YXXMIKE
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:38 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 98):
It's interesting how Boeing's CEO recently said "no more moon shots" yet that's exactly where our discussion is going. An all-new airframe with a shape that's never been tried commercially and engines that don't exist today paid for to a large degree by the most price-conscious buyers. How could anything go wrong? I can hear John Leahy sniggering right now...

I think there is a lot of great technology and know how from both the 787 & 737 programme's respectively to develop a clean sheet airplane that isn't a "moon shot". Boeing will want to produce an airplane that makes them money; a guaranteed revenue stream which can fit nicely between existing production lines.


Quoting fcogafa (Reply 99):

Is the LR really going to be that relevant after all? 6 months after launch it has still only sold the original 30 to a lessor.

I've been thinking about that recently as well; I do wonder if a lot of potential customers are willing to wait 10 years for a clean sheet design. Is there 10 years left in the existing 757's out there? Will a 737-8 "do the job for now" for enough of the routes that 757 utilization can be brought down inline with the expected delivery of a new airplane? Certainly, some interesting questions abound as to what Boeing will do and how Airbus will counter...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17780
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:50 pm

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 99):
6 months after launch it has still only sold the original 30 to a lessor.

Since it's 'just another A321', customers would easily be able to convert existing A32Xneo orders to the A321neoLR. I certainly expect a number to take frames that way.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:01 pm

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 100):
I think there is a lot of great technology and know how from both the 787 & 737 programme's respectively to develop a clean sheet airplane that isn't a "moon shot".

The point of McNearney's comment was that he wanted to do things incrementally, not pull together tech from many different programs and integrate them in a new way. By his standards, some of the proposals above would be a "moon shot" especially if you were manufacturing them in a new location.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:56 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 102):
The point of McNearney's comment was that he wanted to do things incrementally, not pull together tech from many different programs and integrate them in a new way. By his standards, some of the proposals above would be a "moon shot" especially if you were manufacturing them in a new location.

He may have said that. Well, he's buying back stock isn't he.

But the reality is that Boeing has a problem above the 737.8max and neither a 757neo, nor a 767neo are capable of adressing it. So there isn't much else they can do. Only other option is to directly start the NSA slightly above the A320 but that is of course dangerous too - Airbus may just awnser it 5 years later. So they may feel more "compfortable" to go for the MOM first, especially while the 737-8max still is fine up to 200 pax.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:43 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 89):
The problem, as always, is that whatever tricks you apply to a widebody to give it economics comparable to today's narrowbodies can be applied to narrowbodies as well.

If narrowbody economics is essential to operators, MOM (if it happens at all) will be a big narrowbody. My view of what Boeing should do is the same as ever: a narrowbody family spanning a fairly wide capacity range, with a common fuselage, interior, and most systems, but with two different wings (a MOM wing and a short-haul wing), a separate engine for each wing, and three to four fuselage lengths. Start with the lower-volume MOM and then proceed to the higher-volume 737 replacement.

I think this is the best approach. The E-Jet family is what I'd look to mimic, the sub-families have about 95% internal commonality (i.e. between the 170/175), and between sub-families it's somewhere in the 80s%. Here's what you'd end up with:
NSA-1: about 738 size and range, but optimized for 1000 miles
NSA-2: direct A321 competitor
MOM-1: 757-250 size, 5knm brochure range (good for 10-hour sectors like Midwest-Europe)
MOM-2: 757-320 size, same MTOW as MOM-1, big L2 boarding door, 4k brochure range, CASM monster on transcons and Hawaii. Possible short-haul version with foling wings inside the ailerons like the early 777-200 designs.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:55 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 103):
But the reality is that Boeing has a problem above the 737.8max and neither a 757neo, nor a 767neo are capable of adressing it. So there isn't much else they can do.

The remaining question is how big a problem is it? It's been a decade since the last 757 rolled off the line and Boeing hasn't gone bankrupt. Perhaps pouring billions of dollars into an unproven and constrained market segment is a bigger problem. Boeing has said the market is bigger than they expected but that isn't really saying much.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:56 pm

An Ovalized Fuselage (Horizontal) may be a Moonshot technology but if they stick to 787 tech/production methods this would really be the only part that is new. Build it in Charleston on the extra land they have there and use the knowledge of the 787 workforce to get it up and running

Besides if they are looking to use the same Barrel on MOM and NSA much better to figure out how to produce it at 8-10 a month for MOM before ramping up to 50-60 Per month a few years later when NSA is destined to appear.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:08 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 91):
A very challanging task but if done the right way, especially if the plane is really to be comperatively "affordable", it could be very, very sucessfull

Absolutely. Its inherently a frame of compromise every way you look. It sounds very difficult to make and to retain your position in that market.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 97):
Horizontal oval

I personally love this idea in principal, not sure about execution.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 98):
An all-new airframe with a shape that's never been tried commercially and engines that don't exist today paid for to a large degree by the most price-conscious buyers.

I hear you, it is too many balls to juggle and sounds complicated and risky. I would love to hear airlines being more vocal about their interests but I guess we won't hear that. It would be interesting to know if UA, DL, AA could see having fleets similar to their once large 757/762/763 fleets and probably more importantly what do the Asian airlines think? That is where the growth is, is this the size and shape of an aircraft that they could see buying by the dozen? They were not big 757, A310, or 763 buyers.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
An all-new airframe with a shape that's never been tried commercially and engines that don't exist today paid for to a large degree by the most price-conscious buyers.

I have been trying to think what Boeing will do after 2021 778 EIS. The 787 should be good to go for a bit, the 777x will have just EIS, the 747 should be winding down, the 767 should be on autopilot for tankers, the 737 should me going steady with the max and still a few years away from the NSA. So where does Boeing look to improve? The A321neo is the biggest un-matched threat Airbus has against Boeing in my opinion. So I think this is a natural area to invest. What will it look like? None of us really know.

