frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:23 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 94):
If there really is such a demand for aircraft of this size, why are there no sales since long for the only offer in this market, the 767-200 and 767-300? If it makes no sense to invest 2Bio into a 767Neo, how on earth 15 Bio into an all new design?

This is my question, and thus far I have not heard it answered.

My second question, really a hope, would for Matt or someone to plug in 767NEO improvements into his spread sheet and report what sort of CASM, and how it would compare to a 321 and the smallest most efficient 330 (ceo, neo
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26461
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:26 pm

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 98):
Should Boeing take another look at the 787-3 as a possible solution to the A321LR. Yes a bigger plane but with more seats and more range?

No, because the 53m wingspan cripples the aero for such a large plane.



Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 99):
What has changed? It didn't sell before - even whenever the Dreamliner kool-aid bottles were overflowing...

It sold to NH and JL and might have sold to others if it had not soon became apparent that even on 500km stage lengths the 787-8's significancy superior aero made it more fuel efficient despite the significantly higher empty weight so everyone went with the -8 (including NH and JL).
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:33 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 97):
Azerbaijan Airlines, I believe.

Aha
Murphy is an optimist
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:20 pm

My view on the Middle of the Market or New Single Aisle aeroplane (or whatever alphabet soup they dream up next) is that it has as much chance of being made as the Sonic Cruiser of 15 years ago.

It seems to be just yet more PR fun and games.

It will fill the current void in the aeronautical press whilst they deliver enough 737 Max to take that project into a real profit. This may take some many years, particularly if they keep adding more production capacity, thus making themselves forced sellers. Good for them not to instantly follow the Airbus lead of 60 then 63 per month.

Still, their NSA or MoM provides entertainment and amusement for many, and employment for others. So crack on!
 
Gasman
Posts: 2086
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:50 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 5):
A350XWB :: upright oval. ( height 6.09m width 5.96m, nothing to boast in respect to being oval. )

Nonetheless as an upright oval it introduces (small ) stress forces into the floors ( if at all )

a pronounced flat oval i.e. much wider than its height is something entirely different.
Under pressure this will try to turn round. You then have the floors in compression to take up this load.

Can you explain the problems associated with a flat oval fuselage in simple terms? Thanks  
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 104):
Can you explain the problems associated with a flat oval fuselage in simple terms?

It will be heavier as you need the floor beams to be buckle resistant.
 
2175301
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:24 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 105):

It will be heavier as you need the floor beams to be buckle resistant.

However, heavier floor beams may well be offset by lighter skin and other pieces as there will not be as much skin area.

No one on this forum knows all the gains and tradeoffs involved. I suspect with modern materials and methods that putting the floor beams in compression is really not much of an issue; and will be done if the other gains from the shape are sufficient.


Have a great day,
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting Egerton (Reply 103):
My view on the Middle of the Market or New Single Aisle aeroplane (or whatever alphabet soup they dream up next) is that it has as much chance of being made as the Sonic Cruiser of 15 years ago.

It seems to be just yet more PR fun and games

If your are thinking anything else than a long 3-3 narrowbody, I agree  


This has been discussed in pretty great detail in other threads, and I agree with the conclusion that the only thing that can compete with 220 seat narrowbody . . . is a new long narrowbody (single aisle).

My view on the MOM is that it will be the NSA. Ideally, I would see the NSA/MOM as a sort of 737/757 combo: new cold-cure carbon fuselage in three or four different lengths, and two different wings; one optimized for around short/medium range (say US transcon max) one optimized for around long range flights (say trans Atlantic).

Developing three/four fuselage lengths and two wings will probably take 10 years. Given how the A321(neo) is rapidly "catching up" with the 737-900, the priority should lay with the larger frames and the big wing. That will be the MOM (EIS around 2024 - 2026)

Once the MOM is there, production system proven and running nicely, it can form the basis of the NSA to replace the smaller 737MAX series, where the urgency is much lower, especially the 737-8 is holding out quite well for the time being against the A320neo. EIS around 2028 - 2032.

Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting gasman (Reply 104):
problems associated with a flat oval fuselage

Overpressure in the fuselage will try to force an oval fuselage to a round shape.
( highest area for the same circumference. lowest energy state.)

In an upright oval the floor crosses at the lesser diameter.
Thus pressurization forces will put the floor into tension.

In a circular fuselage ( 222" A3{034}* ) nothing of note happens.

in an flat oval the floor crosses at the major diameter.
Pressurization forces will put the floor into compression.

All the while you have floor loading via payload as a normal force.

Going over the Euler buckling permutations the
pulled beam is the best case while the compressed
beam with the same normal/perpendicular load is the worst case
for dimensioning the floor beams.

Finally you never get real ovals but circles of different diameter
with the chord of the segments going along the floorbeam.
Valid for the Boeing's Stratocruiser as well as 737, 757,
slightly more special case is the a380 due to 2 floors
( and rather high frames).
this then would result in the sidewalls of this flat oval cabin
to be strongly bent inwards from the floor beams up.
( like the A300 only much worse )

thus: I don't expect to see a strongly flat oval fuselage being built. ever.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:27 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 107):
My view on the
Quoting Egerton (Reply 103):
My view on the Middle of the Market or New Single Aisle aeroplane (or whatever alphabet soup they dream up next) is that it has as much chance of being made as the Sonic Cruiser of 15 years ago.


