frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:33 am

What the world wants to know, where is the 767MIN, as in minimum. Maximums need not apply.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:06 am

The 767 was killed once by the A330, it would be killed again. Airbus could easiyl invest some money into the regional NEO, reducing the MTOW to early A333 levels and reducing the structural weight, would probably be enough to come up with something beating the 767MAX on CASM with ease.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:15 am

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

They may not compete DIRECTLY. But something killed the passenger 767. What do you think it was if it wasn't the ever-improving narrowbody capability below, and the A330/787 above?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 141):
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

If either option is still cheaper to operate, despite being sub-optimal, is this a problem?

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

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:22 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 152):
But something killed the passenger 767. What do you think it was if it wasn't the ever-improving narrowbody capability below, and the A330/787 above?

A.Net wisdom is that:
1. 767 was too narrow compared to the A330 hence 2-3-2 while being pax friendly was not airline efficient resulting in lost income.
2. 767 did not carry LD3's which the A330 did thus resulting in loss airline income
3. Range was better on the A330

The above all applied to the 767-300ER and the A330 any variant, the 767-200 which matches the tentative requirements of the MOM was killed by the 757 / 739 / A321 / A320, in essence it was killed from below since Boeing did improve the line with the 767-300 / ER which became the best selling model.

If cheap MOM is not viable and early NSA large model is not viable and MAX9 cannot be improved any more, Boeing in the market place is where it is today.
The question is, are they using these "leaks" to compete against the other OEM's a/c during sales campaigns?
 
User avatar
Btblue
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:57 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:50 am

The only way I see forward for this is for Boeing to shrink the 787.

If they MAX the 767 they are eating into 787 sales.

If they MAX the 757 they are in essence temporarily extending the life of that 30 year old aircraft. They are also treading on thin ice - with the 737MAX programme.

The 787 technology is known, the programme is the future and as much as I would LOVE to see the 757MAX I cannot see Boeing throwing away intelligence gathered from the MAX and 787 programmes to warm over an old airframe. No engine is available for the 757 (can't see a Trent 1000 working) and the 767 is too heavy.

A shrink and possible re-wing of the 787 (They have the technical specs) I think is a distinct possibility. It will be the bottom of the 787 market - providing family growth should an airline need it. Twin aisle, room for fish in the morning and post in the evening. It will just need to go on a strict diet (remove doors, install over wing exits, ala 767) and be a contender against any proposed A330 regional or, A321LR - given that passengers prefer twin aisle for long haul ops.

Add on a growth version of the GTF (commonality with the MAX) and you could just possibly have something airlines would be interested in. Almost like a bridge between the 737MAX and 787.

[Edited 2015-06-24 04:57:01]
 
jayfred
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:24 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 114):
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.

No, I agree completely. I think that will also be a thing that Boeing will want to be careful of. If they build an NSA with significant savings over the 73MAX, airlines who just took MAX deliveries might have some serious buyer's remorse and be (rightfully) frustrated at Boeing for pushing them on a platform that Boeing planned to make painfully obsolete within that brief of a timeframe.

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
The only way I see forward for this is for Boeing to shrink the 787.

If by "shrink" you mean take the 787 and squish it down smaller, then no. The 788 is already too heavy for airlines to want to operate it - there's a reason the 789 is replacing the 788 in most airlines' order books. Shrinking it further is a recipe disaster.

If, however, you mean appropriating the technologies to make a clean-sheet aircraft (new gear, new fuselage cross-section, new wing, new empennage), then I would agree. Boeing's only hope to build a successful MOM aircraft is to make a hyper-efficient aircraft in that capacity and range segment. They won't accomplish that by a straight shrink. Straight shrinks are generally not good, and if you're going to perform a straight shrink on an airframe that is already saddled by its extra weight, you're asking for a disaster.

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
and be a contender against any proposed A330 regional or, A321LR - given that passengers prefer twin aisle for long haul ops.

But these aircraft are MASSIVE in their difference! Boeing will not be competing directly with either of these two, much less both. To try to do that would be foolish. For some airlines, a MOM could be the "Goldilocks" airplane. That's what Boeing would have to count on - filling *just* the right niche between the A330 and A321LR (or a possible stretch).

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
Add on a growth version of the GTF (commonality with the MAX)

The MAX isn't getting the GTF. It's exclusively CFMI LEAP.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:44 pm

Hyper efficient airframe is something of a huge challenge. Compare the 787 to the A330NEO, the Dreamliner is the best and most modern design, the A330 is a warmed over legacy design, yet once they got similar engines the difference went down to less than 10%. (many would say closer to 5%)

And while CFRP looks like the future, the metal alloys have not stood still. The new one are also much better so that one can no longer say that going al CFRP is the answer. I hate to say it but the A350 concept does have some merits.

And as long as you go with the current cargo containers and the classic "tube with wings" design the A320 is as good as it gets from the basic fuselage design. Surely you could try the wide oval or the small oval approaches, but for the single aisle design the trade-offs could easily be not worth the effort.

If you want to make a real breakthrough you would look at the blended wing body, but that has its own structural challenges and conceptual problems.

Imho Boeing faces a huge problem, if MoM turns out all it needs to be, it will badly hurt the MAX, which forces them to do the NSA which would then put pressure on the MoM. Imho they need to start the NSA, which should be able to bring a 240seat 4500nm+ plane as the biggest version. The simple reason is that by 2028 Airbus could probably do a NEO2 with second Gen GTFs and maybe a new wing for the A320 that would beat the MAX by 10-15%. Boeing could not respond, as the 737 is maxxed out. So by that time the NSA will be needed. If you look at the time frame you see that in a best case scenario MoM would have 5-6 years (and a EiS for 2022 is pushing it) before facing new single aisle planes with even more modern engines.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:50 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 27):
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.