Do you see it differently?

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:50 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 107):
Do you see it differently?

I think NSA will follow in that time period, built as a traditional narrowbody but with state-of-the-art materials and engines. I don't think we'll see a true 'MOM' as being discussed here due to its cost vs risk profile. That's how I see things right now, but of course things can change that cost/risk equation between now and the early 2020s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
jayfred
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:24 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:58 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 108):
I think NSA will follow in that time period, built as a traditional narrowbody but with state-of-the-art materials and engines. I don't think we'll see a true 'MOM' as being discussed here due to its cost vs risk profile. That's how I see things right now, but of course things can change that cost/risk equation between now and the early 2020s.

Maybe, but as tortugamon mentioned, we'll still be relatively "fresh-off" the MAX EIS. I don't think Boeing would be willing to launch a new program that soon in order to avoid pissing off early MAX adopters and throwing away the MAX development costs. However, I could very easily see a NSA *design study* announcement, and perhaps a MOM program launch.

Something tells me that with the rumors and whispers floating around right now, we might not be too far from a MOM design study announcement in the next few years as 78J, 73MAX, and 77X begin to enter service. Boeing will most certainly not have all of the engineers from those NPI programs sitting around. Some of them will pivot to supporting those programs and the rest will move on to something new. I think an MOM design study is that "something new," or at least one of multiple projects.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:12 pm

"Maybe, but as tortugamon mentioned, we'll still be relatively "fresh-off" the MAX EIS. I don't think Boeing would be willing to launch a new program that soon in order to avoid pissing off early MAX adopters and throwing away the MAX development costs. However, I could very easily see a NSA *design study* announcement, and perhaps a MOM program launch."
Furthermore, Boeing board of directors is already booked for a meeting regarding 7M7. This thing will take of, probability is now over 90% for sure. Only thing which could stop it is a really severe global recession.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12005
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:12 pm

I don't see how a squished 767 could carry a lot of cargo, surely it has to be a lot less than a 767, especially considering you might have to put less carry-ons in the overhead bins too.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:21 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 108):
I think NSA will follow in that time period, built as a traditional narrowbody but with state-of-the-art materials and engines.

The MAX enters service in 2017 and you think its replacement will EIS ~2025?

I expect a shorter replacement cycle on the Max than the NG but I am closer to 2027/2028 on the NSA personally. I think Airbus will come later ~2030. That will be interesting but that is a topic for another day.

After the 778 in 2021 I just don't see much. Maybe a 787 and 777X based freighter. I think Airbus will be doing an A380 revamp and possibly an A350-1100 both of which I really don't see a Boeing response to.

I like LH707330's idea of doing the MOM and the NSA in conjunction with each other similar to the 757/767 idea and I also love the idea of shortening the NSA's range to make it even lighter for shorter missions because the MOM would handle the larger missions and that is 4-5 aircraft sharing similar production costs which should help make them economical.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 111):
I don't see how a squished 767 could carry a lot of cargo, surely it has to be a lot less than a 767, especially considering you might have to put less carry-ons in the overhead bins too.

I just don't see the MOM lugging LD3s around personally. I don't think the fuse will be large enough for that under the floorboards. A cargo variant for main floor capability certainly should be considered.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 8:38 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 110):
Boeing board of directors is already booked for a meeting regarding 7M7. This thing will take of, probability is now over 90% for sure. Only thing which could stop it is a really severe global recession.

I think you are reading far too much into:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):

"In July, Boeing’s board of directors will be briefed on options for developing a new plane, according to a person familiar with the plan. A Boeing spokesman declined to comment. Suppliers said a new Boeing jet wouldn't emerge until 2023 at the earliest."

I do not read that as 90% likelyhood of a program launch.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
The MAX enters service in 2017 and you think its replacement will EIS ~2025?

No, but I see the serious engineering happening for the NSA in the early 2020s.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
I like LH707330's idea of doing the MOM and the NSA in conjunction with each other similar to the 757/767 idea

As an engineer I like it too but I don't think the company would fund it that way. It's great to say they can cut their teeth on the MOM to make it easier to introduce the NSA but to me that's just an engineering fantasy. I hope I'm proven wrong but this isn't the Boeing of the 1970s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:46 pm

Quoting jayfred (Reply 109):
I don't think Boeing would be willing to launch a new program that soon in order to avoid pissing off early MAX adopters and throwing away the MAX development costs.

Agreed but I also don't think airlines will be ready to replace aircraft that quickly either. There is a heavy replacement cycle going on right now and I don't think there will be that many narrowbodies to replace ~2025. I think it will come a little later.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
As an engineer I like it too but I don't think the company would fund it that way. It's great to say they can cut their teeth on the MOM to make it easier to introduce the NSA but to me that's just an engineering fantasy. I hope I'm proven wrong but this isn't the Boeing of the 1970s.

Well I think that is the key thing that will make the economics work and if it can't be done then I think the MOM will be hard pressed.

Boeing filed a patent in 2009 that was based on a non-circular fuse that had applications for the NSA:

"This twin-aisle fuselage cross-sectional shape has also been shown to provide a perimeter-per-seat ratio comparable to that of a corresponding single-aisle, six-abreast, conventional aircraft fuselage having a circular or “blended circular arc” cross-section, and consequently, can also provide a cross-section-parasite-drag-per-seat ratio and an empty-weight-per-seat ratio that, in a first-order analysis, are comparable to those of the corresponding single-aisle fuselage cross-section, while offering better passenger comfort and owner revenue options."
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ovide_glim/#sthash.s6yiWCFP.dpuf"

I could see potentially see this type of fuse working for both the NSA and the MOM in which case I could see how Boeing could save on engineering and production costs. I personally like the flying guppy.