Quoting PW100 (Reply 107):
My view on the
If your are thinking anything else than a long 3-3 narrowbody, I agree

Thanks, you have read my mind. Your conceptual design and manufacturing approach looks good.
But will the end result be a commercially viable proposition for the accountants?

By the time Boeing get around to it, Airbus will be walking all over them on twin and single aisle.
The huge capital costs to deliver the marginal weight saving of an all plastic new new shortish-haul design will have to be set against what will by then be the Airbus Neo mk 2, with the medium size RR UltraFan and a new plastic wing.

It will soon bet the farm time again, and the oil price will still be a pure guess.
If I was called upon to finance it, I would take a lot of convincing?

(PS: sorry I have messed up the heading)
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9201
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:29 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 88):
Why would a 767MAX suddenly be competitive with the A338/9?

Why would you want it to be, Boeing are looking at a replacement and upgrade of the757, the 787 was used to replace the 767-300ER which was the best seller of the family.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 100):
This is my question, and thus far I have not heard it answered.

The 767-200 was surpassed by the 767-300 / ER, and since Boeing had the 757 which could do just about everything the 200 could do more efficiently, it died.

The 757 was passed in efficiency a long time ago and is now out of production, the 737-9 any series is limited in its capability against the A321 which was originally designed and as a competitor to the 757.
If Boeing has customers who require an a/c in this space what do you suggest they do, one of the ideas until the NSA family arrives is a revamp of the 767-200, updated engine and weight stripping.
It needs to be competitive with the A321 on the upper segment as it will have capabilities beyond the A321.
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:42 pm

I doubt Boeing will launch this aircraft. The few 757s today using the 4000 mile range can be handled by the A321LR. NSA is probably 15 years away.

sv11
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:36 am

I would like to create a list of narrow body operators who could be interesting in something more. I thought I would start with a list of operators of narrow body aircraft. Anyone that could offer a list would be appreciated. Lets keep this narrow as there are a lot of small operators: Operators or 15+ 737s or A320s and essentially no widebody aircraft.

Here is my first attempt.

AS
WN
FL
FR
U2
F9
CM
JT (almost)
VX
WS (1 767)
ST
IX
SG
SJ
MN
JC
BC
HV
DD
TK
PC
XQ
FZ
B6
VY
6E
3U
NK
W6
4U
F9
VX
Y4
4O
EI
G9
ZB
FV
VJ
PG
G4
EU

...I honestly am kind of giving up at this point. Do none of these operators want to fly further or carry more at similar costs? There are a lot of primarily narrow body operators and many of them have specifically said they have been warned against operating widebody aircraft.

Do they jump up to an A330/787 that costs 4 times more than an A320/737 with worse economics than a 737/A320 or what about something that doesn't cost that much but has similar economics/seat costs? How many operators might jump at going a little further or carrying a little more? The LCCs have already taken away from the legacy carriers and I am personally not one to bet against them with such an aircraft.

And again, this list says nothing about mixed fleet operators who would love something in between: DL, UA, AA, LH, TK, AF, BA, KL, QR, CA, HN...

Its a very large market so long as it has narrow body costs.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2476
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:34 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
No, because the 53m wingspan cripples the aero for such a large plane.

That's the design offered in 2004. What if it were offered again with folding wingtips like those on the 777-9?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
Its a very large market so long as it has narrow body costs.

Which will be the problem. 5000nm range with a full payload, wide body design and similar costs to a narrow body of a similar technology level won´t happen.

And one has to be honest, not many planes have sold in that market segment for 20 years now. By 1990 this market was so well covered. You could choose a 767, 757, A300, A310 or A333 yet all those planes developed only in one direction, more range. Those who did not gain enough range, stopped selling.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 6896
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:32 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 22):

I think the A32x family is at its limit, as is the 737. The older models of the A32x have hit the scrapper and the NGs aren't far behind. With the 787 technology well in place, and perfected, its time for the A32x and 737 replacements to hit the design board with a roll out no later than 2026. The future widebodies are here, its the future narrowbodies that need to come.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:19 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 115):
I think the A32x family is at its limit, as is the 737.

A32x is far from being at its limit. Airbus Industrie did not really do a "NG" version of it. A32xneo to A32xceo is like 737s Classic to 737 Initial Production models, a minimum change derivative.

737NG had all-new wings and empennage, while retaining the same fuselage. The same can still be applied to A32x: all-new composite wing and empennage, further aerodynamic clean-up, "Gen 2" GTF/Leap engine, and possible further stretch of A321 fuselage lenght, due to a new wing box.
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:04 am

Quoting Egerton (Reply 109):
It will soon bet the farm time again, and the oil price will still be a pure guess.

I am guessing $20 by 2020... but it isn't a pure guess.

Just over a year ago oil was $100 and people were predicting (except for Adam Pilarski) that the price was marching inexorably towards $200. Fast forward and today WTI is very close to breaching $40 and there is a global glut of 3 billion barrels... and this is with civil strife in the Middle East and North Africa. COP 21 is a couple of weeks away in Paris and will most likely result in international carbon limits and a phased in decarbonization of the economy.

As oil industry analysts have pointed out, shale has created a new ceiling on oil prices... and it is lowering year on year because of oil field technology developments. This is an interesting article on the Permian Basin:

Quote:
The Permian’s multiple layers of oil- and gas-soaked rocks, in some places stacked 5,000 feet thick, contain plenty of places to drill that will yield 30 percent to 40 percent rates of return with crude prices as low as $40 a barrel, Laird Dyer, a Royal Dutch Shell Plc energy analyst, said at a conference in Toronto Nov. 10.
A single layer in the Permian, the Spraberry, probably holds 75 billion barrels of recoverable oil, Dyer said. That’s enough to supply the entire world for more than two years.

