Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:38 am

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 148):
And from AvDaily, Delta is lobbying strongly - summary of Nathaniel Pieper comments:- Wants Boeing to build it for North Atlantic market- Cautions against making it fit to broad a profile, leads to over range, over size- Looking for something smaller than a 757, 5000nm, 250 seats- 737-8 is not a good North Atlantic plane because of excessive range- 787-10 will be great, but competes against the less expensive A330-900neo- A330-300 is too bigBCA CEO Ray Conner Response:- Wants to launch within a year, needs to compete against A321NEOMy comment: Taking another year to "study" the market is not a roadmap to success.

1. I think you meant 787-3 not 737-8

2. Delta wants a more capable 737-900, a 757 replacement. MADMAX, here we come.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:31 am

Can we have a link to Avdaily as none of the comments about the various aircraft stated make any sense at all!
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:09 am

From Airways News:

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2016/02/12/boeing-cuts-mom-sec-probe/

Quote:
One spillover effect of the price pressure could be on how Boeing plans for a new middle of market (MOM) airplane to compete with the Airbus A321neo. Thanks to the A321neo’s naked superiority over the Boeing 737 MAX 9, Boeing needs a new MOM option as soon as possible to regain parity in the narrowbody space. Most indications to date (and our preference) have been for Boeing to pursue a clean-sheet design with significant innovation. The problem is that such a strategy would be very expensive, incurring development costs of $15-20 billion. Thanks to financial pressure, Boeing might instead opt for yet another 737 MAX variation, this time building a new wing for a stretch of the 737 MAX 9 with new engines to launch in the mid-2020s. Such an option might be combated by Airbus with an accompanying A322neo, but would limit development expenditures to just $5-7 billion.

I still think Boeing is being stupid for taking the cheap way out. They're losing in the narrowbody market, and Airbus is catching up in the widebody market.

Despite it's otherwise high cost, an MoM could then be used to derive an NSA with far more technological advances down the road for, I'd imagine, a rather cheap cost, with the same cockpit, type rating, etc, but with just optimized wings, engines, etc.

Instead they're going to spend up to $10B developing something that could be a 757 but with inferior payload, a restrictive design and, frankly, terrible field performance, and then we're going to have this discussion 10 years from now when a new design is really needed, and they'll have nothing to show for it. Then, at that time, they'll have to spend $15-20B, maybe more, on a cleansheet type, while losing in the market in the process.
Are they really going to shove 757 sized double bogey MLGs into a 737 body?

Please!

I'll make a prediction now: If Boeing does a 737-10X 'Mad-MAX' like this, and Airbus does the A322 in response, Airbus is winning that fight, plain and simple. They'll win with payload, they'll probably win with weight, seeing as an all new wing, engine, etc. isn't going to help, and they'll almost certainly win with comfort. And then the market won't need a 757 replacement because Airbus would have already done it. There's a lot at stake, IMHO, and I hope someone at Boeing is thinking about this long and hard.

I mean, you may call me crazy or stupid, that's fine, and I understand the financial aspects of this, but I'm trying to see the potentials in a broader picture. They have a little time to make a decision, and I hope it's a good one.

[Edited 2016-02-23 22:11:54]
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:37 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 133):
Airbus might be able to charge a bit more for the 321 but if they charge too much more...some might be inclined to try the 739. Just as the a321 can do more than 95% of what a 757 can...a 739 can do over 95% of what an A321 can do. That's close enough to keep the A321 prices in check.

Market evidence suggests that a) Airbus are commanding a premium for the A321NEO - airlines are complaining about the price Airbus are asking, and b) despite that it is still outselling the 737-9 by between 3 and 4 to 1
There seems to be a clear point at which "95% of 95%" becomes "not enough %"
I think the links posted in these threads, from Boeing execs, engine OEM execs, analysts and airline execs leave us no longer in doubt about the market position of the A321NEO vs 737-9.
Most of these commentators seem to have indulged in the same "unsavoury" love of the A321NEO that sections of A-net get criticised for

Quoting william (Reply 150):
1. I think you meant 787-3 not 737-8

If the problem is "too much range", I suspect the comparator was the 787-8, not the 737-8

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 149):
How can it be smaller than a 757 yet carry 250 seats? Do they mean smaller than a 757-300?

Again, I suspect the comparator was meant to be the 787-8. It would make more sense.

Smaller than a 787-8 and with less range seems to fit MOM's profile

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:24 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 152):
I still think Boeing is being stupid for taking the cheap way out.

