Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:28 am

Please continue posting your updates here.

New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 1 (by tortugamon Feb 2 2016 in Civil Aviation)
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:53 am

Quote from previous thread

"It will only be a game of chess when Boeing gets a piece to put on the board"

Ultimately, there is only one winner in chess!

You can make your own conclusions, but from where I sit, any aircraft named Mad Max wins in my book!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:57 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 1):
Ultimately, there is only one winner in chess!

Right, except there's no chess game going on between Boeing and Airbus. It's called a duopoly without winners or losers.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:32 am

Quoting travelhound:
I suspect a re-winged A321/2 would come with higher a MTOW and as such the landing gear would need to be strengthened / replaced to handle the revised loads.

If it only needed loadpaths strengthened (and could still physically fit the bays), then its perhaps not as big a deal as you'd think.

Its when you have to start moving structure around that expenses skyrocket.

Quoting travelhound:

This is a game of chess. Airbus already have a strong customer base for the A321. I don't think they would act in a manner that undermines their existing orders and customers. A re-winged A321 would do this!

Airbus' questions are:

1. Could they secure more orders for the A320/A321 by having an A322?
2. Would an A322 cannibalise many A321 sales?
3. Would an improved profit margin on the A322 (and considering the effects of 1 & 2) either increase or decrease program profit?


If 3 is a yes, then the program is worth doing. If 3 is a no, then they are better holding off.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:51 am

Reply3
Good post.From Airbus'POV that is (3) exactly the question.
They could do a reduced range A322 with little other mods.Would it get additional sales?Well the only places would be stealing replacement 762 orders from the 788 (as there is no alternative other than the A332 regional.)Or that they can see a 'new' market emerging in this sector.
They will know the answer from discussions with their clients.They have busted a gut to offer 240 pax at 28" with new
slimline seats and Spaceflex everything. So clearly there is a demand for that (and any 2 class version) Is this enough? I would think the answer is 'probably'.
So unless Boeing do 'something' then there is no pressure for them to do 'anything'.They can wait and watch whilst racking up sales.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:54 pm

From Part 1.....

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 199):
It was called the 787-3, and unless Boeing wants to derate those engines, it would be a flop!
My idea of an 'optimized regional 787 is a very much lighter 788 with 787 systems and new engines in the thrust class of that which they intend to install on this "larger 757 replacement". May not pass the "derivative" tag though.


Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 199):
I think MoM two models is perfect, one seating 210-220 in a 2 class config with 4500-5000nm of range, and one seating 240-250 with 4000nm of range. I'm guessing an EIS around 2023-25.

By then, older 737NGs will probably start to need replacing, and NSA development shortly thereafter if not started by then.

Boeing is hard-pressed enough doing the MoM, let alone two versions. And by then, the A321/2NEO will have run away with its lunch.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:59 pm

[quote=Amiga500,reply=3]1. Could they secure more orders for the A320/A321 by having an A322?
2. Would an A322 cannibalise many A321 sales?
3. Would an improved profit margin on the A322 (and considering the effects of 1 & 2) either increase or decrease program profit?[/quot

There is one more ting Airbus might consider.

Make the 322 with new wing gear and center wing box + the 2H2E A350 systems with the intent of integrating the new system in to the rest of the 320 family later

By doing that they could create the basis for next gen narrow body family, in a nice aircraft that will only be produced in small numbers compared to 320 family as a whole, and get the learning curve going through all the production line with out having to worry to much about massive production ramp up.

If seen as an investment only for the 322 it would be to high, but when spread over the whole 320 family it can be seen as relatively cheap, and risk adverse way of bridging the gap to next gen narrow body family.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 2:27 pm

Regarding

Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade? (by keesje Oct 5 2010 in Tech Ops)

and Boeing "misjudging" the market, it's difficult if not absurd to say you've misjudged the market when you have years of backlog to build. It's much easier to say you've misjudged the market when the only way you sell a certain product is by using your tremendous leverage at bankruptcy court or when you need an oil rich nation to come back onto the market after 40 years of exclusion...  

If the "mad max" comes to fruition in let's say 2024 then Boeing will have build the "mad max" using the "sane max" to fund it, which is a pretty decent outcome, IMHO.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:06 pm

quote from Boeing 778x in part 1:

"Well, I don't mean to talk down the 737 a little, but it's not strictly speaking the most comfortable plane, especially compared to the A321, which can get a little bit more done. "

The 737 has the same fuselage cross section as the 757, which is used by 2/4 airlines currently running premium transcon service. I don't see people on here complaining about the 757s being uncomfortable vs the A321s. If anything, some of the new Boeing cabin features like the Sky interior lighting and new overhead bins should improve the passenger experience vs the 757s.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:34 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):

Regarding

Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade? (by keesje Oct 5 2010 in Tech Ops)

and Boeing "misjudging" the market, it's difficult if not absurd to say you've misjudged the market when you have years of backlog to build.

?
Looking at the backlog can be misleading as well. Or did you want to say that the A380 or the A340NG were not cases of "misjudging the market"?  

I am saying for a long time, that the 737 Classic were also quite good regarding the backlog, orders and so... And still it was that weak spot, that has fuelled a non-existing competitor to become a very strong opponent.