Big version: Width: 560 Height: 459 File size: 128kb


tortugamon

[Edited 2015-06-18 14:48:34]
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:13 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 114):
"This twin-aisle fuselage cross-sectional shape has also been shown to provide a perimeter-per-seat ratio comparable to that of a corresponding single-aisle, six-abreast, conventional aircraft fuselage having a circular or “blended circular arc” cross-section

So Boeing would introduce this, and three years later Airbus would introduce a single-aisle 6Y aircraft with a non-circular cross section and superior efficiency. 7Y is inherently inefficient, even if with new construction technology it can be made as efficient as 6Y is today.

7Y (or two-aisle 6Y) is just not a realistic option.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2243
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:59 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 115):

So Boeing would introduce this, and three years later Airbus would introduce a single-aisle 6Y aircraft with a non-circular cross section and superior efficiency. 7Y is inherently inefficient, even if with new construction technology it can be made as efficient as 6Y is today.

7Y (or two-aisle 6Y) is just not a realistic option.

Bingo. Someone made the excellent point in another thread that the 767 ended up as 7Y because the engines were not strong enough to do 8Y and keep the range (=A300).
 
JHwk
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:37 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 111):

I don't see how a squished 767 could carry a lot of cargo, surely it has to be a lot less than a 767, especially considering you might have to put less carry-ons in the overhead bins too.

Well, it could be interesting if there was no belly cargo, and all cargo was loaded at the main deck level in the back, combi-style. With some extra engineering, airlines could pick where they have the divider fixed... If they haul more fish or something.

Could we see a top- or mid-tube wing to keep the gear short but allow for the larger fans?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:26 am

This wide oval style fuselages have been studied since I have been at the university in the 1990ies, and in the end they were always interesting but never made it into production.

The reasons are quite simple.

1. too much wasted space.
The second aisle for just one extra seat. And in the cargo hold you have plenty of wasted space, as the containers are optimized for a circular fuselage.

2. lifting body
If you go wide enough to gain some extra lift from the window seats look like a 11 abreast window seat in an A380, just with the small space not reserved for your feet but for your head. In mock-ups people hated it. If you allow enough space for the window seats you are making problem one just worse.

3. structural weight
this is less of a problem with modern CFRP but still the oval is structurally inferior to the circle and to the small oval (787) for a fuselage design.

In the end all studies I have seen ended up with the conclusion that you could beat current generation single aisle designs with such a design, but that a single aisle design using the same technology would beat that design handily, at the expense of some capacity though.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:28 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 115):
7Y is inherently inefficient, even if with new construction technology it can be made as efficient as 6Y is today.

Thats fine, like the article says it is important not to pay attention to that seating arrangement just the fact that there is a way to make dual isle similarly efficient to single aisle. I don't see why this can't be 8-abreast instead of 7 or 6. Certainly there are tradeoffs. Maybe the NSA and the MOM won't have exactly the same cross section. All I know is that the ability to develop synergies between the two initiatives exists and the trick will be to uncover them so they can keep costs/unit as low as possible.

For structurally inefficient the 7-abreast 767 really did not do too poorly. Slightly wider and 8-abreast is intriguing to me.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:35 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 6):
How do you envision it?

Like this  
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:03 am

A single aisle can't get oval as a TWIN if you still like to keep at least LD3/45 capability or an equal cargo hold. Furthermore, you need some head room. In the case of thebTWIN you could lower the main deck quite a bit (see patent) to give enough "head room" and especially some lift. At the end you'll never be as efficient as a same technology single aisle. yes. But you will anyway fly further and have other tradeoffs, like better turnaround time, especially for 300 pax in one-class configs and especially a better option to go well over 45 m length. The wing and engines will be bigger which is a plus too. At lenght over 2000 nm you can be more efficient because all these factors. The critical point is OFC to be only very slightly worse tha a NSA on short stages.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:30 am

But shorter turnarounds make only sense on short routes. For a 5 hour plus flight 15 minutes longer turnarounds are not an issue. A 8 abreast solution would be way bigger than a 757 and compared to a circular fuselage cargo capacity would be reduced. Apart from that you would need to lower the cabin floor to give the passenger enough head room, but that means you are reducing the room for their feet.

I simply to not see how a plane should make such a big leap in economics. The 787 is quite a benchmark. Sure you can optimize the structure and everything but imho the fuselage construction will not bring that much, that you could beat the circular fuselage using the same techlevel.

If you want to try, you need to go blended wing fuselage. This just leaves you with problems like emergency evacuation and many passengers disliking the cabin without any windows visible to them.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:58 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 101):
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 99):
6 months after launch it has still only sold the original 30 to a lessor.

Since it's 'just another A321', customers would easily be able to convert existing A32Xneo orders to the A321neoLR. I certainly expect a number to take frames that way.