I'm sure smart people at Boeing know exactly what they are doing.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:56 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 152):
I'll make a prediction now: If Boeing does a 737-10X 'Mad-MAX' like this, and Airbus does the A322 in response, Airbus is winning that fight, plain and simple. They'll win with payload, they'll probably win with weight, seeing as an all new wing, engine, etc. isn't going to help, and they'll almost certainly win with comfort. And then the market won't need a 757 replacement because Airbus would have already done it. There's a lot at stake, IMHO, and I hope someone at Boeing is thinking about this long and hard.

I mean, you may call me crazy or stupid, that's fine, and I understand the financial aspects of this, but I'm trying to see the potentials in a broader picture. They have a little time to make a decision, and I hope it's a good one.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 154):
I'm sure smart people at Boeing know exactly what they are doing.

We can be sure that Boeing people know exactly what they are doing.

The situation between MOM and derivatives towards a new Narrow body and the MAD Max is not an issue for the technical and overall commercial best solution, it is rather that the in my opinion best solution is a solution which works against the rhythm of the typical stock market.

An such a thing is hard to bring over, especially in America. The MYM and New Narrow Body (NNB) needs a long term investment plan with a total project payback in probably 15 years at the earliest, something which shareholders hate at their best.

If Boeing would be a privately owned Company like mod sized companies in Germany or larger ones like BMW who have long term investors, such an investment would be a no brainer, but in the market all depends if the management can convince the Wall Street from a long term plan.
Startups, e.g. Tesla allow themselves some losses over years to drive a vision they believe. And they are supported and even applauded by their shareholders.

The same needs to happen to Boeing: they need to convince their shareholders to accept some hit for the long term success of a MOM/ NNB. Probably even a startup like MOM / NNB company can be funded to get this project through.

A little bit I doubt that the current management is able to do this, but again, I am convinced that someone needs to put the MOM/ NNB it in a big picture. Not in a quarterly one.

Flyglobal
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:48 am

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 155):
The same needs to happen to Boeing: they need to convince their shareholders to accept some hit for the long term success of a MOM/ NNB. Probably even a startup like MOM / NNB company can be funded to get this project through.

The paradox is that everybody is in it for the long term, employes, suppliers, airlines all are, except the owners/shareholders, they are in it for the short term. Sometimes they stay only for 5 minutes.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:11 am

Boeing may be paying the price now for not launching a new NSA. There is no way Airbus could have sold more NEO than they currently have as the supply chain can handle only as much as it can handle. Boeing could have lost some sales with the NG while the new NSA would have been in development and preparing for production.

This would have allowed them to set out their stall for the next 40 years and have a platform that competes with the A321. As it is they are stuck with the 737 for the next 20 years and will need to spend half the money of a new design to compete with the A321. They seem to have made the right decision at the time but the wrong decision for the future.
 
Bambel
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:38 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:30 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 152):
The problem is that such a strategy would be very expensive, incurring development costs of $15-20 billion.

What i don't understand is how BBD as a much smaller company was able to develop the CSeries and Boeing wouldn't be able to develop a not so much larger plane. Of course BBD is in dire straits right now and Boeing allready spent a lot in recent years for development, but somehow this must be possible. The MAX generates a lot of cash in the next ~10 years and they should use it – not for dividends.

b.
 
olle
Posts: 2256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:51 am

I think that the problem is that the revenue for the MAX will be used to pay for the money spent on the 787.

If SEC tells them that they need to take a forward loss in the 787 program that will take a lot of the resources created by the MAX.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:21 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 157):

Boeing may be paying the price now for not launching a new NSA. There is no way Airbus could have sold more NEO than they currently have as the supply chain can handle only as much as it can handle. Boeing could have lost some sales with the NG while the new NSA would have been in development and preparing for production.

This would have allowed them to set out their stall for the next 40 years and have a platform that competes with the A321. As it is they are stuck with the 737 for the next 20 years and will need to spend half the money of a new design to compete with the A321. They seem to have made the right decision at the time but the wrong decision for the future.

That is right

NSA would also be platform that could be successfully developed to cove biggest part of the MOM segment, but the problem is that the money Boeing spent on developing the 787 and the knowledge they gained could not be reused for the NSA. because Boeing would have to go with AlLi fuse and conventional bleed systems but the wing and control system technology could be adapted.

The biggest reason why Boeing talked so much about wide body MOM is that there, most of the 787 concept could be reused.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Another article now from Steve Wilhelm from Puget Sound BusinJust ess Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...s-struggle-with-middle-market.html

Mostly points out how Conner wants a MOM sooner because his job is to grow BCA whereas Muilenberg is more concerned about spending across the corporation so is trying to spread out programs over time.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
You can just so often put new lipstick on the old pig.

Yes, there are times you go to a clean sheet, but you don't do it just so the boffins can stock the parts bin, you do it when you have a market imperative.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 144):
I again say most of you guys on the other side of the Atlantic do not get what continuous improvement is all about.