I think you're right about that. A new Boeing MOM could be countered by stretching the A321neoLR to an A322 for the quarter of the program cost. It would have a few drawbacks compared to a clean sheet design, such as range and fuel burn. But it would also have advantages, for example commonality, price, and availability.

I think the smart thing to do for Boeing is the launch the NSA instead, and make it a 160-260 seat aircraft in 3 sizes. A clean sheet design that couldn't be countered by Airbus that easily. Either with two wing options, or a single wing design that is more dynamic and flexible with option to change camber in cruise, like Airbus did with the A350.
Boeing will have to be the first of the two do launch an NSA anyway. And committing this amount of resources on a MOM alone doesn't make sense to me. Unless they do a repeat of the 757/767 development.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 157):
A new Boeing MOM could be countered by stretching the A321neoLR to an A322 for the quarter of the program cost. It would have a few drawbacks compared to a clean sheet design, such as range and fuel burn.

But range (especially) and fuel-burn appear to be what is driving interest in the MOM so the A322-200 could enter that fight with both hands tied behind it's back.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:02 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 157):

I think you're right about that. A new Boeing MOM could be countered by stretching the A321neoLR to an A322 for the quarter of the program cost. It would have a few drawbacks compared to a clean sheet design, such as range and fuel burn. But it would also have advantages, for example commonality, price, and availability.

The enemy of the MoM is not the A321, the enemy of the MoM is the NSA and whatever Airbus will do to fight the NSA.
 
YXXMIKE
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 158):
But range (especially) and fuel-burn appear to be what is driving interest in the MOM so the A322-200 could enter that fight with both hands tied behind it's back.

So should we expect UA to start replacing all of their 757 service within the UK with A322's then? How many more seats per day would that be for those markets? Could they sustain that in the winter when nobody is flying to Scotland, Manchester etc.


For the 757's still flying out there how much life is left in them realistically? Could UA/DL/TCX etc. get another 10 years out of their current frames? Is that realistic? How much is Boeing's back up against the wall when it comes to finding an actual replacement for the 757?
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 160):
For the 757's still flying out there how much life is left in them realistically? Could UA/DL/TCX etc. get another 10 years out of their current frames? Is that realistic? How much is Boeing's back up against the wall when it comes to finding an actual replacement for the 757?

The good thing about the A321neoLR is that it's just another A320-series. It's versatile, it's got commonality, and it's a safe choice for any current A320 operator. I don't think the airlines that currently fly 757 across the Atlantic will do so in 10 years. By that time they've either swapped them with A321neoLR, or reduced frequency and upgauged to a widebody. Fuel prices in 10 years will most likely be much higher than now, and the 757s still flying will have even higher maintenance costs. The absolute latest frames of the production line will be more than 20 years old, nearing 3rd D-checks.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 158):
But range (especially) and fuel-burn appear to be what is driving interest in the MOM so the A322-200 could enter that fight with both hands tied behind it's back.

For sure, but with the upsides of A320-series commonality, lower price (most likely) and availability several years before a Boeing MOM, it could steal a lot of potential sales from Boeing. All of these 757 flying now won't last until 2025 as passenger aircraft. I believe the only reason we haven't seen the A321neoLR sell in large numbers yet, is that airlines know they don't have to hurry. The A321neoLR is just another A321neo with some tweaks.

When Boeing decides to formally announce to the world that they're working on a MOM, Airbus will definately counter it somehow. And if that somehow is an A322, it could be off the production line 4-5 years before Boeing's product. That's why I believe they should go for the NSA straight away, pulling the chair out from under John Leahy and his A320neo-series.

I'm not saying I don't believe a Boeing MOM would be successful, I think it would sell like hot waffles. I'm just saying that sinking this amount of money into a new aircraft type now, it should be the NSA. In my humble opinion.

[Edited 2015-06-24 09:26:13]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9243
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:40 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 161):
That's why I believe they should go for the NSA straight away, pulling the chair out from under John Leahy and his A320neo-series.

Leahy chair is no problem, all the clients who have bought the thousands MAX they are now pushing would create a wee bit of a promlem.

Quoting jayfred (Reply 155):
If they build an NSA with significant savings over the 73MAX, airlines who just took MAX deliveries might have some serious buyer's remorse and be (rightfully) frustrated at Boeing for pushing them on a platform that Boeing planned to make painfully obsolete within that brief of a timeframe.

So was it Airbus who pushed them to do with MAX or the clients who did not want to wait for the NSA?
Hhhhhmmmmmm........
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17781
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:10 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 162):
So was it Airbus who pushed them to do with MAX or the clients who did not want to wait for the NSA?
Hhhhhmmmmmm........

The reality being a combination of both. All airlines wanted significantly more efficient planes when oil was at its peak price. Given a choice of neo 'now' or NSA some time after 2020, the airlines told Boeing they wouldn't wait that long. If neo wasn't available, do you really think Boeing would have done MAX?
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

Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:19 pm

Quoting jayfred (Reply 155):
Boeing's only hope to build a successful MOM aircraft is to make a hyper-efficient aircraft in that capacity and range segment.

