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 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:34 am

Please continue posting your updates here.

New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 3 (by KarelXWB Feb 11 2016 in Civil Aviation)
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:43 am

To beef up the discussion, Pratt hopes to get a slice of this new market:

http://aviationweek.com/singapore-ai...tf-will-suit-boeing-s-midsize-plan

Quote:
“So many people pooh-poohed it,” says Pratt & Whitney president Bob Leduc of the PurePower Geared Turbofan. “Now virtually every airframer you go to, even Boeing, are all believers.” Pratt is “starting to have middle-of-the-market-airplane discussions,” with Boeing, and sees the project as a rare near-to-midterm opportunity to expand the geared turbofan family into the higher thrust bracket currently occupied by the out-of-production PW2000 and Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

...

“Right now the only airplane we see out there is Boeing’s middle-of-the-market airplane. The Airbus product line is basically set top to bottom,” says Leduc. Boeing is targeting the 220-seat-class area “. . . because the Airbus A321 is just killing them, particularly the A321 with the geared turbofan on it – and we have 71% of that market.”
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:06 am

That quote from Leduc is a bit of 'I told you so' to Boeing for not having the GTF on the MAX.

Pratt dominates the A321NEO market and seems clearly better than the LEAP at high thrust/longer range.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:20 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 223):
Of course talking something like MOM up 5 years before the big money goes into it is a pretty established spoiler technique..
"Don't buy those A321's. We might be able to offer you something better a couple of years later"

They should have learned from the last time around (talking about NSA whilst Airbus was pitching NEO) that such a tactic doesn't work.

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 2):
That quote from Leduc is a bit of 'I told you so' to Boeing for not having the GTF on the MAX.

Another questionable tactic. PW has fouled up the NEO introduction (not fatally, but certainly producing bad optics). He should mind his knitting instead of coming across as brash and arrogant, 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
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:23 pm

Quote:
Boeing is targeting the 220-seat-class area “. . . because the Airbus A321 is just killing them, particularly the A321 with the geared turbofan on it – and we have 71% of that market.”

So now we have another seating number, 220 seats. It will be interesting what they come up with. 220 seats is again closer to the A321 than 240 seats.

Quote:
"We are in conversation with them, as is GE, as is everybody. This is how it works."

So if Boeing decides to go exclusive with one manufacturer you will have the other 2 that have had plans for a similar engine.

Quote:
“Or is it a brand-new core? It is so early they haven’t even defined the thrust requirement, though it is nominally 40,000 lb.,” says Leduc. “It’s all paper and is in their advanced group and in our advanced group. So it is all early days but we will figure it out. I certainly would love to get back on a Boeing airplane.”

I could see a new clean sheet design that fits in with the NSA, although the initial development will be expensive and the answer from Airbus could make it very uncomfortable for a few years and really hurt them. The reward could set them up for decades and force Airbus into answering with a new clean sheet of their own.

They would however need to absolutely hit the design out of the water and hit all their target in design and production. This hasn't happened for decades for either OEM though.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 1:38 pm

Clean sheet will be a challenge. Look at the difference between the A330NEO and the 787. And the 787 was a big jump in technology by all means. In the single aisle market it will be even harder, especially if you do not go CFRP for the fuselage. (you could go for CFRP but this will mean a very serious risk for the program in case CFRP technology does not mature as fast as planed)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:27 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 5):
Clean sheet will be a challenge. Look at the difference between the A330NEO and the 787. And the 787 was a big jump in technology by all means. In the single aisle market it will be even harder, especially if you do not go CFRP for the fuselage. (you could go for CFRP but this will mean a very serious risk for the program in case CFRP technology does not mature as fast as planed)

Yes, and in that case the market conditions were about as good as they could be: the 767s and 772Es were getting near the end of their life cycle so customers had little choice but to buy new tech, and Airbus was mired in A380 so could not respond with much vigor. Yet the result was trying to sell a marginally better a/c at a high price due to high development costs as well as high production costs against the A330ceo and neo with much lower development and production costs. It could all wind up the same for the narrowbody space.

NSA/NMA/MOM will have to sell into the face of a market producing narrow bodies at an incredible rate, some saying at an unsustainable rate, and Airbus has straightened out all the A380-era difficulties and is flush with cash whilst Boeing is complaining they can't hold their profit margins.

It's going to take some incredible testicular fortitude to launch a clean sheet program in the face of that, and it's going to take similar fortitude to decide to do nothing. Makes me thing the safe choice of the MadMax will be chosen.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:03 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
It's going to take some incredible testicular fortitude to launch a clean sheet program in the face of that, and it's going to take similar fortitude to decide to do nothing. Makes me thing the safe choice of the MadMax will be chosen.

