Please continue the discussion here.

Boeing Reveals Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt (by tortugamon Jun 8 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Long live the flying pencil.

Ben Soriano

New Article in WSJ about this, written By Jon Ostrower:

Google: "Boeing Believes Demand Exists for New Midrange Jetliner"

"Boeing Co. is moving closer toward a possible new airplane, with the company’s top salesman saying it has determined there is sufficient demand for a medium-range jet that isn’t currently served by its product portfolio."
...
"Mr. Wojick said airlines want a jet that would be larger than the 757, with 234 to 253 seats and a flying range of 4,300 to 4,800 nautical miles. That would be at least 30% larger than its biggest 737, with about a third more range."
...
"Airlines and lessors have said they are interested in a new, efficient airplane for trans-Atlantic operations or regional flights within Asia. "
...
"The median flight with the 787 as of March was just shy of 3,000 nautical miles, far short of the nearly 8,000 nautical mile range"
...
"The company has reviewed and shelved several other options for addressing this demand, including making changes to its 737 and 767 or even reviving the 757 with new engines."
...
"That system would be determined by what material Boeing selected for a new jet’s wings and body—carbon fiber composites or advanced aluminum."
...
"Ray Conner has said the company doesn’t want to start from scratch each time it does a new airplane, and would want to use parts of its existing production on any new jet to keep costs low.

“To figure out how to do that over the next year or so is going to be an interesting task for us,” said Mr. Wojick."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-b...r-new-midrange-jetliner-1434137272
......................................

To me, the most important piece of new info here is that "Boeing has determined there is sufficient demand". I could be wrong but I think previous articles said that they were trying to determine.

Also, they really seem to think it will be practically clean sheet which really has not been clear.

Finally, a statement about timing: to figure out how....next year or so.

Anyway, more items leading us to think Boeing is going to do it. What that IT is, is still up the air  

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1): Google: "Boeing Believes Demand Exists for New Midrange Jetliner"

We've also seen gems like "Boeing close to 15-frame 747-8 order."

This design looks to be right in the middle of the "Bermuda box." I could see FI picking up a fleet, and depending on how the market goes, a few hundred for P2P Eastern US-Europe flights and some Asian customers if the CASM shakes out favorably, but I remain skeptical.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 1): "Mr. Wojick said airlines want a jet that would be larger than the 757, with 234 to 253 seats and a flying range of 4,300 to 4,800 nautical miles. That would be at least 30% larger than its biggest 737, with about a third more range."

Build it, and AS will be among the first in line. Shut up and take my money, Boeing!  

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2): We've also seen gems like "Boeing close to 15-frame 747-8 order."

I hear you. But those have a customer willingness element. I honestly would not say that I am convinced, at this point, that it will happen. Just that I think there is an opportunity and I have to see the design and understand that economic argument before I agree that it has a business case.

At this point I will just say that I think there is an opportunity for something in this arena as this arena has never been this empty in decades. 767s (1000+ units), 757s (1000+ units), A300s (510), A310s, L-1011 (250) even early A330s (1000+) filled this space and now we have virtually nothing.

People think that the A330 success has a lot to do with its range that was added and that is certainly true but it sold relatively well even before the range was added. And 1000+ units of the 757 aren't terrible either.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2): This design looks to be right in the middle of the "Bermuda box."

Just a touch short on range but yes, I think it is in the middle. For the benefit of the thread I will post my Bermuda Box below. Again, its dated, the neo has different specs and aircraft are in two class because I don't see a F on this aircraft - probably a premium economy. Note: if you draw a line through the outer-left-most aircraft they are the most inefficient aircraft on shorter than normal routes and if you draw a line through the bottom right most aircraft they tend to be the most efficient.

The Y/vertical axis is nautical mile range and the x/horizontal axis is seats in two-class configuration (not 3!)

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 3): Build it, and AS will be among the first in line.

I will state this: in order for this aircraft to work it needs to be able to go from JFK-LAX at a similar cost to a 737max or A320neo:

So in 10 years time you see them launching with this aircraft deep South American routes, heavy North American routes, or TransAtlantic routes?

I am not sure I agree as I think they still have room to run to become a National carrier but it certainly could happen. They are becoming heavy users of the 739ER so it makes sense to be their next aircraft for replacement but I think the economics have to be just right as I don't think AS, currently, need the range.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 2): I could see FI picking up a fleet

I could see every major 757 operator being interested. They have to scale down to the A321neo and 739Max - how many airlines think they had the right size to begin with or could grow on certain routes?