“Somebody described it to me once as a tiramisu, it’s just lots of layers of beauty over there,” Gilmer said. “Everyone recognizes that the Permian Basin is by far the richest land on earth. The only thing holding it back from more and more is the engineering, and I think this is an industry that’s really proven that the engineering gets better every year.”

Just as interesting is the reducing production costs in the tarsands. Shell's CEO recently reported that most of Shell's production in the tarsands costs $25. The largest tarsand player, Suncor, believes that it will be able to reduce extraction costs by over 50% within 2 years to less than $15.

Add up all the factors, including all the new more fuel efficient aircraft, ships and vehicles, etc. and alternatives coming online, and $20 by 2020 is a possibility.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:02 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 116):
A32x is far from being at its limit. Airbus Industrie did not really do a "NG" version of it. A32xneo to A32xceo is like 737s Classic to 737 Initial Production models, a minimum change derivative.

Sorry, but the A320NEO *is* the end of the A320NG program. Its part of why the NEO itself was so cheap, as Airbus already paid for the new interior, winglets, and other small improvements. Just because Airbus didn't do it all in one shot doesn't mean the A320NEO isn't a very different plane than the one sold 15 years ago.
 
StTim
Posts: 3474
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:15 am

But I think the argument is that the wing that is currently on the 320 is basically the original profile. The 737NG had a new wing. Thus if Airbus want to further extend the 320 they could rewing it with the latest designs - and perhaps a carbon fibre one. Gain some extra lift, reduce drag and also be able to have some additional fuel.

Of course they may chose to go a totally different way.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:20 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 117):
Add up all the factors, including all the new more fuel efficient aircraft, ships and vehicles, etc. and alternatives coming online, and $20 by 2020 is a possibility.

If oil drops to $20, then there will be no point investing in new-new aeroplanes or engines, because there will be no return for shareholders capital on such advanced technology projects. We will only see Pips for the existing designs of 'planes, and engines! This will be a more severe curtailment of design activity than the 'no more moonshots' which currently operates.

Conversely, oil at $100 will permit 'moonshots'.
 
YXXMIKE
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:15 pm

Quoting planemaker (Reply 117):
Just over a year ago oil was $100 and people were predicting (except for Adam Pilarski) that the price was marching inexorably towards $200. Fast forward and today WTI is very close to breaching $40 and there is a global glut of 3 billion barrels... and this is with civil strife in the Middle East and North Africa. COP 21 is a couple of weeks away in Paris and will most likely result in international carbon limits and a phased in decarbonization of the economy.

It's an interesting point to consider but I suppose my question back is what would cause it to spike again? I've just turned 30 and having grown up in Canada during the nineties I can vividly remember what 30c/litre gas prices looked like. By the time I was sixteen and driving my own car that price had gone up to 75c/litre and by the time I was 26 the price of gas was at $1.20 (down from $1.45 at it's peak). Prices have dropped back below a dollar now but my point is this; oil prices are going to be almost impossible to predict and if you are running a business which heavily relies on jet a-1 how do you think long term? Do you play it safe and buy the most fuel efficient aircraft going or do you tack on additional risk and buy the gas guzzler? Could the introduction of an international carbon credit programme drive the price (when pumped into the plane) back up because of additional taxes etc?

Boeing is going to build whatever it's customers tell them they really want; and my two cents is on a NSA which has 787 technology and the legs to do what a majority of their customers want. It's low risk and less of a moon shot and potentially very lucrative for Boeing! The question is...when do they put us all out of our misery and finally announce a new design!?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:41 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 114):
wide body design and similar costs to a narrow body of a similar technology level won´t happen.

I don't think it has to be a widebody but Boeing has been very clear that it has to have narrow body costs. I don't think it could be successful if it didn't.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 114):
And one has to be honest, not many planes have sold in that market segment for 20 years now

I feel like that is a good thing...And its not really about the size that may have restricted sales but the economics. Narrow body economics are killer. A cutting edge A350/787 couldn't match an A320/737 on the same route on a per seat basis. No aircraft has cracked that. This would have to be purpose built.

tortugamon
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:38 pm

It has to be a single aisle. End of.


If Boeing decide to sink $15B into a new twin with 250 seats, and a CF fuselage reduces the relative weight, then Airbus could sink the same $15B into A30X, with CF fuse and wing and also stretch the upper end fuse to 250 passengers - and end up with 20%+ better CASM for the same outlay.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:08 pm

With the upgrade of the 777, we see that Boeing has kept the fuse Aluminium, and just updated the wing to be CF.

I will go out on a limb here and predict a metallic fuselage and CF wing for MOM plane. After all, the weight saving gains in CF fuselage seems to be comparably less vs the gains with the CF wing.

I am comparing the Operating empty fuel weight of the 787-8 and the 767-300ER:

787
259,500 lb (118,000 kg)

767
198,440 lb (90,010 kg)

With all the hype up front about carbon fibre, you would think that the 787 would weigh less than the airplane it is built to replace.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | 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: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:03 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 123):
If Boeing decide to sink $15B into a new twin with 250 seats, and a CF fuselage reduces the relative weight, then Airbus could sink the same $15B into A30X, with CF fuse and wing and also stretch the upper end fuse to 250 passengers - and end up with 20%+ better CASM for the same outlay.

I think we are debating whether or not one OEM has enough market opportunity to build a clean sheet aircraft. I think we are resolute that there is not enough market for two. Its hard to see how an A30X would be fundamentally different than the A330neo if you are proposing that fuse. If it is widebody I think it will have to be more narrow than a 767 not larger like the A300 fuse.

Quoting hilram (Reply 124):
I will go out on a limb here and predict a metallic fuselage and CF wing for MOM plane. After all, the weight saving gains in CF fuselage seems to be comparably less vs the gains with the CF wing.

If they are building a new clean sheet aircraft CFRP may be appealing, for derivatives like the 77X it makes sense to save the money so you can offer a cheaper aircraft instead of the 2-3% in fuel savings you would get by going CFRP and spending Billions.

Quoting hilram (Reply 124):
I am comparing the Operating empty fuel weight of the 787-8 and the 767-300ER:

787
259,500 lb (118,000 kg)

767
198,440 lb (90,010 kg)

With all the hype up front about carbon fibre, you would think that the 787 would weigh less than the airplane it is built to replace.

You might want to compare the 788 to the 764 as they are much more similar in size. 103,870 kg. For 15k more weight you get over 2,000nm more miles in range and a significant reduction in fuel burn driven by much heavier engines.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9201
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:06 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 96):
PR pixie dust worked once on the Dreamliner drug rush. ( people still have a hangover from that one.)

Hhhmmmm, so professional airlines actually did that, will have to watch what is said when they order again. 
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 123):
If Boeing decide to sink $15B into a new twin with 250 seats, and a CF fuselage reduces the relative weight, then Airbus could sink the same $15B into A30X, with CF fuse and wing and also stretch the upper end fuse to 250 passengers - and end up with 20%+ better CASM for the same outlay.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 125):
I think we are debating whether or not one OEM has enough market opportunity to build a clean sheet aircraft. I think we are resolute that there is not enough market for two.

We will have multiple a/c in the segment of the A321 / 757, Boeing has to get a better product in that segment, whether it is a clean sheet upper end of the NSA or a "cheap" temporary option, they have to do something.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:01 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 126):
We will have multiple a/c in the segment of the A321 / 757, Boeing has to get a better product in that segment, whether it is a clean sheet upper end of the NSA or a "cheap" temporary option, they have to do something.

Agreed, but all their options will be uneconomic for the accountants, finance directors and investors at today's oil price.

In hindsight, they might have found a better solution by not doing a kow-tow to American Airlines when AA said get your act together, or we will buy only A320neo series. If Boeing had taken deep breath and gone forward with the NSA then, and accepted that the still current old engine option would have to hold the fort until relieved. Mind, that would have carried desperate risks, just as the current mess does.

But in a hole they are, and no sign of the 7th Cavalry to provide relief.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:23 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 87):
The 767 was designed as built as an MOM aircraft. It's stats are exactly what are being talked about. Putting GEnx-2b's might not make it the most efficient aircraft on the block, but they are available and in the power range required and they, along with some aero tweaks, would get another 15% efficiency out of an aircraft which would cost tens of millions of dollars less than a 788 or an A330neo...which are way more aircraft than are needed for the job anyway.
Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 100):
My second question, really a hope, would for Matt or someone to plug in 767NEO improvements into his spread sheet and report what sort of CASM, and how it would compare to a 321 and the smallest most efficient 330 (ceo, neo

The GEnX 2B would make it much heavier, thus eroding the advantage on shorter routes. If the 330neo only pays for itself fuel-wise on >2k nm sectors and the T700>T7000 swap is less weight gain than a CF6-80C2>GEnX, then I'd wager that the breakeven for a 767MAX is >2500 nm. Probably not worth it.

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 90):
but what is the problem of using a plane of the size of the MOM/NAM in long haul routes? Don´t you think that there a re routes thancan´t justify a 787/A330/767 size aircraft but that could be performed bya smaller aircraft. I am talking about thin routes for secondary cities, for example. Maybe we don´t have such type of routes today due to the simple fact we don´t have this kind of aircraft. Maybe there is a potential market for this, don´t you think?

There may be, but obviously not enough for an OEM to bet $10B on it.

Quoting georgiabill (Reply 98):
Should Boeing take another look at the 787-3 as a possible solution to the A321LR. Yes a bigger plane but with more seats and more range?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
It sold to NH and JL and might have sold to others if it had not soon became apparent that even on 500km stage lengths the 787-8's significancy superior aero made it more fuel efficient despite the significantly higher empty weight so everyone went with the -8 (including NH and JL).

Bingo. The 783 is worse than the 788, which is evenly matched to the current 321. The 787 is a long-haul frame, any derivative will be too heavy to beat N/B CASM.

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 113):
That's the design offered in 2004. What if it were offered again with folding wingtips like those on the 777-9?