The right choice for Boeing right now may not be the right choice in 10-15 years time. Everything may be pointing towards the MadMax, from financial to ROI, but a new clean sheet may just be whats needed. It could also end up terribly if they don't execute to perfection. But this wouldn't be the first time they were in this position and the company is as big as ever.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:21 pm

If Boeing gives the MadMax a competitive wing, a really efficient wing, with plenty of ground clearance built into the MLG, there is no reason it could not be scaled down to the rest of the lineup. Yep, the 737 Max or 737 could easily last 20 years or more.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:18 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 7):
The right choice for Boeing right now may not be the right choice in 10-15 years time. Everything may be pointing towards the MadMax, from financial to ROI, but a new clean sheet may just be whats needed. It could also end up terribly if they don't execute to perfection. But this wouldn't be the first time they were in this position and the company is as big as ever.

I like your comments, they sounds so hopeful and positive. If they go with a clean sheet, I hope they execute as well as Airbus did on A350. They made some good technological advances without going overboard, and were disciplined enough to enforce the "stop and fix" rule.

The pessimist in me can draw up a quite negative scenario even presuming reasonably good execution to plan: Boeing invests in a clean sheet MOM/NMA airframe and finds a lot of its self-generated hype about it technology doesn't pan out and is released into a market glutted with A321s and 739s that do most of its mission better/cheaper than it does. Then Airbus releases its 777x style new wing and fuse stretch aircraft that they built for 1/3rd the cost and takes away half of whatever remaining market the MOM/NMA was targeting. Boeing would be in quite bad shape, and I don't think that scenario is too too far fetched. Add to that a poor execution to plan and/or declining income from the defense side of the house and it'd be a very serious situation indeed.

[Edited 2016-02-18 08:34:51]
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
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:36 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 4):
So now we have another seating number, 220 seats. It will be interesting what they come up with. 220 seats is again closer to the A321 than 240 seats.

I wouldn't take his seating comment as gospel in any way. I'd imagine the number of seats in a plane is irrelevant to an engine OEM.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:57 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 7):
The right choice for Boeing right now may not be the right choice in 10-15 years time. Everything may be pointing towards the MadMax, from financial to ROI, but a new clean sheet may just be whats needed. It could also end up terribly if they don't execute to perfection. But this wouldn't be the first time they were in this position and the company is as big as ever.

But on the negative side this new design could be old tech in 15 years. If the blended wingbody, the ducted fan or the open rotor achieve their commercial breakthrough, this design could be looking very old.If they Mad Max the 737, they can probably do one more engine update in form of a Ultra Max at the in the early 2030ies, if there is no technology breakthrough in the time frame.
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:11 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 11):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
The pessimist in me can draw up a quite negative scenario even presuming reasonably good execution to plan: Boeing invests in a clean sheet MOM/NMA airframe and finds a lot of its self-generated hype about it technology doesn't pan out and is released into a market glutted with A321s and 739s that do most of its mission better/cheaper than it does. Then Airbus releases its 777x style new wing and fuse stretch aircraft that they built for 1/3rd the cost and takes away half of whatever remaining market the MOM/NMA was targeting.

If Boeing does a clean-sheet in the 757-300/767-200 size there's no way Airbus can easily answer with an A231 stretch. On the opposite the "low-risk" Mad -Max could be countered much more easy with a Maxing of the A32x base.

I could see a scenario where Boeing does all the "low-risk" solutions and ends up in a very defensive position in about 10 years. The 777X will have a hard time vs. the discussed A350-1100 stretch or at least not the cash cow the 77W was. The 737 including the MadMax is countered by Airbus with a A322. The only really undisputed plane will be the 787-9/10. No risk, no victory.
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:19 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 7):
The right choice for Boeing right now may not be the right choice in 10-15 years time. Everything may be pointing towards the MadMax

What is a MADMAX? I keep seeing this term used on here. Thank you…..   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 12):
The 777X will have a hard time vs. the discussed A350-1100 stretch or at least not the cash cow the 77W was.

The 77W "cash cow" is gone for good. It only came about because the 77W dramatically outperformed expectations while the plane it was built to counter, the A346 seriously underperformed. Hence the 77W essentially had the top of the long range widebody (except for VLA's) to itself for about 10 years. The coming online of the A350 has ended that. The A3510 and A3511, if it comes about, will be stiff competition, but neither will have the payload-range that the 778 & 779 will offer. To get that Airbus will probably have to make a new wing, and I doubt that the market is big enough to justify it. I expect most long-range flying will be done by the A359 and 787 in the future; the heavy routes will have the 779 and A3510, with the scattering of A380's. But going bigger than the 789 and A359 will not have the huge demand that was seen for the 77W. And that was because of the fact that the 77W offered longer range AND better economics than anything smaller on the market, a situation which will no longer exist. I expect the 778-9 and the A3510-11 to do reasonably well, but none of them will be a runaway success or dominate the market.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:36 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 5):
Clean sheet will be a challenge. Look at the difference between the A330NEO and the 787. And the 787 was a big jump in technology by all means.

Its a solid point. I would contend though that the A330ceo is not the the aircraft that entered service in 1993/4. When the A333 entered service it had 3,900nm of range. Compare that to the 787 which has similar/better economics but flies twice as far with more cargo and it looks like a big change. I would argue that the A330 however has been continually and gradually invested and improved more than any aircraft in history making the A330neo a pretty modern aircraft once it gets the wingtreatments and modern engines and the results speak for themselves. Your point largely remains. Continuous improvements are almost as good as clean sheet.