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 4): I don't think AS, currently, need the range

The AS of 2015 doesn't need that range.

The AS of 2018-2020 would LOVE that range.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 5): The AS of 2018-2020 would LOVE that range.

How do you envision it? Where to and when?

That MAX range should handle the Caribbean, Hawaii, Trans-Con, etc. They won't be able to do Trans-Pacific with it. Why do you think they would need the capacity/range?

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 6): Why do you think they would need the capacity/range?

4800nm range from SEA gives you all of Japan plus most of Continental Europe.

While AS has no immediate plans to serve those markets, the plan has always been to go where their customers want to fly, and fleet acquisition at AS is done with an eye on the future as there's always an expectation of a 20 year timeline for any sub-fleet with the company.

The MAX will be enough for transcon/midcon/Hawaii and even some Caribbean routes from LAX, but it won't be enough for AS at some point from a range perspective. They will eventually want and need that true B757 replacement.

I think this is just the usual marketing bla bla to remain in the media, a-net and to keep the fanboys happy.

I am not so sure if efficiency gains of a new full CFRP-NB aircraft in style of B787 or A350 are big enough over a re-neod A320NEO with new wings and same engine like new NB. Maybe we will see something like a NB in style of a B777X, but here we got at least some new ideas as mentioned in the flightglobal article.

It appears revolutionary airplanes come every 30-40 years, the 757 was an afterthought when Boeing created the 75/767 lines and yet it was so popular they shut the line down! Or so they say.....for the first time I see a small statement here when they mention re-engine and re-make...., how expensive could it really be to re-tool the line for a 75NG....I say something like that would get 450-600 orders out of the gate. Certainly such numbers could offset any cost in retooling.

Quoting Aesma: Airlines can buy the A321, what Boeing says or doesn't say can't change that fact.

What or when did Boeing say anything that would prevent airlines from buying the A321 ?

Quoting scbriml: Boeing can't do anything more with the 737. The -9 is the be-all and end-all of the 737. 'MOM' is a larger narrowbody than the -9 and will have to be an all-new plane. The bill will be a minimum of $10billion and probably closer to $15billion.

Quoting astuteman: There's no reason why Airbus can't respond in a substantially shorter timescale at lower cost with an ENEO (even newer engine option) A32X, using the same engine technology, perhaps with a newer CFRP wing with greater fuel capacity.

Of course, Boeing can't do the same. That would be a wasted effort. Boeing does it and it is not good enough, but if Airbus comes up with a new engine, or bigger wing, then that is the best solution.

A.net lesson, Boeing 737 Max with smaller engine then the A-320 is bad, A-321 with smaller engine then the Boeing 757, good.

Boeing 737 with winglets bad, A-320 had a perfect wing, didn't need winglets. Now that it has winglets, oh, it is better then the B-737.

Quoting Aesma: So Boeing will keep 737 (707 really) commonality forever ? Why ?

Southwest, Ryanair ?

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 8): I think this is just the usual marketing bla bla to remain in the media, a-net and to keep the fanboys happy.

I would say that is not very probable given all the talk coming from Boeing since quite some time.

Furthermore this isn't about a NB in the size of the 737/A320. It may be a NB, but even than with a diameter of 4,2m. The wing and the ground clearance won't have anything to do with a "CRP-737". It may even become a small TWIN. The MTOW will be about 50% higher. It's about all the cap between A321 and A330-800/787-8.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 11): Furthermore this isn't about a NB in the size of the 737/A320. It may be a NB, but even than with a diameter of 4,2m.

That would be a lot of useless space, I am not saying it won't have a bigger diameter, but this would be wasted space and wasted space does not earn money.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 10): Southwest, Ryanair ?

Tail wagging the dog. WN & FR combined only represent about 12% of all 737 sales. Ever.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7): 4800nm range from SEA gives you all of Japan plus most of Continental Europe.

Its been my experience that airlines do not typical fly their aircraft the full range you find in the brochure. Especially when flying west where winds can come into play, that stated range really is not typical. If it is a 4,800nm aircraft I would put its effective range or typical flights at no more than 4,000nm which pretty much prevents both pacific routes and US west coast to Europe routes.

It took until very recently to see A333s to really cross the Pacific.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7): AS is done with an eye on the future as there's always an expectation of a 20 year timeline

I hear you, and you may be right. I personally see AS expanding East and South and staying all narrow body for some years. I think they will merge (HA?) or will be acquired in the next 10 years. I hope not but with these North American airlines making as much as they are currently, AS stock price is too low and I think they will be presented with an offer that their shareholders can't ignore, unfortunately.