I think some of the 110 A321neo (+90 options) for Wizz Air is certainly going to be LR.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:27 pm

New AviationWeek article about the MOM engine selection. A couple interesting quotes:

"“This market is anywhere between 100 and 250 seats,” says Rolls-Royce Aerospace President Tony Wood. “It is quite clear new-generation aircraft are overlapping. The market is changing and becoming more fragmented, and it may well be a one-part solution is less likely in the future.”"
...
"Rolls is targeting whatever emerges from MOM with a new family of engines under development as part of its two-phase evolution strategy from today’s Trent XWB. The first engine, dubbed the Advance, is aimed at entry into service in 2020 and will have a bypass ratio in excess of 11:1, an overall pressure ratio of more than 60:1 and a fuel-burn level at least 20% better than the Trent 700. The second, more ambitious follow-on concept—called UltraFan—could be ready for service from 2025 onward"
...
"Rolls’s own studies indicate the sweet spot will be “the high end of the 757 or the low end of the widebody. That is our big target area,” says Eric Schulz, president of Rolls-Royce large civil engines. “There has been a clear push to the right [in aircraft size] which is motivated by capacity in emerging markets and overall constraints in the big airports. So we expect to see a natural transition into the high end of the market.”"
...
"Pratt senses a new opportunity. “It will evolve over the next year to 18 months,” says President Paul Adams. The provisional timescale is also open to conjecture, but “we are looking at entry into service around the 2023-28 period,” he adds."
......................
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...s-mom-aircraft-engine-remain-vague


So Pratt and RR seem like they are in but GE has been far less vocal. Just saying that there is a market there but that GE is focused on executing the already daunting backlog. Makes sense. It is hard for me to picture just how these major engine OEMs are going to get it all done.

tortugamon
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Mon Jun 22, 2015 8:30 pm

Yes, but GE is the only one currently full scale in the A32xneo and 737Max as well as in several widebodys. Pratt is "only" in the A32x plus C-Series and RR is mostly all in in Airbus widebodys plus 787. Makes sense form them to diversify a little.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:28 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27):
I fly that way all the time, its called a 767
Quoting dare100em (Reply 44):
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.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
Well it's not like Boeing could bring MOM to market in a few years.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 72):
I have the feeling MOM is going to be a 767-200ER / 767-300ER class airframe (higher capacity and more range).

All of this means one thing to me; 767MAX. After the 787 and 748 debacles, and the success of the MAX program, Boeing is very unlikely to do anything new for a very long time.

There is one plane currently in production which is almost exactly between the 321neo and the 788/330neo; the 767. The real beauty of MAXing it is that everything one would need is already available in the Boeing parts bin.

Engines are the biggest contributor to efficiency improvements, and the GEnx -2B's would fit under the 762/3 wings. I'm sure GE would do what few mods might be required to sell a few more of them.

That would take care of the major mods. Add some aero tweaks like laminar flow bits, scimitar like wingtip devices, maybe wing root fairing stuff...and that's about it.

Forget about new wings and flyby wire and anything else that costs time and money to design and make, but would add very little to performance and greatly increase the time to market and price.

The 767MAX would be the fastest to market, cheapest to build, MOM aircraft possible. It may not be perfect but it could be flying a decade earlier than an all new aircraft. They wouldn't even have to start a new production line. Add to that the existing parts and service network, LD-2 bins scattered around the globe and the security of a proven product line, and it seems that a 767MAX makes as much sense as a MOM aircraft, as the 737MAX/320NEO do for single aisle and 330NEO/777x for wide body airliners.
What the...?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:40 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 126):
All of this means one thing to me; 767MAX.

We've had this discussion before, but it's just too heavy and volumetrically inefficient. 767 MAX would almost certainly be inferior to both 757-300 and A321LR on CASM, meaning there is no reason to buy it. MOM needs to beat both the 757-300 and the A321LR.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:15 am

Beating the A321LR neo witha bigger palne with more range will be a big challenge, especially if you consider the option of Airbus doing a NEO2, bringing the A321 to the same tech level for the engines.

Imho Boeing will spilt the single aisle segment into 2 products.

MoM is to go first and will be covering 200-270 seats
NSA is coming after is covering 130-200 seats

NSA will be the king of short routes, MoM the king of long routes, both will be so good that a design trying to cover both will have no chance.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:49 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 126):

I like the idea but the 767 is just too capable and therefore too heavy. The airframe is optimized around the 6,300+nm 763E. It would need to be smaller and less capable (less heavy) to fit this role. By the time you did a new wing, new engine, and new systems around the 762 I wonder if it was better just to start new.

Don't get me wrong, I am compelled by the idea. Lets look at Airbus: A320neo, A330neo, A380neo...not exactly re-inventing the wheel here but I just don't think the 767 is the perfect frame.

If it could handle a comfortable industry accepted 8-abreast Y then I could be convinced however because I think that changes the dynamics. But it would still need new gear, wing, engines, etc.


tortugamon
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:00 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 127):

I agree that it probably needs to be a narrowbody.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 126):

The 767MAX would be the fastest to market, cheapest to build, MOM aircraft possible.

What about a 737-MAX 10?
We see that the weightsaving gains from CFRP fuselage are minimal. If they build a new, slightly larger wing that provides better takeoff performance and carries more fuel for extended range, and stretches the fuselage a little bit more? After all, the 757 and the 737 have the same fuselage diameter, right?

And then maybe CFM could deliver uprated engines?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:34 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
If it could handle a comfortable industry accepted 8-abreast Y then I could be convinced however because I think that changes the dynamics. But it would still need new gear, wing, engines, etc.

Yes, that would be the only way - by lowering the main deck some inches. But still it would be heavy and - most important - optimal at the leng of the -300. Maxbe a -200 long-range option.

But that with 8-abreast is not really the MOM slightly above the 757 but a direct A33x opponent. That doesent mean it would'nt work, but the 767MAx only has a chance as 8-abreast and than we're talking about a 240-300 people frame (as -200MAX and -300MAX) with 7000 plus and 6000 nm range - only slightly below the 787 in size and capabillities.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:46 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 130):
What about a 737-MAX 10?
We see that the weightsaving gains from CFRP fuselage are minimal. If they build a new, slightly larger wing that provides better takeoff performance and carries more fuel for extended range, and stretches the fuselage a little bit more? After all, the 757 and the 737 have the same fuselage diameter, right?

