Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kurtverbose
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:30 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 197):
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).

I think that's almost certainly happening, but I can't see them in the next 8-10 years bringing out a MOM aeroplane that can compete with anything Airbus can bring to market. Airbus have a better plane and if Boeing get a better plane Airbus will have a substantial cost advantage and short term a production advantage. They will also then soon leap frog them a few years later when the tech moves on.

I have issues with Boeing strategy. They should've brought out a better MAX before Airbus - but it was during the time of the 787 crisis, and at the end of the day the 737 first flew in 1968. There's no shame in having 40% of the market with a 50 year old plane!
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:29 am

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.

Interestingly enough, AvDaily is reporting tonight that Airbus will be raising A330ceo production from 6 to 7 in 2017 and that Enders is open to a further increase to deal with the ceo orderbook before the neo ramps up in 2-3 years.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:52 pm

Regarding 'new technologies', here's Embraer’s view on the matter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ngle-aisle-during-his-term-422417/

Quote:
Embraer’s internal studies indicate that technology available today for a clean-sheet design could beat the economics of the re-engined A320neo and 737 Max by 3-5%, Curado adds.

“We believe we can do that now,” Curado says. “But 3-5% is absolutely insufficient to face this formidable challenge to face companies that are strong, competent, have good products and have enormous industrial production capacity.”

Airbus too believes a clean-sheet program would gain you only ~ 5% efficiency.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:39 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 202):
Regarding 'new technologies', here's Embraer’s view on the matter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ngle-aisle-during-his-term-422417/

Quote:Embraer’s internal studies indicate that technology available today for a clean-sheet design could beat the economics of the re-engined A320neo and 737 Max by 3-5%, Curado adds.

“We believe we can do that now,” Curado says. “But 3-5% is absolutely insufficient to face this formidable challenge to face companies that are strong, competent, have good products and have enormous industrial production capacity.”
Airbus too believes a clean-sheet program would gain you only ~ 5% efficiency.

And now we know why Boeing is NOT so crazy looking at a 737 MAD MAX.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:12 pm

This is all true-but.Boeing (with all due respect,is not Embraer - or Airbus),perhaps hey can pull a rabbit out of the hat.Perhaps they can produce a super high aspect ratio folding carbon laminar wing attached to a 'double bubble' or ovoid fuse that gives them a 10% advantage - permenantly .Now that would be interesting! Then you don't need to worry about engine parity.
Yup the mad max is the quick fix.Perhaps better to accept 40% of a large market in the short term.But win big in the long term.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 10:21 pm

Quoting william (Reply 203):
And now we know why Boeing is NOT so crazy looking at a 737 MAD MAX.

It has never been about what they can or cannot design, it is about what they can afford to design and what it would cost them, restricting them on prices and in turn what Airbus could answer with and if they can apply pricing pressure on a new design.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:21 pm

The question is not how to do the cheapest MoM, but how to leap frog Airbus and the A321 and what is needed to do that.
I think Boeing needs the 5% a new design can give.
If Boeing starts out with a 737 MADMAX Boeing will not distance the MoM from the A321 and Airbus has the field to do a less costly response to draw at least even.

[Edited 2016-02-29 15:38:14]
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4015
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:56 pm

In what manner could a plastic wing and box, along with new engines not require Airbus to do the same? I could see Airbus not needing to respond were the MadMax only a little better. Interesting chess moves!
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:28 am

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 207):
In what manner could a plastic wing and box, along with new engines not require Airbus to do the same? I could see Airbus not needing to respond were the MadMax only a little better. Interesting chess moves!

The A320 series is the better frame on longer stage length. The 737 is better on short stages due to lower weight, but the MoM will be expected to do rather longer stage length. The A320 is the more modern frame and I mean that system wise, FBW and so on. Airbus is keeping its system similar so it is easy to migrate technology from the A350 back to the A320.
Boeing has first some catch up to do to draw even and than some to leapfrog. Airbus has to do less to keep abreast.
I think Boeing has to pull all the stops to go ahead in a narrow body frame.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:57 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 202):
Airbus too believes a clean-sheet program would gain you only ~ 5% efficiency.

But I'm guessing that assuming it's based on current technology. If Boeing waits 3-4 more years before launching a cleansheet MoM, perhaps that'll allow for more advanced stuff, like engines. Perhaps not 5%, but 10-15%, which would be far more attractive.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:15 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 209):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 202):
Airbus too believes a clean-sheet program would gain you only ~ 5% efficiency.

But I'm guessing that assuming it's based on current technology. If Boeing waits 3-4 more years before launching a cleansheet MoM, perhaps that'll allow for more advanced stuff, like engines. Perhaps not 5%, but 10-15%, which would be far more attractive.

Engine advance is usually open to more than one aircraft manufacturer, so if one uses a new engine the other will pull even in that department.
We see it also with the A330neo versus the 787, the engine will not be the difference in the future, the difference in the frame including systems has to do the trick.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:46 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 210):
Engine advance is usually open to more than one aircraft manufacturer, so if one uses a new engine the other will pull even in that department.
We see it also with the A330neo versus the 787, the engine will not be the difference in the future, the difference in the frame including systems has to do the trick.

True, but engine technology does play a role in future efficiency. Keep in mind, the engines probably needed would slip in between the CFM LEAP/PW 1000 series and GEnx/RR Trent 1000 in terms of power, so someone would have to pick that slot up.

I'd safely bet on PW doing an engine for the MoM.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:08 am

Looking at some aircraft lengths:
737 Max-9 138 ft
707-320B - 152 ft
757-200 - 155 ft

BA can probably stretch the 737 Max-9 fuselage but am not sure they will have ground clearance for a 38-40K thrust engine under the wing even if they design a new wing/4 wheel landing gear as the new engines have very high bypass ratios.

sv11
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6922
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:38 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 206):
If Boeing starts out with a 737 MADMAX Boeing will not distance the MoM from the A321

Doubt it would win as many awards from the aviation industry's version of the "Oscars"...    ...