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 8): I think this is just the usual marketing bla bla to remain in the media, a-net and to keep the fanboys happy.

I am not sure what benefit that is to Boeing? Leeham news says their sources say: "the MOM would be launched in 2017 or 2018 with an entry into service seven years later."

After the 777X EIS ~2019 I don't know what the Boeing engineers will be working on otherwise.

It could be interesting if Airbus is doing an A380 revamp of some sort and Boeing working on this we could have another P2P vs Hub2Hub debate which I honestly don't want to have anymore.

tortugamon

Quoting dare100em (Reply 11): It's about all the cap between A321 and A330-800/787-8.

Of course.

But it is a very big gap indeed. And Boeing has already shown what it takes to fill it -

The 757/767 family were a large (long) NB and a small WB; nothing has changed there, and. so that is what it will take again. (++)

However I do wonder if two wing-sizes will not vastly simplify sizing of capacity;
also the possibility of the 777X going to Al-Li with automatic machinery to produce the hull will matter, a lot.

All of which is a very, very big call for Boeing management to make.

But that's what they get the big bucks for!



 

(++) However it is all vastly more complicated now;
when the 757 was designed there was nothing like the highly-efficient A321 around, as is the case now.
Moreover (according to a.net at least!), that same A321 is easily stretched, re-winged, re-engined, (re-skinned?) etc.

Popcorn time!



cheers Bill   

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 7): 4800nm range from SEA gives you all of Japan plus most of Continental Europe.

Not to mention that there is currently zero ANC-Japan passenger service.

Boeing needs to make a decision: their 737-7 model is not selling well because its platform is really optimized to -8 and -9 sizes. Of course, the length of the -9 presents its own issues because the MLG is optimized to the -7 and -8. Too many compromises.

If Boeing wants to build a new aircraft that ranges from 150-220 seats, that's quite doable, but it will become very inefficient if it's any smaller than 150. So if they still want the 100-150 seat market, they need a separate model with a lighter platform. And they can build a good one.

Alternatively, they can cede that market to Embraer, Bombardier, and Mitsubishi.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): So if they still want the 100-150 seat market, they need a separate model with a lighter platform. And they can build a good one. Alternatively, they can cede that market to Embraer, Bombardier, and Mitsubishi.

Which is all really the sub-text here, for Airbus as well as Boeing.

Come 2018-2019 both major OEMs will (probably) have cleared-off most of the committments currently on their respective plates.

So what to do next?

Each of them no doubt is going through the same iteration, EG:

"Consolidate , build & deliver & make some real money?
But then what if the competition "steals a march on us" with a development that we don't see coming?
So what should we look at developing, then?"



And that is the $64 question, for each of them.

FWIW, in the longer term I don't think it will matter too much, as the overall market share will settle down to 50/50 in those areas the two big OEMs contest.

cheers Bill

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): If Boeing wants to build a new aircraft that ranges from 150-220 seats, that's quite doable, but it will become very inefficient if it's any smaller than 150. So if they still want the 100-150 seat market, they need a separate model with a lighter platform. And they can build a good one.

I think Boeing cannot ignore this market - in doing so, they will allow the smaller players to take a foot up the ladder and then start eating into their bread and butter, 150 - 220 seat market. It won't happen over night but it will over time.

I have no idea about the 717 tooling etc - delta seem to love them, it fits the seat gap, the engineering intelligence known - possibly a product for positioning in this area?

As for the larger market - the 757 shrink and stretch seems like a logical move forward. Bathe it in lessons learned from the 787, source the GTF (if or when PW offer a scaled up version) and you could be on to something. Again, the engineering intelligence is known, as such. Obviously applying it is a different matter.

Quoting btblue (Reply 18): I have no idea about the 717 tooling etc - delta seem to love them, it fits the seat gap, the engineering intelligence known - possibly a product for positioning in this area?

The 717 has advantages with being low to the ground for use at smaller stations and engines optimized for very short flights of under 90 minutes. A Boeing 110-150 seat model will need to be much more flexible.

Rear-mounted engines are inherently structurally less efficient than putting them on the wing. Not only does the wing have to be stronger to make up for the lack of bending relief, but now the fuel has to be pumped all the way to the back where the engines are. The flip side is that with an under-wing mounting, the gear has to be right-sized not only for the engine they are going to put on this model, but also the engine they are going to put on the future re-engined version, which will likely have a larger diameter. Fortunately, Boeing did this right for the 777 and 747 (although the 748i cannot handle a GEnX-2a, and they had to shrink the fan by 2" for the -2b). But they totally flubbed that calculation on the 737. Airbus seems to have designed the A320 and A330 with precisely this in mind. Mounting the engines way up on the fuselage also complicates maintenance.