I think Airbus has spent as much in continual improvements than it would have cost to do a clean sheet however.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
NSA/NMA/MOM will have to sell into the face of a market producing narrow bodies at an incredible rate, some saying at an unsustainable rate, and Airbus has straightened out all the A380-era difficulties and is flush with cash whilst Boeing is complaining they can't hold their profit margins.

Just now realizing that everytime you mention NMA/MOM you assume clean sheet. This clears up some of our confusion from the previous thread as I refer to NMA/MOM as whatever aircraft Boeing eventually uses to occupy this space, derivative or clean sheet be damned. Quite the revelation  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Boeing invests in a clean sheet MOM/NMA airframe and finds a lot of its self-generated hype about it technology doesn't pan out and is released into a market glutted with A321s and 739s that do most of its mission better/cheaper than it does.

Certainly a concern and if we follow NG/MAX/neo narrowbody improvements they are many and they are quick and they are impactful. Launching an aircraft that sits just outside the reach of this narrow body machine is at serious risk to get consumed by it in the next cycle. This is not the least of the reasons why I think this aircraft needs to be substantially bigger than an A321+10%.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 10):
I wouldn't take his seating comment as gospel in any way. I'd imagine the number of seats in a plane is irrelevant to an engine OEM.

Agreed. What I would/do focus on is his comment about 40k lb engine. That tells us he is looking at a big aircraft. (Yay!)

Quoting dare100em (Reply 12):
If Boeing does a clean-sheet in the 757-300/767-200 size there's no way Airbus can easily answer with an A231 stretch. On the opposite the "low-risk" Mad -Max could be countered much more easy with a Maxing of the A32x base.

I agree with this. However if the Max-Max ends up being in the 757-300-size category I don't think there will be a lot of motivation on Airbus side to launch a true competitor and rather maybe just an A322 simple stretch which would still give room for each OEM to compete.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 12):
The only really undisputed plane will be the 787-9/10. No risk, no victory.

Well Airbus would have the A321 and the A380 in terms of similar level of 'undisputed'. Not sure that is really the desired goal. The 738 MAX and the 787 will print money for Boeing for the next decade. The neo and the A350 will for Airbus soon enough as well.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 13):
What is a MADMAX?

Its a phrase coined on here (anyone know the author from the first/second thread?) which refers to a hypothetical but Boeing suggested MAX-derived-stretched-frankenstein-like aircraft that fits in the Middle-of-the-Market (MOM) size-wise - aka 220-270 seats or thereabouts but keeps a lot of the underlying systems/technology and presumably the 737 certification as well. At least I think it does.  

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 8:40 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
I like your comments, they sounds so hopeful and positive. If they go with a clean sheet, I hope they execute as well as Airbus did on A350. They made some good technological advances without going overboard, and were disciplined enough to enforce the "stop and fix" rule.

The pessimist in me can draw up a quite negative scenario even presuming reasonably good execution to plan: Boeing invests in a clean sheet MOM/NMA airframe and finds a lot of its self-generated hype about it technology doesn't pan out and is released into a market glutted with A321s and 739s that do most of its mission better/cheaper than it does. Then Airbus releases its 777x style new wing and fuse stretch aircraft that they built for 1/3rd the cost and takes away half of whatever remaining market the MOM/NMA was targeting. Boeing would be in quite bad shape, and I don't think that scenario is too too far fetched. Add to that a poor execution to plan and/or declining income from the defense side of the house and it'd be a very serious situation indeed.

It is easy to look only at one way on topics, especially when we look at it through our own prejudices as well. The fact remains both companies are capable of designing extremely competitive new aircraft, but we should be realistic for both as well. Where Boeing's last new design burnt them quite badly, to the point where it could be argued they are risk averse as a result of the 787 debacle, at the same time Airbus has moved from being the upstart competitor able to spend money to catch up, to the contemporary of Boeing and having to look after profits as much as Boeing does.

For those looking for new designs this is not ideal as both would prefer not to bet the company at this stage though.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 10):
I wouldn't take his seating comment as gospel in any way. I'd imagine the number of seats in a plane is irrelevant to an engine OEM.

He would be better placed than most on what is happening...seeing as Boeing would discuss with him what the requirements would be. While Boeing may not have gone into specific details about seating, he would be able to know what they are looking at with the required thrust they require.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 11):
But on the negative side this new design could be old tech in 15 years. If the blended wingbody, the ducted fan or the open rotor achieve their commercial breakthrough, this design could be looking very old.If they Mad Max the 737, they can probably do one more engine update in form of a Ultra Max at the in the early 2030ies, if there is no technology breakthrough in the time frame.

Well you would expect the new tech of these days to last longer as both companies aren't looking at new designs at every turn any longer. The tendency for both would be to neo after 15-20 years.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 13):
What is a MADMAX? I keep seeing this term used on here. Thank you…..

It may be that Boeing would be MAD to stretch the MAX?     
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:23 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
The 77W "cash cow" is gone for good.

