Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:46 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
Yes, the genesis of this three-part thread

Yes, its true as I am the one who started it!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
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".

I actually think 95% of the 757s will be retired by the time this even enters service. I see this as an upgauge opportunity and a fragmentation of some long haul routes and new routes that have never been operated because there hasn't been the appropriate aircraft. Overall I agree with your assessment. I do think if they did a clean sheet the size of the 753 that an A322 low cost stretch wouldn't be enough to undermine it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
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.

Absolutely. Some of these 777s being delivered today were ordered in 2011. Many are more recent but yes once we get to 2018-2020 deliveries the 787 will need to be generating cash or Boeing will be hurting for widebody profit.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 31):
Go over to BBD and see what they make of being able to blow £20Bn- $30Bn on a programme largely from revenue

Yeah solid point. And it goes back to considering the opportunity cost as well because they have had to halt Learjet 85 as a result of their cash from operations being tied up with the CSeries.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 34):
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

Your wrong. 10 years ago Boeing had half of the revenue it does now, its earning (per share) have tripled) its stock doubled, it now has twice as much cash and its backlog has gone from $205 Billion to over $450 Billion. Its significantly healthier now than it was 10 years ago. Not even close. It doesn't take much effort to educate oneself.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
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.

Not entirely sure it will. Again I believe this will be the size of a 752.5 and I don't think that is anywhere close to the size of the 739 which is really very very close to the size of the 738.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 46):
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?

It would mean its a new airplane and that is $15 Billion+ I think they are hoping to spend a fraction of that. The MAX program cost about $2.5 Billion. A revised version is 10-15% of the cost of going clean sheet.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 8:54 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Not entirely sure it will. Again I believe this will be the size of a 752.5 and I don't think that is anywhere close to the size of the 739 which is really very very close to the size of the 738.

That would be true if the only problem of the 9 would be the size, but imho the main problem is the size in combination with the performance hit compared to the 8, which makes the 9 not worthwhile.

The new plane will surely come in two sizes. I dare say that the bigger version won´t be much longer than the 753, because the finesse ratio for a single aisle become too bad if you stretch further. This means the smaller will be around 752 size. This is still a gap to the 9, but if it offers similar economics with better performance, there is no reason at all to buy the 9. This is a bit strange when one considers that the new MLG would also have benefited the 9 and perhaps even the 8, as there would have been no need for the smaller fan of the LEAP-1B.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 48):
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.

The fact that Boeing is retaining MLG wing and wing box both on the NG and the MAX is pretty good indicator of FAA not accepting fundamental changes of those parts if the grandfathered type rating is to be retained.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 48):
b) Airbus is working on the A322 and has started looking for interested airlines

Is that so? First time I hear about Airbus mentioning the possibility.
 
klkla
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:17 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 39):
The situation will not get any better once A321neoLR enters the market.

I usually agree with you. but the A321neoLR as currently visioned is not going to seat enough passengers relative to it's range. This is an area where Boeing could get a leg up on Airbus with the so called MadMax (at least temporarily).
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:57 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
That would be true if the only problem of the 9 would be the size, but imho the main problem is the size in combination with the performance hit compared to the 8, which makes the 9 not worthwhile.

I think the (field) performance thing is overstated. The Max 9 still has excellent range. Its just so similar in size to the 8 and the A321 has a much more significant size advantage which improves its economics without the same compromise. I just don't see too many airlines debating between the -9 and the MoM. I personally think most debate the -9 between the A321 and the Max 8.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
This means the smaller will be around 752 size. This is still a gap to the 9, but if it offers similar economics with better performance, there is no reason at all to buy the 9.

Well it will definitely have a substantially higher price. And the 752 will probably have 30 more seats so I just don't think they will all go to the 752-sized aircraft.


tortugamon
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2885
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:28 pm

The only viable option is a composite single-aisle aircraft, fitted with 40 meter wings and seating from 200-250 pax in a 2-member family. Driving the viability of such an offering will be two fold: cost and complexity of CFRP construction, and availability of the next generation engines. Which makes 2025-30 look like a realistic bet on service entry. For that to happen, Boeing will need to announce something within the next 1-6 years. In either case, the upper end of the narrow-body market seems all but lost to Boeing for the next decade.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 46):
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?

Seriously? Ok, let's examine that idea. Wings, for starters: new pair needed. Fuselage: 767 too big, 737 too small, need a new one of those too. Same goes for tail, gear and nose section. Starts to look like a brand new aeroplane, doesn't it?

The easy part is actually the engine: A scaled up GTF producing around 40K competing against the new RR, with the possibility of GE or GE/SNECMA throwing in a hybrid Leap/GEnx.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 54):
I think the (field) performance thing is overstated.

Is it? It needs at MTOW a longer take off run than the A380, 3,000m, that is 600m more than a 737-800.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:39 am

Quoting holzmann (Reply 46):
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?

It would be hugely difficult, and would essentially mean a clean sheet design. The tooling to build the fuselage is built for the fuselage diameter, and even a small diameter change means new tooling. All that tooling has to be certified, which basically means you are starting over with the FAA. When Boeing decided to change the diameter of the 707 fuselage to compete with the DC-8, it was an enormously expensive gamble, but it paid off (the KC-135 was already in production with the smaller diameter, and Boeing had planned to use the same tooling.) So if the diameter changes, it is a clean sheet design. Any MAD MAX will of necessity keep the 737 diameter.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:57 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 52):

Is that so? First time I hear about Airbus mentioning the possibility.

It would be a a possible reason for Boeing to see the need to decide on the MoM / MadMax this year. And if you think about it, it is not impossible. Sure one could say that Airbus could be happy with the A321, but if Airlines are pressing Boeing for a clean sheet design above the A321, it is logical that those airlines would also ask Airbus what they could offer in the market. And if we are talking 2000 frames and Airbus "just" needs a stretch, a stronger MLG and a new wing to add 4 rows to the A321, they would be stupid not to do it.
 
dare100em
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:22 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 49):
It would mean its a new airplane and that is $15 Billion+ I think they are hoping to spend a fraction of that. The MAX program cost about $2.5 Billion. A revised version is 10-15% of the cost of going clean sheet.

This is an ridiculous assumption. Even an A322-sized MadMax would be at least about 50% the efforts of a clean-sheet. No way they twist the 737 into anything usable in the discussed size-category by a Max/Neo-sized program. At least they need a new wing + stretch + avionics + MLG + engines, which is nothing close to the Max. That's the sole reason it is so difficult and why changes are high they'll do a (larger) clean-sheet in the 757-300/767-200 size. The question is for Boeing do a 50% clean-sheet MadMax A321+10% or do a 757+20% clean-sheet for about twice the investment.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:49 am

There is perhaps a need to separate capacity and range.It is true there is a small market for a 4k plus range TATL product.But the vast majority of 757's we're not used in this way.Nor will it be the case for the A321 NEO.Probably their key 'breakthrough' has come courtesy of the revolution in slimline seats and galleys/loos which together (plus exit mod,s) have allowed them to offer 240 seats(one class) on the 'normal' range of operations for such aircraft.
It is this that is killing the max 9 not the 4k range,although it's a nice extra string to their bow.
If Airbus wanted to do a 322 (which I don't think they will) It would most likely be a small stretch trading range for extra pax.In the same way the 753 did but on a bigger scale.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:05 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 52):

The fact that Boeing is retaining MLG wing and wing box both on the NG and the MAX is pretty good indicator of FAA not accepting fundamental changes of those parts if the grandfathered type rating is to be retained.

If that's true then how/why was Boeing able to turn the classic into the NG?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:39 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 60):
If Airbus wanted to do a 322 (which I don't think they will) It would most likely be a small stretch trading range for extra pax.In the same way the 753 did but on a bigger scale.

That depends on the MTOW reserve. The longer fuselage would als take an extra fuel tank.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:02 pm

Reply 62
MTOW , yes it does.I have asked here if anyone knows this and indeed max pavement loading.Its 97T at the mo' but is there 100 T still possible? Not a clue!
But anyway I imagine that max thrust is pretty maxed out so one is beginning to be constrained on all sides without a compromise.If they were to 'have a go' I think they would ( reluctantly ) give up some range as the majority of the use of this type of plane is 1-3k nm not 4k nm.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:43 pm

Quoting klkla (Reply 53):
I usually agree with you. but the A321neoLR as currently visioned is not going to seat enough passengers relative to it's range. This is an area where Boeing could get a leg up on Airbus with the so called MadMax (at least temporarily).

Sure. I was only stating that without 'MadMax', the A321neoLR would eat even more into the 757 market.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:29 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 59):
The question is for Boeing do a 50% clean-sheet MadMax A321+10% or do a 757+20% clean-sheet for about twice the investment.

I find it so amusing that people on this forum think nothing about doubling a $5 billion or so investment, as if you just have to open another cookie jar to find it. The bigger problem, though, is the added time it will take. Boeing is losing big time to the A321 RIGHT NOW; by the time they can field a clean sheet MOM that will almost certainly be no more than 5% better than the MAD MAX economically (and very probably quite a bit less), and will be at least 3 years farther away AND will have to sell for more to cover the investment they will have lost huge market share in this segment and probably in the narrowbody segment as a whole. Many customers are going to prefer a single narrowbody fleet-and the A321 will be the member that will dictate that choice. So even though a clean sheet design may be preferred by Boeing, by the customers, and certainly by A-nutters, Boeing is pretty much forced to do what will get them back in the game the fastest, and that sounds like MAD MAX. The extra time that a clean sheet design will take will cost Boeing far more than the cost of the program in lost orders, and once a customer switches, it is very hard to win them back.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5051
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:10 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 59):
Even an A322-sized MadMax would be at least about 50% the efforts of a clean-sheet.

A 737 with a new wing and box and MLG would compete with any 320 version. Boeing likely knows almost exactly what that will cost - it is what they are doing for the 777. The team has all that R and D freshly behind it. And will shortly be available!

Quoting parapente (Reply 60):
It is true there is a small market for a 4k plus range TATL product.But the vast majority of 757's we're not used in this way

Agree. which supports the competitive viability of the MadMax
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 4:47 pm

I am posting a solid Reuters article about the various interests and angles of the engine OEMs as they compete for this MoM. The nuts and bolts are that it is complicated but the OEMs don't want to miss out on what might be the the only new project for years to come. Pratt seems hell bent on not partnering with anyone. GE is clandestine but vocal about their interest. RR has interest but...

The article says the engine OEM could spend $5-6 Billion developing the engine. I don't see two engine OEMs doing that. This will be a one OEM project in my opinion. I could see a version of the PW1100 working for an A322 but not a true MOM.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-si...show-engines-insight-idUSKCN0VS204

There is an article in Aviationweek where Ray Conner “I would like us to figure out what we will do within a year or so,” (anyone who can post more from the article would be appreciated).

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...-market-initiative-within-one-year

Quoting seahawk (Reply 58):
And if we are talking 2000 frames and Airbus "just" needs a stretch, a stronger MLG and a new wing to add 4 rows to the A321, they would be stupid not to do it.

I disagree. A new wing, stronger MLG, for 4 more rows of Y...I just don't see it.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 59):
Even an A322-sized MadMax would be at least about 50% the efforts of a clean-sheet. No way they twist the 737 into anything usable in the discussed size-category by a Max/Neo-sized program. At least they need a new wing + stretch + avionics + MLG + engines, which is nothing close to the Max

I don't think I agree with that but the point was that the entire cost of both the neo and the existing MAX project is $1-$2.5 Billion in total. I was simply stating the difference in costs between re-engines and small mods vs clean sheet costs. Its impossible to ball park the costs of the MadMax without a better idea of what it involves.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 65):
So even though a clean sheet design may be preferred by Boeing, by the customers, and certainly by A-nutters, Boeing is pretty much forced to do what will get them back in the game the fastest, and that sounds like MAD MAX.

This hysteria around urgency is silly and I don't think its valid either. Outside of a small bridge to the MAX they are not hurting for 737 orders. They will be able to produce flat out for the forseable future and neither OEM has plans to produce narrow body aircraft at any significant difference in rates. Deliveries matter not backlog.

The situation is not nearly as urgent as indicated. These are 15+ year life cycles. Everyone just needs to take a deep breath. Yes they need to do something in this space but it can wait until after the 77X, as has been indicated. That is 6+ years which is plenty of time for anything they can come up with. It will not be based on quickest to market, I disagree.

tortugamon
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 5:37 pm

Nice article Tortugamon,
Perhaps my old brain is deceiving me but when I read of a 'skinny' ovoid that can have a tight X7 twin aisle or a wide aisle 3X3 I recall the NSA -no?
All this MOM stuff is smoke and mirrors (IMHO).
Boeing know full well that the 737-6 and7 are dead,So the 180-200 market is the new 'bottom' the 240-250 is their 'middle' -although not where the sales peak is at present and their might or might not be something in the 270-280 space.That as I recall it was the NSA.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:25 pm

Interesting article. Can someone explain to me in easy English why it is bad for the A350 to be wider than the 787 (more surface area that adds drag for the same amount of seats per row), but having one more seat per row and a extra aisle will not add drag that will cripple the design against the A320 series?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:48 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
anyone who can post more from the article would be appreciated

Actually it has statements from Boeing mirroring your "This hysteria around urgency is silly" and "The situation is not nearly as urgent as indicated" statements, along with Leahy saying the exact opposite, that Boeing's lineup has a "big hole" in it and is in a "tough situation" since a clean sheet will cost $10B-$12B in his estimation.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 58):
And if we are talking 2000 frames and Airbus "just" needs a stretch, a stronger MLG and a new wing to add 4 rows to the A321, they would be stupid not to do it.

I disagree. A new wing, stronger MLG, for 4 more rows of Y...I just don't see it.

Four more rows and enough range to easily support missions longer than A321LR without needing the aux fuel tank would be a big deal, IMHO. It would certainly undermine the MOM concept since it'd be able to do a lot of missions without introducing a new aircraft family. Using that wing on the current A321 would fix up any range issues current A321 operators have, it'd have tremendous range.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
Its impossible to ball park the costs of the MadMax without a better idea of what it involves.

Yes, and the part of the avweek article you can read says "The manufacturer is starting in-depth discussions with key suppliers about the definition of the aircraft" -- my emphasis on "starting".

As you say Boeing wants to know what they plan to do in a year or so, but also are saying they can't spend any real money on it for another five years or so ( ref: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html ) -- it "simply won't be the case"!

So what is the best case? Decide/announce in 2017, start detailed engineering in 2021, then 2023 best case for a MadMax, 2025 for clean sheet?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:35 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 68):
Perhaps my old brain is deceiving me but when I read of a 'skinny' ovoid that can have a tight X7 twin aisle or a wide aisle 3X3 I recall the NSA -no?

Absolutely. The very same.

Quoting parapente (Reply 68):
Boeing know full well that the 737-6 and7 are dead,So the 180-200 market is the new 'bottom' the 240-250 is their 'middle' -although not where the sales peak is at present and their might or might not be something in the 270-280 space.That as I recall it was the NSA.

I do wonder if the market is trending toward the A320/738 and the A321 because that is where the demand is -or- that is where the most efficient aircraft in the segment are. There is kind of a chicken/egg thing going on. A MoM that takes the high capacity / medium range traffic while a more dedicated short range NSA with smaller capacity and less range could be an interesting pair. Just not sure there is enough fortitude to do it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 70):
Actually it has statements from Boeing mirroring your "This hysteria around urgency is silly" and "The situation is not nearly as urgent as indicated" statements, along with Leahy saying the exact opposite, that Boeing's lineup has a "big hole" in it and is in a "tough situation" since a clean sheet will cost $10B-$12B in his estimation.

Hope SEPilot didn't think I was calling him silly (I have solid respect for the gentleman), on reading my words again I fear they could be misunderstood.

Thanks for providing some other info on the article. Certainly much of this is marketing but I do believe the situation is important but not urgent.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 70):
Four more rows and enough range to easily support missions longer than A321LR without needing the aux fuel tank would be a big deal, IMHO.

Well I just have my doubts that if you add four more rows that you can still compete with the smaller aircraft on smaller routes meaning your niche of where it would be the best aircraft is small and so the ROI would be tiny. A more substantial increase in size affords better economies of scale potentially helping economics while separating the aircraft more from the competition leading to a larger potential market. In theory  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 70):
As you say Boeing wants to know what they plan to do in a year or so, but also are saying they can't spend any real money on it for another five years or so ( ref: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html ) -- it "simply won't be the case"!
So what is the best case? Decide/announce in 2017, start detailed engineering in 2021, then 2023 best case for a MadMax, 2025 for clean sheet?

I would think the detailed engineering could come earlier than 2021 as the 777X will free up resources well before that but otherwise I think your timeline is pretty solid. I'd say best case is 2022 on MadMax and 2024 on clean sheet. 787 and A350 were roughly 7 years from launch to EIS and were clean sheet and they weren't exactly 'best case'.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:21 am

I know that Boeing has stated that there will be no 757 NG. Period. But in retrospect, was this a wise statement? If you want to build a MOM as a derivative of the 737, it has earlier in this thread been summarized:

The 737 MAX MAX would need:
a) Strengthened and lenghtened Fuselage
b) New Wing Box
c) New Main Landing Gear
d) New Wing
e) New Engines


Now with a 757 NG, they could keep
a) The 757-200 and -300 fuselages
b) The Wing Box
c) The Main Landing Gear

All they would need was a new wing and new engines!

Would it not be better for Boeing if the leadership swollowed their pride and ate those words?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:27 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 72):
All they would need was a new wing and new engines!

Would it not be better for Boeing if the leadership swollowed their pride and ate those words?

'New wing and new engines' is not a 757neo.

tortugamon
 
ual777
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:36 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
'New wing and new engines' is not a 757neo.

NWEO?
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:30 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 73):
'New wing and new engines' is not a 757neo.

A MAX then. So a 757 MAX.  
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 75):
A MAX then. So a 757 MAX.  

But a new wing adds $2B to the price tag and definitely improves things. The max really didn't change the wing all that much. I think this MoM will have a brand new wing. I guess I just see this program as more of a 77X then a 737 MAX.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 74):
NWEO?

Nice

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 72):
All they would need was a new wing and new engines!

...and every piece of construction and assembly equipment required to produce 757's.

On the other hand, they could simply put Genx-2B's on the 767, and pretty much slot a MAX out of the currently active production line.

I know....too heavy....too old....not enough wing, etc. What it is, is almost exactly between the 321 and 788/A330neo in almost every respect;

Empty Weight - 80 - 100,000lbs less than the 788/A330. 60klbs more than the A321.

Range and payload are right where Boeing says they want an NMA/MOM offering.

Same generation engines as 788/330neo.

Sure....the 7 abreast isn't the most efficient cross section, but with the 3-5 billion dollars development savings with a MAX 767 over even a best case MAD MAX 737, they could offer some pretty serious discounts and still make money selling the aircraft.

-60klbs worth of materials isn't cheap so there is no way the 330 could undercut the purchase price of the 767MAX.

-It wouldn't steal sales from the 788 because the 788 isn't selling anyway...mostly because of the 789. It would also undercut the 788 by tens of millions of dollars.

-GE would be inclined to offer a good deal on an engine that's on the way out with the 748.

-The 321neo would have a CASM advantage but only until 3000nm. After that, it starts shedding payload. Even then, you could still get almost 300 people into a 762MAX Regional...over 300 with a 763 model. Technically, the 240 seat 321 would be more like the circus car format. 220 passengers is more likely to be the high density standard. If you want to move more than that, you need to go to a wide body.

If you can't afford a 778/330neo....and you need to move more than 220 people all at once, the 767MAX would be the way to go.

-It would be way cheaper than all new, or a 737MAD MAX. A couple of dozen sales would pay for the mod.

It wouldn't cost any more than the neo treatment to the 320 family and wouldn't take as long since the engine are already in service, and the 767 has a long history of using 747 engines in the 60,000lb thrust range.

The 321 would end up with the bottom of the Middle of the Market, and the 767MAX would end up with the top.

All new ain't going to happen for another decade and a rewinged stretch of the 739 would never make the money it cost to produce. It would take at least 2 billion dollars, 3 or more years from now and in the meantime, the 321neo is coming off of the production line and still selling. Instead of fighting the very successful largest single aisle aircraft available, it seems to me that leapfrogging into the smallest twin aisle, where the current smallest will be the poorest sellers.

The 788 just isn't selling. The A332neo will probably be the poorest selling of the duo, (going by recent relative sales trends between the 332ceo and 333ceo).

So the effective gap is not between the 321neo and the 788/332neo...but the 789/333neo. I think the 737 is pretty much maxed out, expansionarily speaking, at least from a cost effectiveness standpoint. If it was worthwhile, they could have taken the time they have had while the LEAP engines were getting certified to at least start the mods towards a MAD MAX. Boeing has has 5 whole years to study a longer, taller 737...and they did nothing. If it was going to be cost effective, they would have done it for the whole line....not just the 739.

In my opinion, the MAD MAX ain't going to happen. The 757 will remain extinct. I really doubt they will do much more than some power/high lift tweaks to the MAX9....unless they pull a rabbit out of their hat with a main gear than lengthens as it extends and still fits into the current wheel wells.

Even with that, they would still be some passengers shorter but they would have a chance of shrinking the performance shortfall.

Truly, I think a 767MAX would be just the ticket for Boeing...but I honestly think that it just isn't going to happen.

Too bad.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:37 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 70):
As you say Boeing wants to know what they plan to do in a year or so, but also are saying they can't spend any real money on it for another five years or so ( ref: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...rket-jet-could-happen-but-not.html ) -- it "simply won't be the case"!

So what is the best case? Decide/announce in 2017, start detailed engineering in 2021, then 2023 best case for a MadMax, 2025 for clean sheet?

But, cash on hand and profit margin and all is well? I think we see the realities for Both Airbus and Boeing. Neither are in a strong position to launch a clean sheet design at this moment. Airbus will need to wait for the A350 to start earning money and the NEO's to start paying back as well. This would be probably only around 2020s for the appetite, financially, to spend on a new clean sheet design.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 67):
disagree. A new wing, stronger MLG, for 4 more rows of Y...I just don't see it.

That always depends on where you achieve the most effect with the smallest investment. 4-5 extra rows won´t need a big MLG change, at worst they would have to do a new twin bogey design that is ready for a higher MTOW, but based on old design.
The GTF is said to have bit of thrust reserve, 4-5% more should be enough for 4-5 rows. That leaves the wing but here the nice thing of the smaller solution id that the wing would work on the A320 and A321 too. Which would give the A320ACJ a big range boost and would probably extend the A321 range considerably. And 4 rows would give then a capacity similar to the 753, which is around 260 seats in all eco with 29" pitch.

This even makes sense without the wing. Sure the range would be less, but it would still do anything below 3000nm with very high efficiency.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:15 am

Reply 77
The problem (for me) is that what you say makes too much sense!
I cannot believe that Boeing have not looked at a 767-200 NEO.It covers-as you say the 250-300 seat market in the stated 4k nm range perfectly.So why not?
Perhaps -in truth that's not really where the demand is.Perhap it is where the A321NEO is going to be,and that's the real problem.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:17 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 80):
Perhaps -in truth that's not really where the demand is.Perhap it is where the A321NEO is going to be,and that's the real problem.

That's probably the sticking point. It may very well be that even though Boeing keeps talking about a 4-6000nm MOM type aircraft, the customers ain't biting. It really can't cost very much to offer the concept to potential customers so maybe there just isn't a market for the rather huge gap between the 321 and 789/333neo.

It just seems nuts to me that Boeing can't come up with something considering that the 767 is still being made, the production line will remain open for many years while the tanker program is active, and every piece needed for the conversion is currently in the Boeing parts bins.

I've been cheering for this dead horse for a while...and I'll probably be waving the banner for a while longer.

I guess sense really ain't that common after all.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:53 pm

I do not see this clean sheet is murder and you have to use a 737 fuselage, but you can change anything else argument.

Either the 787 has been a move into a dead end, or Boeing should be able to do a right sized fuselage for the MoM with much less cost than designing the 787 fuselage.
The same should be for the systems of the 787, either there is ability to reuse that stuff in the next important development or it was an expensive dead end.

A 737 MAD MAX would be a statement that Boeing has been given up about the future. I see no way how such a bird, using old technology, that gives a slight advantage to the A320 on the shortest routes, but hangs behind the moment the stages become longer, would leapfrog the technology advantage of the A320 and holds its position when Airbus makes a move building on the A320 series.
Boeing either does something serious, or will loose this part of the market permanently.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:08 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):
would leapfrog the technology advantage of the A320 and holds its position when Airbus makes a move building on the A320 series.

So what could Boeing do that would let them leapfrog the A320? As it is, the 738 is doing a fine job keeping up with the A320. What technology is available for them to make such an improvement over the A320?

As it is, they are using essentially the same engines. Any new plane would be a tube with wings. It is generally accepted that any weight savings made by going with CFRP don't scale down as well as they scale up.

The only thing I can see is if they decided to go with a significantly longer, folding wing. The wing and the engines are what really make the difference. One tube is going to be about the same weight and have the same aerodynamic characteristics as another tube.

If they could come up with a fancy new wing, they would definitely save some time and money keeping the current fuse design, but we're still talking years until it entered service...and it would be all to compete with one aircraft model; the 321. By the time their plane got into service, would there be any meat left on the bone after the 321 sales?

They went with the MAX simply because step change technology doesn't yet exist.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:33 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 83):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):
would leapfrog the technology advantage of the A320 and holds its position when Airbus makes a move building on the A320 series.

So what could Boeing do that would let them leapfrog the A320? As it is, the 738 is doing a fine job keeping up with the A320. What technology is available for them to make such an improvement over the A320?

As it is, they are using essentially the same engines. Any new plane would be a tube with wings. It is generally accepted that any weight savings made by going with CFRP don't scale down as well as they scale up.

The only thing I can see is if they decided to go with a significantly longer, folding wing. The wing and the engines are what really make the difference. One tube is going to be about the same weight and have the same aerodynamic characteristics as another tube.

If they could come up with a fancy new wing, they would definitely save some time and money keeping the current fuse design, but we're still talking years until it entered service...and it would be all to compete with one aircraft model; the 321. By the time their plane got into service, would there be any meat left on the bone after the 321 sales?

They went with the MAX simply because step change technology doesn't yet exist.

A new design could step by step fill in the whole single aisle program of Boeing, it does not have to be aimed at the A321 only. A new design would open up to continuous improvements, flow of technology from other Boeing programs.
There is no big step advance, that is a dream only, technology opens up to everybody, but someday Boeing has to leave the 737 behind to follow the small step by step advance of technology.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:26 pm

I find it interesting that some of the same posters that say stretching the A350 by increasing takeoff weight, upgrading engines, updating the wing, strengthening the landing gear etc to make the A350-1100 will be a huge success, also think it is impossible to do that type of work to a 737 and have it be competitive.

It looks like Boeing is interested in a new plane, but NMA could be 737 based if they wanted.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:50 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 83):
So what could Boeing do that would let them leapfrog the A320? As it is, the 738 is doing a fine job keeping up with the A320. What technology is available for them to make such an improvement over the A320?

As it is, they are using essentially the same engines. Any new plane would be a tube with wings. It is generally accepted that any weight savings made by going with CFRP don't scale down as well as they scale up.

It is also generally accepted that at this point in time CFRP is more expensive material than Al and is much more costly to produce CFRP parts at the rate that the narrowbodies are produced. Its tremendous ability to be shaped really doesn't matter when you are making a tube. From what I've read the near term future will be Al fuse with CFRP wings like the CSeries.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 83):
The only thing I can see is if they decided to go with a significantly longer, folding wing. The wing and the engines are what really make the difference. One tube is going to be about the same weight and have the same aerodynamic characteristics as another tube.

A larger wing will have room for larger gear which will allow for bigger engines. It will also have room for more fuel to support the longer range requirements. And of course it will have aerodynamics improvements learned since the NG was done in the 90s and the A320 in the 80s. Given the 737 fuse is already narrower than the A321 and in some ways newer (its construction was changed tremendously as a part of the 737NG) it's easy to see how the MadMax could be much better than the current A321.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:07 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):

Because we have established that A350 MLG has further weight potential,
the current -1000 wing loading is significantly less than on the 777X
and the upgraded Trent XWB95 should not be maxed out at 95klbs thrust.
Thus all your enumerated major changes won't be necessary.

See why some think that an A350-1100 has less obstacles on its path
than your MOMas 737 ?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:37 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):
I find it interesting that some of the same posters that say stretching the A350 by increasing takeoff weight, upgrading engines, updating the wing, strengthening the landing gear etc to make the A350-1100 will be a huge success, also think it is impossible to do that type of work to a 737 and have it be competitive.

It looks like Boeing is interested in a new plane, but NMA could be 737 based if they wanted.

Yes stretching a model has always been impossible. No way was from the 777-200 to the -300 to the -9.

Stretching the A350-1000 to the A350-1100 will lead to modifying the MLG and engine and perhaps the wing.
Trying to do a MoM out of the 737 will lead to everything new except the fuselage. If you do not understand the concept of modifying versus new...
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:58 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):
I find it interesting that some of the same posters that say stretching the A350 by increasing takeoff weight, upgrading engines, updating the wing, strengthening the landing gear etc to make the A350-1100 will be a huge success, also think it is impossible to do that type of work to a 737 and have it be competitive.

It looks like Boeing is interested in a new plane, but NMA could be 737 based if they wanted.

What is the starting position of the respective models though? The A35K is better than the 77W. The 739 isn't better than the A321. Boeing had to do a major job on the 77W to have it in a position to overtake the A35K (new wings, stretch) so you would think the same treatment will have the same results for Airbus. Same concept here really.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:11 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 89):
The 739 isn't better than the A321. Boeing had to do a major job on the 77W to have it in a position to overtake the A35K (new wings, stretch) so you would think the same treatment will have the same results for Airbus. Same concept here really.

And same concept for MadMax: "major job" with new wing and MLG would make it better than A321.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:22 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):
And same concept for MadMax: "major job" with new wing and MLG would make it better than A321.

I don't think I have read anywhere where this is disputed. If the stretch will have more seats with newer engines you would expect it to be superior. Its if it isn't where the real problems start. The issue for Boeing is if Airbus decides to spend the same time and money on the A321 you would expect them to achieve the same results.

Do you think Airbus will need to spend as much as Boeing to achieve parity?

Also, the glee that some posters have had to show that the A321 cannot be stretched further because it had a tail strike shows how much trouble the MADMAX will be in. If there was no concern we would have had 20 posts about the incident, instead we are having discussions about whether the frame can be stretched.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26723
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:36 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 91):
The issue for Boeing is if Airbus decides to spend the same time and money on the A321 you would expect them to achieve the same results.

That is one issue. The other issue is if they spend many multiples of money to do a clean sheet and much more time to then end up in the same space as 787 vs A330neo: a "better" aircraft but one that has to pay off all the R&D and new factory costs whilst the competitor can sell the "good enough" one dirt cheap because its costs have been mostly written off a long time ago. In my mind it's better to take an incremental approach and spend the smaller amount to regain parity plus some margin quicker and to force the competition to spend a lump to keep up or surpass. Especially if you have concerns about the "bubble" in the industry wide narrow body backlog.

As Leahy said, Boeing is indeed in a "tough situation"...

[Edited 2016-02-21 09:46:04]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1974
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:52 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 92):
As Leahy said, Boeing is indeed in a "tough situation"...

I think he may be saying that with a smile on his face as well.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20122
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:10 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 81):
It just seems nuts to me that Boeing can't come up with something considering that the 767 is still being made

IMHO, the 767 is too heavy to be a killer MOM. Seven-across is significantly less efficient than six or eight-across. It can't carry the industry standard 2 x LD3 like every other widebody. I've seen nothing to suggest Boeing has looked seriously at a 767-based MOM.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:45 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 94):

The 767 has been thrown into the discussion without much echo.
( resurectiong the A310 would make more sense. same OEW (~80t) for the more efficient 222" fuse x-section )

still I think the MOM is a mirage to conjur up some FUD.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5051
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:53 pm

Many of us don't think Boeing needs a 'killer' , but rather something that will compete against the 321, and if somewhat against the 330 NEO so much the better.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:00 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 96):
Many of us don't think Boeing needs a 'killer' , but rather something that will compete against the 321, and if somewhat against the 330 NEO so much the better.

I think the idea of a "killer" is a bit far fetched. Boeing and Airbus design capabilities are so close to equal that I don't think either can really kill the other.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 97):
"killer"

Was preferred language on what the Dreamliner was surely doing to the A330.

First the 788 than the 789 and finally the 7810. All set up to do a man's job.

And now it is "the silence of the lambs". 788, 789, 7810 in bah bah unisono killer no more  
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:18 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 85):
I find it interesting that some of the same posters that say stretching the A350 by increasing takeoff weight, upgrading engines, updating the wing, strengthening the landing gear etc to make the A350-1100 will be a huge success, also think it is impossible to do that type of work to a 737 and have it be competitive.

Why would the A350-1100 need a new wing (and wingbox)? As for the MLG: A strengthened landing gear is not as expensive or big a change as a new landing gear. Especially when the need for a new landing gear is also that it must be longer, to accomodate bigger engines under the wing. Strenghtening the landing gear has been done before, without much fuzz, on the 777.

Who is online

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