The (main) problem of the 737 regarding future growth is not the wing or even the fuselage-stretch (but that will be a problem to given how narrow it is) but the ground clearance for bigger engines and rotation angle. But if you chance that (they looked at it in detail when doing the 737 Max) plus all the other stuff you're 80% at the NSA, still no LD3/45, still to narrow fuselage for lenght above 40m, still suboptimal aerodynamics --> 737MAX is maxed out and everyone agreas on this subject including Boeing. Regarding the 737 the 767MAX has a bigger potential (as 8-abreast), just IMO it's not the MOM where talking about but a direct A33x replacement.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1816
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:22 am

What could possibly make the 767Max work would be a radical redesign. Think New wing/wingbox and folding tips with a very large L/D ratio - basically glider wings. Design it to only fly 5,000 nm at first. Go back over the fuselage with a fine tooth comb to remove weight. Install a 787 Cockpit (already done on the 767-2C) which I believe takes a lot of weight as well.

Probably new gear as well as the whole thing would weigh a lot less - new Carbon Empenage.

Then maybe it has a shot. MTOW would have to be something like 250,000 lbs vs 315,000 on the Original 767-200 and you would have to get the OEW down from 176,000 lbs to something like 140,000ish. The 737 Max 9 will be 195,000 MTOW and OEW of probably about 100,000 lbs.

Given the 767-200 had a 5,800' takeoff run and 4,250 nm range the above changes would get you to 5,000 nm and you could probably get away with a lot less thrust given the new very long wing - maybe 40-45,000 lbs.

Basically you only reuse the 767 Barrel and nose section.

But then again if you did the above you might as well start from scratch as with Carbon and an Oval fuselage you could probably come up with something about 15'8" Wide and 12'6" High to give you 2x3x2 Y and an effective Fuselage diameter of 14'1" vs 12'4" on the 737 and 13' on the A320 - barely more than the difference between the 737 and the A320 (BTW the 767 at 16'6" Wide vs 17'9" is effective circle of about 17'1.5" - it's a lot bigger).That would then allow you to use the new Nose and Barrel for NSA!

[Edited 2015-06-23 01:26:07]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:37 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 127):
We've had this discussion before, but it's just too heavy and volumetrically inefficient. 767 MAX would almost certainly be inferior to both 757-300 and A321LR on CASM, meaning there is no reason to buy it. MOM needs to beat both the 757-300 and the A321LR.

It would do very well against both, just as the current 767 does against the 753 and A321ceo. The A321NEO didn't do anything magical...basically, put a new gen engine on an old gen airframe. It didn't lose any weight...and in fact, gained weight.

Very few airlines are getting rid of their 767's and those that are released, are quickly picked up by other operators. There is nothing in the pipeline that can do what the MOM is supposed to do, and a new airframe isn't going to happen for at least another decade...probably longer.

I'm not suggesting a 767MAX would be a perfect aircraft...but neither are any of the other re-engined airliners. As it is, there is nothing out there that can replace the thousands of 753, 767, A310 and A300 aircraft...except the 767.

The A321 won't be able to haul as many people and as much cargo as far and the 788 or A330NEO wouldn't be able to do the 5-6000nm range as cheaply.

CASM isnt the only benchmark that gets airliners sold. Capability is another. For example, the A321NEO will do basically everything the 752 could but it can't do all of what the 753 could and certainly not match the capabilities of the middle range twin aisle airliners.

Right now, the 767 can do west coast US to basically anywhere in the EU, and it can do transpac as well, both with decent loads.

The 767 already IS the current MOM airliner. Regardless of any other characteristics, a new MOM will have to at least be able to do what the 767 already can.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
I like the idea but the 767 is just too capable and therefore too heavy. The airframe is optimized around the 6,300+nm 763E. It would need to be smaller and less capable (less heavy) to fit this role. By the time you did a new wing, new engine, and new systems around the 762 I wonder if it was better just to start new.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 133):
What could possibly make the 767Max work would be a radical redesign.

A radical redesign just isn't going to happen to any of the aircraft capable of fulfilling the MOM role, and an all new aircraft wouldn't even get final approval by the end of this decade which means that it wouldn't enter service until the end of next decade.

The only way a MOM airliner gets done is if it's a cheap and dirty derivative. Too much rework and it's too expensive and takes too long, defeating the purpose of a derivative in the first place. Basically, about the same amount of work that was required to turn the A320CEO into the NEO.

The only perfect design would be an all new design...and that would take a really long time and be a very expensive proposition. Everything else would be a derivative, and so, sub optimal.

Basically, the MOM hole either gets filled by a 767 MAX, or it won't get filled until around 2030.

The 767 is still a pretty good aircraft. A 767MAX wouldn't be able to turn water into wine or raise the dead...it would just be a better 767...and that's not too shabby.
What the...?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8915
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:09 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 134):

IMO the 767-200 would make a terrible starting point for a MOM. You start out with a frame with a worse CASM than other frames of a similar time. If we look at 767-200, 767-300, 757-200, 757-300 both the 757 beat the pants of the 767 in CASM with the 757-300 having the lowest one.
If it is a bad idea to start out with the 757, it is a worse idea to start out with the 767.

It is very nice to speculate in a small wide body, but in the end, when a low CASM is the aim you end with a big narrow body.
If it is impossible to MAX the 757, new engines, weight reduction and aerodynamic clean up should bring 20% fuel burn reduction, Boeing should start out with a wider tube to accommodate 6 x 18 inch seat a wider aisle and LD3-45 containers.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17780
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:20 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
If it is impossible to MAX the 757

It's certainly not impossible, but Boeing has clearly said there's no business case for it.   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6944
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:26 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 134):
It would do very well against both, just as the current 767 does against the 753 and A321ceo

I struggle with this one....
The current 767 hasn't done well at all against the A321CEO, that I can see.
To me, it feels like the A330, and A321 between them have essentially put the 767 out of new-build passenger business, whilst the current A321 and A330 are still selling.