They are going to deliver more than 75 of these this year for presumably more than $150 Million a piece. Last year it was the largest generator of profit in the company. Not sure gone for good is quite accurate. If this was 2018/2019 then I would start to agree with you.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 16):
For those looking for new designs this is not ideal as both would prefer not to bet the company at this stage though.

Boeing is worth $78 Billion and has $11 Billion in cash and equivalents with an A-2 Bond rating...can we please resist the melodrama and keep perspective that no one program is 'betting the company'...that goes for both OEMs.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:06 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
Boeing is worth $78 Billion and has $11 Billion in cash and equivalents with an A-2 Bond rating...can we please resist the melodrama and keep perspective that no one program is 'betting the company'...that goes for both OEMs.

If both Airbus and Boeing were flush with cash they wouldn't look at low cost derivatives and would be doing clean sheet designs. While the companies aren't at risk of financial ruin, lets not pretend that either of them would be able to afford another A380 or 787. If that was the case why the apparent need for cost cutting at Boeing?

My point is, neither company can afford to spend $10-15 billion on a new clean sheet and afford to suffer from delays or cost overruns, especially if the competition can compete by spending a half, or even quarter of the cost.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:24 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
If both Airbus and Boeing were flush with cash they wouldn't look at low cost derivatives and would be doing clean sheet designs. While the companies aren't at risk of financial ruin, lets not pretend that either of them would be able to afford another A380 or 787. If that was the case why the apparent need for cost cutting at Boeing?

My point is, neither company can afford to spend $10-15 billion on a new clean sheet and afford to suffer from delays or cost overruns, especially if the competition can compete by spending a half, or even quarter of the cost.

Agreed, many here are spoiled because we have had a spate of new generation products in the past recent years. But airplanes are not cars that debut a new generation every 5 years. Both Airbus and Boeing are content to sit back for a while and enjoy the revenues from the recent new products. If Boeing goes Mad Max, you better believe it will be a capable aircraft.
.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4000
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 10:36 pm

I suspect both A and B could 'afford' another disaster, but executives might not survive. And neither should they.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:32 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
If both Airbus and Boeing were flush with cash they wouldn't look at low cost derivatives and would be doing clean sheet designs.

Sorry, with all due respect that is a completely ludicrous statement. For a healthy company you don't make a decision based on what cash you have on-hand, you make a decision based on which program maximizes the return on investment which includes the cost of capital and any necessary opportunity cost. Just because you have $20 Billion in the bank doesn't mean the best investment is to spend it on a new aircraft. Nor is it ideal for a company like Boeing to ever have $20+ billion in the bank.

Quoting william (Reply 19):
Both Airbus and Boeing are content to sit back for a while and enjoy the revenues from the recent new products. If Boeing goes Mad Max, you better believe it will be a capable aircraft.

Absolutely. I do think they are both in a time period where they want to return as much cash as possible back to shareholders as they both have come off of very high cap ex spends and I think they want to right-size that again.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 20):
I suspect both A and B could 'afford' another disaster, but executives might not survive. And neither should they.

Great point. Absolutely agree. They are betting their jobs much more than their company and I do think that does stifle innovation and large leaps of faith. Look at the A380 and the fallout that caused.

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:44 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
The 77W "cash cow" is gone for good. It only came about because the 77W dramatically outperformed expectations while the plane it was built to counter, the A346 seriously underperformed. Hence the 77W essentially had the top of the long range widebody (except for VLA's) to itself for about 10 years. The coming online of the A350 has ended that.

I knew the "Airbus is better" banter was in there somewhere   

The reality is, the 777-300ER is still in production, is still making a profit for Boeing, and airlines are still buying it, despite the A350 being on the market for nearly 10 years. The A350 hasn't ended anything.

The 777-300ER will leave production being a highly popular model, and the 777-9 can only build on it's success in the years ahead, and it already has begun to.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
The A3510 and A3511, if it comes about, will be stiff competition, but neither will have the payload-range that the 778 & 779 will offer.

Right you are   

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 16):
It may be that Boeing would be MAD to stretch the MAX?  

They probably would be if they don't do it right.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5575
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:10 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 13):
What is a MADMAX? I keep seeing this term used on here. Thank you…..    
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
Its a phrase coined on here (anyone know the author from the first/second thread?) which refers to a hypothetical but Boeing suggested MAX-derived-stretched-frankenstein-like aircraft that fits in the Middle-of-the-Market (MOM) size-wise - aka 220-270 seats or thereabouts but keeps a lot of the underlying systems/technology and presumably the 737 certification as well. At least I think it does.   

Here we go, it was in the first thread: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 1 (by tortugamon Feb 2 2016 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 176):
The analyst's name is quite fitting. How dare the CFO douse cold water on such a fun subject?   
Nonetheless, any further rumored iteration of the 737Max and pretty soon it'd be MadMAX.    .

For something really mad, how about if rather than going for a new (as yet undeveloped) engine which would also need new landing gear and probably a new wing, Boeing made a 737 trijet with 3 LEAPs. The extra weight of a rear engine could allow a decent stretch to be made ahead of the wing, minimising the tail strike issue. 737-10 (a la DC-10) anyone?     

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:13 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 16):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 10):
I wouldn't take his seating comment as gospel in any way. I'd imagine the number of seats in a plane is irrelevant to an engine OEM.

He would be better placed than most on what is happening...seeing as Boeing would discuss with him what the requirements would be. While Boeing may not have gone into specific details about seating, he would be able to know what they are looking at with the required thrust they require.

Again, I don't argue that he's in-the-know on the aircraft's requirements, but seating is such an ambivalent measurement that i'm not sure that we can derive anything from it when uttered by an engine OEM exec. Has there ever been an engine designed for X number of people in a plane?

For all we know, he could be talking high density single class, standard dual class, F/J/Y, etc.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:53 am

So let's review. What are Boeing's choices?

1. Do nothing and hold out till the NSA?

2. A Stretched 737 MAX

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00006349.jpg

3. Clean Sheet Design

http://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/321-on-top-of-NSA-1024x840.png

A stretched 737 MAX need a new wingbox, uprated/new engines, structural enhancements, new empennage, new wings (big one!), new gear, potentially a modified cockpit, bigger fuel tanks, new software, etc, etc,etc., and then there's the problems of the airframe being potentially restrictive to the plane's full potential by using the 737 as a base, therefore making the 737 "Mad-MAX" less competitive to the A321neoLR and a subsequent A322. On the upside, it's perhaps cheaper, and could brought to market sooner.

A clean sheet aircraft would be expensive, and would take time, but would allow free-range designing. Another benefit I see that Boeing could have is that the eventual 737 replacement could be derived from the clean sheet MoM, thus saving on development cost at that time, which would then save on production cost if the two were constructed side-by-side, since they would essentially be bigger and smaller versons of themselves. With the 787, Boeing is competent in CFRP construction, which means they don't have to invest in the material.
The aircraft would be all new, state-of-the-art, and would be more of a challenge to Airbus, as the 757 sized aircraft would fly the same routes with more passengers and payload.

Boeing has a good 2-3 years of heavy various development, and then it's off to the races, besides beginning production and testing of the 777X.

The risk is there, but then again, Boeing also took a risk with the 747   
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23716
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:35 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):

Just now realizing that everytime you mention NMA/MOM you assume clean sheet. This clears up some of our confusion from the previous thread as I refer to NMA/MOM as whatever aircraft Boeing eventually uses to occupy this space, derivative or clean sheet be damned.

Yes, the genesis of this three-part thread (and perhaps more to come) is that up to this point we all presumed MAX was the last possible stretch (and even some presumed MAX would never happen too!). What launched this thread (as opposed to every other aspect of commentary of 757 replacement and 737 replacement too) was that for the first time we heard serious consideration (via the esteemed Jon Ostrower, A.net member who we knew back in the day and now he's all grown up now and living the dream as WSJ aviation reporter!  ) reporting that yet another iteration of 737 is being given meaningful consideration. It's almost as if Boeing decided that the way to best address the VLA market was to do a 747-8 NG! Note I said almost! But it was something no one here mentioned as a possiblity, AFAIK.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
Quite the revelation

Indeed!   

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
This is not the least of the reasons why I think this aircraft needs to be substantially bigger than an A321+10%.

The advantage is you are definitely cutting new ground (given the 757 is dead and buried). The disadvantage is you are cutting yourself off from any benefit from being a 757 member, and you're taking the risk of presuming the 757 replacement market itself can sustain an all-new airframe in the face of any competition that Airbus can raise via an "A322".

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 16):
Where Boeing's last new design burnt them quite badly, to the point where it could be argued they are risk averse as a result of the 787 debacle, at the same time Airbus has moved from being the upstart competitor able to spend money to catch up, to the contemporary of Boeing and having to look after profits as much as Boeing does.

I'm not sure that retelling fully incorporates the A380 experience. If Boeing had executed 787 even with "reasonable" overruns they would be incredibly well positioned now. Boeing totally blew out not just money but also time. The result is not only a 787 program that can't deliver profits, it's also the inability to take on other programs to the degree they "should" be able to.

Gives me flashbacks to threads of five years ago or so that said "A380 and 787 are colossal f***ups but it doesn't matter because both companies are thriving". My response was that perhaps those programs were redeemable, but it'd certainly make future programs have a lot tougher path to success, and I think that's coming true to a degree.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 25):
A stretched 737 MAX need a new wingbox, uprated/new engines, structural enhancements, new empennage, new wings (big one!), new gear, potentially a modified cockpit, bigger fuel tanks, new software, etc, etc,etc.,

In other words, it'd be remarkably similar to the 737 Classic -> NG transition.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:43 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
In other words, it'd be remarkably similar to the 737 Classic -> NG transition.

Not quite. The Classic and NG were different generations. A 737 Mad-MAX would probably be defined better as a derivative of the MAX.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:15 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 25):
With the 787, Boeing is competent in CFRP construction, which means they don't have to invest in the material.
The aircraft would be all new, state-of-the-art, and would be more of a challenge to Airbus, as the 757 sized aircraft would fly the same routes with more passengers and payload.

Both are competent in CFRP construction. The problem at the moment is the production costs for large CFRP parts and the challenge of producing enough to allow a sufficient production rate. This was already a challenge for the 787, but would be even more so for the MoM which needs to be significantly cheaper and will see a higher production rate. Until you can cure at room temperature, a CFRP fuselage could be a commercial drawback for a single aisle design. And even with a CFRP fuselage additive metal construction techniques and new alloys will erode the advantage. It would not help to have a plane 5-10% more efficient than a theoretical A322, but costing 50% more. For this to work out you would need fuel prices so high that the demand from the airlines would be very small anyway as the industry would shrink and the need for a large single aisle would diminish. So even if you would be winning against the A322 you might would still not build all the planes you need to make the investment worthwhile.

And although I hate to say it, Airbus could come even closer when they would invest 50% of the costs of a new design. Hell they could use the fuselage construction principle of the A350 for the A322.

The Mad Max will cost less and it is likely that the answer from Airbus would be modest. If the 2000 frames are true a 50:50 market share would make sure that both are making money.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:00 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
Again, I don't argue that he's in-the-know on the aircraft's requirements, but seating is such an ambivalent measurement that i'm not sure that we can derive anything from it when uttered by an engine OEM exec. Has there ever been an engine designed for X number of people in a plane?

For all we know, he could be talking high density single class, standard dual class, F/J/Y, etc.

I agree, it is just interesting for me that we have new figures all the time of potential seating requirements. Until we know the exact capacity that is being looked at we are just speculating our own thoughts and dreams for the new design. This makes for interesting threads though, we are all so sure that we are right in our minds that until it comes out exactly the requirements no-one can dispute it.

At the moment I am still not sure whether we are looking at a 757-300 (757-200 plus 20%), a 757-200 (240 seat one class) or an A321 "me too" version. Anyone can pick a size from that and argue that the new design will be better than the competitor for reasons X and Y.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
I'm not sure that retelling fully incorporates the A380 experience. If Boeing had executed 787 even with "reasonable" overruns they would be incredibly well positioned now. Boeing totally blew out not just money but also time. The result is not only a 787 program that can't deliver profits, it's also the inability to take on other programs to the degree they "should" be able to.

Gives me flashbacks to threads of five years ago or so that said "A380 and 787 are colossal f***ups but it doesn't matter because both companies are thriving". My response was that perhaps those programs were redeemable, but it'd certainly make future programs have a lot tougher path to success, and I think that's coming true to a degree.

For Airbus what they have shown is that they were able to learn from the A380 and design a new aircraft with new materials and deliver it without any huge delays (yes I know it was supposed to be EIS 2013, yet the delays were communicated early in the program due to resources being scarce and the current timetable was known for a few years and kept to by Airbus) and without any huge cost overruns.

Boeing's last clean sheet design is still the massively late and expensive 787. Until they actually show the markets that they can deliver relatively on time and on budget, this will be the experience that is remembered. The 777 was more than 20 years ago and many of the engineers and managers have left. We also need to remember that while the 777 was on time it was not on budget. Didn't Boeing throw money at the project to ensure they would be on time?


In fact the longer they wait for a new design the less experience they may have in the company of the 787 days. Will that actually be a good thing where those that are left doesn't have the scars of the 787? Or will it allow new employees to repeat the same mistakes?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21):
Sorry, with all due respect that is a completely ludicrous statement. For a healthy company you don't make a decision based on what cash you have on-hand, you make a decision based on which program maximizes the return on investment which includes the cost of capital and any necessary opportunity cost. Just because you have $20 Billion in the bank doesn't mean the best investment is to spend it on a new aircraft. Nor is it ideal for a company like Boeing to ever have $20+ billion in the bank.

So please tell me, is it easier to launch a new $15 billion clean sheet design when you have cash in hand to cover any unforeseen delays and production problems or is it harder? Or do you prefer the method of going for RLI or tax breaks to fund new projects all the time?

You may want to read up on Project Yellowstone. Or do you think if the 787 was a successful launch and production they would also have scrapped the Y1 and eventually Y3 in favour of the MAX and 777X?

Instead we have one new technology advance frame and one 1960's design and a 1990's design. I am sure this is what they envisioned when they were looking at the future.
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:27 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
If both Airbus and Boeing were flush with cash they wouldn't look at low cost derivatives and would be doing clean sheet designs.

Boeing as well as Airbus ALWAYS want to do low-risk derivates, ALWAYS! It's only when they are really forced by the competitor OR ESPECIALLY their customers how may say "NO, thanks." to a Franken-Derivate like the MD11, A350MKI-II or the 767-400 or 747-8 or A340-500/600 or or or...

There are far more failed "low-risk", "no moon-shot" derivates than really failed clean-sheets. If you consider failed planes in the last 20 years it's overwhelmingly from the desire of the OEM's to squeeze even more out of a death horse. The "failed" clean-sheets where mostly not realy (design) failures but programm management errors (787, A380).

It is totally normal that a CEO always talks investment necessities down with stuff like "Not decided yet" ... "Need time / We have plenty of time" ... "Portfolio well balanced" ... "No moon-shots" and so on. If they can get away with it they can maximize their profits (and bonuses) and that's the number one goal!

[Edited 2016-02-19 01:00:19]
 
astuteman
Posts: 7124
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:49 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
They are going to deliver more than 75 of these this year for presumably more than $150 Million a piece. Last year it was the largest generator of profit in the company. Not sure gone for good is quite accurate. If this was 2018/2019 then I would start to agree with you

I think that's a fair point. 77W's being delivered today will be on strong margins. 77W's being ordered today possibly less so.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):
Boeing is worth $78 Billion and has $11 Billion in cash and equivalents with an A-2 Bond rating...can we please resist the melodrama and keep perspective that no one program is 'betting the company'...that goes for both OEMs.

Agree. The sheer scale of these enterprises, and their ability to make profit and margin from smallest product to largest (by and large) must be a real challenge for new entrants.
Bear in mind that both the 787 and A380, including their SNAFU's, have been executed with little or no borrowing - largely from revenue.
Go over to BBD and see what they make of being able to blow £20Bn- $30Bn on a programme largely from revenue

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 18):
lets not pretend that either of them would be able to afford another A380 or 787. If that was the case why the apparent need for cost cutting at Boeing?

Both companies have a need to return value, to the shareholders, and to themselves (in order to do so)
In this case "afford" means "does it make sense?" as opposed to "can we actually do it?"
cost cutting is a way of influencing the "does it make sense" bit

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 21):
you don't make a decision based on what cash you have on-hand, you make a decision based on which program maximizes the return on investment which includes the cost of capital and any necessary opportunity cost

  

Rgds
 
Passedv1
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:58 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 25):
potentially a modified cockpit

Oh stop teasing! Please! Just 6 inches please Boeing! On behalf of all the half-deaf, crumpled bodied 737 pilots out there, if you won't put the 737 out of its misery and feel you must do a mad-max, please update the flight deck.

Shifting everything back 6 inches would do wonders for leg room, head clearance, bag storage. Would it be too much to ask to get the wind noise down below 80 decibels?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 25):
Boeing also took a risk with the 747

It was a completely different time back then.

[Edited 2016-02-19 01:07:34]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:25 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
Both companies have a need to return value, to the shareholders, and to themselves (in order to do so)
In this case "afford" means "does it make sense?" as opposed to "can we actually do it?"
cost cutting is a way of influencing the "does it make sense" bit

It is easy on the forums to see everything as black and white. They have money or they don't. They need a clean sheet or they don't. There is probably a thousand shades of grey that either OEM has to go through before they make their decision. They may have the money and the potential market all pointing towards a clean sheet design, but the suppliers may not be ready or their own engineering resources may be a stumbling block.

From my perspective this is not an easy decision for Boeing as I don't think their financial position is as strong as it was 10 years ago to launch a new design, and the ROI with the potential answer from Airbus further undermining the case for a clean sheet. That said the MADMAX doesn't seem that great of an alternative either.

However this doesn't mean that they cannot do it. Its just the way I see it, the best we can do is discuss the possibilities without getting into certainties when there are none (at least for us at this moment) and see what decisions either OEM come up with.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:27 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 30):
Boeing as well as Airbus ALWAYS want to do low-risk derivates, ALWAYS!

Maybe the bean counters...I am sure the designers and engineers will have a different view on that. Unfortunately you are right, money talks and this is what has a lot of influence on decisions being made.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:41 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 4):
So now we have another seating number, 220 seats. It will be interesting what they come up with. 220 seats is again closer to the A321 than 240 seats.

Actually the article says 220 to 280 seats:

http://aviationweek.com/singapore-ai...tf-will-suit-boeing-s-midsize-plan

Quote:
While publicly saying nothing new on the middle of the market (MOM), Boeing is believed to be seeing a potential advantage to bringing the development forward. The company, which sees a market for at least 2,000 aircraft in this sector, is studying a 220- to 280-seat product with a range of 4,500 to 5,000 miles. The key question for the development is whether to link the MOM to plans for a successor to the 737 MAX. “That’s a really hard question to answer – obviously, we have got to sort through all of that,” says Scott Fancher, senior vice president and general manager of airplane development at Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “When we see an opportunity, we will take it.”
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:59 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 35):
Maybe the bean counters...I am sure the designers and engineers will have a different view on that. Unfortunately you are right, money talks and this is what has a lot of influence on decisions being made.

  

That's what I mean, the financial guys and the Board.

The engineers favour a clean-sheet. And from what we know also the CEO of the civil plane department at Boeing clearly likes to do a clean-sheet. The overall CEO (Muilenberg) is probably in between and the finacial guys/board likely to do the MadMax or even nothing at all.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:11 pm

This whole thing is starting to look a bit strange for Boeing.

If they do a new plane or a MadMax the whole management look a bit stupid imho. This decision will undermine the 9MAX before it even flew and it would call into question the MAX upgrade as many would possible say that it was too little effort.

If they really decide to do that plane quickly the situation for the 9MAX must be really really bad, but then one has to question how they ever expected it to do better than the 900ER did.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:28 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
This decision will undermine the 9MAX

The whole idea behind MadMax is to recapture market share from the A321 because 9MAX is not selling well.

http://aviationweek.com/singapore-ai...tf-will-suit-boeing-s-midsize-plan

Quote:
The Airbus product line is basically set top to bottom,” says Leduc. Boeing is targeting the 220-seat-class area “. . . because the Airbus A321 is just killing them, particularly the A321 with the geared turbofan on it – and we have 71% of that market.”

The situation will not get any better once A321neoLR enters the market.

[Edited 2016-02-19 04:29:31]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 12:52 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
If they do a new plane or a MadMax the whole management look a bit stupid imho. This decision will undermine the 9MAX before it even flew and it would call into question the MAX upgrade as many would possible say that it was too little effort.

How cares about ones saying from yesterday? Airbus did exactly the same on the A340-500/600 or A350-MkI/II until days befor they where launching the A350XWB.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:37 pm

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 22):

The reality is, the 777-300ER is still in production, is still making a profit for Boeing, and airlines are still buying it, despite the A350 being on the market for nearly 10 years. The A350 hasn't ended anything.

But Boeing has had to slow down 77W production, and the rumors are that they are selling them at huge discounts, and so the cash cow aspect truly is gone-THAT is what the A350 has ended. I suspect the only reason it is still selling is the same reason the A330 (CEO) has continued to sell-availability. One can get a 77W a lot sooner than an A350. Hey, I am an avid Boeing fan but I am also a realist.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:58 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 41):
But Boeing has had to slow down 77W production, and the rumors are that they are selling them at huge discounts, and so the cash cow aspect truly is gone-THAT is what the A350 has ended. I suspect the only reason it is still selling is the same reason the A330 (CEO) has continued to sell-availability. One can get a 77W a lot sooner than an A350. Hey, I am an avid Boeing fan but I am also a realist.

And Boeing risked losing the market to the A350, hence they responded with the 777X family.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5602
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:01 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 42):
And Boeing risked losing the market to the A350, hence they responded with the 777X family.

Exactly. And they had to make the 777X larger and put on a whole new wing in order to keep it competitve. If they could have done it with less change they would have.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:53 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
The whole idea behind MadMax is to recapture market share from the A321 because 9MAX is not selling well.

http://aviationweek.com/singapore-ai...-plan

Neither was the 900.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:05 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 44):
Neither was the 900.

True. Due to the early 787 fiasco and 747-8 problems Boeing was not in a position to launch a new product to address the A321 market. With those problems now resolved, they are in a position to launch something new.

[Edited 2016-02-19 08:07:14]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:09 pm

For some reason this all reminds me of the Toyota RAV4 of ca. 1995. Toyota invented a whole new market segment, the compact SUV, with the RAV4. It was a risk that they initially wanted to tackle with minimum investment. So Toyota turned to its "parts bin" and took an engine from here, a transmission from there, an all-wheel-drive drive train from another car, etc. and cobbled together a new vehicle that became wildly successful and has since spawned 4+ iterations and competing products.

Can Boeing turn to its parts bin in a similar fashion? What parts do they currently have? What of their current parts could be tweaked during production for minimal investment? For example, could Boeing approach Spirit Aero and ask them to make a fuselage that instead of being 3.53m (737 Max) is between 3.54m (757) and 4.72m (767)? Perhaps an increase to 4.0 or 4.5m for a MOM? How "difficult" is that to expand the diameter on the same or perhaps parallel production line?

If you, Mr. or Ms. ANET User, could cobble together a new MOM from existing (or slightly tweaked) Boeing parts, what plane would you create?

I see cobbling together a new air frame of course being the "easy" part. The elephant in the room is who supplies the engines and by when?
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:13 pm

'With those problems now resolved'

Are they?
One aircraft doesn't sell and the other doesn't (and perhaps won't) turn a profit.
(and if Airbus do make an 1100?) - jugular time.As reflected in the performance of their shares.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:46 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 45):
True. Due to the early 787 fiasco and 747-8 problems Boeing was not in a position to launch a new product to address the A321 market. With those problems now resolved, they are in a position to launch something new.

Well they did the MAX upgrade and even at the time many were wondering if a new MLG should not have been done. This would have healed many problems of the 9. Now they have not even flown the first 9 and they are talking about either a way bigger update or even a new design to replace it.

Imho there are only 2 reasonable options why they would do this.

a) the MAX has a performance problem and the NEO performs way better than the CEO did compared to the NG

b) Airbus is working on the A322 and has started looking for interested airlines
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:21 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 36):
Actually the article says 220 to 280 seats:

That is sort of my point though. We started out at 240 seats. Whether these were 240 one class or two class seats isn't known. Now we have 220 seats to 280 seats. It will be interesting what the final numbers are, whether they want to start at A321 capacity and grow from there, or atart at A321 plus 10%.

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