There is this rather interesting design: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/nplus3-0517

The real problem is scalability. Each size variant would need its own custom fuselage design (you couldn't do simple stretch/shrink like on a tubular fuselage). But perhaps a variant in which a tubular fuselage with a constant cross-section can also serve as part of the lifting surface might save a lot of weight, and thus, fuel.

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 12): That would be a lot of useless space, I am not saying it won't have a bigger diameter, but this would be wasted space and wasted space does not earn money.

2-3-2 would be a nice way to travel , but it will never happen   

PS especially if this Thing does TATL!

[Edited 2015-06-14 03:08:54]

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 10): A.net lesson, Boeing 737 Max with smaller engine then the A-320 is bad, A-321 with smaller engine then the Boeing 757, good.

I get the bitterness to be honest, but there are some realities underlying these comments ...

The 737MAX has a smaller engine than the A320NEO.
In the 737-8 particularly this makes for a very efficient frame compared to the A320NEO at shorter ranges.

Airline FCOM's suggest that a wingletted 737-800 has a 5% trip fuel burn advantage over a non-sharkletted A320 CEO at about 100nm range (1/2 hour)
By 800Nm (1 1/2 hours) that advantage has disappeared.
By 2 300nm (5 hours), it's the A320 that sports the 5% fuel burn advantage.

The A320's sharklets reduce fuel burn by 4% at long range, but very little at short range.
So the 737-800's 100nm 5% advantage remains.
But at 2 300nm the sharkletted A320 is likely to offer a 9% fuel burn advantage over the 737-800

Unfortunately for the 737, these threads are about a plane with 4 300 - 4 800 Nm, and this is exactly the space that plays into the hands of the A320 vs the 737 (NG/CEO or MAX/NEO)
Bitterness or no, that's the way it is. The A320's larger diameter (let's be specific here) engines confer an advantage at longer ranges (but not at shorter ones).

As far as the A321NO vs the 757, the RB211 - 535E4B that produces 43 000lb thrust on the 757 has a fan diameter of 74.1"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211#RB211-535_series_2

The P+W GTF that produces 35 000lb on the A321NEO has a fan diameter of 81".

So apologies if this adds to the bitterness, but the A320NEO actually has a BIGGER engine than the 757, and by a fair margin too.
That it happens to be less powerful is a function of just how efficient the engine/airframe combination is relative to the 757

Those are realities that have nothing whatsoever to do with fanboyism.

Thy add some complexity to the decision Boeing has to make.
It's no accident that the 737-8MAX has 2 500 orders.
Most of the sectors these planes fly are less than 1 000 Miles.
At that range the MAX readily holds its own against the NEO. It's a great platform.

By definition when Boeing make a frame more optimised for this longer range, it will be less optimised for the shorter ones.
That will influence how Boeing decide to integrate this product into their portfolio so as to still have an efficient shorter range frame.
Not insurmountable, and not unique to Boeing

Rgds

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 4): I will state this: in order for this aircraft to work it needs to be able to go from JFK-LAX at a similar cost to a 737max or A320neo:

Similar for me is slightly worse (negative word), AA A321's with their premium config cost more to operate than the base A320 / 737 that can also do transcon. It says to me that they are willing to pay some incremental cost for pax comfort but the sticking point is how much, obviously the 757 cost is too much.
The issue for the MOM is to be somewhat competitive on shorter routes by offering greater capacity and or comfort while serving the bulk of your Bermuda box. Where the A320 / 737 cannot serve I'm not sure why a small twin will not work, there is a cut off point for a narrow body in terms of length, so far it appears to be a sliding scale between the 757-200 and 757-300, most seem to think the A321 is unaffected as it is more efficient and does not suffer from being too long.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 19): 4300-4800nm and around 240 seats, we call it the A321LR. A full new airplane, that the competition could counter with a new wing or even less effort. Not going to work.

Since the competition does not have anything in the segment, what Airbus can do with the A321 is not relevant.
Take the 777-300ER the A340-600 and the A350, somehow, someway Airbus found a way to come up with a clean sheet design to combat the market dominance of the 777-300ER even though it already had the A340-600 which competed in that market segment, Boeing is putting a new wing on the 777 and so far the A350 is still working, essentially what is the difference in the Bermuda box situation?
If Boeing does the MOM it will be optimized for the upper end of the box, Airbus can re-wing the A321 to make the a/c more capable at the middle of the box.
The issue for the MOM as I see it is whether Boeing has the resources and will to once again do a 757 / 767 style build where the MOM will not be heavily dependent on the NSA which will not have its design compromised by the MOM.
So in simple terms, the resources to have the NSA at 738 size and smaller (if they want to still be relevant in the 100 - 150 seat market) and the MOM above.

Quoting SQ22 (Reply 12): That would be a lot of useless space, I am not saying it won't have a bigger diameter, but this would be wasted space and wasted space does not earn money.

A 4,2m single aisle would be only 5% wider as a A320. The "wasted space" is for a wide aisle to bypass cabin crew and significantly shorten boarding time. That is necessary for the 6-8h trips this 7M7 will be made for. The other option is a TWIN with 7-abreast and a 5m diameter, significant heavier. Furthermore if this 7M7 will have a two-class capacity around 240 a slightly large diameter will help it's fitness-ratio (length to diameter) and may even be lighter than a single-aisle with the same length and a 4m diameter (Second moment of inertia of an area).

Interesting article from flightglobal:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...sible-is-a-757-replacement-413472/

Quoting btblue (Reply 18): I think Boeing cannot ignore this market

I think they have largely given up on that segment (A318/736). Even the A319s and 737-7s are compromised designs with really no plans to change that. I think they can be had for dirt cheap as a way to compete with these new designs coming down the pike but if they can't be financed/leased (very difficult) then what is the point?

We know Airbus and Boeing's plans out to at least 2020 and there is nothing in the tea leaves to say this is going to change and I don't expect it to after that as well. The real market is slightly larger.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 19): 4300-4800nm and around 240 seats, we call it the A321LR.

The A321LR is neither that big nor capable to fly that far.

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 21): 2-3-2 would be a nice way to travel , but it will never happen

I fly that way all the time, its called a 767.  

Quoting par13del (Reply 23): what Airbus can do with the A321 is not relevant.

I think Boeing needs to be mindful of what Airbus can do to compete with a new Boeing design. If Boeing spends $10 billion for a product that could be competed against an Airbus design that costs just $3 billion then I think Boeing needs to rethink it because it will have a hard time receiving a positive ROI and competing on price for the airframe. It is relevant to me.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 3): Build it, and AS will be among the first in line.

Boeing/Alaska seems to agree with you:

"Wojick said there is interest from a diverse customer base, including carriers that today fly the 757 across the Atlantic — American, Delta, United and Icelandair — as well as low-cost carriers.
"He said Southwest Airlines is potentially interested. And so is Alaska Air, which today flies Boeing’s largest 737 on long-distance routes to the East Coast and Mexico.

Anchorage and Seattle are a long way from large population bases,” Wojick said. “We’ll see how far they want to go.”
http://www.seattletimes.com/business...m=social&utm_campaign=article_left

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 4):

nice chart, however is this becoming a case based a charting hole or is there a need? People are making it between the target points today without any problem.. So what would help is some potential passenger numbers and frequencies.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27): I think Boeing needs to be mindful of what Airbus can do to compete with a new Boeing design.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27): If Boeing spends $10 billion for a product

I think we all agree that going forward the limitations of the 737 are getting harder and harder to overcome, unless an engine OEM comes up with a way to make smaller fans as efficient as the larger ones presently being deployed on the MAX and the NEO.
I admit to being one who thought they would finally have to bite the bullet and raise the 737 higher to accommodate the incoming engines, they did but not by much. So far the market share in the NEO / MAX segment is looking less like the current 50/50 split. The MAX has orders but if the percentage of orders due to the other OEM being out of slots in a reasonable time frame increases, the prospects of the Boeing cash cow is not as healthy as they would like.
The MAX9 or 737-900ER are not as competitive with the A321, that segment is gaining more and more traction, whether a clean sheet to go MOM or another round of improvements on current frames, I suspect it will cost Boeing more as it is starting from further behind.

Yes they need to be mindful of how Airbus can respond, but based on what we see in the recent past and projected future, neither OEM will come up with a frame that the other cannot put up a competitive product, they will just offset each other on some parameters of the respective missions. Airbus is touting the A330NEO as being competitive with the 787, the A350 is targeted at the 777 replacement market, so Boeing may have to follow suit and target its MOM above and below current Airbus products.

Am I the only one to see a resemblance between the stated description of the plane (220-280 pax, 4k-5k Nm, well, I guess we are talking about nautical miles here) and kind of the general capacities of the A300-600R or the A310-300?

Yes Aircellist - maybe Airbus should re-engine theme lol.