I would also call "misjudging the market" if you first say that NEO will just bring the A320 on par with the NG and then you can't keep your market even with the MAX.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:36 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
I am saying for a long time, that the 737 Classic were also quite good regarding the backlog, orders and so... And still it was that weak spot, that has fuelled a non-existing competitor to become a very strong opponent.

737 has always had competitors: Caravelle, DC-9, MD-xx, A320.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
I would also call "misjudging the market" if you first say that NEO will just bring the A320 on par with the NG and then you can't keep your market even with the MAX.

I don't think it's about market percentage, I think it's about deciding what to invest and what profit target you have and hitting those marks.
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
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:05 pm

A remark related to this from the previous thread:

Quote:
Quoting lostsound (Reply 26):
Also, count me out as a passenger, have yet to fly on a 737NG that isn't cramped on the sides and doesn't break your neck to look out the window.

As we have repeatedly established on this site, the cabin cross-section of the 737 is 100% identical to that of the 757. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Boeing has the measurements publicly available.

The 757 behind the wing had a different cross section than before the wings. Raised and confirmed here:
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...-fuselage-fatter-behind-wings.html

Confirmed also here:
Question About The Boeing 757 Fuselage (by canadiantree Feb 25 2010 in Tech Ops)
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:15 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 3):
2. Would an A322 cannibalise many A321 sales?

Unless the A322 how optimized wings and engines, the biggest losers would the A319 and A320.

According to my theory, the A321 would be fine in that scenario.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 5):
Boeing is hard-pressed enough doing the MoM, let alone two versions. And by then, the A321/2NEO will have run away with its lunch.

I think not, because we're talking about a type that's larger and potentially far more capable, not to mention efficient.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 8):
The 737 has the same fuselage cross section as the 757, which is used by 2/4 airlines currently running premium transcon service.

The only one that comes to mind is UA's P.S. service. I would still take one of AA's A321Ts or a jetBlue A321 with the Mint cabin before doing a P.S. 757.

Quoting tjh8402 (Reply 8):
If anything, some of the new Boeing cabin features like the Sky interior lighting and new overhead bins should improve the passenger experience vs the 757s.

I don't think it's worth it, even for the newest 757s.

If the MoM is indeed a 757 sized plane, I'd focus on that.

A 757 with the Sky Interior with Scimitars is a nice thought, though!   
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:17 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 6):
There is one more ting Airbus might consider.

Make the 322 with new wing gear and center wing box + the 2H2E A350 systems with the intent of integrating the new system in to the rest of the 320 family later

By doing that they could create the basis for next gen narrow body family, in a nice aircraft that will only be produced in small numbers compared to 320 family as a whole, and get the learning curve going through all the production line with out having to worry to much about massive production ramp up.

If seen as an investment only for the 322 it would be to high, but when spread over the whole 320 family it can be seen as relatively cheap, and risk adverse way of bridging the gap to next gen narrow body family.

These are some great points, and I don't believe the A320neo will be the last incarnation of the A320 series. The neo is basically what the Classic was to the 737 program. We're talking about a base design that is 20+ years newer, 30+ if you include the 707 (same basic design, fuselage, cockpit, nose section). The A320 series still have room for a lot of improvement, and most likely it can be done with less modifications to achieve similar or better results than a 737 MadMAX.

I believe Boeing's best bet here is to go for a dual development of a 737MAX replacement and a MOM aircraft based on R&D and experience from the 787 program. That would make Airbus having to play catch up again, like with the 787 vs A330neo.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:28 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 3):
Airbus' questions are:

1. Could they secure more orders for the A320/A321 by having an A322?
2. Would an A322 cannibalise many A321 sales?
3. Would an improved profit margin on the A322 (and considering the effects of 1 & 2) either increase or decrease program profit?
If 3 is a yes, then the program is worth doing. If 3 is a no, then they are better holding off.

I would add:

4. If (3) is a yes, does marginal A322 profit exceed its expected development cost?

If 4 is a yes, then launch A322 unless:

5. Some other path is better, such as saving on A322 development cost and beating Boeing to the MOM/NMA/NSA (highly unlikely).
-------------------------------------

I saw that John Ostrower (IAD787) responded in the last thread, but was too busy to respond. Glad that he's still here! John if you're following, was wondering -

You estimated that a 737-SuperMAXThisTimeWeMeanIt would provide "80% of the performance benefit." Is this based on internal Boeing estimates provided to you? Does 80% represent 80% of the fuel burn delta, of the COC delta, or of the DOC delta?

This is a really interesting quandary - I'd predict Boeing goes with another 737 UNLESS. Here's why:

-A stretched, re-winged 737 (CFRP wing, new-gen engines) seems likely to obtain at least 80% of a clean-sheet's fuel burn delta, while offering program-profitability at significantly-lower capital cost.

-Fuel burn delta will be close because the weight of the empty fuselage is only negligibly-affected by advanced materials: Skin gauge minimum has to be higher than structural minimum to avoid catastrophic damage from handling accidents.

-Leeham's analysis of MOM/NMA held that even a very fine single aisle is better than a 7-ab dual aisle on fuel, though slightly worse overall once turnaround time is incorporated. High fineness ratio makes for better aerodynamics and a smaller empennage, while only marginally increasing weight to counter increased bending moments. A super-stretched 737 fuselage would be very fine.

-Morgan Stanley's research note on the MOM/NMA (can't find a public link) held that the business case will turn on the purchase price at which the program would be profitable. This indicates that a program with lower investment, and thus lower purchase-price profitability, will dominate a go/no-go decision for Boeing. This makes sense, as with the fuel efficiency of ~2024 engines, capital is going to be ~40% of DOC even if $3 gas returns. If gas stays cheap capital will be half of the cost picture.

-A stretched 737 with new wing, landing gear, and empennage won't be cheap. But it will likely be quite a bit cheaper than clean-sheet and - more importantly - probably a lot less risky. Just intuitively it seems that program risk escalates more than linearly with the number of moving parts. This is especially true of the fuselage, as if that comes in heavy then everything else has to be reworked - wing, landing gear, engines, empennage etc. Starting from a fairly-defined fuselage seems to take a lot of risk out of the development path.

-Turnaround time for a stretched 737 would be an issue. But (1) a further-aft Door 2 than on 757 would help a lot and (2) were this plane targeted primarily at longer 5-8 hour sectors, turnaround time becomes less important. IMO it's less important that a relatively-cheaper 737MAXest be optimal for short sectors than for a more-expensive clean-sheet design: the program would still make sense on significantly fewer sales.

In sum I see Boeing staying conservative with the MOM/NMA/MAXest, as this isn't the "must win" segment for the company. Boeing will stay competitive with Airbus and highly profitable overall with the 737MAX (where the -8 still has an edge). I'd bet it will save the clean sheet "moon shot" for the NSA to be launched for ~2030 EIS.

UNLESS:
-Market research decides that a '50's-standard fuselage width isn't acceptable for 8-hour flights. The A320 is already wider than the 737; the MC-21 and C919 will be wider still. Operators might become nervous that yields on a looooonnnnnggg 737 flight suffer, and that customer risk perception might torpedo the 737-MAXest. In that case, maybe Boeing launches a clean sheet MOM/NMA - but maybe it just gives that cash to shareholders and keeps its still-lucrative ~40% market share.

[Edited 2016-02-05 09:32:35]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:37 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Regarding

Could Boeing Do A More Radical 737 Upgrade? (by keesje Oct 5 2010 in Tech Ops)

and Boeing "misjudging" the market, it's difficult if not absurd to say you've misjudged the market when you have years of backlog to build. It's much easier to say you've misjudged the market when the only way you sell a certain product is by using your tremendous leverage at bankruptcy court or when you need an oil rich nation to come back onto the market after 40 years of exclusion...  

Wow, even on a 757 replacement thread there is some hate towards the A380....not withstanding the smiley to try and soften the blow....     
Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 12):
I think not, because we're talking about a type that's larger and potentially far more capable, not to mention efficient.

You have to ask why this product hasn't been launched yet though. I think the reason is because there isn't a easy solution for Boeing at all. At either point you can see a potential answer that Airbus can come up with to counter. If Boeing does go 737 MAX-ED the response is a A322 with the same enhancements, but with the same features that helps the A320 sell over the 737 at present.

If it is a 757MAX, it is the A322 and with a new wing (more fuel, more cargo space) and trimmings and it should still be lighter for the same capability. If they go twin aisle then it will be heavier, so airlines will have to decide if they want the heavier frame or lighter frame for the same capacity.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:45 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 15):
You have to ask why this product hasn't been launched yet though.

It doesn't make any sense until ~2023-5 engines are available, so Boeing has plenty of time to decide. Plus it has a lot of development on its plate right now.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 15):
I think the reason is because there isn't a easy solution for Boeing at all.

Definitely no easy solutions here - for either company.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 15):
If Boeing does go 737 MAX-ED the response is a A322 with the same enhancements, but with the same features that helps the A320 sell over the 737 at present.

You're not paying to duopoly effects and first-mover advantage here. Specifically, the following:

-It is not clear - in fact it seems unlikely - that this space will allow two OEM's to play in profitably. Projections are for ~1,000 frames total. If split 500 sales each, neither OEM is sure to make sufficient profit to recover development costs.

-Based on the foregoing, you might ask - why doesn't Airbus move first? Well because the current duopoly equilibrium favors Airbus. The A321 is killing the 739, so Airbus probably would rather maintain status quo for the foreseeable future.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10455
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:52 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 11):
The 757 behind the wing had a different cross section than before the wings. Raised and confirmed here:
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/....html

The keyword used is cabin. The 757 has the exact same cabin cross section as the 737 (and 707/727). It has a larger lower aft lobe for the bags, but that doesn't have any affect on passenger, and cabin, comfort.

[Edited 2016-02-05 09:52:14]
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:59 pm

Reply 16.
Definitely no easy solutions here - for either company.

Dead right! This forum cannot answer it and clearly neither can Boeing . But regarding 'for either company'

'The A321 is killing the 739, so Airbus probably would rather maintain status quo for the foreseeable future'.

Is of course the answer.They can happily sit on their hands.They would only move if there really is a whole new market that is out there.
It's a while ago now (and things change) but back then the 757-300 launch suggested there wasn't (a big enough one above the -200) - even for a simple/cheap stretch.

Down the line- Do we see LCC's moving to a 240 seater?
Don't think there is any sign of it - yet- but Ryanair has gone to 200 seats. One can assume perhaps that the day will come as growth in this LCC sector seems unstoppable . If that day ever happens... Boeing better be ready.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:23 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
It's a while ago now (and things change) but back then the 757-300 launch suggested there wasn't (a big enough one above the -200) - even for a simple/cheap stretch.