Which will be extremely costly and vulnerable to being undermined by A320 family a/c.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 156):
And as long as you go with the current cargo containers and the classic "tube with wings" design the A320 is as good as it gets from the basic fuselage design. Surely you could try the wide oval or the small oval approaches, but for the single aisle design the trade-offs could easily be not worth the effort.

Agree, and Airbus will tell you that this covers 80-90% of the MOM market.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 157):
I think you're right about that. A new Boeing MOM could be countered by stretching the A321neoLR to an A322 for the quarter of the program cost. It would have a few drawbacks compared to a clean sheet design, such as range and fuel burn.

I think by the time all the bills are paid, MOM will be >4x the cost of A322. Keep in mind to get the extra range and capacity MOM is looking at an all-new engine whose cost needs to be covered, and it's pretty clear it will also need some all-new manufacturing facilities.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 159):
The enemy of the MoM is not the A321, the enemy of the MoM is the NSA and whatever Airbus will do to fight the NSA.

Boeing won't let MOM and NSA overlap/compete. If they do so, I doubt we'll even see a MOM.

Quoting par13del (Reply 162):
So was it Airbus who pushed them to do with MAX or the clients who did not want to wait for the NSA?
Hhhhhmmmmmm........

Why can't it be both? The key event was AA's deal to replace all its Mad Dogs. Airbus clearly had the inside track with NEO, so you can say Airbus pushed Boeing to do MAX, and AA would not wait for NSA because the Mad Dog replacement was already happening late due to the bankruptcy and other industry shake-ups.
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

Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:19 pm

It should be MOM before NSA especially if they build it off the same technology. Master MOM at 10 per month and optimize the Barrel for NSA taking further weight out of it as experience grows just like they did on 788/789 - This assumes they Build a composite barrel.

NSA will have to be super efficient from a performance standpoint and also set new benchmarks in terms of low cost to build.
 
jayfred
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:24 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 6:07 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 162):
So was it Airbus who pushed them to do with MAX or the clients who did not want to wait for the NSA?
Hhhhhmmmmmm........

This is why Boeing has been in a tough spot with NSA and will continue to be. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:54 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 151):
The 767 was killed once by the A330, it would be killed again.

I see the A330 as larger than the 767 and significantly larger than a hypothetical MOM so I think there is enough separation for both to exist. I do not think the 763 is the right size for the MOM.

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
If they MAX the 767 they are eating into 787 sales.

I personally do not see too many more 788 orders as it is currently designed. Also, if they MAX the 767 I don't see it really impacting the 789. So I have a difficult time agreeing with this point.

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
If they MAX the 757

The won't and can't in my opinion.

Quoting btblue (Reply 154):
A shrink and possible re-wing of the 787 (They have the technical specs) I think is a distinct possibility. It will be the bottom of the 787 market - providing family growth should an airline need it.

I personally espoused this idea and really tried to make it work but just kept hitting a brick wall. Its just too heavy.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 157):
It would have a few drawbacks compared to a clean sheet design, such as range and fuel burn. But it would also have advantages, for example commonality, price, and availability.

Some major advantages indeed. The common vendors / supply chain is a huge advantage.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 157):
Unless they do a repeat of the 757/767 development.

I do think that is exactly what they will do. These two will be developed in unison with the NSA coming after.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 160):
How much is Boeing's back up against the wall when it comes to finding an actual replacement for the 757?

I personally believe that ship has sailed. The replacement market is already underway and there really won't be that many left in service by the time this MOM appears. That isn't to say there isn't an opportunity but I do think the vast majority of the 757s will be replaced by A320s and 737s, as they should be.

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

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:38 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 152):

Yet the passenger 767 is still being profitably utilized by many airlines and desired by others.

What we don't see is operator's replacing 767's with A330's. The 752, on the other hand is being easily replaced by the 321.

The 767 continues to fill a niche market, which the MOM always will be, and those are not being replaced from below or above...and operator's have had decades to do it.

The 767 was killed by saturation of its market by the 753, ,A310, and A300.

That market is once again opening up which is why there is so much talk about MOM.

If these aircraft could be so easily replaced, so many in the industry would not be talking about it at all.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 152):
If either option is still cheaper to operate, despite being sub-optimal, is this a problem?

I have no idea. My entire point in bringing up a767max is not if it can compete with any other aircraft. The point is if Boeing wants an MOM before the middle 20's at the earliest for a new plane, they have little choice but a 767max.

Ultimately, the market will decide, like it always does.
What the...?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9243
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:24 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 163):
If neo wasn't available, do you really think Boeing would have done MAX?

Boeing was already working on the NSA so I would say no, they would have eventually gone to the NSA.
One option was to accelerate development of the NSA, if they have / had any intention of using 787 tech they would not be starting everything from scratch.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 164):
Which will be extremely costly and vulnerable to being undermined by A320 family a/c.

The NSA will always be vulnerable to the A320 family, if some new tech comes around that increases efficiency way beyond the A320 what would prevent Airbus from using the same tech, either on the A320 or a new build?
The 737 right now is limited by Boeing's decision not to increase the ground clearance, its the second time they have found ways around that limitation, so far the 737-9/ER has been the product that has suffered the most, which seems to be carrying over to the MAX9.
Difference now seems to be that the compromises for the MAX8 has bought its performance much closer to the A320, so the product difference which was used as a sale point is diminishing. If the A32XNEO continues to outsell the MAX the financial decision will be made for Boeing.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21900
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:16 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 169):
One option was to accelerate development of the NSA, if they have / had any intention of using 787 tech they would not be starting everything from scratch.