I'm having difficulty in seeing how a 767NEO vs an A330NEO (or the 787-8) and an A321 NEO meaningfully changes that.

I could be miles off. But if the 767NEO was going to be that good, I think we would have seen it instead of the 787-8.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 134):
The only perfect design would be an all new design...and that would take a really long time and be a very expensive proposition. Everything else would be a derivative, and so, sub optimal.

.

  
In a nutshell that is the issue Boeing are being challenged by.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
Boeing should start out with a wider tube to accommodate 6 x 18 inch seat a wider aisle and LD3-45 containers.

To be honest, this is where my head goes - leverage the best of a twin aisle in the minimum space by "putting the aisles next to each other" and reducing the overall width. The MS21 is going down this route, being some 12cm (5") wider than the A320 (and about 28cm (11") wider than the 737)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21

Quote:
Wide cabin (3.81m), MC-21's cabin is wider than the cabin of an Airbus A320 by 12 cm and a Boeing 737 by 28 cm. As a result, two passengers can go through the aisle without blocking each other. The wide cabin also allows to construct the biggest luggage racks in the class with the aim to decrease MC-21's turn-around time at the airport (important for charter and low-cost carriers), to provide better comfort for passengers and to make the cabin more suitable for carriers' purposes

Rgds
 
S75752
Posts: 1466
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):

IMO the 767-200 would make a terrible starting point for a MOM.

Where did this new abbreviation come about?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 126):
The 767MAX would be the fastest to market, cheapest to build, MOM aircraft possible. It may not be perfect but it could be flying a decade earlier than an all new aircraft.

Boeing wouldn't do it for the simple reason that the 787 already is the new small widebody aircraft. 767 Max would end up being an odd-one out of fleets as well, as the old 767's are retired in favor of 330's and 787's, and its previous 757 kin are already being retired quite a bit.

The need is for a high range capable narrowbody, not a widebody. If Boeing wants to avoid the low-ish sales of the 757, they'll need to make it more like an existing narrowbody family than a widebody one. That means either having it be akin to the 737 MAX or the NSA, rather than the 787. Contrasted against how the 757 was more akin to the 767 than the 737.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 1:39 pm

Boeing could have MAX'ed the 767 - but they built the 787 instead.
Boeing could have MAX'ed the 757 - but they decided instead to expand on the 737 platform, so we have the 737-900ER and soon the 737-MAX9.

Boeing is not going to bring either the 767 or the 757 back to market. I know that the passenger version of 767 has not formally been withdrawn, but it won't get any more orders. You want a MAX 767-300? Why not then buy an A330-800 and get better CASM? If you as an airline were considering a MAX 767-200, why not take a look at the A321neo LR? Unless the extra range is needed, the A321 would probably beat it easily on CASM.

The 767 is now viable only as a freighter plane.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:50 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 131):
optimal at the leng of the -300. Maxbe a -200 long-range option.

Buy I think that is a step too far. They have indicated that the goal is to produce roughly the equivalent of a 753 with 1,500nm more range. A 763neo would be a step further in both areas and it would be easy to beat on 2,000nm routes by narrow body aircraft.

Quoting hilram (Reply 130):
What about a 737-MAX 10?

I think if Boeing could have, they would have. The 738 is larger than the A320 but when it came to stretches the A321 came out longer than the 739 because the 739 has landing gear limitations and performance issues that limits its growth. A redesign would not be easy but will come with the NSA IMO.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 134):
A radical redesign just isn't going to happen to any of the aircraft capable of fulfilling the MOM role, and an all new aircraft wouldn't even get final approval by the end of this decade which means that it wouldn't enter service until the end of next decade.

I personally don't see it taking 5 years to launch a new aircraft if there is a business case. And it seems to take ~7 years to go from launch to EIS. Why do you think it would take so long?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
the 757 beat the pants of the 767 in CASM with the 757-300 having the lowest one.
If it is a bad idea to start out with the 757, it is a worse idea to start out with the 767.

The 752 beats the 763 by 3.4% on fuel burn per seat on a 3knm mission. The 762 would certainly compare worse but they aren't that much different.

tortugamon
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:18 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
If it is a bad idea to start out with the 757, it is a worse idea to start out with the 767.

It's only a bad idea to start with the 757 because the 757 doesn't exist anymore. To start there, would be to build all new. The reason the 767 is a better place to start is because not only are all of the parts already available, but they are all still in production.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 137):
I struggle with this one....
The current 767 hasn't done well at all against the A321CEO, that I can see.
To me, it feels like the A330, and A321 between them have essentially put the 767 out of new-build passenger business, whilst the current A321 and A330 are still selling.

I don't see the 763 as competing directly with the A321 or the 788/a330. The A321 is significantly smaller than the 767, weight it doesn't need since it doesn't carry 767 loads or fly as far. The 767 is around 80,000lbs lighter OEW than the 788/A330, which need all of that structure to carry larger loads, longer distances.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 137):
I could be miles off. But if the 767NEO was going to be that good, I think we would have seen it instead of the 787-8.

The 788 is way more plane than a 767MAX would ever be...and I think more plane than some airlines need, but they don't have much choice. It's either go way below what you want, or way above.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 138):
Boeing wouldn't do it for the simple reason that the 787 already is the new small widebody aircraft. 767 Max would end up being an odd-one out of fleets as well, as the old 767's are retired in favor of 330's and 787's, and its previous 757 kin are already being retired quite a bit.

The thing is, 767's aren't being retired unless they are just worn out. The same goes for 753's, A310's and A300's. There are so few good used 767's out there that FedEx is still taking new ones to replace and expand.