At best, it would match the 788 on aero, but still be too heavy. As the 788 is about even with a 321, this design wouldn't fly  

Any sort of 767neo will not work, it's simply too heavy. There are two ways to look at this:
The 767 was worse than the 330 (at least 763 vs 333)
The 330neo is still a few % worse than the 788
The 788 is even on CASM with a 321ceo
A 767neo will suffer more than a 330neo (see above)
If the 321neo is ~15% better than a ceo, it's the same amount better than a 788, which is itself 15-20% better than a 767ceo
A 763ceo can close maybe 10-15% of the gap to the 787, leaving 5-10% remaining on the table
Conclusion: 321neo is 15% better CASM than 788, which is 5-10% better than 763neo, so 321neo is ~20% better than 763neo

Alternately:
A 757 beats the equivalent 767 (i.e. 752 vs 762, 753 vs 763) on CASM by 5-10%
A 321neo beats the 752 by 25% and thus the 763 by 30-35%
A 763neo can claw back maybe 10% on 3-4k sectors
Conclusion: the 321neo beats the 763neo by 20ish%

Let's let the 767neo die. It's just too heavy.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 122):
I don't think it has to be a widebody but Boeing has been very clear that it has to have narrow body costs. I don't think it could be successful if it didn't.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 114):
And one has to be honest, not many planes have sold in that market segment for 20 years now

I feel like that is a good thing...And its not really about the size that may have restricted sales but the economics. Narrow body economics are killer. A cutting edge A350/787 couldn't match an A320/737 on the same route on a per seat basis. No aircraft has cracked that. This would have to be purpose built.

I'm pretty sure that any 250-seater with the right range will have to be a N/B for packaging efficiency reasons. It will take a weight penalty for adding the range capability from 3k to 4.5k nm, so it needs to be a decent stretch longer than a 321 to regain it on a per-seat basis. That doesn't give much room for having the wrong cross-section.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9201
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:50 pm

Quoting Egerton (Reply 127):
Agreed, but all their options will be uneconomic for the accountants, finance directors and investors at today's oil price.

First this, then..........

Quoting Egerton (Reply 127):
In hindsight, they might have found a better solution by not doing a kow-tow to American Airlines when AA said get your act together, or we will buy only A320neo series.

Bottom line is that "experts" are pretty good after the fact and usually are on the same accord, but prior, all bets are off.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 129):
I'm pretty sure that any 250-seater with the right range will have to be a N/B for packaging efficiency reasons.

What type of seat pitch are you thinking about if the a/c will seat 250, is the length of the 753 practical?
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:58 pm

Quoting hilram (Reply 124):
With the upgrade of the 777, we see that Boeing has kept the fuse Aluminium, and just updated the wing to be CF. I will go out on a limb here and predict a metallic fuselage and CF wing for MOM plane. After all, the weight saving gains in CF fuselage seems to be comparably less vs the gains with the CF wing. I am comparing the Operating empty fuel weight of the 787-8 and the 767-300ER:787259,500 lb (118,000 kg)767198,440 lb (90,010 kg)With all the hype up front about carbon fibre, you would think that the 787 would weigh less than the airplane it is built to replace.

My qestion got answered before I could post it:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 125):
You might want to compare the 788 to the 764 as they are much more similar in size. 103,870 kg. For 15k more weight you get over 2,000nm more miles in range and a significant reduction in fuel burn driven by much heavier engines.

Which shows that the advantages that come from a new fuseledge are very limited - Boeing might go and design a new wing and a higher gear for the 737-900 which allows another stretch and can neutralize the A321LR threat with 4 or 5 Bio.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:37 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 130):
What type of seat pitch are you thinking about if the a/c will seat 250, is the length of the 753 practical?

I think about the 753 length, with an option for a big L2 door to speed boarding. For longer flights, the boarding time issue is less important than fuel burn, so I don't think it will be a problem.
 
Egerton
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:01 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 130):
Bottom line is that "experts" are pretty good after the fact and usually are on the same accord, but prior, all bets are off.

Agreed. (I do not rate myself an expert, no Sir, just someone who likes to get the facts, then gets all the facts, and then thinks about it before coming to a view - and I often still get it wrong - that is sometimes the lady luck thing.)

It does lead me to suggest that an all new plastic but otherwise conventional single aisle if started pronto and done competently has a fighting chance. Negatives are that the design team are busy just now, and the bankers may not buy the capex. But there is a market for a lot of of these, and if Boeing does not move pronto there are many who will, and indeed are learning how.

Why pronto? Before it becomes very obvious that the A320neo series is in general very good indeed, and because of the other competition.

The do nothing option is certain death, but deferred for a few years.
To faff about with PR fun and games is just a more amusing version of certain death.

Or take a manufacturing licence from Airbus, to maintain some employment in Seattle. Yikes.
Or wait for the oil price to get back to $100? Yikes.

Go now, bet the farm, do a semi-moonshot, do it right, or get beat. Sorry, that is the best scenario I can come up with. It is not expert hindsight. Just a possible strategy which might, just might, work?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:55 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 131):
Which shows that the advantages that come from a new fuseledge are very limited - Boeing might go and design a new wing and a higher gear for the 737-900 which allows another stretch and can neutralize the A321LR threat with 4 or 5 Bio.

Except there is no airline on the planet that would take a 764 over a 788, which means that new Fuselage must be worth something...

Its also at the begining of its evolution not the end, just rolling back 789 parts into the 788 will make it even better.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:56 pm

It has been remarkable at how much narrow body aircraft have taken over for wide body aircraft which has fueled (by?) LCC's growth in so many different regions. Legacy carriers are slow to adapt and some airlines just are not able do to unions/regulations, etc. And what is the backlog of these aircraft some 8,500 units? More than the value of the small, medium and VLA widebody segments combined. This is all wrapped up in just ~3.5 narrow body models.

The 100-200 seat aircraft segment has CRJ, CSeries, C919, A320, A319, A321, E-Jet, 737, 738, 739, MRJ, etc. There are zero aircraft in the ~200-300*. Then add 100 seats from there and we again have a bunch of aircraft 788, 789, A338, A339, A359, 78X. I find it hard to believe that the market can't support an aircraft in this space when it seems to support a half dozen in every other segment.

