Let us put all the Airbus and Boeing Middle of Market (MOM) aircraft discussion in one thread. The Middle of market is defined by the aircraft size range that sits between the A321 and 787-8.

Here is a list of discontinued MOM aircraft with the A321XLR and 787-8 added. The cabin area and maximum takeoff weights are provided within 1% accuracy.

A321XLR - 127m2 cabin - 101t MTOW
757-200 - 128m2 cabin - 115t MTOW
757-300 - 153m2 cabin - 123t MTOW
767-200ER - 160m2 cabin - 179t MTOW
A310-300 - 175m2 cabin - 164t MTOW
767-300ER - 190m2 cabin - 187t MTOW
A300-600R - 215m2 cabin - 171t MTOW
767-400ER - 221m2 cabin - 204t MTOW
787-8 - 232m2 cabin - 227t MTOW

I have summarised all of the MOM discussions over the last few years with forum links included

Airbus A322 - A simple stretch of the A321XLR.

Boeing 797 - A cleansheet small widebody current status appears to be paused. It went as far as putting out RFI for engines around the 48,000lb thrust range. The general opinion on here is that Boeing could not close the business case.

Lightweight 787-8 - The current 787-8 has increased commonality with the 787-9. The 787-8 is now using parts that are designed for the higher MTOW 787-9/10. Re-optimisation of parts for the 787-8 could see a significant empty weight reduction and a decent sales surge.

767NEO - The 767 is still in production as the KC-46 tanker and 767 freighter. New engines could be fitted to pass the 2027 ICAO emissions standard. The 767 freighter can not be sold after 2027.

Airbus cleansheet widebody - Looking beyond the A330NEO Airbus will have a big gap between the A350 and A321XLR. The A350 is much bigger than the 787 family. I think the next cleansheet design from Airbus will be a full carbon aircraft fractionally smaller than the 787 and A330NEO

Boeing cleansheet narrowbody - Recent rumours suggest Boeing has moved from the 797 small widebody to a potential large narrowbody.



Forum links

Cabin area data viewtopic.php?t=769733

MOM/797 discussion
viewtopic.php?t=1365309
viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Boeing examines GEnX powered 767
viewtopic.php?t=1432797

787 derivative for MOM
viewtopic.php?t=1471459

Airbus MoM / NMA / A310 replacement, 2025?
viewtopic.php?t=1361105

Boeing large narrowbody
Boeing manning up to Launch new aircraft? Leeham think so.
viewtopic.php?t=1473355

Thanks for the organization of all the NMA threads. There was a rumor of a 757-plus and 767X but I have no idea what that means. I do not want to interpret it incorrectly but the names were confusing. I doubt they are still under consideration though or ever will be.
viewtopic.php?t=1445405

For Boeing, it is deciding the right cross section as to width and for baggage capacity such that it can continue through the eventual replacement of the 737, but there would be 10-15 year overlap minimum. Would 20" seats 6ab be acceptable for a 9-10 hour flight, or another airline could do 18" seats with a wider aisle. Seat pitch would drop as the seat is wider. Something around 160 m2 cabin area, I've done many a 757-300 flight to HNL something like 12" wider than the 757 would move the long flight from painful to acceptable.

For Airbus, using the A350 hull form with a new wing in the A310 & A300-6 sizes. That would also be a sweet spot for freighters when the 767 ends production. But target a lower range to keep the weight down, something like 6,000 nm

It will be interesting to see which makes the first move.

Are there charts of route range x number of passengers (or payload) available? Is there a valley in this range v capacity. What ranges are needed to reach 2,000 lifetime orders for a model kind of questions?

IMHO, I don't think you will see Boeing advertising a new aircraft until at least 2028 or beyond. It is also my opinion that the MOM should be a narrowbody aircraft similar to the 757 with a similar range of a 757. I think having a widebody as MOM would be a big marketing mistake, especially when Boeing could upgrade the 787-8 or 787-9 as a "domestic" widebody...remember the 787-3?

I don't see an MoM in the immediate future. I don't think it will be efficient enough within the XLR's capabilities, but lacks the flexibility to do what the 787 does, and bear in mind these families are very well-established now. Maybe an A322, but with the A321 selling I don't think Airbus is too concerned.

Almost certainly will end up being a wide narrowbody, IE a 6-Abreast with wider aisle to allow people and carts to pass easily / assist with boarding without going full twin aisle. I am not sure on how the technical aspects stack up once you get to a twin aisle, but it would seem if you end up there, going for the A300/330/340 width at a minimum to be a no-brainer. Then again a composite A300/A310 type fuselage would allow standard cans as well as boast some pretty decent efficiency, but would still be much heavier than a composite wide narrowbody. I believe the incremental weight savings of composites decrease the smaller the plane so this will play into it as well. Either way, roll on 2030 by the time we even see a first flight. 7 more years of discussions

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Airbus, using the A350 hull form with a new wing in the A310 & A300-6 sizes. That would also be a sweet spot for freighters when the 767 ends production. But target a lower range to keep the weight down, something like 6,000 nm

The A350 cross section is far too big for this. People often forget the A350 is actually a 777 replacement. The height of the A350 fuselage is 45cm more than the A330 yet only 11cm less than the 777.

The A350-900 has more cabin area than the 777-200ER. The A350-900 is also longer, has greater wingspan and a heavier empty weight. The A350-1000 is not far off the 777-300ER.

For the A350 to hit the A310 capacity it would have to be the shortest and most stubby aircraft on the market. It would be massively inefficienct with the nose and tail tapers taking up so much of the length with a relatively short cabin. The A350 nose and tail tapers are around 15 metres. Only a 30metre cabin would be required for the A350 to reach A310 cabin area. The cabin is now only 66% of the aircraft length. The 787-10 by comparison the cabin is 80% of the aircraft length.

One metre of A350 cabin cross section might be light. However once you divide the weight of the nose and tail tapers over only 30 metres of cabin it would be the heaviest cabin cross section per metre.

wedgetail737 wrote:

It is also my opinion that the MOM should be a narrowbody aircraft similar to the 757 with a similar range of a 757. I think having a widebody as MOM would be a big marketing mistake, especially when Boeing could upgrade the 787-8 or 787-9 as a "domestic" widebody...remember the 787-3?

I agree.
A nice comfy 6ab cross section with two lengths giving 130m2 and 150m2 cabin area. A carbon wing with folding tips to stay within code C gates. The extra wingspan will allow A321XLR thrust class engines to support a 110t MTOW. This higher takeoff weight would give 10+% greater range and 10+% better fuel burn per seat compared to the A321XLR and proposed A322 stretch.