Quoting hilram (Reply 139):
Boeing is not going to bring either the 767 or the 757 back to market. I know that the passenger version of 767 has not formally been withdrawn, but it won't get any more orders. You want a MAX 767-300? Why not then buy an A330-800 and get better CASM? If you as an airline were considering a MAX 767-200, why not take a look at the A321neo LR? Unless the extra range is needed, the A321 would probably beat it easily on CASM.

That's precisely the point. The A321 is just about a perfect 752 replacement, but it's not so great of a 753, 762/3, A310 and A300 replacement. There are still thousands of these planes flying and if carriers really wanted an A321, they have had a long time to do so.

It might not be a huge market, but if you could get a thousand or so sales from a re-engined twin aisle, that would make a pretty tidy profit. I think the airlines are getting more concerned about 'right sizing' their aircraft, which may be one reason why fleets are getting more mixed all the time.

I have no doubts that some airlines would rather have something between the A321 and the 788.

A321Neo, OEW (CEO) - 107,000LBS (-73,000/93,000) MTOW (NEO) - 214,000LBS (-181,000/198,000)

788 OEW - 260,000LBS (+80,000/60,000) MTOW - 500,000LBS (+105,000/88,000)

762 OEW - 180,000LBS MTOW - 395,000LBS

763 OEW - 200,000 MTOW - 412,000LBS

The 767 sits almost exactly in the center of the A321 and 788 in almost every category; size, weights, range, price...and that is a very huge gap. I find that especially interesting considering how much of a fuss is being kicked up by the allegedly important gaps between the 788 and 710, and a358 and A351...which are nowhere near as significant as the gap between the A321 and 788.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
I personally don't see it taking 5 years to launch a new aircraft if there is a business case. And it seems to take ~7 years to go from launch to EIS. Why do you think it would take so long?

The XWB was first offered in 2006 and currently, there are only a handful in service. That's 9 years. Maybe it wouldn't take a decade, but it would take most of one and it would cost 3 or 4 times to go all new, compared with an upgrade.

As I mentioned, the 767MAX wouldn't be perfect, but it would cost 1/4 the price of perfect and get to market 5 or 6 years sooner than perfect. The 739MAX is being handily pants by the A321 but they are still selling hundreds of those.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
The 752 beats the 763 by 3.4% on fuel burn per seat on a 3knm mission. The 762 would certainly compare worse but they aren't that much different.

If you know, (or can find out), what's the delta at higher loads and longer ranges?
What the...?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:57 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
A321Neo, OEW (CEO) - 107,000LBS (-73,000/93,000) MTOW (NEO) - 214,000LBS (-181,000/198,000)
788 OEW - 260,000LBS (+80,000/60,000) MTOW - 500,000LBS (+105,000/88,000)
762 OEW - 180,000LBS MTOW - 395,000LBS

This tells me that the 767 could be valuable on some small 788 routes but by that same token doesn't that mean that any flight that the A321neo can do, this new 767Max would also have its lunch similarly eaten? I think so. That is why I am envisioning a more significant modification bc it has to be competitive against the A321 on ~2,000nm missions to be wildly successful in my opinion.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
I find that especially interesting considering how much of a fuss is being kicked up by the allegedly important gaps between the 788 and 710, and a358 and A351...which are nowhere near as significant as the gap between the A321 and 788.

I agree and also if you follow the thinking that the smaller the aircraft family the more units it typically sells and if the A321neo hasn't even entered service but has over 800 orders it makes me think that there is potential for a large amount of orders in this area.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
The XWB was first offered in 2006 and currently, there are only a handful in service. That's 9 years.

Sure and the 787 was terribly mismanaged and it had ~100 in service in about the same amount of time. I am not saying its an overnight thing but I don't really see a decade either. I think a launch within 2 years is reasonable and 8 years to EIS is ~2025 which is about what I suspect as the NSA will probably have to come shortly thereafter.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
If you know, (or can find out), what's the delta at higher loads and longer ranges?

Here is what Bjorn's data from Leeham shows. Its just for one 3,600nm mission and doesn't actually have multiple data points. Take a look at the A321neo comparison which is over 20% better than the 752. That is very stiff competition for the MOM.
http://leehamnews.com/2014/05/26/can...-cheap-767-300er-replace-the-757w/

tortugamon
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9243
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting S75752 (Reply 138):
Boeing wouldn't do it for the simple reason that the 787 already is the new small widebody aircraft

Hhhhmmmm, does make you wonder why the smallest wide body - 788 - is now being eclipsed by the larger wide body 789 which only makes the gap between the 737-9ER / MAX any variant even larger. I guess the other issue would be why Boeing sales department are not pitching the 788 against all those A321 sales.

Quoting hilram (Reply 139):

Boeing could have MAX'ed the 767 - but they built the 787 instead.

Well as a supporter of the 767MAX we are talking about the 767-200, it needs to loose weight since we are trying to get it down a notch not up, the 767-300 already took over the higher end of the market where it had the bulk of its success, the smaller sibling had to compete with the 757-200 on the low end which it was never meant to do. Now that the 757 is gone, it could possibly have new life if it is updated.

The 737MAX is just coming to market, Boeing politically will not want to cease production and go to the NSA after a short run, economically, if the NEO kicks it to the curb they will have no choice. So what to do, the largest version of the NSA first, which most shoot down in the same vein as the 757-MAX, 767-200, or just sit back and allow the 757 top end market to go away. At the end of the day, the gap in their line up remains, if clients are looking for an a/c to fill the space and are talking to Airbus about versions of the A321, what does Boeing bring to the table, paper work showing that the market does not exist and they are better off not buying an a/c?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:51 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):

The 767 sits almost exactly in the center of the A321 and 788 in almost every category; size, weights, range, price..