I recognize that you say "things change," just want to emphasize that.

The 753 and a MOM/NMA/MAXest/A322 won't occupy the same market, not really.

-Range will be much greater - ~5,000nm versus ~3,500nm. That opens most of the TATL market, which will still be the world's largest longhaul market in 2035 by ASK's.

-As technology improves, range and capability become cheaper. The difference between a ~5,000nm MOM and ~3,500nm 739MAX will be smaller in 2025 than was the difference between a ~3,500nm 753 and ~3,000nm 739er in 2005.

Boeing has emphasized that airlines want 5,000nm range at "single-aisle economics." Presumably the "market" for such a plane has always been there, even if smaller, but only by ~2023 will it be arguably feasible. Thus I don't think simple analogy to a 757 or A310 - both of which occupied similar range/payload niches - is appropriate. We're on the cusp of a small-plane revolution similar to the one that bumped widebodies almost entirely from domestic/transcon flights. If so, it will be technology, not markets, that explain the change.

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
Down the line- Do we see LCC's moving to a 240 seater?
Don't think there is any sign of it - yet- but Ryanair has gone to 200 seats. One can assume perhaps that the day will come as growth in this LCC sector seems unstoppable . If that day ever happens... Boeing better be ready.

I don't see the MOM or whatever having short-range LCC appeal, regardless of what Boeing and/or Airbus build. It's going to be far too expensive for them on routes where capital, not fuel, will be the biggest expense.

It's more likely that in 2030 we'll see Easyjet/RyanAir/Norwegian dominating TATL with the MOM or whatever.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:51 pm

I would understand the 5000nm range as a benchmark which is needed to justify a new airliner. Airlines obviously would not want a new or very much re-designed plane when they gain 300nm range for not much better economics but a much higher price.

I would also not have too high hopes for the MoM on TATL routes. There is a lot of belly cargo flying on those routes and there are a lot of slots restricted airports. Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.
 
klkla
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:09 pm

When I first saw this post my thought was that anything the B737 series can do (in terms of upgrades) the A320 series can do better because it's based on newer technology.

But for all of the 737's drawbacks the real problem with competing with the NEO has been the ability to offer a bigger engine. There are other smaller disadvantages but the inability to use larger engines is the biggest disadvantage. The slightly narrower (therefore lighter) cabin diameter is a slight advantage for the 737 at least from the bean counters point of view.

A taller landing gear, new wings, and bigger more efficient engines will be a much quicker way to gain momentum vs. the 321neo in the short term and makes sense in my opinion. 737-Max9LR and 737-Max10LR offered alongside the regular Max8 and Max9 would be a pretty compelling competitor if they get off their butts and start developing it NOW.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:37 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 18):
Down the line- Do we see LCC's moving to a 240 seater?
Don't think there is any sign of it - yet- but Ryanair has gone to 200 seats.

Down the line I could see LCCs trying to fly longer distances then the MAX/neo allow. That is where I see this airplane coming in. Ideal for a WN/AS/B6/F9/WestJet, etc to get into long haul flying and I could see a lot more fragmentation on routes where A330s/787s operate.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
I would also not have too high hopes for the MoM on TATL routes. There is a lot of belly cargo flying on those routes and there are a lot of slots restricted airports. Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.

Carrying 10s of tons less weight on the routes where there isn't much cargo could be very appealing. There are a lot of cities without enough TATL options.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 14):
In sum I see Boeing staying conservative with the MOM/NMA/MAXest, as this isn't the "must win" segment for the company.

I am more bullish than most but I could see this segment being a 3,000+ unit market. If it is that big than a clean sheet starts making sense. Smaller and it doesn't.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 16):
It doesn't make any sense until ~2023-5 engines are available, so Boeing has plenty of time to decide. Plus it has a lot of development on its plate right now.

Agreed. There has not been a window up until now but with every program having had a recent update there is a unique opportunity to do something else. At the same time Airbus could have the A350-1100 and/or A380neo so adding an A322 with significant upgrades could be challenging.

I can't see Boeing sitting idle yet there really aren't more obvious opportunities in the 2020-2025 window.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 16):
-It is not clear - in fact it seems unlikely - that this space will allow two OEM's to play in profitably. Projections are for ~1,000 frames total. If split 500 sales each, neither OEM is sure to make sufficient profit to recover development costs.

Agreed. I don't understand why some seem to think the A320 derivative will automatically be better. It could be cheaper to produce due to some fewer changes but we aren't talking about a simple stretch. Airbus would need new MLG and wing and engine as well. As for lighter? Since when?

I do think Airbus would respond however which will reduce the opportunity. Personally I think they will do so from above where they can try to take on the 787 as well - especially if the neo doesn't sell.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:01 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
I am more bullish than most but I could see this segment being a 3,000+ unit market. If it is that big than a clean sheet starts making sense. Smaller and it doesn't.

I can see that argument, have made it before myself. I guess my longish post is my best shot at the counter-argument for a 737 rewing.

The 3,000+ market for this plane requires a reorientation of business models (radical fragmentation below 5,000nm) that would probably occur. But should Boeing bet the firm on that occurring? Probably not if there's a much cheaper alternative that gets most of the business anyway.

...of course I'm cheering for an all-new MOM/NMA as an aviation fan. I just fear that Boeing opts for the cheaper, riskier option if it's at all a close call.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
I don't understand why some seem to think the A320 derivative will automatically be better. It could be cheaper to produce due to some fewer changes but we aren't talking about a simple stretch. Airbus would need new MLG and wing and engine as well. As for lighter? Since when?

Agree. The A321 already has rotation issues - thus the extended trailing edge and more extensive high lift system (needed for takeoff due to rotation constraints). I don't see how you can stretch it significantly without new MLG.

The "newness" factor for the A320 really only benefits its MLG length (thus engine diameter) and cabin diameter at this point. The 737NG/MAX has the newer wing.

There's a decent argument that the A320 is more suitable to adapt to 8hr flights as its 6-ab seating is a bit wider. I flagged cabin width as a potential issue for a 737MAXest but that's something market research would have to decide.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
I would also not have too high hopes for the MoM on TATL routes. There is a lot of belly cargo flying on those routes and there are a lot of slots restricted airports. Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.

Carrying 10s of tons less weight on the routes where there isn't much cargo could be very appealing. There are a lot of cities without enough TATL options.

Right. The competition isn't between a widebody and MoM on the same route; it's between a one-stop on a widebody versus direct on a MoM. Operators will likely recover lost cargo revenue in price premium alone.

Plus the MoM should have a very significant cash operating cost over widebodies due to newer engines and lower weight per seat (optimized for TATL).
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:37 pm

1. Do not know why everyone is surprised that Boeing this scenario planned already. The more I think about it, the more brilliant it is. The 737 is lighter than the A320 to begin with, so why not start with the 737, as been brought many times it's the same width of the 757. Fixes the largest 737 biggest problems, power plant and wing.

2. No more moon shots from either OEMs, both has stated as much. New platforms are very expensive, this should be rather modest.

3. SWA would order a BOATLOAD of this aircraft along with many others.
Probably giving Boeing its blessing to go this route.

4. More fuel efficient and lighter than any 757 MAX fantasy.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18962
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:47 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
There is a lot of belly cargo flying on those routes and there are a lot of slots restricted airports.

How much belly cargo would a stretched MAX be able to carry? Answer - not enough.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.

Impossible, I'd say.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
I don't see how you can stretch it significantly without new MLG.

With a new wing, the MLG is not an issue.

Quoting william (Reply 24):
3. SWA would order a BOATLOAD of this aircraft along with many others.
Probably giving Boeing its blessing to go this route.

Pray tell, what 5,000nm routes does WN fly? They'd order precisely zero.
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.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7320
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:00 am

how about a 767 with new wings and modern engines, it needs to be bigger then the 757. A single ail plan just is so plain and sounds like a 737.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:09 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 26):
how about a 767 with new wings and modern engines, it needs to be bigger then the 757. A single ail plan just is so plain and sounds like a 737.

That sounds remarkably like a 787-3.
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
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:22 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.

Impossible, I'd say.

I don't get how you can say this without evaluating:

1. Relative efficiency of MoM/737MAXest vs. 777X/787

2. Expected yield premium for either (a) direct flights that are too big for WB's or (b) added frequency from MoMish plane.

3. Actual value of cargo carried by WB's but not by MoMish plane.

...I've done a couple back-of-the-envelope cargo analyses. I've never seen any airline earn more than 15% of trip revenue via belly cargo - and that's the max case.

Care to expound on how, given 1-3 and whatever else you think is relevant, beating 787/777 is impossible?
 
klkla
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:37 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Pray tell, what 5,000nm routes does WN fly? They'd order precisely zero.

They don't have any now. But if they were able to get a 737 that could fly 5,000 miles might they come up with some? It's possible.

I think the key to this re-visioned 737 would be serving long thin routes where a wide body is too much aircraft. The A321neo is able to do this almost to the capability of a 757. But is there a market for a narrow body that can do more than a 757 with the efficiency that modern engines can bring? Quite possibly.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:47 am

So we have the dream here about a 737-10 2*MAX in the size of the 757-200/300

1 Start out with the 737-8/9MAX fuselage
2 stretch the fuselage
3 replace wingbox
4 new wings
5 new MLG
6 bigger engines
7 needs slides everywhere

What is left of the 737

1 cramped cockpit
2 old unwieldy door construction
3 fuselage size
4 no containers possible

I suspect that the weight difference to the A320/1 will be eaten up very fast by new wingbox, new MLG and new wings and engines. Already the weight difference is less between the A320/1neo and the 737-8/9MAX compared to the A320/1 and 737-800/900.
We are reminded here how similar the 737 and 757 fuselage are. Why should the increased bending moment of stretching the fuselage to 757-200/300 length not also bring a similar weight increase rivalling the 757 fuselage?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18962
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:49 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 30):
Why should the increased bending moment of stretching the fuselage to 757-200/300 length not also bring a similar weight increase rivalling the 757 fuselage?

Because it would be a Boeing.   
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
DocLightning
Posts: 21801
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:00 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 11):

The 757 behind the wing had a different cross section than before the wings. Raised and confirmed here:
http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/....html

I specifically said it was the "cabin" that was identical, not the "fuselage."

The 757 lower lobe is different from the 737 lower lobe. I believe this is true both fore and aft of the wing.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:48 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
The 757 lower lobe is different from the 737 lower lobe. I believe this is true both fore and aft of the wing.