Yes we do, we just don't need a clean sheet to be able to have continuous improvement.

Quoting dare100em (Reply 146):
There are different factors all working together and a main point is Boeing hasn't a actual base frame optimized for the desired MOM size/rang anymore with current engines and comfort level (767 at 7-abreast doesn't work anymore).

These days the goal is to maximize discomfort! 
Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 148):
My comment: Taking another year to "study" the market is not a roadmap to success.

Marry in haste, divorce in leisure!  

Clearly they are not of one mind internally. I think they need the time to come up with a strategy that everyone buys in to.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 152):
Thanks to the A321neo’s naked superiority over the Boeing 737 MAX 9, Boeing needs a new MOM option as soon as possible to regain parity in the narrowbody space.

I also think this mirrors Boeing's thinking, although I think they are shooting for something more than parity. This is what I call the A321+10% approach rather than the757+20% approach.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 157):
Boeing may be paying the price now for not launching a new NSA. There is no way Airbus could have sold more NEO than they currently have as the supply chain can handle only as much as it can handle. Boeing could have lost some sales with the NG while the new NSA would have been in development and preparing for production.

Really? As bad as MAX vs NEO is going, NG vs NEO would be a blood bath, and 737 income is what is paying for the 787 and 777X shortfalls. Can you imagine how bad the books would look now if they didn't have the MAX orders and were also funding a clean sheet NSA? Covered in red ink, I would think.

Or we can take the approach popular on the "A380 is a mistake" thread and say I don't give a bleep about Boeing's books, I just want a kewl new plane to fly around on.
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
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3567
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:15 pm

I think there is a big issue in targeting the MOM first before the NSA and that has to do with the development of an aircraft/aircraft family throughout its life and that is that you generally start at the lower and and they get longer and bigger and heavier over time. If you start he family with the longer and bigger and heavier aircraft then you are stuck with that as the standard and you are left making 777-100/A380-700-esque models lower down. Yes you can re-engineer it to work better as a smaller aircraft but history seems to suggest that its easier as technology improves to increase the use of what you have rather than trim what you have down to what you want.

I don't know if any of that made sense.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:45 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 161):
Really? As bad as MAX vs NEO is going, NG vs NEO would be a blood bath, and 737 income is what is paying for the 787 and 777X shortfalls. Can you imagine how bad the books would look now if they didn't have the MAX orders and were also funding a clean sheet NSA? Covered in red ink, I would think.

Or we can take the approach popular on the "A380 is a mistake" thread and say I don't give a bleep about Boeing's books, I just want a kewl new plane to fly around on.

And yet we are told the only reason Airbus has sold hundreds of A330 is that the 787 couldn't possibly deliver to all the customers. Surely this thinking goes towards the 737 as well. I am not saying there would not be pain for Boeing, but the current position seems just as perilous.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:53 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 162):

Airplanes tend to be optimized around an individual choice balance of oew/payload/fuel fractions.

With better engines over time being more or less guaranteed and little tweaks here and there
it is best to undershoot with a design. ( forex A330 ) Better sfc will transform into optimum improvements by keeping the aforementioned fractions constant.

A plane like 757 would not gain much from more range and is overweight for the target payload / range when you need less fuel due to better sfc for the same. that is the reason why 737 and A320 have grown up successfully while the 757 fell of the high end.

Another item here is the A350-1000 and its late expansion to a "fuller" payload range curve.
IMU it would have brought more potential to get this gain from 3..4 years engine imrprovements
than from reinforcing the structure.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:23 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 163):
And yet we are told the only reason Airbus has sold hundreds of A330 is that the 787 couldn't possibly deliver to all the customers. Surely this thinking goes towards the 737 as well. I am not saying there would not be pain for Boeing, but the current position seems just as perilous.

Only reason, eh? Can't start with flawed logic then expect to build on it, IMHO.

IMHO Boeing's "peril" seems to be overstated. It needs to think through its next steps quite carefully, but that's always the case. Building a mini-787 just so you can say you're reusing technology seems to me to be poorly thought out.
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
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:23 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 151):

Can we have a link to Avdaily as none of the comments about the various aircraft stated make any sense at all!

Sorry, the article is behind an AvWeek paywall. Fair use quotes from the article:

Quote:
Pieper believes a new aircraft in between the Boeing 737 and 757 would have a range of about 5,000 nm, and seat up to 250 passengers. That would enable it to serve essentially all transatlantic routes from the U.S. East Coast to Europe.

...Pieper says that he is “concerned on the small end.” He believes that the 787-8 is “not good across the Atlantic” because of its excessive range capabilities. The 787-10 “is going to be great, but the A330-900neo is dramatically less expensive.”
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:34 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 154):

I'm sure smart people at Boeing know exactly what they are doing.

There are a lot of practical examples that clearly show that's not always the case.

In most cases this is the result of the desire at "saving" bucks and ending with a sub-optimal, to restricted design. Often it is not about the jumps but just abaout the idea to "spend less" on an existing concept one step to fare.

It's not even restricted to clean-sheet vs. Max/Neo, e.g. "saving" bucks on the 787 by "risk-sharing" etc.

Examples - to name a few:

Twisting DC10 into MD11 without even changing the wing
Twisting the 767 into the 767-400 to "counter" the A330
Twisting the A340 at 8-abreast into the Monster -500/-600 to counter the 777
Trying to twist the A330 base-fuse into something usable in the A350-space (I know the A330neo "works", but it's not even close to what the A350XWB is capable and with the A350 MKI/II Airbus woul'dn be where it is in the WB space)

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 155):
We can be sure that Boeing people know exactly what they are doing.

No, reality shows otherwise.

[Edited 2016-02-24 08:02:19]

Quoting WIederling (Reply 164):
Airplanes tend to be optimized around an individual choice balance of oew/payload/fuel fractions.

With better engines over time being more or less guaranteed and little tweaks here and there
it is best to undershoot with a design. ( forex A330 ) Better sfc will transform into optimum improvements by keeping the aforementioned fractions constant.

 checkmark 

That's the point a clean-sheet can make sense even if there is no "technological jump". E.g. 20 years ago a 747 was needed for long-rang missions and it sold more for its capabilities than its size. In our days a 787 can do all this, but with much less weigh, 2 less engines and so on. You would gain nothing by "twisting" the 747. It’s mainly because of the much more efficient engines.

E.g. for the discussed capabilities [of the MOM] a 767 was unavoidable 20 years ago. There was no option do it with a single-aisle. Not anymore, mainly because engines need less fuel, the planes get lighter and so on and at the end you CAN do a total different design with the same capabilities but much more efficient. Just to re-engine the 767 won’t bring you the same results (in that case like above stated you better grow the 767 capabilities well into A330neo territory with going 8-abreast and new wing etc.).


[Edited 2016-02-24 08:15:49]
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:36 pm

Summary:

Boeing is building planes as fast as they can

They need a plane to compete with the 321 sooner or later. Not sooner, though that would be nice.

MadMax with a. new wing, box and engines absolutely would compete with anything a 321 or 322 could do. Not kill it, compete

A MOM would truly be exciting - but expensive. We are not sure it could compete on price

Most of us would live to see a 767NEO, why? We love 7 abreast

We can be sure that Boeing sales force is pushing all and any options

Airlines will decide
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:12 pm

Interesting to read how happy DL is with A330neo because it is "dramatically less expensive" than the clean sheet 787:

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 166):
The 787-10 “is going to be great, but the A330-900neo is dramatically less expensive.”

followed by:

Quoting dare100em (Reply 167):
Trying to twist the A330 base-fuse into something usable in the A350-space (I know the A330neo "works", but it's not even close to what the A350XWB is capable and with the A350 MKI/II Airbus woul'dn be where it is in the WB space)

Strange, eh?
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
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:19 pm

Quote:
Pieper believes a new aircraft in between the Boeing 737 and 757 would have a range of about 5,000 nm, and seat up to 250 passengers. That would enable it to serve essentially all transatlantic routes from the U.S. East Coast to Europe.

Except that is not 'in between' is it.If it can fly up to 250 pax for 5,000nm it is 'bigger than both'.Are you sure that is what he said?
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:25 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 169):
Strange, eh?

It was just a response to the over-simplified view that a clean-sheet can only make sense if there is some Voodoo technological jump while in reality it's a combination of a thousand factors including the optimization of fuse+wing+engines+avionics for a CERTAIN size which makes a design optimal. The older the base and the farer away the optimal size of it's component's the harder it get's to "get away" with a modification.

E.g. a A330 is/was from many design parameters (fuse, wing size, ...) just to fare away to get it into a really good 777 competitor. And I think that the 737 base is very fare away from the (originally) discussed MOM-specs regarding many parameters (wing, cround clearence, even fuse, aero) that you literally need to chance nearly everything or you optimize it for a different size, which is what Boeing thinks about IMO. Doing more a A322 or 757 slightly above the A321 with a little more range than the intially discussed plane with 20% more capacity and 30% more range than a 757, so essentially a modern 767-300.
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 170):
Are you sure that is what he said?

While I wasn't present when he made the statement, I'm reasonably confident AvWeek got the quote correct.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:06 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 171):
in reality it's a combination of a thousand factors including the optimization of fuse+wing+engines+avionics for a CERTAIN size which makes a design optimal.

Agree, but IMHO it's not just about getting the design optimal, it's about getting the business case optimal too. That means price, cost and availability matter, and shows exactly why DL is happy to take A330neo instead of insisting on a "clean sheet".
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
 
airzona11
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 6:42 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 167):
Twisting DC10 into MD11 without even changing the wing
Twisting the 767 into the 767-400 to "counter" the A330
Twisting the A340 at 8-abreast into the Monster -500/-600 to counter the 777
Trying to twist the A330 base-fuse into something usable in the A350-space (I know the A330neo "works", but it's not even close to what the A350XWB is capable and with the A350 MKI/II Airbus woul'dn be where it is in the WB space)

The 764 was purpose built and served the role of the L10/Dc10 replacement at DL and CO - made money
The A340 5/6 was launched BEFORE the 77W that it competes against
A330NEO with its low capex acquisition cost is proving to be quite lucrative.

Aside from the DC10 to MD11, I think those above examples dont work in your favor towards your intention.
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 7:04 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 169):
Quoting dare100em (Reply 167):
Trying to twist the A330 base-fuse into something usable in the A350-space (I know the A330neo "works", but it's not even close to what the A350XWB is capable and with the A350 MKI/II Airbus woul'dn be where it is in the WB space)

Strange, eh?

Is it that strange? the 330 NEO at 8 abreast makes a good cheap regional plane, the larger more capable but expensive carbon fuse A350 works much better for a long range bird.

Look at bikes or even super-cars, carbon vs Al, carbon only works at the top end.
Jambrain
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:03 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 173):
Agree, but IMHO it's not just about getting the design optimal, it's about getting the business case optimal too. That means price, cost and availability matter, and shows exactly why DL is happy to take A330neo instead of insisting on a "clean sheet".

Yes, of course. That makes it difficult even for Boeing to decide which way to go.

Quoting airzona11 (Reply 174):
The 764 was purpose built and served the role of the L10/Dc10 replacement at DL and CO - made moneyThe A340 5/6 was launched BEFORE the 77W that it competes againstA330NEO with its low capex acquisition cost is proving to be quite lucrative.Aside from the DC10 to MD11, I think those above examples dont work in your favor towards your intention.

Surely the 767-400 worked for the two US-airlines how always wanted it. Boeing? Not so much.

A340-500/600 surely was a twist to fare or "riding a dead horse" so proves my point. It didn't stand against the competition no matter when the 77W was released. And I wrote 777, not 77W.

I wrote it several times regarding the A330neo. People here claim that the existence or "success" of the A330neo "proves" somehow a Neo/Max is better/as good as a clean-sheet. The reality is while the A330neo has it's niche it can only compete with the 787 over the price and - more important - I guess not a single manager at Airbus today would claim the company would be better of without the A350XWB. Imagine that portfolio. A "maxed out" A330 and above that the A380 only... Boeing would have not much competition for the 787 and exactly non for the 777.

I could add the 747-8 too. If they would have saved the money for this dead horse they could easily have launched the NSA earlier or doing a clean-sheet MOM.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:09 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 176):
People here claim that the existence or "success" of the A330neo "proves" somehow a Neo/Max is better/as good as a clean-sheet.

I think you are exaggerating. Maybe you can show otherwise?
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
jambrain
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:43 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 176):
The reality is while the A330neo has it's niche it can only compete with the 787 over the price

Since when was it written that jets can only compete on capability? For A to compete successfully on price (with a healthy margin) and win say 40% market share would seem a good plan to me.

The 787 pricing has always baffled me, why when backlogs were soaring didn't prices go up more? If they had risen it seems obvious to me that B would be in a much better place even with only a 50% market share (by order number not value).

Bringing this back to the 757 question, can a new carbon body clean sheet compete on price? I personally hope not if it's a boring tube with wings, bring on blended body or another more radical design or this will be the most boring decade ever for innovation from both of the majors!
Jambrain
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:02 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 167):
Trying to twist the A330 base-fuse into something usable in the A350-space (I know the A330neo "works", but it's not even close to what the A350XWB is capable and with the A350 MKI/II Airbus woul'dn be where it is in the WB space)

I don't believe that was ever the intention. The intention was a direct competitor to the 787. Indeed, it looks like Airbus were mostly right, the A330neo is a potent competitor to the 787.


I believe they've got the A350 positioning slightly wrong. The -800 should have been the size of the -900 now, the -900 the size of the current -1000 (and the baseline of the family) with the proposed -1100 an easier update to that baseline. Well, actually it should have been:

A350-100 ==> 320 (typical)
A350-200 ==> 360 (typical) -- baseline
A350-300 ==> 400 (typical)

and none of this -800 as a starting point BS.

[Edited 2016-02-24 14:02:54]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:30 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 179):
none of this -800 as a starting point BS.

You have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Airbus did not intend to NEO the A330 originally. The -800 was supposed to cover the A330's role, but various customers (HA comes to mind) said the -800 was too much airplane for the job. Based on such feedback, they did the A330NEO which so far is turning out well for Airbus. It may mean the A350 family is a bit awkwardly positioned but that hasn't prevented it from doing very well in the market.
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
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:28 am

Too bad the 757 is no longer in production. I read that the tooling is long gone. If the 757 was still in production, it would be an easy upgrade as PW already has a 35K geared turbofan and with 20% better fuel efficiency u would get 5600 nautical miles range for the -200 and 5000 miles for the -300. I read that the 757 and the still in production 767 share a lot of the systems. Since BA is building some new tooling for the 737Max, can they build some new tooling and resurrect the 757 assuming most of the systems are still being produced for the 767. Seems like it would be cheaper than a 737 Mad Max which would need a new wing/landing gear.

sv11
 
airzona11
Posts: 1752
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:50 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 176):
Imagine that portfolio. A "maxed out" A330 and above that the A380 only... Boeing would have not much competition for the 787 and exactly non for the 777.

What point are you trying to make?

It seems the same reason you are saying new builds are needed, iterations are needed.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:39 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 153):
Market evidence suggests that a) Airbus are commanding a premium for the A321NEO - airlines are complaining about the price Airbus are asking, and b) despite that it is still outselling the 737-9 by between 3 and 4 to 1
There seems to be a clear point at which "95% of 95%" becomes "not enough %"

The 321neo is clearly the superior aircraft...no doubt about it...but that's not to say the 739MAX is a terrible plane. Some airlines will be very happy with it. And, while it's not the best seller, those are hundreds of orders that Boeing kept for themselves and away from the 321, so the minimal development effort will pay off.

In the meantime, both lines are running flat out and will be into the next decade. Both makers will be delivering their narrow body offerings at about the same rate.

It will be many years before the final numbers come in...and that won't happen until both of the lines are shuttered.

Right now, on deliveries and cashflow, both lines are about 50/50...and that's not going to change for years.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 168):
Airlines will decide

  

They always do.
What the...?
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:12 am

Quoting airzona11 (Reply 182):
What point are you trying to make?

It seems the same reason you are saying new builds are needed, iterations are needed.

The point that from time-to-time its just better not to start from an old base-design if you would have to make to much compromises for the desired market. In my opinion this would be the case if they intend to twist the 737-base into a real MOM between the A321 and the 787-8. If they intend to build their own A321/A322 combo - let's call it 737-10/11 - it's a different story and the 737 base will be fine.

That was the baseline for my examples - the desire to twist existing design which where optimized at a total different size into something way beyond the limits of the baseline.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 179):
I don't believe that was ever the intention. The intention was a direct competitor to the 787. Indeed, it looks like Airbus were mostly right, the A330neo is a potent competitor to the 787.

Yes, and they are much better off now. Only because they said at one point "enough is enough, let's skip the A330 fuse" this was possible.

That's all. I don't say it's always better to do a clean-sheet - of course it isn't. But my personal feeling is it would probably be a mistake in the long run for Boeing to not optimize this frame for its desired marked somehow between a 757-300 and a 767-300. Of course I also think such a plane - probably as a (wider) single aisle - could have a very broad marked in the long run and be a "game changer". If one think this marked is small and airlines either by a A321 or a wide body it's a different story and the investment for a clean-sheet optimized in this size category isn't justifiable.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:20 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 179):
I believe they've got the A350 positioning slightly wrong. The -800 should have been the size of the -900 now, the -900 the size of the current -1000 (and the baseline of the family) with the proposed -1100 an easier update to that baseline. Well, actually it should have been

Agree with this. And it's what might have happened if the original A350 had gone ahead

Quoting Revelation (Reply 180):
Airbus did not intend to NEO the A330 originally.

Well they sort of did, actually. It was the A350mk 1. If you look at the XWB range, the -900 and -1000 mimic the 777-200 and -300 quite beautifully.
to me the -800 looks like it was tagged on mid-way between the 787-8 and -9 size in a forlorn attempt to cover off this segment

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 183):
but that's not to say the 739MAX is a terrible plane. Some airlines will be very happy with it

You won't find me "downing" a plane. I'm sure both the 737-900 and 737-9 are great planes whose owners will benefit from using them.
They don't exist in a vacuum, unfortunately

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 183):
In the meantime, both lines are running flat out and will be into the next decade

There are subtleties here though.
By c 2019 Airbus are now planning delivery rates about 15% - 20% higher than Boeing.
And I don't think most observers expect the "2000 orders a year" period to last much longer.
There will be a downturn at some point.
Not meant to be a fanboy comment, but I suspect that by the end of the decade, the MAX will be getting left behind in terms of both orders and deliveries.

So whilst the picture looks rosy today, Boeing's (and the industry's) body language suggests (to me at least) that they don't see it staying that way.
I don't think Boeing will tolerate being "left behind" in this crucial segment long, even if the 737 is still profitable and lots being delivered.

Rgds
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:45 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 185):
Well they sort of did, actually. It was the A350mk 1. If you look at the XWB range, the -900 and -1000 mimic the 777-200 and -300 quite beautifully.

Do you think we are seeing a change in attitude where Airbus actively avoided direct competition with Boeing to where they feel comfortable to offer a 1:1 replacement? I can see the strategy in the past where they have designed their frames in the market space not occupied by Boeing, but with the A350 they seem to have decided the space to be occupied will be on top of current offerings.

Does this mean the A350-1100 would be comfortable sitting right on top of the 779, as long as it has the advantage that the A35K enjoys over the 77W?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:19 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 185):
Not meant to be a fanboy comment, but I suspect that by the end of the decade, the MAX will be getting left behind in terms of both orders and deliveries.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 185):
By c 2019 Airbus are now planning delivery rates about 15% - 20% higher than Boeing.

The last I saw is that by 2019, Airbus wants to be at 60/month and Boeing was planning on 57. That's not a huge difference. That's only 5% and that's not taking into consideration holidays and other such momentary production rate modifications.
What the...?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:30 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 184):

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 179):
I don't believe that was ever the intention. The intention was a direct competitor to the 787. Indeed, it looks like Airbus were mostly right, the A330neo is a potent competitor to the 787.

Yes, and they are much better off now. Only because they said at one point "enough is enough, let's skip the A330 fuse" this was possible.

The A330 was first.
Boeing placed the 788 and 789 squat/slightly below @8x initially ) on the A330 slot.
( Leahy: chineese copy : Aboulafia : druglike rush ).

Airbus didn't feel the need to move but was bamboozled by leasers and airlines ( and a perfect marketing storm ) to offer a complementary upgrade.
( then offered as successive interations A330light, A350Mk1v1..6 that all met well organized derission.)

Final step:
Airbus returned to the A330 and decided to let it soldier on ( aided by information that the 787 project had all the makings of going pear shaped).
Instead The A350XWB was offered sizewise nearer to the 777 than to the 787. -800XWB offered to not loose the A350Mk1 customers and as a decoy to cloak the attack on the 777 market.

today:
With the 787 having overcome most of its problems the A330 needs and gets the NEO treatment with the newest engine generation keeping it competitive with Boeings rather expensive clean sheet offering.
Murphy is an optimist
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:57 am

I think this is such an interesting time in the arena of airliners. All the makers are being forced to try some very creative solutions to some very sticky problems. It's like chess or fencing with billions of dollars hanging on every move and counter move.

Everything could be smooth sailing....but how boring would that be?
What the...?
 
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 25, 2016 9:46 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 187):
The last I saw is that by 2019, Airbus wants to be at 60/month and Boeing was planning on 57. That's not a huge difference. That's only 5% and that's not taking into consideration holidays and other such momentary production rate modifications.

Word is that Airbus wants to push it to 63 jets per month in 2020. Nothing official yet, though it indicates they are looking at even higher rates.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:49 am

In the case of 330NEO vs 787 both companies can sell at healthy margin, Airbus can offer the 330NEO at lower price since they have written off design, but the bottom line is that both companies are making money on their product and that is good business.

The same case does not apply to the MAX vs NEO. Both companies are upgrading their written off design, Boeing is most likely spending double the amount Airbus is spending doing so, and the market has changed from parity to 60/40 in Airbus favour.

Boeing is laying off people and voicing concerns of pricing pressure, so possibly Boeing is keeping good portions of the market in production numbers, but Airbus is walking away with the biggest part of the profit.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:09 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 187):
The last I saw is that by 2019, Airbus wants to be at 60/month and Boeing was planning on 57. That's not a huge difference. That's only 5% and that's not taking into consideration holidays and other such momentary production rate modifications.

Airbus wants to be at 63 and has decided to go to 60 only because of supply line restraints. Has Boeing decided to go to 57 and set a date?
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:28 am

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 191):
Boeing is keeping good portions of the market in production numbers, but Airbus is walking away with the biggest part of the profit.

Yes. Production numbers is only telling you one part of market success.

I personally think Boeing would do best accepting 60/40 for now. I can't see anything they can do about the A321 that Airbus can't counter - so keep your powder dry and wait for the next round.

Even if they did something - it looks like entry into service of 2025, and there's a real possibility of new narrowbodies in 2030, by which time the market might be substantially different. Who knows, maybe airlines would be wanting 250/280 seat widebodies to fly short haul?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:01 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 187):
The last I saw is that by 2019, Airbus wants to be at 60/month and Boeing was planning on 57. That's not a huge difference. That's only 5% and that's not taking into consideration holidays and other such momentary production rate modifications.

Highest I've seen from Boeing is 53. Airbus has set out its intent to drive towards 63 if it can.

Watching what has happened to the A320NEO this year, I'd suggest that Boeing's ability to ramp up in 2016-2019 is heavily dependent on a) how many 737NG's they sold to cover off the production gap, and b) the ramp up on the 737MAX.

Airbus have been meticulously careful to a) overbook the A320CEO, and b) put the lid on production rate rises during the transition. boeing approach currently looks a lot higher risk to me. i'm not aware that the 737NG is over booked yet, and they're trying to ramp up during the transition.

Rgds
 
User avatar
speedbored
Posts: 2230
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:14 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:27 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 194):
Highest I've seen from Boeing is 53.

While I totally agree with everything else that you're saying regarding likely risks during the transition (which might explain why they are trying to bring forward the MAX EIS), Boeing are actually planning to increase to rate 57 in 2019:
http://investors.boeing.com/investors/fact-sheets/default.aspx
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24313
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:54 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 185):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 180):
Airbus did not intend to NEO the A330 originally.

Well they sort of did, actually. It was the A350mk 1. If you look at the XWB range, the -900 and -1000 mimic the 777-200 and -300 quite beautifully.
to me the -800 looks like it was tagged on mid-way between the 787-8 and -9 size in a forlorn attempt to cover off this segment

Fair enough. I should have qualified my original statement by saying 'at the time of the XWB launch, Airbus did not intend to NEO the A330'. Even that might be dubious, they may have had an unstated intention to NEO the A330 after doing some more studies of the market and the technology.

At the time of the XWB launch the -1000 being presented wasn't a clear competitor to 77W, it took the later changes to a more powerful engine to get it to that point.

So, there's been some shifts along the way. Regardless of how they've gotten there, they've got a lot of spaces covered quite well and have the potential -1100 in waiting.
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
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:35 pm

Reply 193
I personally think Boeing would do best accepting 60/40 for now. I can't see anything they can do about the A321 that Airbus can't counter - so keep your powder dry and wait for the next round.

Yup the 'do nothing' strategy.It is not a bad one either as the 40% is 40% of a whopping total.But it's impossible to know what other pressures (or not) are behind the scenes.

For Instance.
On paper the 737-8MAX more than holds it's own against the A320 NEO.But what if (increasingly) airlines want a 'package' of this and a larger narrow-body (which seems to be the case ex LCC's). Then it must be somewhat more difficult for Boeing and thus they may be loosing out to more than simply' 321 Vs 739.' They could be loosing 738 sales even though the product is arguably better than the competition (particularly on shorter segments).

Perhaps that is the concern/desire to 'do something'.Could be quite wrong of course and if so the 'do nothing' strategy is fine in my book.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9386
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:16 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 194):
Airbus have been meticulously careful to a) overbook the A320CEO, and b) put the lid on production rate rises during the transition. boeing approach currently looks a lot higher risk to me. i'm not aware that the 737NG is over booked yet, and they're trying to ramp up during the transition.

Airbus is actually ramping up as it is. Mobil is a rate addition of 2 this year and 4 next year, going from 42 to 46. They have a reserve of about 1 or 2 both in XFW and TLS and are not pulling out the stops there as it is.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:55 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 146):
A clean-sheet is as much about OPTIMIZATION for a certain size as it is about "technological jumps". That's the whole point of the MOM clean-sheet possibility.

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 185):
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 179):
I believe they've got the A350 positioning slightly wrong. The -800 should have been the size of the -900 now, the -900 the size of the current -1000 (and the baseline of the family) with the proposed -1100 an easier update to that baseline. Well, actually it should have been
Agree with this. And it's what might have happened if the original A350 had gone ahead

This would have made the -900 less attractive - too big a wing etc. -900 is the heart of the market and selling pretty well. Just seems impossible for one aircraft family to span 789-->779 seat range efficiently on a single wing.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 194):
ighest I've seen from Boeing is 53. Airbus has set out its intent to drive towards 63 if it can.

Boeing has said they'll match Airbus and keep 50% market share. I'd predict they flinch and take 40% for a while, before the MoM/MadMAX.

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