Interesting - the very interesting 'bermuda box' in #4 doesn't have 767 nor A300 nor A310 in it.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:23 pm

I think it is interesting to look at UA's and ANA's fleet and notice the 50+ 753s and 763s they have on hand but how they have virtually ceased taking delivery of 788s and don't have anything else on order in that size.

DL has ~90 similarly sized aircraft and while many will go to the A339 there is still a large amount of aircraft there without logical replacements. I don't think they will take their 788s.

AA has a similar situation those less extreme. JAL, LAN, etc.

I just don't see all of these aircraft going to A339/789 sized replacements. I think many will fall to the A321neo like I think ANA's did/will.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 144):
Interesting - the very interesting 'bermuda box' in #4 doesn't have 767 nor A300 nor A310 in it.

True enough. I made that chart to indicate what aircraft are readily available for purchase to fill future needs and I believe all the aircraft you mention to be dead aircraft from a passenger perspective.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:40 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
I don't see the 763 as competing directly with the A321 or the 788/a330.

Every airliner competes with those in the next size classes up and down. Boeing lost tons of potential 763 and 764 sales to the larger A330s. It lost lots of 752 sales to the 738 and A320. Airbus is losing A350-1000 sales to the 777-9X, and arguably A380 sales to the 777-300ER. The list goes on.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
The 788 is way more plane than a 767MAX would ever be.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the 788 has lower trip costs on some missions (the longer ones) than today's 763, while carrying 20% more passengers. It's going to be a very uphill battle to get 20% or even 15% out of a re-engine alone. Unless you can, any airline flying your 763MAX is going to struggle heavily against airlines that can fly the 788, with its extra flexibility and revenue potential, for almost the same raw cost.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
The thing is, 767's aren't being retired unless they are just worn out.

This is true only for 763ERs, not any other type of 767. And even for 3ERs it's going to change in the very near future. The 787 has just hit its delivery stride in the last year. Each year with 120 787s delivered is going to take a chunk out of the 767 secondary market. We're already seeing the buyers transition from first-rank airlines to LCCs and carriers in economically challenged countries. In a couple more years we will start to see ships get parked without buyers.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
It might not be a huge market, but if you could get a thousand or so sales from a re-engined twin aisle, that would make a pretty tidy profit.

I think that to get that kind of sales volume you are going to need a large narrowbody that is lighter, cheaper to build, and cheaper to maintain than a 767.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:29 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 145):

True enough. I made that chart to indicate what aircraft are readily available for purchase to fill future needs and I believe all the aircraft you mention to be dead aircraft from a passenger perspective.

Agreed, it's just an interesting contrast to:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
The A321 is just about a perfect 752 replacement, but it's not so great of a 753, 762/3, A310 and A300 replacement. There are still thousands of these planes flying and if carriers really wanted an A321, they have had a long time to do so.

So they are dead for new purchases yet they still soldier on in many fleets, thus the pax do end up sitting on a "bermuda corner" aircraft at least for a few more years. Might be interesting to update the chart with the 757/767/A300/A310 a/c in a different color indicating they are (more or less) end-of-life yet do need replacing.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 146):

This is true only for 763ERs, not any other type of 767. And even for 3ERs it's going to change in the very near future. The 787 has just hit its delivery stride in the last year. Each year with 120 787s delivered is going to take a chunk out of the 767 secondary market. We're already seeing the buyers transition from first-rank airlines to LCCs and carriers in economically challenged countries. In a couple more years we will start to see ships get parked without buyers.

Agreed, the 3ER has gotten a bit of a respite due to the drop in the price of fuel, but its days are numbered. Next to no one will want to put in the $$$ for a heavy check.

Clearly some would prefer a "MOM" option but IMHO not enough to bear the cost of a Boeing "MOM" airframe since there's no real choice but to build an all-new frame, one that will be vulnerable to anything Airbus does beyond A321neoLR.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:11 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 146):
This is true only for 763ERs, not any other type of 767. And even for 3ERs it's going to change in the very near future. The 787 has just hit its delivery stride in the last year. Each year with 120 787s delivered is going to take a chunk out of the 767 secondary market. We're already seeing the buyers transition from first-rank airlines to LCCs and carriers in economically challenged countries. In a couple more years we will start to see ships get parked without buyers.

A main big reason I can think of for Boeing not to go for the 763 replacement market with a 763 max is fear of jeopardizing 787 sales. OTOH, we've seen some big 763/787 operators like UA keeping the 763s and using the 787s for opening new routes. Surely some of those big 763 operators who can operate the model profitably that Tortugamon mentioned would go for the chance to renew their aging fleets with a model featuring double digit cost fuel savings if the purchase price was low enough (eg below the A330 and 787) with availability starting soon. A big issue I see is the lack of a suitable engine or engine partner. Last I heard the GEnx is too big and narrow body engines can't be scaled up enough. This would be much easier on Boeing if GE or Pratt was willing to help bankroll the certification process in exchange for a single source agreement, much like I assume Rolls is doing on the A338/9 and wanting to do on a A380 NEO (considering the potential competition with the A330, I don't see RR having much interest unless BA is going to buy the plane    ).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9243
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:22 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 146):
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the 788 has lower trip costs on some missions (the longer ones) than today's 763, while carrying 20% more passengers. It's going to be a very uphill battle to get 20% or even 15% out of a re-engine alone. Unless you can, any airline flying your 763MAX is going to struggle heavily against airlines that can fly the 788, with its extra flexibility and revenue potential, for almost the same raw cost.

So how does Boeing equate that to the slowing sales of the 788, the conversions of existing orders to the 789, while sales of the A321 variants are picking up and the 737-9MAX etc are not keeping pace?
Even if Boeing severely discounts the 788 I don't think anyone looking at a A321 / 7379MAX order are going to consider that much more a/c.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos