? Hence, what proof are you asking for?)

keesje wrote:

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise). The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story.

source: Epson aviation

Why is the maximum payload of the XLR lower than the LR? I thought the point of the LR was that the weight of the new integrated tanks would be equal to the weights of the ACTs on the LR?

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

keesje wrote:

The realistic option is that the route would simply not be served or the demand can be met through a one-stop connection (with a partner airline if necessary)

Exactly my point - there aren't that many viable routes even for an XLR. It's just further proving that the market really isn't that huge.

Also where were all the routes that 757's were flying with 130-140 passengers and auxiliary tanks at 4,000NM or above?

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise). The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story.

source: Epson aviation

Why is the maximum payload of the XLR lower than the LR? I thought the point of the LR was that the weight of the new integrated tanks would be equal to the weights of the ACTs on the LR?

Fred

Keesje - if you end up redrawing that graph - you might as well stick in an 752 with wingtips and extra tanks as well. Bring payload down to 21T - same as XLR.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

keesje wrote:

Well, UA, AA, Jet Blue, Air Canada, Air Transat, Iberia are in the growing orderbook for a reason.
-> It can comfortably do new, existing, opportunistic and threatened city pairs across the Atlantic like no other aircraft.

Don't know who brouht up 130-140 seats, most flights will be 170-180 seats, 3000-4000NM, a few rows less than a 757. But further & at lower cost, more reliably, comfortably (seat width, noise). The 757 lacked the range against winter winds, forcing diversions, giving it a bad name Trans Atlantic to mainland Europe https://www.seattletimes.com/business/w ... om-europe/

The payload range graph tells the story.

source: Epson aviation

Why is the maximum payload of the XLR lower than the LR? I thought the point of the LR was that the weight of the new integrated tanks would be equal to the weights of the ACTs on the LR?

Fred

Keesje - if you end up redrawing that graph - you might as well stick in an 752 with wingtips and extra tanks as well. Bring payload down to 21T - same as XLR.

From digging around I see that the XLR has the same MZFW as the A321NEO with an additional 700kg in OWE. made up of about 55kg of the tank weight (same as an ACT) and ~150kg of additional strengthening. I might have a go at making the charts myself later, I hadn't realised they were epsilons charts...

Fred

After years of reading hundreds of MOM posts, I'm convinced that the market will be chipped at from below (by Airbus) and nothing else is going to happen in the MOM space. But it creates good long threads on a.net!

Chemist wrote:

But it creates long threads on a.net!

Fixed that for you!

Chemist wrote:

scbriml wrote:

[code][/code]But it creates long threads on a.net!

Fixed that for you!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chemist wrote:

After years of reading hundreds of MOM posts, I'm convinced that the market will be chipped at from below (by Airbus) and nothing else is going to happen in the MOM space. But it creates good long threads on a.net!

That is very funny! You might have noticed the regular threads on small widebodies too, such as a 2-2-2 cross section.

I feel Boeing has been poorly advised by a few people who work for airlines. Yes, that can happen and I heard that they pumped up the wide-body MoM.

Some day they might look seriously into a 737 replacement. The MoM might come into play in a family concept:
Airplane 1: 5-abreast
Airplane 2: 6-abreast focused on US domestic market
Airplane 3: 6-abreast with range XLR + 500nm (MoM).

FluidFlow wrote:

[

Because the 757 is a heavy gas guzzler.

Give the 321XLR the power and wing area increases it would need to match the 752's takeoff and climb performance and then we'll see how much of a "heavy gas guzzler" the 757 actually is.

744SPX wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

[

Because the 757 is a heavy gas guzzler.

Give the 321XLR the power and wing area increases it would need to match the 752's takeoff and climb performance and then we'll see how much of a "heavy gas guzzler" the 757 actually is.

Why would anyone want to do that?

Unlike 757 fans, airlines care next to nothing about takeoff and climb performance but care a great deal about total operating costs. Compared to A321neo & XLR, the 757 is a heavy, gas guzzler. Which is why only a few 757s are left flying passengers.

incitatus wrote:

Chemist wrote:

After years of reading hundreds of MOM posts, I'm convinced that the market will be chipped at from below (by Airbus) and nothing else is going to happen in the MOM space. But it creates good long threads on a.net!

That is very funny! You might have noticed the regular threads on small widebodies too, such as a 2-2-2 cross section.

I feel Boeing has been poorly advised by a few people who work for airlines. Yes, that can happen and I heard that they pumped up the wide-body MoM.

Some day they might look seriously into a 737 replacement. The MoM might come into play in a family concept:
Airplane 1: 5-abreast
Airplane 2: 6-abreast focused on US domestic market
Airplane 3: 6-abreast with range XLR + 500nm (MoM).

Yes, but even if at one time they were somewhat serious about a MOM, that time has passed. Their opportunity has only shrunk given the A321 growth, and Boeing's other problems preclude such a risky endeavor as a dedicated MOM. As you say, the only MOM they may have is when the have a new family replacing the 737. And that won't be this decade - witness the just announced expansion of 737 production into Everett.

Probably the only thing that's going to push them out of the 737 is declining sales, or major new engine technology, or perhaps strut braced wing/etc. But given their recent history, it might be wait and react, late, once again, to something that Airbus does.

<duplicate>