*If you had common single aisle seating style on a 788 (the next largest aircraft) it would seat roughly 330 seats or roughly the format of JQ, Scoot, etc.

Quoting par13del (Reply 126):
We will have multiple a/c in the segment of the A321 / 757, Boeing has to get a better product in that segment, whether it is a clean sheet upper end of the NSA or a "cheap" temporary option, they have to do something.

Absolutely. I think with every A321 order Boeing gains more motivation to make a move.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 128):
There may be, but obviously not enough for an OEM to bet $10B on it.

Aircraft programs are long. Boeing will mostly likely shut down the 747 program soon and will have one fewer family to produce. Obviously that family will soon last about 5 decades of continuous production. I don't think one new program per decade is too much for these OEMs to handle and they will have decades to repay it.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 128):
Conclusion: 321neo is 15% better CASM than 788, which is 5-10% better than 763neo, so 321neo is ~20% better than 763neo

Solid analysis

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 129):
I'm pretty sure that any 250-seater with the right range will have to be a N/B for packaging efficiency reasons. It will take a weight penalty for adding the range capability from 3k to 4.5k nm, so it needs to be a decent stretch longer than a 321 to regain it on a per-seat basis. That doesn't give much room for having the wrong cross-section.

Agreed it will be a bit of threading a needle to make it work. But they are going up against 1980's technology in aero and materials with a new engine. It isn't like the competition is perfectly efficient.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 131):
Which shows that the advantages that come from a new fuseledge are very limited - Boeing might go and design a new wing and a higher gear for the 737-900 which allows another stretch and can neutralize the A321LR threat with 4 or 5 Bio.

I am not sure it shows that. I think 2k+ more range plus the cargo opportunities are quite a tradeoff for just 15t. Certainly not ideal on short routes, hence this topic, but a good use of 15t indeed. I put a cfrp fuse at 2-3% fuel savings. Not a ton as other places but there certainly is value.

Quoting Egerton (Reply 133):
Or take a manufacturing licence from Airbus, to maintain some employment in Seattle. Yikes.
Or wait for the oil price to get back to $100? Yikes.

Its funny that the OEM that delivers more aircraft, a higher proportion of widebodies, and has $15 Billion more in airplane revenue is the one that is hurting? Funny logic.

tortugamon
 
LH707330
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:37 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
Agreed it will be a bit of threading a needle to make it work. But they are going up against 1980's technology in aero and materials with a new engine. It isn't like the competition is perfectly efficient.

True, but that aero and structures is only worth about 5%, which is why John Leahy called Boeing's bluff:
http://i0.wp.com/leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/a320-neo1.jpg
Article
After the technological 5%, we'd still have to deal with the range-associated weight gain, which we'd claw back with some of the stretch. Does anybody know a good rule of thumb for modeling weight gain for range capability?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 131):
Which shows that the advantages that come from a new fuseledge are very limited - Boeing might go and design a new wing and a higher gear for the 737-900 which allows another stretch and can neutralize the A321LR threat with 4 or 5 Bio.

I am not sure it shows that. I think 2k+ more range plus the cargo opportunities are quite a tradeoff for just 15t. Certainly not ideal on short routes, hence this topic, but a good use of 15t indeed. I put a cfrp fuse at 2-3% fuel savings. Not a ton as other places but there certainly is value.

I'm with Burkhard on this. If the NSA was 5% better than a neo, my guess is that most of that is new wing tech. An optimized CFRP tube would get you maybe a third of that (1.7% total) on a good day. Recall that CFRP doesn't scale down as easily as alu in terms of denting, so the weight savings are not that high.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:49 am

Quoting Egerton (Reply 120):
If oil drops to $20, then there will be no point investing in new-new aeroplanes or engines, because there will be no return for shareholders capital on such advanced technology projects. We will only see Pips for the existing designs of 'planes, and engines! This will be a more severe curtailment of design activity than the 'no more moonshots' which currently operates.

Conversely, oil at $100 will permit 'moonshots'.

Even the Saudi's were saying that oil will never ever reach $90 again... even in the best case scenario. That was several months ago... now I would guess the number they are using is $70... and dropping. However, "moonshots" like the D8 are still a possibility because the D8 could provide a 70% improvement over the 738... or "only" a 50% improvement if built of just aluminum.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/crop.jpg

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 121):
my question back is what would cause it to spike again?

If any of the major oil producers had the taps shut off for a while there would be a temporary spike.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 121):
my point is this; oil prices are going to be almost impossible to predict and if you are running a business which heavily relies on jet a-1 how do you think long term?

The trend is set long term... carbon based fuels are going to be drastically cut back through a combination of technology and regulation.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 121):
Could the introduction of an international carbon credit programme drive the price (when pumped into the plane) back up because of additional taxes etc?



Absolutely... but they would have to be really quite high. For example, if... and that is an if... oil drops to $20 to $30 range by 2020, even with a 100% carbon tax oil would "only" cost $40 to $60... a price still a long ways off from last year's $115.

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 121):
Boeing is going to build whatever it's customers tell them they really want;

That is how they partially got pushed into going for the MAX instead of the all new platform they wanted to build. Customers believed that oil prices were going to continue to increase to $200... and more. They couldn't wait for the all new NB... but now we see them holding on to old frames like the Classics and MD80s for as long as maintenance costs don't swing the needle. The conventional thinking was that once the Saudis open the spigots it would kill off North American oil. As Exxon, Shell and Suncor are showing, the strategy has backfired. They should have listened to Adam Pilarski.  
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
incitatus
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 2:17 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 124):
787259,500 lb (118,000 kg)767198,440 lb (90,010 kg)With all the hype up front about carbon fibre, you would think that the 787 would weigh less than the airplane it is built to replace.

Just the empty weight is not a fair comparison. The 787 has a considerably larger cabin.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:11 am

I do not understand the panic. The MAX is fine except for the -9 and even this sells okayish. In the MoM segment of the market there is no competition as nobody is offering a plane with the size. If airlines want to go larger, the 787 is fine.

And in the end the MoM would see the problems faced by either the A300 or the 757. Back in the early 90ies both were competitive on operating costs, but both could only show so on certain routes. And the MoM would be caught in the same trap. It would not reach far enough and be large enough that you could do away with your 787/A330 subfleet and it would not be as efficient as the 737/A320 on routes not requiring the range.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:56 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 134):
Except there is no airline on the planet that would take a 764 over a 788, which means that new Fuselage must be worth something...

Well they are 18 years apart in timing so there's that. Certainly they improved more than just the fuse.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 136):
True, but that aero and structures is only worth about 5%, which is why John Leahy called Boeing's bluff:

But if I read that chart is says a 2025 new clean sheet could be ~16% better than an A320neo and I think that is the time period we are looking at. Don't even need 3/4s of that to be succesful I would think. Can't wait to hear about Pratt's geared fan.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 136):
An optimized CFRP tube would get you maybe a third of that (1.7% total) on a good day

Ok, I said 2-3%, we are in the ballpark.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 139):
I do not understand the panic. The MAX is fine except for the -9 and even this sells okayish. In the MoM segment of the market there is no competition as nobody is offering a plane with the size. If airlines want to go larger, the 787 is fine.

But many will go with the A321. There aren't many places in large commercial aviation where one OEM clearly has an advantage over the other. The A321neo vs the 739Max is one of these instances. Boeing will want to react.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 139):
And in the end the MoM would see the problems faced by either the A300 or the 757.

Both the A300 and 757 programs were successful. Such an outcome for the MOM would be appealing. I am trying to think of what the engineers could work on after the 778 EIS that would be more productive and I can't come up with anything. What do you suggest they should work on next? I don't think Boeing plans on firing them all.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:07 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 140):
Both the A300 and 757 programs were successful. Such an outcome for the MOM would be appealing. I am trying to think of what the engineers could work on after the 778 EIS that would be more productive and I can't come up with anything. What do you suggest they should work on next? I don't think Boeing plans on firing them all.

NSA - as it is likely that the 737 successor will start at around 737-8 size and go up to 757-200 size. This is the big ticket item. And if this should prove to be correct, then MoM is facing yet another problem.

If they decide to do NSA in 2 version and call one (the one with the larger wing and the long fuselage) MoM, I am all for it. But only if it really is part of the NSA family.

[Edited 2015-11-16 23:09:49]
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:15 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 84):
Quoting WIederling (Reply 91):
Quoting Egerton (Reply 133):
It does lead me to suggest that an all new plastic but otherwise conventional single aisle if started pronto and done competently has a fighting chance. Negatives are that the design team are busy just now, and the bankers may not buy the capex. But there is a market for a lot of of these, and if Boeing does not move pronto there are many who will, and indeed are learning how.

Why pronto? Before it becomes very obvious that the A320neo series is in general very good indeed, and because of the other competition.

The do nothing option is certain death, but deferred for a few years.
To faff about with PR fun and games is just a more amusing version of certain death.

Or take a manufacturing licence from Airbus, to maintain some employment in Seattle. Yikes.
Or wait for the oil price to get back to $100? Yikes.

Go now, bet the farm, do a semi-moonshot, do it right, or get beat. Sorry, that is the best scenario I can come up with. It is not expert hindsight. Just a possible strategy which might, just might, work?

Very true. The design teams should be fine in a year with 777X, 737Max and 787-10 all at there later design stages.

I don't by the "no marked" myth for a 250/5000nm plane. If it has the economics it's a huge marked IMO. Such a plane coult theoretical take over all transatlantic travel and work as e medium hauler in ASIA too. Yes, it won't be the plane for the ME3 but that also holds up for the A321.

As others have stated a single-aisle has many advantages, but given the range and size it should be wider than the typical A320 fuese about the size of the NSA-6-200 size (reply 67). Still this has disadvantages too like very limited further growth potential, high fitness ratio which come with high bending loads so "thick walls", suboptimal business package (a 7-abreast MOM could go for a 1-2-1 layout in business, a 6-abreast SA can't).

From an engineering point I would know what the drawbacks of a "drop-shaped" bird are where you have a wider fuse up until the end of the wingbox - especially for business but also for 7-abreast and fast boarding - and a single aisle with 6-abreast in the back up to the tail for lower bending moments and less drag. Like e.g. B2707-200.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:27 am

Quoting planemaker (Reply 137):
Even the Saudi's were saying that oil will never ever reach $90 again... even in the best case scenario.

A very tough statement. Beside the fact that the "Saudi's" say a lot of things from time to time (like everybody does, soo their "comments" e.g. in 2008/20009) it also assumes that the $ will stay more-or-less valuable which is a big "if" IMO.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 139):
I do not understand the panic. The MAX is fine except for the -9 and even this sells okayish. In the MoM segment of the market there is no competition as nobody is offering a plane with the size. If airlines want to go larger, the 787 is fine.

And in the end the MoM would see the problems faced by either the A300 or the 757. Back in the early 90ies both were competitive on operating costs, but both could only show so on certain routes. And the MoM would be caught in the same trap. It would not reach far enough and be large enough that you could do away with your 787/A330 subfleet and it would not be as efficient as the 737/A320 on routes not requiring the range.

Again, by that logic you could just site back and do nothing. I don't by it.

If this MOM can do certain routes which NEED e.g. a A33x or a 767/787-8 today (WHILE a A32x/73x just don't have the range and/or capacity) with 50.000 kg less MTOW this MOM will take over a lot traffic from these widebodys. How many A330-200 are in service ATM - exactly the MOM territory (beside cargo, yes). That alone plus 757/767 is 1xxx planes which can't be substituded with the current single aisles. Going up to the A330-300 and 787-8 size we're talking about a marked well over 2000 birds WITHOUT taking a single sell from the A321.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 141):

If they decide to do NSA in 2 version and call one (the one with the larger wing and the long fuselage) MoM, I am all for it. But only if it really is part of the NSA family.

This will be very, very challenging. If they make the fuse even only slightly wider than the A32x for the MOM it will work fine from the A321 size all up but will be very challanging in the 737-8 or A320 size. If the marked moves up this maybe an option. If they go with a A32x fuse this just won't be the MOM tehy are talking about but more-or-less a modern NSA with capabillities up to a theoretic A322. But again: That's not what Boeing was talking about regarding the MOM - 20% more range and size like the 757.

If they do a MOM it won't have the same fuse as the NSA IMO, wherever it's being a single aisle or not.



[Edited 2015-11-16 23:37:10]

[Edited 2015-11-16 23:45:19]

[Edited 2015-11-16 23:46:13]

[Edited 2015-11-16 23:46:31]
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:29 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 141):
NSA - as it is likely that the 737 successor will start at around 737-8 size and go up to 757-200 size. This is the big ticket item.

The MAX will have been in service for no more than 8 years by 2025. I think that is a little optimistic to think they will turn it around that quickly. I am thinking 2028-2030 or so. Should still be plenty of time for a MOM too.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 141):
But only if it really is part of the NSA family.

I think they will certainly be done in conjunction with each other. Completely agree.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8861
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:39 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 144):
The MAX will have been in service for no more than 8 years by 2025. I think that is a little optimistic to think they will turn it around that quickly. I am thinking 2028-2030 or so. Should still be plenty of time for a MOM too.

It is not about the time to develop it, it is about the time it would be valid offer on the market. If they are separate and MoM uses engines one generation older while NSA grows as expected, the life expectancy of the MoM would be very limited.

Another elephant in the room is the open rotor engine. If the noise regulations move into a direction that makes the open-rotor valid, you might need to do a MoM and a NSA as 2 very different planes.

Because of this I can not see Boeing or Airbus committing to any new single aisle plane before the future noise regulations are out, which means not before the end of the decade.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:53 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 145):
It is not about the time to develop it, it is about the time it would be valid offer on the market. If they are separate and MoM uses engines one generation older while NSA grows as expected, the life expectancy of the MoM would be very limited

You're right if we talking about something the size or only slightly above the A321. That's not the MOM. It is a logic (fallacy) in itself if we assume it is a single aisle which comes with the NSA in tandem.

But Boeing was talking about a quite different plane 20-25% bigger and more range as the 757 for the start. And that is a 767(-300) substitude and nothing less. If they get this to work (however they'll do it) this plane will grow over time up till the A330-300/787-8 size and won't be immediately obsolete by a NSA. That's another reason I don't think it will come as a pure "big stretch" of the NSA with bigger engine/wing. Furthermor this would be challanging anyway - until these day it never worked to Build a family "from above".

[Edited 2015-11-16 23:54:43]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17683
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:42 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I think with every A321 order Boeing gains more motivation to make a move.

They ought to have more than enough motivation by now then, no?   
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.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:17 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 143):
A very tough statement. Beside the fact that the "Saudi's" say a lot of things from time to time (like everybody does, soo their "comments" e.g. in 2008/20009) it also assumes that the $ will stay more-or-less valuable which is a big "if" IMO.

As mentioned, even the Saudis believe that because of the changed industry fundamentals as laid out in the link. The favourite Saudi saying is: “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil". There is only one currency that will eventually challenge the $ but it doesn't change the industry fundamentals. As it is, the strong dollar is cushioning the effect of low oil prices on non-US producers.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing's Next -- A $15B Question

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:26 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 115):
The older models of the A32x have hit the scrapper and the NGs aren't far behind.

Both types don't have enough frames in the lower ends to provide carcasses for freighter conversion.
This is just now becoming viable. .. for both types even thought the A320 is nearly a decade older than the NG.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 134):
Except there is no airline on the planet that would take a 764 over a 788, which means that new Fuselage must be worth something...

Is it the CFRP giving advantage or just the better fuselage "formfactor"?
The Dreamliner has a slightly upsized A330 fuselage. the 76* was overcome by the A330's utility.( both AL)

then:
the 767 is a non FBW design and its wing design already was behind the A310.
( First Boeing fully supercritical wing was on the 777 afaik.)

Much of the capabilities grows of the A330 appears to be due to finetuning the FBW.
Murphy is an optimist

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