What we've read about '787 tech' is (a) it was oversold and (b) it scales up better than it scales down. For (a) we read that the initial optimism about making the 787 extremely light was tempered by the need to add current return paths for lightening strikes (i.e bury a heavy metallic mesh within that light CFRP) and adding thickness to deal with ramp rash. For (b) we can see how all of (a) scales up better than down and we also read how the 'more electric' architecture requires space for more EE bays to deal with all the gizmos to deal with variable frequency AC coming off the engine's generators, etc. So for the smaller airframe, '787 tech' might not be a win at all.

Quoting par13del (Reply 169):
If the A32XNEO continues to outsell the MAX the financial decision will be made for Boeing.

The 737MAX has more orders than Boeing can fill for a very long time, so it's no where near as important a decision that some make it out to be. Some feel that Boeing feels a need to be the market share leader, but Boeing decided at least a decade ago that it wasn't their priority.
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
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:26 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 168):
What we don't see is operator's replacing 767's with A330's.

A number of airlines (including US) replaced 767s with A330s over time. More airlines are replacing 767s with 787s.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:28 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 164):
Boeing won't let MOM and NSA overlap/compete. If they do so, I doubt we'll even see a MOM.

Considering the average route length and the growing popularity of the larger single aisle aircraft versions, I think it is impossible to avoid an overlap.

NSA would need to cover at least the current MAX capacity range, more likely though it will be around 180 - 210 -240 seats. It would also need to have at least 3000nm range.

MoM would probably start at 240 seats with the larger version going up to 270/280 and about 5000nm+ range. Those would overlap.

As NSA would come later I expect it to be better in CASM in its within its range limit. That leaves the MoM for routes over 3000nm but less than 6000nm that need more than 240 seats but less than what a A330/787 or so could offer.

And as an additional drawback, the whole faimily would be in danger of a A390 (A320 replacement) family, offering 190 - 220 -250 seats at likely 4500nm range at least.

NSA + MoM would only make sense if NSA starts in the 130 seat range and goes up to 200 with the MoM covering the larger variants.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 167):
I see the A330 as larger than the 767 and significantly larger than a hypothetical MOM so I think there is enough separation for both to exist. I do not think the 763 is the right size for the MOM.

I meant 767MAX vs. A330NEO Regional or something
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:49 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 162):
So was it Airbus who pushed them to do with MAX or the clients who did not want to wait for the NSA?
Hhhhhmmmmmm........

The advent of the NEO pushed Boeing into the MAX decision. Up to that point they were at great pains to tell the world that their customer base was pushing for NSA

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

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:49 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 171):
A number of airlines (including US) replaced 767s with A330s over time. More airlines are replacing 767s with 787s.

Many airlines are keeping their 767's and using their 787's for fleet expansion. Some, like WS, are using 767's to expand their network. They could have gone with used A330's or A321's, but they didn't. For some, the 767 is the right plane.

It seems that for many, either you are number one in sales, or you're crap. The 739 is a far second to the A321 so any airline which buys the Boeing model is moronic, yet somehow, these operators seem fine enough about their decision that some are even buying more of them.

There are lots of airlines with lots or specific roles they wish their aircraft to play. Some actually want an aircraft 80,000 pounds lighter than a 788, that tops out with a 6000 mile range. Some of those also want more than the A321 can deliver.

In other words, some airlines use 767's because they want 767's. If they didn't want them, they either would have not bought them, or would have gotten rid of them at the first opportunity.

The real world isn't, 'only the best selling will do'. Sometimes the second or third best selling will be exactly what the customer needs.

The A321 and the 330/788 are very good planes but so many aircraft professionals are bringing up the concept of MOM airliners precisely because they see a potential market than will be best served by an aircraft that can occupy that very significant gap.

A MOM airliner might never be made but the talk about one doesn't seem likely to be going away soon...and in venues a lot more influential than A.Net.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 173):
The advent of the NEO pushed Boeing into the MAX decision. Up to that point they were at great pains to tell the world that their customer base was pushing for NSA

True, but the whole time they were touting the NSA, Boeing was careful to note that they were researching re-engining the 737. It's one reason they could react as quickly as they did for AA.

They put a lot of their eggs into the NSA basket, but not all of them.
What the...?
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:50 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 168):

What we don't see is operator's replacing 767's with A330's.

* cough * Air Algerie * cough * Hawaiian Airlines
Please have a look at the excellent B767 replacement thread in this very forum:
767 Fleet/Subfleet Retirement Plans (by hkcanadaexpat Jun 5 2015 in Civil Aviation)
 

But you have a point that the 767 is being replaced with a whole host of different planes: B737-900ER, A321 (ceo and neo), B788, and A332.
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
 
uta999
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:10 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:11 am

Rather than a completely new design, Boeing should just shorten the fuselage of the 788 and put on smaller (hopefully) RR engines.

It could be a game changer, like the A300 was back in the day. It would look like a fat series A318/A320/A321.

Meet the 782, 783 and 784, followed by the 785, 786ER for longer routes.

If built in large numbers the build cost would quickly fall too.
Your computer just got better
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:18 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 175):
But you have a point that the 767 is being replaced with a whole host of different planes: B737-900ER, A321 (ceo and neo), B788, and A332

I actually think that's the point the rest of us are trying to make ....

What is the size of the space where a 767MAX would be more efficient than an A320NEO/737MAX on shorter routes, and a 787-8 or A330-800 on longer ones, and is it big enough to justify the investment?...

History suggests that the space wasn't big enough to fit the 767 into as it went out of production as a passenger plane.