While it's true in principle they are 8-abreast and much to heavy for today's standards regarding a plane of that size.

Quoting kanban (Reply 28): People are making it between the target points today without any problem..

Sure. And 20 years ago people used to be able to cross the pacific with the 747 without a problem - but we now have about 10. I think the industry is constantly thinking how can we do this better/cheaper and I think this is where the MOM could come into play.

Right now the 737-900ER and the A321 have about the same operating costs per seat as the 787 so any route a narrow body can do, they will do. The question becomes what do airlines do when the narrow bodies can't reach. Buy an aircraft that is 3 times more expensive?


Plus 10 cities just asked EK to operate trans-atlantic service for them. Clearly some cities feel like they are not being well connected.

Quoting kanban (Reply 28): So what would help is some potential passenger numbers and frequencies.

I have some info:

"Although overall growth has been unspectacular, the 3,000 to 5,000nm
range band is important to several major markets, and contains the core
networks of some of the fastest growing carriers. It covers most of the
Transatlantic market, routes from Asia to Australasia, Southeast Asia to
Northeast Asia, and routes from the three Gulf hubs to much of Europe
and Asia. Turkish Airlines and Aeroflot have both seen huge growth
in this range band. This means this range bracket is key to five of the
fastest growing large network airlines."
....
There are 5 airlines that operate at least 20 flights per day that are greater than 2,500nm in range and do so on narrow body aircraft. There are 6 others who operate at least 10 per day.

This route range has been one of the slowest growing sector length in all of aviation - a bad thing right? No, to me it means that it has lagged the industry because there has not been the appropriate aircraft. But then again I am an optimist.


A great article about the MOM business case:

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/fg...f%20the%20market%20aircraft%20.pdf

Quoting par13del (Reply 29): neither OEM will come up with a frame that the other cannot put up a competitive product, they will just offset each other on some parameters of the respective missions.

I don't think this market is big enough for two players. I think who ever moves first will capture a lot of the market.

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 30): I guess we are talking about nautical miles here) and kind of the general capacities of the A300-600R or the A310-300?

Or a 767-200. See the article I posted above. They make the exact same case.

tortugamon

[Edited 2015-06-14 13:57:34]

Quoting Aircellist (Reply 30): Am I the only one to see a resemblance between the stated description of the plane (220-280 pax, 4k-5k Nm, well, I guess we are talking about nautical miles here) and kind of the general capacities of the A300-600R or the A310-300?

Nope. The requirement looks just like the original A300's or 767-200's

But widebodys have got progressively bigger - even the 787-8 and A332/338 are no longer the most popular models.

Scary when you think these are nearly as big as a DC10 or L-1011

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22): I get the bitterness to be honest, but there are some realities underlying these comments ...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22): So apologies if this adds to the bitterness, but the A320NEO actually has a BIGGER engine than the 757, and by a fair margin too.

No bitterness at all. I get the angst in the post above too, but the realities are, the argument has been how smaller engine is worse. Then in the angst of the moment, a bigger fan that produces less thrust / more drag is better. Thanks for the laughs. The A-321LEO NEO GEO YUGO, must be at the end of it's design. No more can be squeezed out of that decades old design. Might be better to do a 757 replacement rather then relying on a stretched beyond it's capability design.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22): As far as the A321NO vs the 757, the RB211 - 535E4B that produces 43 000lb thrust on the 757 has a fan diameter of 74.1" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB211#RB211-535_series_2 The P+W GTF that produces 35 000lb on the A321NEO has a fan diameter of 81". So apologies if this adds to the bitterness, but the A320NEO actually has a BIGGER engine than the 757, and by a fair margin too.

Bigger fan with less thrust / more drag, thanks for proving the bitterness point. Horrid design. Still can not match the 757, only with aux tanks which then takes away from profitable cargo. Weren't you one of those espousing how the A-320 family wing was perfect without winglets, or was that some other Airbus fanboy ?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32):

Thanks for the data.. I've been out of the loop for over a month, and researching all the data was a bigger task than I imagined,
Yes when it comes to charts I'm a skeptic.. a chart can be developed to support any goal.. so when one pops up I a;ways wonder the context that created it.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 34): Bigger fan with less thrust / more drag, thanks for proving the bitterness point. Horrid design.

Please. Larger fans are more fuel efficient. They don't add the kind of drag you seem to imply. I'm sure you could squeeze a whole lot of thrust out of a true turbojet, too. That's not the point. Bigger fans = better noise characteristics/fuel economy.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): Alternatively, they can cede that market to Embraer, Bombardier, and Mitsubishi.

Which is, I think, probably what will happen. Boeing and Airbus are very quickly realizing that they can't be completely dominant in every market segment, and that airlines that don't require the capacity of their mid-range narrowbodies will likely also not require the range of their NBs. Boeing will be happy to engage Airbus in the mid/large NB market and sell thousands of frames, and leave Bombardier/Embraer/Mitsubishi (possibly COMAC) to the regional jet market. It's not likely a profitable proposition for Boeing. I think the fact that there has been no development on the 717 or a new design of that type in nearly 20 years, now, is a pretty good indicator that the writing is on the wall for Boeing's presence in that market.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38): Yet once the size of the 737-8 is the shrink of your smallest model, you are leaving a lot of the market open for the competition. I can see both moving to something like around 170 - 200 - 240 seats with the single aisle versions. And that is the big problem of the MoM, the large version of the NSA will be a competitor. And I am certain that the large version will have more than 4000nm range.

While this is true we're talking of 2030+ for the NSA of Boeing/Airbus. By that time the MOM will have evolved - like all planes do see e.g. 767, A33x or 787 - into a 250 pax 6000 nm plane, the A33x and 787-8 will be gone. Furthermore the MOM will very probably be a single aisle too - just with a wider aisle and a 5% bigger fuselage with (the fuselage hight may even stay at 4m). The MTOW may be 20t higher than the 240 pax single aisle, the empty weight 15t at most. It will have larger - and therefore efficienter - engines for longer routes, the wing will be bigger. It will be able to be 2-2-2 for intra asia which is an aditional plus the NSA won't have.

If they go for a small TWIN things are a little different, yes. But I belive they won't do that and when they'll do it this plane will be even further away from any single aisle and more a direct A33x/767-300 repacement.

[Edited 2015-06-15 06:24:56]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 32): I don't think this market is big enough for two players. I think who ever moves first will capture a lot of the market.

A321LR is moving first in 2017, for the 4000 nm / 200 pax segment. I think they'll capture a lot of the market. Sure, an extra 1000 nm and another 25 pax would be great, but the great is the enemy of the good. It will make that 'MOM' business case that much harder to close.

Quote: The A321neo weight variant with increased MTOW of 97 tons – often called A321LR or sometimes A321neoLR (LR = long-range) – transports 206 passengers in a 2-class layout with increased range to 4,000 nmi (7,400 km; 4,600 mi) by using three additional 2,990 L (790 US gal) fuel tanks.[47][48] An extended 2-class layout additionally including a premium economy class with 164 passengers allows a range of up to 4,100 nmi (7,600 km; 4,700 mi).[49][29] Historically this is the second MTOW increase after the initial A321-100 with 83 tons, which was quickly replaced by the -200 with 93.5 tons. In October 2014 Airbus started to offer it also as a replacement of the aging Boeing 757-200, also the latest variant with winglets, sometimes called 757-200W. Compared to the 757-200W, Airbus predicts an A321LR gives overall 25-30% lower operating cost depending on the number of seats[50][51] on routes where a widebody would be uneconomical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320neo_family#A321LR

If you need to move more than 200 people over that distance (3000-5000nm) wouldn't a widebody make sense? Does the market really require a specific aircraft size for every pax increase in a unit of 20? If 200 passengers is not enough, then the airline could surely make an aircraft fit for 250-260 passengers work, right? Either the B788 or the A338 should suffice.

I do not buy the argument that widebodies can't be economical. I do not buy the argument that we need a 240 pax aircraft. I think the whole discussion is moot, based on spin started by Boeing because at the present, they are uncompetitive in this particular (niche) segment of the market.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38): Yet once the size of the 737-8 is the shrink of your smallest model, you are leaving a lot of the market open for the competition.

But look at the sales of neo and MAX - just a very small percentage are for the smallest models and, for Airbus at least, an ever growing proportion of sales are for the largest model in the family. If the new single-aisle families from Airbus & Boeing start at the A320/738 size, I don't see them losing out very much at all.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38): And that is the big problem of the MoM, the large version of the NSA will be a competitor. And I am certain that the large version will have more than 4000nm range.

However, if Boeing has MOMmy plane, then they could optimise NSA for shorter ranges. In that case, the largest NSA model needn't have 4,000mn range. NSA could be optimised for 3,000nm segments. If you need more range, then go for MOMmy.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42): However, if Boeing has MOMmy plane, then they could optimise NSA for shorter ranges. In that case, the largest NSA model needn't have 4,000mn range. NSA could be optimised for 3,000nm segments. If you need more range, then go for MOMmy.