They could even fit slightly bigger fans to the Pratt GTF or LEAP engines for this new Boeing narrowbody. With thrust getting close to 40,000lb it could support a 120t MTOW quite easily.That would be 6,000nm range at the 130m2 cabin area size and 4,500nm range at the 150m2 cabin area size. I think a 6,000nm range narrowbody will be offered to capitalise on the point to point flying.

The A321XLR has a tiny wing relative to the 101t MTOW. The code C gate limit is really limiting efficiency.

The conundrum for Boeing is that the airplane business is boom and bust. Lately for Boeing more bust than boom. This does not sit well with the modern corporation capital markets. Boeing seems to have determined the minimum gross profits it needs to make from every new plane it brings out. I think most people were thinking the business case was as close as it gets in the mid '10s, but Boeing decided it was not close enough. Can the business case ever close on a MOM? The 321, itself a marginal plane (whoever on this site would want to end up in the last several rows?) has sold very well because people will sit in those back rows, and the plane has an OK range. The OP is right in that a MOM now will be closer to a 788 than a 737. I have often wondered if a 767 were reengined could it be lightened up? But that likely would be a ten year project.

RJMAZ wrote:

Let us put all the Airbus and Boeing Middle of Market (MOM) aircraft discussion in one thread. The Middle of market is defined by the aircraft size range that sits between the A321 and 787-8.

Here is a list of discontinued MOM aircraft with the A321XLR and 787-8 added. The cabin area and maximum takeoff weights are provided within 1% accuracy.

A321XLR - 127m2 cabin - 101t MTOW
757-200 - 128m2 cabin - 115t MTOW
757-300 - 153m2 cabin - 123t MTOW
767-200ER - 160m2 cabin - 179t MTOW
A310-300 - 175m2 cabin - 164t MTOW
767-300ER - 190m2 cabin - 187t MTOW
A300-600R - 215m2 cabin - 171t MTOW
767-400ER - 221m2 cabin - 204t MTOW
787-8 - 232m2 cabin - 227t MTOW

I have summarised all of the MOM discussions over the last few years with forum links included

Airbus A322 - A simple stretch of the A321XLR.

Boeing 797 - A cleansheet small widebody current status appears to be paused. It went as far as putting out RFI for engines around the 48,000lb thrust range. The general opinion on here is that Boeing could not close the business case.

Lightweight 787-8 - The current 787-8 has increased commonality with the 787-9. The 787-8 is now using parts that are designed for the higher MTOW 787-9/10. Re-optimisation of parts for the 787-8 could see a significant empty weight reduction and a decent sales surge.

767NEO - The 767 is still in production as the KC-46 tanker and 767 freighter. New engines could be fitted to pass the 2027 ICAO emissions standard. The 767 freighter can not be sold after 2027.

Airbus cleansheet widebody - Looking beyond the A330NEO Airbus will have a big gap between the A350 and A321XLR. The A350 is much bigger than the 787 family. I think the next cleansheet design from Airbus will be a full carbon aircraft fractionally smaller than the 787 and A330NEO

Boeing cleansheet narrowbody - Recent rumours suggest Boeing has moved from the 797 small widebody to a potential large narrowbody.



Forum links

Cabin area data viewtopic.php?t=769733

MOM/797 discussion
viewtopic.php?t=1365309
viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Boeing examines GEnX powered 767
viewtopic.php?t=1432797

787 derivative for MOM
viewtopic.php?t=1471459

Airbus MoM / NMA / A310 replacement, 2025?
viewtopic.php?t=1361105

Boeing large narrowbody
Boeing manning up to Launch new aircraft? Leeham think so.
viewtopic.php?t=1473355

I'd also argue that if you're to include the 787-8 then the A332 and the A338 cannot be ruled out either. The latter two come with Weight Variants as low as 200tons to 220tons as well that can be optioned by the customer.

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Airbus, using the A350 hull form with a new wing in the A310 & A300-6 sizes. That would also be a sweet spot for freighters when the 767 ends production. But target a lower range to keep the weight down, something like 6,000 nm

The A350 cross section is far too big for this. People often forget the A350 is actually a 777 replacement. The height of the A350 fuselage is 45cm more than the A330 yet only 11cm less than the 777.

The A350-900 has more cabin area than the 777-200ER. The A350-900 is also longer, has greater wingspan and a heavier empty weight. The A350-1000 is not far off the 777-300ER.

For the A350 to hit the A310 capacity it would have to be the shortest and most stubby aircraft on the market. It would be massively inefficienct with the nose and tail tapers taking up so much of the length with a relatively short cabin. The A350 nose and tail tapers are around 15 metres. Only a 30metre cabin would be required for the A350 to reach A310 cabin area. The cabin is now only 66% of the aircraft length. The 787-10 by comparison the cabin is 80% of the aircraft length.

One metre of A350 cabin cross section might be light. However once you divide the weight of the nose and tail tapers over only 30 metres of cabin it would be the heaviest cabin cross section per metre.

wedgetail737 wrote:

It is also my opinion that the MOM should be a narrowbody aircraft similar to the 757 with a similar range of a 757. I think having a widebody as MOM would be a big marketing mistake, especially when Boeing could upgrade the 787-8 or 787-9 as a "domestic" widebody...remember the 787-3?

I agree.
A nice comfy 6ab cross section with two lengths giving 130m2 and 150m2 cabin area. A carbon wing with folding tips to stay within code C gates. The extra wingspan will allow A321XLR thrust class engines to support a 110t MTOW. This higher takeoff weight would give 10+% greater range and 10+% better fuel burn per seat compared to the A321XLR and proposed A322 stretch.

They could even fit slightly bigger fans to the Pratt GTF or LEAP engines for this new Boeing narrowbody. With thrust getting close to 40,000lb it could support a 120t MTOW quite easily.That would be 6,000nm range at the 130m2 cabin area size and 4,500nm range at the 150m2 cabin area size. I think a 6,000nm range narrowbody will be offered to capitalise on the point to point flying.

The A321XLR has a tiny wing relative to the 101t MTOW. The code C gate limit is really limiting efficiency.

On the A350, there is no requirement that it be 175m2. 210-250m2 would be absolutely fine. Somewhere around 58-60M in length. Wing folding down to 52M to fit in existing MOM gates. 787 existing and future engines.

Given that the OEW weight of an 63.6M long, 64M wingspan A330-900NEO with 7,200NM range, is within 1-2% of an 66.8M long, 65M wingspan 8,300NM range A350-900 with presumably much much heavier engines - one can surmise that per meter an A350 fuselage is lighter than an A330.

With an appropriately sized wing/gear/engines it could make a great MOM for Airbus combined with the rewing of A321 (127m2) and a stretch A322 (150m2). Given the 788/789 sales success - Airbus is missing part of the Market by effectively making A350-900 its smallest wide body (as I assume A330 will probably be gone by 2030).

In this shorter range A350-800 you could easily see it being 10W in Y. CASM would be excellent and you could pack quite a few people into an 210-250m2 cabin. It would make a very efficient multi class TATL flyer, as it would be quite light per seat.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Are there charts of route range x number of passengers (or payload) available? Is there a valley in this range v capacity. What ranges are needed to reach 2,000 lifetime orders for a model kind of questions?

Pretty clearly there needs to be a discussion of range or one would be including MAX 10s in this list, too.

I'm not so sure about wide aisle. Carriers haven't seemed enthusiastic about carrying around non-monetized floor space. Saving five minutes in boarding doesn't matter much in the context of nine hour flights, either.

IMHO, if Boeing could have pulled enough weight off a 787-8 to make it particularly efficient in 4000-5000nm flights, they would have done it by now.

77west wrote:

Almost certainly will end up being a wide narrowbody, IE a 6-Abreast with wider aisle to allow people and carts to pass easily / assist with boarding without going full twin aisle.

No one will ever build a 6 abreast twin aisle for the same reason no one will ever build a 4 engined 300-seat aircraft: No airline would ever buy it.
I'm not sure that there is enough demand globally, for a standalone MOM. That is a segment that only U.S. carriers seem to be interested in and I don't see either A or B investing that many resources for such a small gain. The more likely scenario IMO, is for Airbus to continue to improve on the A321 platform (perhaps with an A322 stretch and improved wing?), and for Boeing to launch an all new narrowbody family that will include a model larger and more capable than today's Max10.

I start with the premise that the larger of two aircraft with equal efficiencies will always sell less well than the smaller. That has historically always been the case.

A or B launches a MOM in the next few years. A few years later B will be needing a replacement for the 737 and A will either be upgrading the A320 or replacing it. These aircraft will be a bit bigger and more capable than the aircraft they're replacing and will be very close to the MOM in capability and almost certainly ahead of it in technology. Given the volume they're made in, they will almost certainly be cheaper to purchase, maintain and crew.

I can't see a MOM being competitive in this environment.

I can't see a MOM being created by shrinking a wide body - that never works as there's too much weight to loose. I can't see a clean sheet MOM being worth the investment because it will be uncompetitive with tomorrows narrow bodies. I can only see a narrow body derivative filling this gap. Currently it's the XLR.

I would argue that rather than developing a pure MoM, it would make a lot more sense for Boeing to focus on a clean sheet replacement for the 737. The trend is for larger and larger aircraft across the board, there's limited value in pursuing anything under the Max 8 size range anyhow. Base model 180 seat composite narrowbody, minimally wide to accommodate a standard 6 abreast cabin. Light, relatively cheap, efficient. It doesn't need 6000nm, that would rapidly enter law of diminishing returns territory. Give it 5000nm and you can still fly the majority of routes currently in existence yet it won't suffer on shorter legs which will still likely make up the bulk of the sales. Stretch model for 220, 4000-4500nm.

Between both models, possibilities are extensive. TATL, Hawaii, transcon MIA/IAH- South America, Europe-middle east and pretty well any P2P in Asia. I don't see much need for much smaller moving forward, airports can only build so many terminals and good luck finding staff to run the planes and operations. A220 has the bottom end of the market covered well, to compete with it means sacrificing way too much on the top end, and much more than 220 seats and you are looking at a 787. To me, 180-220 pax for 8 hours is the middle of the market.

RJMAZ wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

For Airbus, using the A350 hull form with a new wing in the A310 & A300-6 sizes. That would also be a sweet spot for freighters when the 767 ends production. But target a lower range to keep the weight down, something like 6,000 nm

The A350 cross section is far too big for this. People often forget the A350 is actually a 777 replacement. The height of the A350 fuselage is 45cm more than the A330 yet only 11cm less than the 777.

wedgetail737 wrote:

It is also my opinion that the MOM should be a narrowbody aircraft similar to the 757 with a similar range of a 757. I think having a widebody as MOM would be a big marketing mistake, especially when Boeing could upgrade the 787-8 or 787-9 as a "domestic" widebody...remember the 787-3?

I agree.
A nice comfy 6ab cross section with two lengths giving 130m2 and 150m2 cabin area. A carbon wing with folding tips to stay within code C gates. The extra wingspan will allow A321XLR thrust class engines to support a 110t MTOW. This higher takeoff weight would give 10+% greater range and 10+% better fuel burn per seat compared to the A321XLR and proposed A322 stretch.
The A321XLR has a tiny wing relative to the 101t MTOW. The code C gate limit is really limiting efficiency.

For Airbus I should have said to take the A350 hull construction sized down to 8ab like the A306, A310, and A330. It is possible that Aluminum of the current A330 is still a good choice. That appears to be a better choice (doing a modern A305/A310) for Airbus as the 787 has dominance at the top of the MOM market. The A321 has dominance at the lower end, doing an A322 would mostly steal sales from the A321.

RJMAZ is right a 9ab in the 160m2 range would be horribly stubby. It is still stubby at 8ab.

Personally, I think the 787 and A350 fuselages are too wide for MOM, but I think it still needs to be a twin aisle aircraft. A couple years ago, Boeing said they were looking at the 230-270 seat capacity for MOM. I don’t know what sort of seating layout they were proposing for that seat count, but my assumption is we would be looking at a sort of 767-250 and 767-350 sized aircraft. That, to me, is where MOM needs to be.

I liked the oval 2-3-2 with LD3-45 version of MOM that was talked about a while ago, and I believe that is the best approach. I could also see a more traditional 2-3-2 with LD2s or 2-4-2 with LD3s being a viable option.

A 767x isn’t going to happen, IMO. Neither is a 3-3 with extra wide aisle.

Isn't Airbus developing a new wing for the A320 family? If so, the A322 would definitely become a thing, maybe even a 753-sized A323 with TATL range too, if it's not limited by landing gear height.

I still think Boeing could get away with a 767X with GEnX-2Bs slung underneath. It would most be based on the 764, but I'd love to see the whole family get the treatment.

flyinggoat wrote:

Personally, I think the 787 and A350 fuselages are too wide for MOM, but I think it still needs to be a twin aisle aircraft. A couple years ago, Boeing said they were looking at the 230-270 seat capacity for MOM. I don’t know what sort of seating layout they were proposing for that seat count, but my assumption is we would be looking at a sort of 767-250 and 767-350 sized aircraft. That, to me, is where MOM needs to be.

I liked the oval 2-3-2 with LD3-45 version of MOM that was talked about a while ago, and I believe that is the best approach. I could also see a more traditional 2-3-2 with LD2s or 2-4-2 with LD3s being a viable option.

A 767x isn’t going to happen, IMO. Neither is a 3-3 with extra wide aisle.

Personally I doubt we will ever see an 350 or 787 based MOM - however they make a lot more sense than a custom sized fuselage for MOM. Economies of scale would help both programs and development costs would be a lot less. The wide fuselage is not that big of a penalty.

Personally I think Airbus covers it with a 321/322 Rewing and Boeing will cover it off with a larger wing/heavier version of whatever they do to replace 737 Max.

I think the Boeing solution will be based on the TBW and while I hope for a tight light 2-3-2 (and BTW basically no more wasted space than a wide 3x3) with a taller LD3-45 - it will probably be a 3x3 no wider than A320 with LD3-45.

morrisond wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

Personally, I think the 787 and A350 fuselages are too wide for MOM, but I think it still needs to be a twin aisle aircraft. A couple years ago, Boeing said they were looking at the 230-270 seat capacity for MOM. I don’t know what sort of seating layout they were proposing for that seat count, but my assumption is we would be looking at a sort of 767-250 and 767-350 sized aircraft. That, to me, is where MOM needs to be.

I liked the oval 2-3-2 with LD3-45 version of MOM that was talked about a while ago, and I believe that is the best approach. I could also see a more traditional 2-3-2 with LD2s or 2-4-2 with LD3s being a viable option.

A 767x isn’t going to happen, IMO. Neither is a 3-3 with extra wide aisle.

Personally I doubt we will ever see an 350 or 787 based MOM - however they make a lot more sense than a custom sized fuselage for MOM. Economies of scale would help both programs and development costs would be a lot less. The wide fuselage is not that big of a penalty.

Personally I think Airbus covers it with a 321/322 Rewing and Boeing will cover it off with a larger wing/heavier version of whatever they do to replace 737 Max.

I think the Boeing solution will be based on the TBW and while I hope for a tight light 2-3-2 (and BTW basically no more wasted space than a wide 3x3) with a taller LD3-45 - it will probably be a 3x3 no wider than A320 with LD3-45.

What about something marginally wider than an A320, not quite a "twin aisle" narrowbody, but something that would, on longer routes, allow the same seating width etc as on an A350 or 787. For both OEM's a narrowbody seems the way to go, A already has a good fuselage in the A320 series, B needs a new narrowbody anyway, makes sense to share the fuselage.

77west wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

Personally, I think the 787 and A350 fuselages are too wide for MOM, but I think it still needs to be a twin aisle aircraft. A couple years ago, Boeing said they were looking at the 230-270 seat capacity for MOM. I don’t know what sort of seating layout they were proposing for that seat count, but my assumption is we would be looking at a sort of 767-250 and 767-350 sized aircraft. That, to me, is where MOM needs to be.

I liked the oval 2-3-2 with LD3-45 version of MOM that was talked about a while ago, and I believe that is the best approach. I could also see a more traditional 2-3-2 with LD2s or 2-4-2 with LD3s being a viable option.

A 767x isn’t going to happen, IMO. Neither is a 3-3 with extra wide aisle.

Personally I doubt we will ever see an 350 or 787 based MOM - however they make a lot more sense than a custom sized fuselage for MOM. Economies of scale would help both programs and development costs would be a lot less. The wide fuselage is not that big of a penalty.

Personally I think Airbus covers it with a 321/322 Rewing and Boeing will cover it off with a larger wing/heavier version of whatever they do to replace 737 Max.

I think the Boeing solution will be based on the TBW and while I hope for a tight light 2-3-2 (and BTW basically no more wasted space than a wide 3x3) with a taller LD3-45 - it will probably be a 3x3 no wider than A320 with LD3-45.

What about something marginally wider than an A320, not quite a "twin aisle" narrowbody, but something that would, on longer routes, allow the same seating width etc as on an A350 or 787. For both OEM's a narrowbody seems the way to go, A already has a good fuselage in the A320 series, B needs a new narrowbody anyway, makes sense to share the fuselage.

If you make it much wider than an A320 then tight 2 aisles become possible in the back with 737 Seating in 2-3-2 Y and then you can make a really nice 2x2x2 Y+, Y+ seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

Remember that for the same capacity by adding one more seat in width means the length of the fuselage and corresponding aisles are shorter. I've done the math multiple times and if I'm remembering correctly once you get over about 24" then two 17-18" aisles aren't materially different in floor space.

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Personally I doubt we will ever see an 350 or 787 based MOM - however they make a lot more sense than a custom sized fuselage for MOM. Economies of scale would help both programs and development costs would be a lot less. The wide fuselage is not that big of a penalty.

Personally I think Airbus covers it with a 321/322 Rewing and Boeing will cover it off with a larger wing/heavier version of whatever they do to replace 737 Max.

I think the Boeing solution will be based on the TBW and while I hope for a tight light 2-3-2 (and BTW basically no more wasted space than a wide 3x3) with a taller LD3-45 - it will probably be a 3x3 no wider than A320 with LD3-45.

What about something marginally wider than an A320, not quite a "twin aisle" narrowbody, but something that would, on longer routes, allow the same seating width etc as on an A350 or 787. For both OEM's a narrowbody seems the way to go, A already has a good fuselage in the A320 series, B needs a new narrowbody anyway, makes sense to share the fuselage.

If you make it much wider than an A320 then tight 2 aisles become possible in the back with 737 Seating in 2-3-2 Y and then you can make a really nice 2x2x2 Y+, Y+ seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The 321, itself a marginal plane (whoever on this site would want to end up in the last several rows?)

I have flown on plenty of A321s. What is so bad about the last several rows compared to the last several rows of any other narrowbodied plane?

77west wrote:

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

What about something marginally wider than an A320, not quite a "twin aisle" narrowbody, but something that would, on longer routes, allow the same seating width etc as on an A350 or 787. For both OEM's a narrowbody seems the way to go, A already has a good fuselage in the A320 series, B needs a new narrowbody anyway, makes sense to share the fuselage.

If you make it much wider than an A320 then tight 2 aisles become possible in the back with 737 Seating in 2-3-2 Y and then you can make a really nice 2x2x2 Y+, Y+ seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

I did a lot of this math in the past. If I remember correctly you can probably get away with something like 175"ish internal - 184" External for 2-3-2 17.3" seats.

3-3 in the back with a fuselage sized for 2x2x2 premium would be a pretty wide aisle... Better to go with 2-3-2 in Y then its pretty easy to get 20" 2x2x2 in Y+.

It should also then allow really nice 2x1x2 Domestic Business up front (or just stick with 2x2x2) or 1x1x1 sleepers or 1x1 Sleepers that are turned a lot more than in an 737 or A320 meaning more per meter of fuselage length.

SurlyBonds wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The 321, itself a marginal plane (whoever on this site would want to end up in the last several rows?)

I have flown on plenty of A321s. What is so bad about the last several rows compared to the last several rows of any other narrowbodied plane?

Most likely the amount of time to get off after landing if they are only using the front door. Also boarding to an extent. Here in NZ they often use both front and back making life a lot less tedious.

I believe the 757-300 is particularly bad from a boarding/deboarding point of view if only using the front door. This will always be an issue on any single-aisle longer than the 738/752/A320.

Could be mitigated to an extent by having a wider aisle allowing 2 people to make there way along at the same time. But then as posted above, you may as well go tight 2-3-2

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

morrisond wrote:

If you make it much wider than an A320 then tight 2 aisles become possible in the back with 737 Seating in 2-3-2 Y and then you can make a really nice 2x2x2 Y+, Y+ seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

I did a lot of this math in the past. If I remember correctly you can probably get away with something like 175"ish internal - 184" External for 2-3-2 17.3" seats.

3-3 in the back with a fuselage sized for 2x2x2 premium would be a pretty wide aisle... Better to go with 2-3-2 in Y then its pretty easy to get 20" 2x2x2 in Y+.

It should also then allow really nice 2x1x2 Domestic Business up front (or just stick with 2x2x2) or 1x1x1 sleepers or 1x1 Sleepers that are turned a lot more than in an 737 or A320 meaning more per meter of fuselage length.

Interesting. I guess the question here would be, for Airbus, if a new cabin cross section is worth it, and for Boeing, whether a tight 2-3-2 could cover the entire NMA-MOM market. It might be a bit too stubby and carry too much weight at the lower end. Every time I think about it I circle back to probably just a standard 3-3, Airbus will just keep the current fuse and Boeing will come along with something about the same or an inch or so wider (even if only internal). The bigger question will be: Will Boeing go for 2 different wing designs, one to cover the lower end and a beefier one to cover the MoM segment. And then will Aribus do the same given the rumours of a new A320 wing down the line.

I think that if it is to be a clean sheet design, an all carbon aircraft would have significant advantage in that a widebody can be built without increasing the weight of existing narrowbodies of similar capacity. For Boeing, it should take a look at the 767-300 and perhaps base its new design on that concept. For Airbus, a carbon version of the A310-300 might be the starting point. As for engines, they should be in the region of 40-50K lbs thrust. As RR is the only engine manufacturer conducting R&D on a new engine (Ultrafan), they would probably be more ready to look into an engine for the MoM class aircraft.

I think that if an aircraft of this class is to enter service by the 2030s, some announcement should be made in the next 1 or 2 years.

SurlyBonds wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The 321, itself a marginal plane (whoever on this site would want to end up in the last several rows?)

I have flown on plenty of A321s. What is so bad about the last several rows compared to the last several rows of any other narrowbodied plane?

I would assume he's referring to it being a rougher ride that far behind the COG where aircraft movement is enhanced.

flee wrote:

I think that if it is to be a clean sheet design, an all carbon aircraft would have significant advantage in that a widebody can be built without increasing the weight of existing narrowbodies of similar capacity. For Boeing, it should take a look at the 767-300 and perhaps base its new design on that concept. For Airbus, a carbon version of the A310-300 might be the starting point. As for engines, they should be in the region of 40-50K lbs thrust. As RR is the only engine manufacturer conducting R&D on a new engine (Ultrafan), they would probably be more ready to look into an engine for the MoM class aircraft.

I think that if an aircraft of this class is to enter service by the 2030s, some announcement should be made in the next 1 or 2 years.

I'm sure RR will this time having dropped out of the original MOM contest.

But, the fact remains that MOM is a circle than cannot be squared and as the 737 will have no further models after the -10, the longer Boeing leave this decision the surer it will be a NB to replace the 8 and move up to A321XLR ceding the 737-7 market segment to Embraer and the A220.

For Airbus? My opinion says its going to be a WB A310 sized aircraft to attack the 787-8 and replace the short haul A330 market as they won't want to eat A321XLR. Then at some point they dust off the A322 wing and refresh the A320 line.

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

morrisond wrote:

If you make it much wider than an A320 then tight 2 aisles become possible in the back with 737 Seating in 2-3-2 Y and then you can make a really nice 2x2x2 Y+, Y+ seems to be gaining a lot of traction.

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

I did a lot of this math in the past. If I remember correctly you can probably get away with something like 175"ish internal - 184" External for 2-3-2 17.3" seats.

3-3 in the back with a fuselage sized for 2x2x2 premium would be a pretty wide aisle... Better to go with 2-3-2 in Y then its pretty easy to get 20" 2x2x2 in Y+.

It should also then allow really nice 2x1x2 Domestic Business up front (or just stick with 2x2x2) or 1x1x1 sleepers or 1x1 Sleepers that are turned a lot more than in an 737 or A320 meaning more per meter of fuselage length.

One giant math/physics issue:

Fuselage weight (per cross section) is proportional to D^2. Thus 184in diameter fuse, seating 17% more than B737-size fuse (~153in), weighs ~45% more.

Less troubling, but still bad, is fuselage parasite drag per Y seat is 3% more.

Given these fundamentals, you've built a plane that a competitor can probably trash some day with a 6ab layout.

...which is why a 757-300MAXest (new wing) isn't a bad design. Or a clean-sheet 6ab, depending on the math for development cost and performance differential.

Matt6461 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

I did a lot of this math in the past. If I remember correctly you can probably get away with something like 175"ish internal - 184" External for 2-3-2 17.3" seats.

3-3 in the back with a fuselage sized for 2x2x2 premium would be a pretty wide aisle... Better to go with 2-3-2 in Y then its pretty easy to get 20" 2x2x2 in Y+.

It should also then allow really nice 2x1x2 Domestic Business up front (or just stick with 2x2x2) or 1x1x1 sleepers or 1x1 Sleepers that are turned a lot more than in an 737 or A320 meaning more per meter of fuselage length.

One giant math/physics issue:

Fuselage weight (per cross section) is proportional to D^2. Thus 184in diameter fuse, seating 17% more than B737-size fuse (~153in), weighs ~45% more.

Less troubling, but still bad, is fuselage parasite drag per Y seat is 3% more.

Given these fundamentals, you've built a plane that a competitor can probably trash some day with a 6ab layout.

...which is why a 757-300MAXest (new wing) isn't a bad design. Or a clean-sheet 6ab, depending on the math for development cost and performance differential.

The MoM really is a difficult segment which is what makes it quite interesting. I am tending to agree that as much as we all would like something out of the ordinary; physics dictates its probably going to be a 3-3 fuselage shared between the next gen 180+ market with both big OEM's leaving anything below that to Emb or the A220.

Don' stretch it too much. The lesson of the successful 757/767 twin program might be to better do two siblings with different layouts perfectly tailored for their market segments? There is a lot of room and market between the 737-10 and the 787.

RJMAZ wrote:

Let us put all the Airbus and Boeing Middle of Market (MOM) aircraft discussion in one thread. The Middle of market is defined by the aircraft size range that sits between the A321 and 787-8.

Here is a list of discontinued MOM aircraft with the A321XLR and 787-8 added. The cabin area and maximum takeoff weights are provided within 1% accuracy.

A321XLR - 127m2 cabin - 101t MTOW
757-200 - 128m2 cabin - 115t MTOW
757-300 - 153m2 cabin - 123t MTOW
767-200ER - 160m2 cabin - 179t MTOW
A310-300 - 175m2 cabin - 164t MTOW
767-300ER - 190m2 cabin - 187t MTOW
A300-600R - 215m2 cabin - 171t MTOW
767-400ER - 221m2 cabin - 204t MTOW
787-8 - 232m2 cabin - 227t MTOW

I have summarised all of the MOM discussions over the last few years with forum links included

Airbus A322 - A simple stretch of the A321XLR.

Boeing 797 - A cleansheet small widebody current status appears to be paused. It went as far as putting out RFI for engines around the 48,000lb thrust range. The general opinion on here is that Boeing could not close the business case.

Lightweight 787-8 - The current 787-8 has increased commonality with the 787-9. The 787-8 is now using parts that are designed for the higher MTOW 787-9/10. Re-optimisation of parts for the 787-8 could see a significant empty weight reduction and a decent sales surge.

767NEO - The 767 is still in production as the KC-46 tanker and 767 freighter. New engines could be fitted to pass the 2027 ICAO emissions standard. The 767 freighter can not be sold after 2027.

Airbus cleansheet widebody - Looking beyond the A330NEO Airbus will have a big gap between the A350 and A321XLR. The A350 is much bigger than the 787 family. I think the next cleansheet design from Airbus will be a full carbon aircraft fractionally smaller than the 787 and A330NEO

Boeing cleansheet narrowbody - Recent rumours suggest Boeing has moved from the 797 small widebody to a potential large narrowbody.



Forum links

Cabin area data viewtopic.php?t=769733

MOM/797 discussion
viewtopic.php?t=1365309
viewtopic.php?t=1440759

Boeing examines GEnX powered 767
viewtopic.php?t=1432797

787 derivative for MOM
viewtopic.php?t=1471459

Airbus MoM / NMA / A310 replacement, 2025?
viewtopic.php?t=1361105

Boeing large narrowbody
Boeing manning up to Launch new aircraft? Leeham think so.
viewtopic.php?t=1473355

Thanks, RJMAZ, for starting this tread and linking up previous treads in related topics. Good idea to keep all this in one tread going forward.

I also like to compare aircraft using square meters/feet of cabin space, instead of number of seats, since this (somewhat) eliminates any difference in cabin configuration. When comparing aircraft within the same family or close competing aircraft families, cabin area is the best. I have checked your numbers with mine, and I have the same numbers as you do.

There are, though, three thing to keep in mind when comparing very different aircraft:

1) An extra aisle takes up a lot of cabin space. When comparing narrowbody and widebody aircraft this must be taken into consideration. For example: The 757-300 will, in practically any configuration, have more seats than the 767-200, even though the latter have overall a larger cabin area.

2) Smal widebody aircraft have, proportionally, a larger front cabin (ahead of the front doors) and rear cabin (aft of rear doors). These areas can't be used for seats.

3) Aircraft with several pairs of doors have less efficient use of cabin space. For example a 200 seat, 2-class, A321neo only needs two overwing exits enabled. With the same seats, at same pitch, a traditional A321 with four doors on each side might only have 180 seats.


The 767-200 have 26% (overall) more cabin area than the A321XLR. If we only look at the cabin area between front and rear doors (where seats can be placed), the A321XLR have a longer cabin. In an all economy configuration, where the 767 will have one more seat abreast, the A321XLR will have a few more rows. The point is that the difference in size is less than what the cabin area indicates, due to how that space can utilised.

The A310 have (overall) almost 10 % more cabin area than the 767-200. The cabin length on the A310, between front and rear doors, is more than 2 meters shorter than on the 767-200. Even though the A310 have one more seat abreast in Y-class, it won't in a comparable configuration have 10 % more seats.

The four pairs of large doors on the 787-8 reduces available cabin area of seats quite a bit. The 767 have several exit door configurations that better utilise cabin area.

The most efficient size of a large narrowbody and/or a smal widebody, is to maximise the distances between exits. The maximum aloud is 18 meters. Think front doors + 18 meters, overwing exits (or large overwing door) + 18 meters, and then rear doors.

Another thing is that I think the MOM/NMA gap also refers to range capabilities, not only aircraft size.

Matt6461 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

77west wrote:

So left field question - what about a dual aisle design, 2-2-2 for premium but 3-3 in the back with a wider aisle. What would the absolute minimum width be for 17.3" seats in a 2-3-2? I am thinking slightly narrower than the 767, as some operators managed to cram 2-4-2 into that plane. (Boeing shows 3-3-3 as an option on ACAPS, seems unlikely). The A320 is 143in internal, the B767 is 186in, that's only a 43in difference; take into account modern sculpted sidewalls etc and something around the 160-170in range could be interesting... (A330 family is 204in internal for comparison.)

I did a lot of this math in the past. If I remember correctly you can probably get away with something like 175"ish internal - 184" External for 2-3-2 17.3" seats.

3-3 in the back with a fuselage sized for 2x2x2 premium would be a pretty wide aisle... Better to go with 2-3-2 in Y then its pretty easy to get 20" 2x2x2 in Y+.

It should also then allow really nice 2x1x2 Domestic Business up front (or just stick with 2x2x2) or 1x1x1 sleepers or 1x1 Sleepers that are turned a lot more than in an 737 or A320 meaning more per meter of fuselage length.

One giant math/physics issue:

Fuselage weight (per cross section) is proportional to D^2. Thus 184in diameter fuse, seating 17% more than B737-size fuse (~153in), weighs ~45% more.

Less troubling, but still bad, is fuselage parasite drag per Y seat is 3% more.

Given these fundamentals, you've built a plane that a competitor can probably trash some day with a 6ab layout.

...which is why a 757-300MAXest (new wing) isn't a bad design. Or a clean-sheet 6ab, depending on the math for development cost and performance differential.

Who said that it has to be circular (Google "Ostrower's Child")? It also does not need to as long either. A short fat pencil is more structurally efficient than a long thin one, a shorter fuselage does not need to have the strength or stiffness that a long thin one would have - see A340-600, vs 777.

That being said - for Boeing I doubt they will get experimental with fuselage shape if they do a TBW. They are not going to build a new 757. At this point in time it will most likely be a downsized 787 using its tech and systems.

Non 3x3 fuselages would just be a lot more interesting as a fan of airplane design and a passenger. I hate 3x3 cabins.

Aircraft size will increase to a standard size of around 200 seats. These will be flown full or at 70% full rather than tailor aircraft size. I think a single aisle is a poor solution for a 200 seat aircraft. Twin aisle is the future, 2-2-2 or 2-3-2.

Noshow wrote:

Don' stretch it too much. The lesson of the successful 757/767 twin program might be to better do two siblings with different layouts perfectly tailored for their market segments? There is a lot of room and market between the 737-10 and the 787.

The success of the 757/767 is debatable. Boeing has already sold as many MAX-10's as 757's and the A321ceo sold nearly twice as many frames. But without getting into that argument, that segment which was never very large to begin with, and it existed predominantly in the U.S. has been encroached on by the narrowbody segment from the bottom and the widebody segment from the top, leaving it too small to be financially viable for any manufacturer. Hence why Boeing has been all talk and no action on the MOM for about a decade now.

DenverTed wrote:

Aircraft size will increase to a standard size of around 200 seats. These will be flown full or at 70% full rather than tailor aircraft size. I think a single aisle is a poor solution for a 200 seat aircraft. Twin aisle is the future, 2-2-2 or 2-3-2.

Not sure what you're talking about. Both the MAX-10 and A321 are 200 seat frames. If you need to transport more people, fly 2 planes during high season. The future is more frequency adjustments to cope with seasonal demand, not large planes flying at 70% LF during low demand periods. The days of empty middle seats are long gone.

airbazar wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Don' stretch it too much. The lesson of the successful 757/767 twin program might be to better do two siblings with different layouts perfectly tailored for their market segments? There is a lot of room and market between the 737-10 and the 787.

The success of the 757/767 is debatable. Boeing has already sold as many MAX-10's as 757's and the A321ceo sold nearly twice as many frames. But without getting into that argument, that segment which was never very large to begin with, and it existed predominantly in the U.S. has been encroached on by the narrowbody segment from the bottom and the widebody segment from the top, leaving it too small to be financially viable for any manufacturer. Hence why Boeing has been all talk and no action on the MOM for about a decade now.

DenverTed wrote:

Aircraft size will increase to a standard size of around 200 seats. These will be flown full or at 70% full rather than tailor aircraft size. I think a single aisle is a poor solution for a 200 seat aircraft. Twin aisle is the future, 2-2-2 or 2-3-2.

Not sure what you're talking about. Both the MAX-10 and A321 are 200 seat frames. If you need to transport more people, fly 2 planes during high season. The future is more frequency adjustments to cope with seasonal demand, not large planes flying at 70% LF during low demand periods. The days of empty middle seats are long gone.

While I don't fully agree with what DenverTed wrote, there has been a gradual increase in the optimum size of a narrowbody over the past 30 years or so. See 737-200 > 737-300 then next popular was the 737-800, A320 > A321 etc. 3-3 suits the 100-200 seat market quite nicely, but the structural efficiency does start to fall off after that. I guess what will determine the fuselage is what the "base model" will be. If the big OEMs really abandon the sub-180 seat market, a twin aisle becomes much more attractive. (Not taking A220 into account, although an A220-500 would almost certainly push Airbus itself to no longer make anything less than an A321)

The A321neo is becoming it's own family. Boeing should build something new that is able to be grown slightly larger by capacity. Plus some small wide body for "below transpacific" range requirements. Like a lightweight and optimised up to 787-3 sized clean sheet.

RJMAZ wrote:

For the A350 to hit the A310 capacity it would have to be the shortest and most stubby aircraft on the market. It would be massively inefficienct with the nose and tail tapers taking up so much of the length with a relatively short cabin. The A350 nose and tail tapers are around 15 metres. Only a 30metre cabin would be required for the A350 to reach A310 cabin area. The cabin is now only 66% of the aircraft length. The 787-10 by comparison the cabin is 80% of the aircraft length.

This is for the -10 though. The 787-8 would be the closest relevant comparison to this aircraft.
Abusing an -8 is probably still better, but the gulf in cabin space ratio is not nearly so much.

RJMAZ wrote:

One metre of A350 cabin cross section might be light. However once you divide the weight of the nose and tail tapers over only 30 metres of cabin it would be the heaviest cabin cross section per metre.

Indeed it would be. For such an aircraft, the cross section would have to be an entirely new thing to make sense. This is not impossible for A or even BCA, but it will not be a shrunken A350.

Noshow wrote:

The A321neo is becoming it's own family. Boeing should build something new that is able to be grown slightly larger by capacity. Plus some small wide body for "below transpacific" range requirements. Like a lightweight and optimised up to 787-3 sized clean sheet.

Probably. But I cannot imagine how development costs for this would be anywhere close to as cheap as dusting off the -3. BCA have demonstrated that they know how to effectively produce folding wings. It would not be a trivial undertaking, but it is within the scope of capability for a much lower cost than a cleansheet 797.

airbazar wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Don' stretch it too much. The lesson of the successful 757/767 twin program might be to better do two siblings with different layouts perfectly tailored for their market segments? There is a lot of room and market between the 737-10 and the 787.

The success of the 757/767 is debatable. Boeing has already sold as many MAX-10's as 757's and the A321ceo sold nearly twice as many frames. But without getting into that argument, that segment which was never very large to begin with, and it existed predominantly in the U.S. has been encroached on by the narrowbody segment from the bottom and the widebody segment from the top, leaving it too small to be financially viable for any manufacturer. Hence why Boeing has been all talk and no action on the MOM for about a decade now.

DenverTed wrote:

Aircraft size will increase to a standard size of around 200 seats. These will be flown full or at 70% full rather than tailor aircraft size. I think a single aisle is a poor solution for a 200 seat aircraft. Twin aisle is the future, 2-2-2 or 2-3-2.

Not sure what you're talking about. Both the MAX-10 and A321 are 200 seat frames. If you need to transport more people, fly 2 planes during high season. The future is more frequency adjustments to cope with seasonal demand, not large planes flying at 70% LF during low demand periods. The days of empty middle seats are long gone.

With 2-2-2, the days of the middle seat could be a thing of the past.
Originally I was a proponent of the 737-7 for WN with 150 seats. Now, I would make the case that if WN shifted to an all -800/8 fleet, that might be preferable for simplicity and customer comfort (more empty middle seats). Personally I find the aisle to crowded with 175 seats in coach. At the start of the compact car craze it was about minimum size. SUV's success over small cars or low air drag station wagons shows that people will pay a small premium for comfort, if that option exists. I won't pay 30% more for 10% more legroom, that is an irrational economic choice in my opinion.

I can't see 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 making economic sense. With similar technology a 3-3 or 2-4-2 will cross section will always be superior. Passenger comfort has never been a priority with airlines.

Airbus has the largest Narrowbody and Boeing has the smallest widebody. Both are selling incredibly well. I think Boeing will then launch a large narrowbody and Airbus will launch a small widebody.

Boeing will launch a cleansheet aircraft similar to the 757. Airbus will launch a cleansheet aircraft similar to the A300. Both manufacturers designs will have a range over 5,000nm to capitalise on long and thin point to point routes.

The Boeing design will have a folding wing to get down to code C gates. 3-3 cabin. Normal Boeing seats with a 22inch aisle. Maybe a 120t MTOW. 2 fuselage lengths the shorter fuselage (130m2) with over 5,000nm range and the longer fuselage (150m2) with around 4,000nm range. A carbon wing/tail and a metal fuselage might be the the way to go. Uprated LEAP and Pratt GTF engines can be used.

The Airbus design will be a full cleansheet. 2-4-2 cross section. A couple percent smaller than the A300 or A330 cross section. Airlines can no longer squeeze in 9abreast seating. Maybe a 180t MTOW. Two fuselage lengths the shorter fuselage (180m2) over 6,000nm and the longer fuselage (220m2) over 5,000nm. The average cabin area of this family is then 200m2. The A350-900 is 290m2 and the A321XLR is 127m2. So this new family sits perfectly in the middle. This will need a cleansheet engine.

My opinion is a dedicated MOM may be dead. Reason is the airlines are buying bigger narrow body aircraft for domestic short haul use. The Max -8 and A321 NEO are the preferred model. Meaning Boeing can build their next clean sheet with a -7 at 180 pax, -8 at 200, -9 at 225, and a -10 at 250. Airbus can build a replacement for the A320 series with the base model as an A321 sized aircraft topping out in similar configurations.

IMO the MOM was served well by the 757. And why many of them are still used today in this role. The 767 was too big for the market, and too small for what the airlines wanted in a widebody, hence the A330 and 787. Once the A330 showed up the 767 started hurting. Further evidence of this is is what people are clamoring for in a new MOM, the A300\310. A short widebody. But once the A330 arrived it was dead.

MOM is a myth that has been abandoned for good reason. I gave my best summarization of the reasons why in another thread.

Right now, the A320 fuselage is the state of the art 6Y. A220 is the state of the art 5Y. Widebodies have proven they cannot shrink and lighten sufficiently to serve the MoM market. That leaves clean sheets. Clean sheets would cost too much money because The R&D would have to be paid off. I suspect this is never happening.

OK so prediction of the future:

A220 covers 100-180PAX, A321/A322 with new common wing covers 180-250PAX

Boeing gives up on sub-180pax and the NMA/MoM whatever they call it, say 797, comes out in a 3-3 fuse very similar to the current A320 family, with a 200 all Y (slightly shorter than A321, longer than 738/A320) seater as the base model, and then 230ish and 260ish stretch's.

Range for both manufacturers at least 4,000nm minimum to 6,500nm maximum.

One thing that's left out of this discussion -- are we absolutely convinced the seats will remain in their current, minimalistic size?
Humans are getting bigger on average, it's just a fact. And the curve has more outliers on the "extreme" sides, correct?
At some point, somebody will wake up and take note.

Who will that be -- consumer advocacy groups getting loud enough, so politicians can't continue to ignore the matter? Or, God forbid, a situation (as in "incident"), could force regulators' hand?
I could imagine current designs could claim they are "grandfathered in", but if a regulation on minimum seat size happens, that could immediately impact new designs.
Opinions?

I thought Boeing has said nothing until around 2035

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-doesnt- ... time-soon/

zeke wrote:

I thought Boeing has said nothing until around 2035

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-doesnt- ... time-soon/

Don’t spoil the fantasy by injecting reality!

JohanTally wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The 321, itself a marginal plane (whoever on this site would want to end up in the last several rows?)

I have flown on plenty of A321s. What is so bad about the last several rows compared to the last several rows of any other narrowbodied plane?

I would assume he's referring to it being a rougher ride that far behind the COG where aircraft movement is enhanced.

Whatever the “issue” with the A321 is, it will also apply to the 737-10 which is only 71cm shorter.

A few yrs back I did some interpolations, theoretically it seems Airbus could do a A321 stretch, based on the XLR's 101 MTOW, redesigned XLR wing, landing gears and fuel system.

MTOW would remain ~101t, way below any possible WB. Capacity would max out around 248 seats single class.

The aircraft would give in on range, but still 2750NM at full passenger load should be possible. Or up to 6 hours with typical 220-230 seats configurations.

Useful for almost all flights intra Europa, US, East Asia. To be serious middle range (4000NM+) such an aircraft would need a bigger wing. But maybe that wouldn't be worth it, with the XLR and WB's being widely available.

Meanwhile the XLR's MTOW has gone up & OE's have increased thrust (CFM) and efficiency (PW). Those would help of course. Take-off performance likely would acceptable with the new XLR flap configuration. Like the even longer 757, the A321 is high on it's wheels.


https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1465935