I get that lots of operators still use their 767's and get good business out of them.
that's because
a) they've got them anyway so might as well use them
b) they are nearly all written down from a capital viewpoint.

To replace them means spending money. A lot of money.

So the question isn't really

"Do operators get good use out of 767's today?"

The question is actually

"If operators need to spend money to replace their 767's, would enough of them spend it on a 767MAX to warrant the investment?"

"Or would they be more likely to spend it on a 787/A330NEO or A320NEO/737MAX, or alternatively an all new "MOM" design?"

I don't think it would be too hard to design an all-new "wide narrowbody" with a wide aisle at 3 + 3 abreast, in two variants, 1 capable of moving c. 200 people 5000Nm, and one capable of moving 250 people 4500Nm
I'm willing to bet it could be done on the 757's MTOW or even less (between 110t and 115t)

As a reference, the 767-200 has an MTOW of 180t

An A320 has a 25" aisle when fitted with 17" seats in a 143" wide cabin.
It has a 19" aisle when fitted with 18" seats.
I expect the Irkut MC21, being 5" wider than an A320 at 148" cabin, to sport a 24" aisle with 18" seats.
That actually sounds like quite a comfortable configuration for a medium haul mission to me.

As a reference, a twin aisle 6-abreast configuration with 18" seats and 17" aisles would require a minimum of 160" wide cabin.
It would still have tight aisles, even with 2 of them.

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:33 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 177):

I don't think it would be too hard to design an all-new "wide narrowbody" with a wide aisle at 3 + 3 abreast, in two variants, 1 capable of moving c. 200 people 5000Nm, and one capable of moving 250 people 4500Nm
I'm willing to bet it could be done on the 757's MTOW or even less (between 110t and 115t)

Making it competitive to a A321NEO or 737-9MAX on shorter routes might be a challenge though.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:46 am

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 150):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 178):
Making it competitive to a A321NEO or 737-9MAX on shorter routes might be a challenge though.

Which is nearly impossible and IMO not the plane Boeing is in talks/thinking about. It may initially come close because of the newer engines, but given the same engines something hast to give. I don't think Airlines expect it to have exactly the same economics e.g. on a 2000 nm mission than a A321. It's "abou" single aisle economics.

This plane will be larger and as a wide single aisle have an MTOW about 120t ... 130t. But it will carry 220 plus pax over 4000 nm under all conditions very efficient. On shorter missions of e.g 1500 nm it will be maybe 5% less efficient than an A321, at 3000 nm it will be about zero difference but it can do things a A321 simply can't and even an A322 wouldn't be capable. That's IMO the biggest challange for Boeing. Make it large/long-range enought that a simple A322 won't work on one hand and avoid building "just" another better A33x on the other hand - like a 767Max as 8-abreast would be. The "wide singe aisle" astuteman talks above with a 150'' cabin may be the best approach, but that's of course not well supportet.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:34 am

Quoting uta999 (Reply 176):

Rather than a completely new design, Boeing should just shorten the fuselage of the 788 and put on smaller (hopefully) RR engines.

It could be a game changer, like the A300 was back in the day. It would look like a fat series A318/A320/A321.

Meet the 782, 783 and 784, followed by the 785, 786ER for longer routes.

If built in large numbers the build cost would quickly fall too.

They were working on the 787-3 right up until the end. As far as I understand it was still the 787-8 fuselage, but with some modifications and higher density configuration. I think it was intended for domestic Japan flying. Someone who knows more about the Dreamliner could probably explain more about that aircraft.

I don't think shortening the 787 further is a good idea, it's going to be too much aircraft. It would struggle with the same shortcomings the 737-600 and the A318-100 does. Less capacity, but still too heavy and expensive.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9243
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:24 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 170):
Some feel that Boeing feels a need to be the market share leader, but Boeing decided at least a decade ago that it wasn't their priority.

Well we did get two decisions, first market share was not too important in the NB segment, then when the share started sliding they commenced more aggressive marketing of the NG series to more or less settle the market at 50% where it roughly is today.
The issue going forward is how many small carriers switch OEM's on NB frames, large carriers operate both, but smaller carriers usually stay with one OEM and combined they make up a huge market.
Its the old "Blue Chip" theories floated around with Boeing of the past, how many of those that they did not put in the effort ever came back to a Boeing product.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 180):
They were working on the 787-3 right up until the end. As far as I understand it was still the 787-8 fuselage, but with some modifications and higher density configuration. I think it was intended for domestic Japan flying. Someone who knows more about the Dreamliner could probably explain more about that aircraft.

Correct, for the MOM it is too heavy and range is too limited, hence no one else was interested, it was too customized for the Japan market.
Interesting thing is if it was less customized threads like this would be much more interesting as that a/c would be much closer to the upper end of the MOM being discussed.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:49 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 178):
Making it competitive to a A321NEO or 737-9MAX on shorter routes might be a challenge though.

That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "shorter route" IMO.

As an example, based on airline FCOM's posted on these forums, I believe an A320 with winglets, having about 5% less capacity than a 737-800w, burns about 5% MORE fuel on a 100-200nm 1/2 hour mission, about the same fuel at c. 700-800Nm 2 hour mission, and about 9% less fuel at 2000Nm+ 5hour+ mission.
It seems to compete extremely well with the 737-800w.
In fact the non-sharkletted A320 did, which sports only a c. 4%-5% fuel burn advantage at longer range.

(The above is also why I think the MAX in any form will struggle to compete with the NEO as a TATL platform. Long range is just not where the MAX's economic strength is. Short range is.)

Quoting dare100em (Reply 179):
This plane will be larger and as a wide single aisle have an MTOW about 120t ... 130t. But it will carry 220 plus pax over 4000 nm under all conditions very efficient. On shorter missions of e.g 1500 nm it will be maybe 5% less efficient than an A321, at 3000 nm it will be about zero difference but it can do things a A321 simply can't and even an A322 wouldn't be capable

I agree completely.
And I don't think it would even need to be 120t.
Not with engines substantially more efficient than even the GTF or LeapX
My estimate is that c. 110t would get you either a plane as big as a 752 doing 5000Nm, or a plane nearly as big as a 753 doing 4500Nm

Rgds
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:15 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 182):
That depends on what you mean by "competitive" and "shorter route" IMO.

As an example, based on airline FCOM's posted on these forums, I believe an A320 with winglets, having about 5% less capacity than a 737-800w, burns about 5% MORE fuel on a 100-200nm 1/2 hour mission, about the same fuel at c. 700-800Nm 2 hour mission, and about 9% less fuel at 2000Nm+ 5hour+ mission.

I would have said around 2500-3000nm for shorter missions, as it is very unlikely that the NSA could end up with less than 3000nm range. (probably more though)

I have no doubt that you can make such a plane that would be equal to the 737MAX8 or A321NEO in CASM by 2025 while benefiting from the next generation engines and manufacturing. However I doubt that it is a healthy business case, as the successors to the MAX and NEO will come by 2030 and they will have even newer engines and at least the same manufacturing technology, while probably also growing in capacity and range.
 
User avatar
PA727
Posts: 181
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:09 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 174):
Many airlines are keeping their 767's and using their 787's for fleet expansion. Some, like WS, are using 767's to expand their network. They could have gone with used A330's or A321's, but they didn't. For some, the 767 is the right plane.

Agree that it might be the right plane for WS, but I would also have to think availability and most importantly, acquisition cost played a significant role. It's a lot easier to find a used 767 at a tasty price as opposed to an A330 or A321.

When going used as opposed to new, acquisition cost helps offset efficiency differences, therein lies the rub vs. buying a 767MAX.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 172):
And as an additional drawback, the whole faimily would be in danger of a A390 (A320 replacement) family, offering 190 - 220 -250 seats at likely 4500nm range at least.

But then there is the risk that the smallest member of the "A390" family might not be as competitive against the largest member of NSA and the smallest member of MOM. Similar to how the A350-800 ended up not being competitive against the 787-8 and 787-9 and was effectively squeezed out of existence.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 177):
What is the size of the space where a 767MAX would be more efficient than an A320NEO/737MAX on shorter routes, and a 787-8 or A330-800 on longer ones, and is it big enough to justify the investment?

I'm guessing right where Boeing is positioning it - 4000-5000nm. The A321-200LR either can't do it or can't do it with a viable payload and while a 787/A330/A350 can easily do it, at a similar cabin density it would seat significantly more and therefore would probably have too low load factors for the route.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 177):
I don't think it would be too hard to design an all-new "wide narrowbody" with a wide aisle at 3 + 3 abreast, in two variants, 1 capable of moving c. 200 people 5000Nm, and one capable of moving 250 people 4500Nm
I'm willing to bet it could be done on the 757's MTOW or even less (between 110t and 115t).

Agreed.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 178):
Making it competitive to a A321NEO or 737-9MAX on shorter routes might be a challenge though.

But it would not be operated on such a route, just as today nobody would buy a 757-200MAX (if it was in production) to operate such a route over the A321-200neo or 737-9.



Quoting seahawk (Reply 183):
I would have said around 2500-3000nm for shorter missions, as it is very unlikely that the NSA could end up with less than 3000nm range. (probably more though)

Well Boeing could engineer lower operating weights to account for lower fuel volumes to support lower maximum ranges (i.e. - 787-3 versus 787-8).

The key would be how much structural weight they could save in doing so and whether that weight reduction would give them a large enough fuel efficiency advantage to make it the most-desired choose for those mission segments. I am thinking it probably would not be much (maybe a few thousand kilograms, at best) so chances are NSA will be designed for 3000nm+ design ranges.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:59 pm

How much weight could be taken off the 767 200 if it were mostly just re-engined and some work done on the wings. Versus how much if it were given new wings. I do notice in wiki that a 321NEO is getting up into the 767 weights, or is that misleading. The specs table are not measuring quite the same things.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 186):
How much weight could be taken off the 767 200 if it were mostly just re-engined and some work done on the wings.

I expect new engines would add weight.

If they went CFRP for the wings, they might save thousands of kilograms. But realistically, unless they switch to a newer and lighter Aluminum alloy, by now Boeing has probably shaved all the weight they are going to off the 767 frame.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 185):
But then there is the risk that the smallest member of the "A390" family might not be as competitive against the largest member of NSA and the smallest member of MOM. Similar to how the A350-800 ended up not being competitive against the 787-8 and 787-9 and was effectively squeezed out of existence.

The question is how small can they make the NSA so that it does not overlap with the MoM.

Imho this will be an impossible task. There are plenty routes that could use the capacity of the A321/MAX9 (and more) but do not need the range of the MoM. I would dare say this is the vast majority of all routes served today by 900s, A321s and 757s.

We also see that Max7 is not selling well, so going by the basic rule of 3 versions for a type and adding some growth, the NSA would be around 170 - 200 -240 seats as a conservative estimate. I also dare say that at least 3000nm range will be demanded by the customers with more range being quite likely. (I guess 3500nm at least)
That is the 737 market and imho the core market Boeing needs to cover. They can not make compromises in that market to make room for the MoM. Imho the resources are better spent on the NSA and perhaps having a heavy NSA version with a larger wing ready by 2028, than by having the Mom ready by 2023.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26505
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:45 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 188):
Imho the resources are better spent on the NSA and perhaps having a heavy NSA version with a larger wing ready by 2028, than by having the Mom ready by 2023.

I'm inclined to agree. I think they might be best served by doing with NSA-3 (the largest model) what they planned to do with the 787-3 and 787-8: have a plane with identical fuselage dimensions, but two wings - a smaller, lighter one designed for less than 3000nm and a larger, heavier wing designed for 5000nm.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6558
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 188):
Imho the resources are better spent on the NSA and perhaps having a heavy NSA version with a larger wing ready by 2028, than by having the Mom ready by 2023.

Why start with mainstream-NSA rather than heavy-NSA (aka MOM)? The MAX is far from perfect but at least the MAX 8 is reasonably holding its own and gathering orders. Boeing has absolutely nothing in the MOM space, or to compete on the high end with the A321LR or even high-density A321neo. Start with the heavy version while ramping up, then introduce the lighter versions, replacing MAX, as production capacity increases.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2488
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:46 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 180):
They were working on the 787-3 right up until the end. As far as I understand it was still the 787-8 fuselage, but with some modifications and higher density configuration.

The 9-abreast configuration that is the de facto standard for 787 seating, is the higher density seating. There's no way that 10-abreast seating on the 787 with conventionally laid out seats would ever be allowed by the FAA.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8925
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:19 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 190):

Why start with mainstream-NSA rather than heavy-NSA (aka MOM)? The MAX is far from perfect but at least the MAX 8 is reasonably holding its own and gathering orders. Boeing has absolutely nothing in the MOM space, or to compete on the high end with the A321LR or even high-density A321neo. Start with the heavy version while ramping up, then introduce the lighter versions, replacing MAX, as production capacity increases.

Engine technology. Around 2025 the second gen. GTFs will be ready for use, so for a plane an EIS of 2027 would be possible while using them. Those engines won´t be ready for an EIS before 2025. And imho the whole NSA family needs to use the same techlevel for engines.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:40 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 192):
Engine technology. Around 2025 the second gen. GTFs will be ready for use, so for a plane an EIS of 2027 would be possible while using them. Those engines won´t be ready for an EIS before 2025. And imho the whole NSA family needs to use the same techlevel for engines.

That's one very important reason that all new isn't going to happen any time soon. While we've seen that there are huge advantages to putting new tech engines on old airframes, I really doubt we would see the same gains from putting current tech engines on a next gen aircraft.

The CSeries and 787 are good examples of that. They do have advantages over older models with new engines, but the older planes are very competitive. Add a price advantage, and it's pretty much a wash.

When the airliner makers say that there won't be another all new aircraft for a long time, I believe them.
What the...?
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:48 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 193):
That's one very important reason that all new isn't going to happen any time soon. While we've seen that there are huge advantages to putting new tech engines on old airframes, I really doubt we would see the same gains from putting current tech engines on a next gen aircraft.

Tehe Pratt GTF in a slightly larger version - which will be even better for the concept - together with more aggresive core materials would IMO be an engine with a huge potential, especially exactly in the trust clase needed by the MOM about 40.000 lbf.

Furthermore the C-Series is game changing regarding economics compared to the A318_9 or 737-6_7. Yes, engines play the main part but thats how it is, see cars etc. And if things like the open rotor ever see the light of day isn't yet clear. Furthermore in the trageted segment Boeing talks about all plans have engine sat least 20 years old, beeing it 757-300 or 767-200 or even 767-300. The A330neo is well above, the A321 will most probably be well below the MOM.

[Edited 2015-06-26 00:49:36]
 
brindabella
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:50 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 179):
Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 150):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 178):
Making it competitive to a A321NEO or 737-9MAX on shorter routes might be a challenge though.

Which is nearly impossible and IMO not the plane Boeing is in talks/thinking about. It may initially come close because of the newer engines, but given the same engines something hast to give. I don't think Airlines expect it to have exactly the same economics e.g. on a 2000 nm mission than a A321. It's "abou" single aisle economics.

This plane will be larger and as a wide single aisle have an MTOW about 120t ... 130t. But it will carry 220 plus pax over 4000 nm under all conditions very efficient. On shorter missions of e.g 1500 nm it will be maybe 5% less efficient than an A321, at 3000 nm it will be about zero difference but it can do things a A321 simply can't and even an A322 wouldn't be capable. That's IMO the biggest challange for Boeing. Make it large/long-range enought that a simple A322 won't work on one hand and avoid building "just" another better A33x on the other hand - like a 767Max as 8-abreast would be. The "wide singe aisle" astuteman talks above with a 150'' cabin may be the best approach, but that's of course not well supportet.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 182):
I agree completely.
And I don't think it would even need to be 120t.
Not with engines substantially more efficient than even the GTF or LeapX
My estimate is that c. 110t would get you either a plane as big as a 752 doing 5000Nm, or a plane nearly as big as a 753 doing 4500Nm
Quoting Stitch (Reply 185):

I'm guessing right where Boeing is positioning it - 4000-5000nm. The A321-200LR either can't do it or can't do it with a viable payload and while a 787/A330/A350 can easily do it, at a similar cabin density it would seat significantly more and therefore would probably have too low load factors for the route.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
I'm inclined to agree. I think they might be best served by doing with NSA-3 (the largest model) what they planned to do with the 787-3 and 787-8: have a plane with identical fuselage dimensions, but two wings - a smaller, lighter one designed for less than 3000nm and a larger, heavier wing designed for 5000nm.

 
Great stuff. And all achieved with zero name-calling or sweeping categorical statements!
If only there was more of it on this forum.

My two-cents to (timidly) add to these distinguished contributions:
a) NSA two members only. The larger is above the MAXs, the smaller in the -8MAX/-9MAX passenger capacity range . The larger comes first.
b) The MAX family may well be produced in parallel for many years.
c) A future -390 family is a probability, with a 2nd-gen GTF/RR geared fan or whatever. Which will give the competing families parity as presumably B can upgrade existing NSA members hitherto using 1st gen GTF as quickly as A can produce all-new models. And at that stage the advantage flips: now B is well down the learning-curve etc., and A is just starting on same.
d) Presumably the NSA/MOM families would be designed for maximum commonality, a la 757/767 families. I've wondered about two wings across the two families too.

Again congrats to all, including our Canuck!

cheers Bill
Billy
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3296
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Tail wagging the dog. WN & FR combined only represent about 12% of all 737 sales. Ever.

Ah, but you forget, and maybe some angst showing,

Southwest Airlines announced they would be the launch customer for the 737 MAX with a firm order of 150 aircraft and 150 options. Ever.

Southwest Airlines placed a firm order for 30 737 MAX 7 aircraft and became the launch customer for the MAX 7 variant. Ever.

Ryanair finalized their order for up to 200 Boeing 737 MAX 200s. The airline's order includes 100 firm orders, and 100 purchase rights for the same type. This makes Ryanair the official launch customer for the Boeing 737 MAX 200. Ever

Sorry, Southwest and Ryanair are still very big in the continued developement of the 737. Ever.

Quoting jayfred (Reply 37):
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 jayfred (Reply 65):
It isn't horrid if it works, which it does. The fuel savings negate the extra "drag" that the fan produces (which actually doesn't make a whole lot of sense beceause the fan is accelerating the air through the engine, not stopping it.

Makes complete sense. There is more drag with a bigger fan. Oh, and you forgot, in this case according to astuteman, bigger fan better fuel economy, but much less thrust.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 193):
When the airliner makers say that there won't be another all new aircraft for a long time, I believe them.

In the continuing developement of commercial airliners, it seems that the newer aircraft are better in economics over the older ones, but at what cost ? And is it worth the cost for the incremental improvements ? The airlines are ordering the newer aircraft, but some of the older types with newer engines and some improvements seem to be doing okay.

The A-320 is looking a lot like a mini 777, a good thing. The engines on the A-320 look massive. But 2 engine aircraft are getting boring. They are looking a lot alike. 3 and 4 holers, miss those.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Airbus_A320neo_landing_06.jpg/800px-Airbus_A320neo_landing_06.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/9/7/1375798.jpg

Quoting uta999 (Reply 176):
It could be a game changer, like the A300 was back in the day. It would look like a fat series A318/A320/A321.

Wasn't that done with the A-300 to get the A-310 ?

If there is a 757 replacement made by Boeing, it will also replace the 737 in a way. The new 320s and 737s come close, but aren't there yet.

Quoting American 767 (Thread starter):
Long live the flying pencil.

Long live the praying mantis.
You are here.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17781
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 196):
Ah, but you forget, and maybe some angst showing,

No, I don't do angst. Ever.   

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 196):
Southwest Airlines announced they would be the launch customer for the 737 MAX with a firm order of 150 aircraft and 150 options. Ever.

Southwest Airlines placed a firm order for 30 737 MAX 7 aircraft and became the launch customer for the MAX 7 variant. Ever.

Ryanair finalized their order for up to 200 Boeing 737 MAX 200s. The airline's order includes 100 firm orders, and 100 purchase rights for the same type. This makes Ryanair the official launch customer for the Boeing 737 MAX 200. Ever

Sorry, Southwest and Ryanair are still very big in the continued developement of the 737. Ever.

None of which changes anything in relation to what was said way up thread. For MOM or NSA, Boeing should start with a clean slate and not be hamstrung by any ill-conceived need for 737 cockpit commonality. If NSA offered 20% lower operating costs than MAX, neither WN nor FR would care if it offers zero commonality with the 737.
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.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:31 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 197):

I doubt they could get 10%, much less 20 without radical new engines. The NEO and the MAX are using the very latest engines available and there isn't even much more than talk about what comes next.

And, radial new engines can always be put on old airframes....though the 737 might be maxed out.

An all new airframe without all new engines just ain't gonna fly.
What the...?
 
AST1Driver
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:07 pm

RE: Challenging 757 Replacement Rqmt - Part 2

Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:34 pm

I know I am late to this discussion and admit that haven't read all 400+ comments, but what exactly is the market for this aircraft? We are talking about a plane with 767 seating and 737/a320 economics. The airlines have already shown, based on current orders, that they prefer the 787 and A330/350 for most international routes, even ones that don't require the range of these aircraft. This means that we are talking about a high capacity US trascon and inter-European aircraft, which is what the 767 was originally designed for. And as much as I would like to see a new aircraft (or even an upgraded 767) for this market, I don't see any airline giving it serious consideration. The only way this might come about is if the larger airports start limiting more landing slots, forcing airlines to up-gauge equipment. Otherwise, high frequency smaller aircraft are going to win this market every time.

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