Yes and why should the lower lobeh be all the reason for the weight increase? The 757 a newer fuselage than the 737, and Boeing managed to build it far heavier enclosing a similar space per meter length?

I think here is completely underestimated the weight increase due to a bigger MLG, a four wheel bogie, bigger wing box, and bigger wings and engines.
The 737 2*MAX will perhaps not exactly rival the OEM of the 757, but move a long way in that direction.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:39 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 6):
By doing that they could create the basis for next gen narrow body family, in a nice aircraft that will only be produced in small numbers compared to 320 family as a whole, and get the learning curve going through all the production line with out having to worry to much about massive production ramp up.

I think this one of the advantages of a 737 Mad Maxed MAX + aircraft. Boeing could develop new systems and manufacturing technologies for a (relatively) low volume build aircraft and once mature use them for the basis of the next generation NB aircraft.

Back in 2010 I was a fan of a combination 737NG+ and new MOM aircraft approach. I thought this strategy would allow Boeing to maintain the profits and market share associated with the the 737 and at the same time develop new markets / customers with the MOM. A low risk bet each way approach.

At this stage I am not sure a 737NG+ would have been able to compete with the NEO and if there was enough incentive for Boeing customers to stay loyal until the MOM arrived to market.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:53 am

Could we get image or computer drawing of an aircraft like this may look like?
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:56 am

I stick by what I stated about SWA being a major buyer of this aircraft. Herb was really interested in the 757, and this is the kind of aircraft SWA could use in bid to fly more thin international routes.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:25 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I specifically said it was the "cabin" that was identical, not the "fuselage."

You are right, I wrongly assumed fuselage cross section, sorry.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7124
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:32 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
I don't think it's about market percentage, I think it's about deciding what to invest and what profit target you have and hitting those marks.

You make it sound as if those two are independent, though.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 13):
I don't believe the A320neo will be the last incarnation of the A320 series. The neo is basically what the Classic was to the 737 program

I agree with this. Particularly if the suggestion is that the MAX won't be the last iteration of the 737  
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 14):
Boeing will stay competitive with Airbus and highly profitable overall with the 737MAX (where the -8 still has an edge).

A couple of observations. No question the 737NG has been highly profitable. No question that the MAX will be profitable for Boeing. Whether it will be as highly profitable as the NG was is slightly more questionable.
There is some evidence to suggest that Airbus are being able to exert more pricing pressure in the market with the NEO now.
The trend in leasing rates seems to support this
As for the MAX-8 "having an edge" - based on what?
The market seems to confer parity at best on the -8MAX

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 16):
why doesn't Airbus move first? Well because the current duopoly equilibrium favors Airbus. The A321 is killing the 739, so Airbus probably would rather maintain status quo for the foreseeable future.

Agree. The issue I see for Boeing is that even if they move first, if they are not careful, Airbus can respond more rapidly, having an airframe that is already more optimised for growth.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
The A321 already has rotation issues - thus the extended trailing edge and more extensive high lift system (needed for takeoff due to rotation constraints).

Have you any links for this, or were you just guessing?  
The A321 has more extensive trailing edge and high lift devices because it's heavy.
The wing is trying to lift 93-97 tonnes when it was optimised for about 75-80 tonnes.
That's nothing whatsoever to do with rotation.
An A321 has similar rotation clearance to the 757-200 when expressed as a ratio of the height off the ground vs the the distance from the MLG to the back of the plane.

Rgds

[Edited 2016-02-06 00:44:10]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:35 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 16):
It doesn't make any sense until ~2023-5 engines are available, so Boeing has plenty of time to decide. Plus it has a lot of development on its plate right now.

Rather it doesn't make sense for either OEM until 2023-25. If the airlines are asking about the frame surely they are looking at their needs in 5 years time, and not 10 years on the OEM timetable. Is this not the same communications that forced the 737MAX? Boeing wanted to wait but had their hand forced by Airbus. That isn't a good position to be as you are offering a solution that you know isn't optimal if you had more time.

Both Airbus and Boeing do have a lot on their plates. They will always have a lot on their plates, if they don't they are sitting idle while the competition will be working to overtake them.

Also, surely if Boeing is receiving communication from the airlines on this proposed frame you would think that Airbus is also having the same discussions with the airlines. Unless we think that only Boeing is in discussions with the airlines and Airbus sits in the wings reading the newspaper reports and acting on that.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 16):
You're not paying to duopoly effects and first-mover advantage here. Specifically, the following:

-It is not clear - in fact it seems unlikely - that this space will allow two OEM's to play in profitably. Projections are for ~1,000 frames total. If split 500 sales each, neither OEM is sure to make sufficient profit to recover development costs.

It seems you are saying that whoever moves first in the market will have 100% for itself as it isn't big enough for both to offer a product. What is Boeing offers the 737MAX with a stretch and starts receiving orders, and Airbus counters with a stretch and new wing of the A321? Would one of them just go away and give the market to the other?
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:37 am

Over the next 2 years it will become clear how the 2 new engines perform.Also the price of fuel going forwards will become clearer.This in turn will most likely dictate what new engine developments there will be over the next 5 years.If the price of oil stays low I doubt there will be a huge amount of pressure to invest billions.
Also of course customers will see both NEO and MAX new aircraft in service so decisions based on fact rather than computer predictions will be made.
As for the size of market in the A321 / 752 category (and above).Thats the $64k question.There are very wide views on this forum and perhaps with A and B too.But this is the key determinant.
Boeing would clearly like to wait and do a complete replacement of the 737.They have done one 'rush' job with the MAX.It might be very dangerous to do it twice unless they are crystal clear of the outcome.
Without wishing to be disparaging I have always felt that the 748 was somewhat of a knee jerk reaction.It cost them a packet.I don't feel they will do it a second time.
This forum is often obsessed in % market share by sector.Shareholders are only interested in profit.Does it matter if Boeing conceded 10% market share of the narrow bodied sector? They are manufacturing flat out anyway.
Waiting and doing the job properly is the best course of action - if market dynamics allow.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:34 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 22):
Carrying 10s of tons less weight on the routes where there isn't much cargo could be very appealing. There are a lot of cities without enough TATL options.

And it kills your route network. I do not see too man legacies interested in putting their own hubs under pressure with such a route structure.

I am also not sure that Boeing and Airbus are that interested in side lining their new fancy and expensive widebodies with such a plane.

If I look at the official list prices the largest single aisle family member costs about 50% of the smallest widebody family member. And there are still lots of product development cots to be regained for Airbus and Boeing with their new widebody offerings. So the price point for the MoM will be difficult to find. If we believe it has about 2/3 of the capacity of the smallest widebody (without cargo) rough numbers look like this:

biggest current single aisle ~ 120 Million $
smallest current widebody ~ 240 Million $

So realistically you can sell the MoM for around 160 Million. But that is just 30% more than the largest current single aisle. Which imho leaves not much room for a big expensive development program.

And from the operational side, one must not forget that you will need 3 MoMs to replace 2 A330/787-8 when it comes to capacity. Which means 33% more cockpit crews and less cargo revenue.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:37 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):

nice run up on the how and why in this pdf ( and not only A320 ) :
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960052267.pdf

Havng been published in 1996 it sadly does not cover newer frames.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5601
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:20 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
I don't see how you can stretch it significantly without new MLG.

With a new wing, the MLG is not an issue.

It will require a new MLG. And they cannot steal it off the 757; the 757 MLG is much too heavy.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 26):
how about a 767 with new wings and modern engines, it needs to be bigger then the 757. A single ail plan just is so plain and sounds like a 737.

The problem with the 767 is that 7 abreast is horribly inefficient. It is adding an aisle and a row of seats to the 6 abreast narrowbody, which is adding too much weight and drag for too little added capacity. That is a big reason why it has fared so poorly against the A330. And it will fare equally poorly against the A330NEO.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 30):
I suspect that the weight difference to the A320/1 will be eaten up very fast by new wingbox, new MLG and new wings and engines.

The fuselage will still be lighter, and the wing/wingbox are almost certainly going to be CFRP, and hence will likely be not much heavier than the A321 while being larger. And a larger wing will give it more range without larger engines, and hence will beat the efficiency of the A321 (at least on longer routes.) Airbus will probably respond with a new wing (A322) which will restore parity, if they see sufficient market. And then the result will be a roughly 50/50 split of the market. But Boeing will have to spend more, because they will need new landing gear all around, while Airbus does not.

And there will still be a gap between the 737/A32x and the 787/A330 families, because there really is no efficient way to bridge it. You either go with an excessively long narrowbody (753+) or you go with 7 or 8 abreast. In the first case turnaround times become a problem, and the second has severe efficiency penalties. With all the emphasis on efficiency (nobody is going to bet that cheap oil will last forever) I do not think either manufacturer will go for 7 abreast, and if you go 8 abreast you might as well make the A330. And I think the 753 was a step too far in narrowbody length, and will not be repeated. They may go a little longer than the 752, but not much.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 30):
What is left of the 737

1 cramped cockpit
2 old unwieldy door construction
3 fuselage size
4 no containers possible

Unfortunately, the cramped cockpit is mainly of concern to pilots, who do not buy the aircraft. I would think that if the airlines complained about the doors, Boeing could do something about them. The fuselage size is actually an advantage economically, as it lowers both weight and drag compared to the A320. And if someone really wanted containers for the 737 they could be built. They would be special for the 737, but I do not see that as being a big issue.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:32 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 43):
That is a big reason why it has fared so poorly against the A330. And it will fare equally poorly against the A330NEO.

Fares poorly how? Between the three ER variants the 767 has sold 750 copies, that's not exactly a failure, even compared to the huge seller A330. I think the ability to right-size capacity on routes with the 767 has outweighed the efficiency shortcomings at many airlines.
Now you're flying smart
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:38 pm

I am beginning to wonder if the A350 is the last new cross section for 25+ years...

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
The 3,000 market for this plane requires a reorientation of business models (radical fragmentation below 5,000nm) that would probably occur. But should Boeing bet the firm on that occurring? Probably not if there's a much cheaper alternative that gets most of the business anyway.

Agreed but I also think we will see airlines that are primarily narrow body focused that will be interested in this small step change which won't require that much of a leap in business model - I think Boeing will have to sit down with airlines like WN/B6/AS/Copa/FR/U2/FlyDubai etc and really gauge their interest. Depending on the results of those conversations the risk of the unknown will decline. And that is even before you begin talking to the obvious legacy supporters like AA/DL/UA/TK/BA/etc where the change could be more radical as you suggest.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
There's a decent argument that the A320 is more suitable to adapt to 8hr flights as its 6-ab seating is a bit wider. I flagged cabin width as a potential issue for a 737MAXest but that's something market research would have to decide.

I honestly don't think people outside of a-net even can tell and even if they could, identifying that it is one plane OEM over another is another leap in logic, and even then making a purchasing decision based on that knowledge is yet another leap in logic. It could be that to the extent that it does exist some could be mitigated by the 'if it aint Boeing i aint going crowd' - small as it is.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 23):
Right. The competition isn't between a widebody and MoM on the same route; it's between a one-stop on a widebody versus direct on a MoM. Operators will likely recover lost cargo revenue in price premium alone.
Plus the MoM should have a very significant cash operating cost over widebodies due to newer engines and lower weight per seat (optimized for TATL).

Yes, agreed.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 20):
Beating a fully loaded 787/777X with the MoM will not be easy.
Impossible, I'd say.

Not impossible at all. Narrow body aircraft already beat widebody aircraft in costs when they fly the same route. This MoM will have to match A321neo economics so I would expect it to handly beat a 787/A330neo on any route it can operate.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Pray tell, what 5,000nm routes does WN fly? They'd order precisely zero.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. F9 has been talking about TATL a long time and they have a similar business model - I think this plane would be perfect for both of them. They are growing rapidly and upgauging and I for one don't see why that is going to stop by 2023+.

Quoting klkla (Reply 29):
But if they were able to get a 737 that could fly 5,000 miles might they come up with some? It's possible.

Well the 737ER can fly that far. I agree with you overall.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
As for the MAX-8 "having an edge" - based on what?
The market seems to confer parity at best on the -8MAX

I thought this article has a reasonably good analysis on the subject. It concludes the Max8 has a CASM advantage but the A320neo has a trip fuel advantage and the Max can fly slightly further.
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/02/05/a320neo-vs-737-max-pt-ii/

Quoting astuteman (Reply 38):
The issue I see for Boeing is that even if they move first, if they are not careful, Airbus can respond more rapidly, having an airframe that is already more optimised for growth.

I don't think it gets launched if Airbus can easily match. Maybe it will establish exclusivity on the engines or something to mitigate the risk. One thing is for sure the business case is already apparently difficult to close. That business case won't improve with a second offering in the space.

I think we will have some gamesmanship here - Boeing could wait until Airbus announces its next project A380neo, A350-1100, etc and then respond with the MOM/NMA as I do think that neither OEM wants to do two major projects at the same time.

tortugamon
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:38 pm

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 44):
Fares poorly how? Between the three ER variants the 767 has sold 750 copies,

The 767 is a contemporary of the A310 and had its best time before the A330 became available.
Bestseller the 767-300ER with EIS in 1988. A340/A330 EIS in 1993, 1994 resp..

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Orders_and_deliveries
Murphy is an optimist
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:39 pm

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 44):
uoting SEPilot (Reply 43):
That is a big reason why it has fared so poorly against the A330. And it will fare equally poorly against the A330NEO.

Fares poorly how? Between the three ER variants the 767 has sold 750 copies, that's not exactly a failure, even compared to the huge seller A330. I think the ability to right-size capacity on routes with the 767 has outweighed the efficiency shortcomings at many airlines.

Many frames have sold well once and have than been supplanted, as has the 767 and the 757.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:27 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
Not impossible at all. Narrow body aircraft already beat widebody aircraft in costs when they fly the same route. This MoM will have to match A321neo economics so I would expect it to handly beat a 787/A330neo on any route it can operate.

In operating costs sure, but the question is revenue. Will you offer the same standard in business class and premium economy in the single aisle cabin? If you offer a lower standard, will that influence the ticket price? How many business class seats are you going to offer? Will you offer the same seat pitch in economy?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7124
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 2

Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:36 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
I thought this article has a reasonably good analysis on the subject. It concludes the Max8 has a CASM advantage but the A320neo has a trip fuel advantage and the Max can fly slightly further

It looks like a good analysis (and explains the position the 737-9 MAX finds itself in).
It does seem clear though that their conclusion that the 737-8 MAX flies further than the A320NEO is based on internal fuel alone

Quote:
However, the 737 MAX 8’s larger internal fuel capacity allows it to reach 3,700 nautical miles based on internal fuel while the A320neo becomes fuel limited far short of that. Based on this, the 737 MAX 8 could theoretically fly longer haul flights (such as trans-Atlantic for a low cost carrier like Norwegian) that the A320neo cannot.

With 1 x ACT fitted, which brings the A320's fuel capacity level with the internal capacity of the 737-8, the A320NEO will fly about 10% further
(surprisingly, the analysis they've done, based on a 660Nm sector shows the A320NEO with a 9% fuel burn advantage. Whilst I believe 10% is realistic at long range, I'm surprised the advantage is that great at short range.)

The A320NEO's nominal range with 1 x ACT is 4 050nm, with a 13.5t payload.
What I don't know, because we've not seen R/P charts for it, is the payload a 737-8 will carry at 3 700Nm nominal (or 4 000Nm for that matter)

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 45):
I think we will have some gamesmanship here

  
There's clearly a lot of this going on  

Rgds

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