That has been my thinking, as of late.

The NSA becomes the 757 to the MOM's 767. One optimized for short-haul with quick turnarounds for maximum daily utilization and one for long-haul with lower utilization and where longer turnaround times are acceptable.

Quoting hilram (Reply 41): I do not buy the argument that widebodies can't be economical. I do not buy the argument that we need a 240 pax aircraft. I think the whole discussion is moot, based on spin started by Boeing because at the present, they are uncompetitive in this particular (niche) segment of the market

A 787-8 or an A330-800 have takeoff-weights north of 200t even for "short" stage lenght about 4000 nm (for longer stages this goes up to 240t).

An MOM with about the same passenger number or slightly less will have a takeoff-weight of at least 50t less, probably more.

Nothing in the world can compensate this extreme difference for something that flies. It's the main reason for an MOM. The remaining widebodys are all "longerange" planes with cababilities and structure/wing for that purpose. That's what the Airlines mean when they talk about "single aisle economics". It's the weight. For very short distances in Japan a 787-8 isn't more efficient than a 767-300ER with winglets. That's why the 787-8 is much heavier and the engines can't compensate this on short distances.

There is a market and a size-cap around a MTOW above the A321 (100t) and significant below an A338 or 787-8 (240t).

[Edited 2015-06-15 08:02:08]

Quoting GrahamR (Reply 36): Thanks very much for this really interesting chart.

Happy to help.  

Quoting GrahamR (Reply 36): just wanting to try and understand the various implications of designing a single aisle aircraft with ~5000nm range and ~240 passengers in two classes.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 39): If they go for a small TWIN things are a little different, yes. But I belive they won't do that and when they'll do it this plane will be even further away from any single aisle

I am personally of the belief that if it is a 5knm aircraft then it really can't be a standard single aisle aircraft. For that range I do believe the aircraft will have to be wider. Exactly how wide is up to smarter people than me.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38): Yet once the size of the 737-8 is the shrink of your smallest model, you are leaving a lot of the market open for the competition.

I think we often think that the market moves and the airplane models adjust - however, the opposite can happen as well. When they are producing these aircraft at 50+/month each their economies of scale result in an affordable aircraft (considering) and I think airlines chose the routes where they can operate those aircraft the most economically. Very few airlines have the ability to mold design and of course they chose the airplane that best fits their structure but it works the other way too.

My point is that by the time the market grows and the -8 is the smallest model, the market for that -8 will be similarly tiny as the -7 market.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40): A321LR is moving first in 2017, for the 4000 nm / 200 pax segment. I think they'll capture a lot of the market.

I don't really see this MOM opportunity as a true 757 replacement opportunity.

I see this opportunity as a larger aircraft that is both larger and more capable then the standard single aisles but with similar economics. Full stop. I think that was the spirit of the original 757 as well but now the single aisle market has moved and likewise I think this aircraft will have to shift as well. Now instead of transcontinental range (as the originally 757 was designed for as narrow body twin aircraft were mostly incapable) now the market is closer to transatlantic range with reasonable economics on US transcontinental as well.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 44):

Solid points.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 46): I am personally of the belief that if it is a 5knm aircraft then it really can't be a standard single aisle aircraft. For that range I do believe the aircraft will have to be wider. Exactly how wide is up to smarter people than me.

That's why I find the Boeing idea of a "super-wide" single aisle puzzling. With a diameter of 4,2m you would have an aisle that is wide enough to bypass service stuff and each-other on longer routes or while boarding. It would even allow for 2-2-2 with narrow seats for medium haul (intra Asia). It will be structural better suited for lenght above 40m but have less than 10% more frontal area to a "normal single aisle" like the A320.

If you go for a 7-abreast TWIN you would immediately have 30% more frontal area, adding only about 17% capacity per row. But also that concept may work if you shape it oval, lower the main deck compared to the 767 allowing only LD3-45 crago. That would have 10% less frontal-area than a 767 and "only" about 25% more like a A320 with 17% more capacity per row.

One of these two options is the way to go i guess (OFC Boeing may now better lol). Anything more like a compfortable 7-abreast, narrow 8-abreast TWIN (fuselage wide 5,2 m, frontal area like 767) is a big challenge for the 787 in the long run like seahawk correctly states.

[Edited 2015-06-15 08:14:41]

[Edited 2015-06-15 08:15:48]

Quoting seahawk (Reply 47): Indeed but that means that NSA and MoM will be very close ins size.

But that wouldn't matter if NSA is optimised for shorter ranges and MOM for longer.