And speaking of "not wishing something on even your biggest enemy"...    ...

Quote:
"With tongue in check, Leahy suggested Boeing re-engine the 757 to meet the middle of the market demand."

http://leehamnews.com/2016/02/29/istat-day-1-3/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Passedv1
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:43 am

Could somebody explain what the big deal is for not having the tooling for the 757....perhaps in terms of numbers. Maybe it's not worth the investment for Boeing in the end but I don't understand why the fact that Boeing destroyed all the tooling seems to be a show stopper for a 757NG at least here on a.net. Does it cost so much to produce new tooling that you might as well draw up new plans entirely?
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:18 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 209):
But I'm guessing that assuming it's based on current technology. If Boeing waits 3-4 more years before launching a cleansheet MoM, perhaps that'll allow for more advanced stuff, like engines. Perhaps not 5%, but 10-15%, which would be far more attractive.

The discussion if it's 5% or maybe 7% is insane. Yes, the initial benefits of a clean-sheet optimized at about 250 pax 5000 nm wouldn't chance the history of aviation, that’s clear.
But this base design would allow Boeing over time to build a new family covering all the space above the A321, including 757 and 767 territory and even hurting the A330neo in the mid-long run.
The point is not that a specific frame is totally superior to what exist. Neither the 777-200/300, the initial A330 nor the A350 had an advantage over about 5-8% frame the frame (most came from the engines anyway). But all these planes with their fundamental new designs/fuse-sizes/configurations etc. allowed Boeing/Airbus to grow them over time and to harvest the fruits of the initial designs over decades. Small advantages – like cargo capacities compared to older frames – make a big difference over time.

And that is the whole point of a MOM and Boeing knows that well. They know that a 737 MadMAX can’t do that for them in the same way (start a new family) but on the other hand – as has been stated many times – it would OFC be much cheaper and also faster to marked. If you like a 737 MadMax would be a medium-term solution in the A321/A322 size while the MOM would be a long-time investment in a slightly larger size-class. It would also better fit into the portfolio ones the NSA is ready. E.g. NSA-MOM-787-9 would be a much more “balanced” portfolio than NSA-MadMax-[still cap]-787-9 would be really close.

My personal view is that Boeing is in a healthy state ATM and should invest in a new family, even when it may take a long time to recover the investment. How knows how the economy is in 5-10 years and if Airbus really does an A350-1100 with similar capabilities to the 779 Boeing may be in a defensive position on many fronts if they do “only” the MadMax – or nothing at all what some people expect too (I personally think this scenario is well below 10% probability).
However I’m always thinking in long-terms and I’m realistic enough to know that the American shareholder-mentality and the general uncertainties may force Boeing into the MadMax anyway. It could be a considerably economic success and put pressure on the A321 while probably costing “only” about 7b $.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:43 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 209):
But I'm guessing that assuming it's based on current technology. If Boeing waits 3-4 more years before launching a cleansheet MoM, perhaps that'll allow for more advanced stuff, like engines. Perhaps not 5%, but 10-15%, which would be far more attractive.

What 'advanced stuff' would that be? What do you have in mind? Aside from more fuel efficient engines, there's nothing else to gain. And the new engines can also be fit on existing airframes.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18970
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting Passedv1 (Reply 214):
Could somebody explain what the big deal is for not having the tooling for the 757...

Ask Boeing. They said some time ago that there was no business case for a 757neo and they would know the numbers better than anyone here.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:05 pm

Here's what Boeing has to say on a possible 757 re-engine project:

Quote:
"The re-engined 757 is off the table," says Boeing's Tinseth on MOM aircraft development. #istatamericas

Source
http://twitter.com/e_russell/status/704713446621732864
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:07 pm

I see plenty options for Boeing.

They can go all CFRP with a ovid 7 abreast solution. Add second gen. GTFs and the more electric design of the Dreamliner and you will be able to make a plane that is better than any competitor. The technology for the design is there, the problem is production and price.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:18 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 206):
If Boeing starts out with a 737 MADMAX Boeing will not distance the MoM from the A321 and Airbus has the field to do a less costly response to draw at least even.

We keep seeing this stated over and over, we do not know how it would cost Airbus to respond. And if it was so "cheap" they would have done it by now.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting william (Reply 220):
We keep seeing this stated over and over, we do not know how it would cost Airbus to respond. And if it was so "cheap" they would have done it by now.

They control that marketplace right now with the only viable option - A321neo LR. They don't need to cannibalise their own sales.

Furthermore, if Airbus committed billions [say around $3B USD to put (wet) TE extensions on the A321], Boeing might just let them - its not an overly big market by all accounts (right now anyway).


Airbus ideally want Boeing to commit $10-15B USD on a clean-sheet MoM, then respond with an A322 for 1/4 the R&D price and introduce it to market a couple of years sooner. That ties up much more of Boeing's capital for when it comes to the real single-aisle product revamp.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:59 pm

"[email protected] wants a "middle of the market" (MOM) aircraft a little bigger than and w/ about 500-1000nm more range than the 757. #istatamericas"
http://twitter.com/e_russell/status/704710769733038082
.....
This tweet has an ISTAT poll of the audience. 66% of attendees think this MOM market is larger than 1,000 aircraft and half of those think it is larger than 1,500. I am in the latter group.

"The #istatamericas audience is pretty optimistic about the market size for a middle of the market aircraft." http://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/704709343598374913
....
And here is some highlights from an article from Leeham:
"Van Leeuwen, the banker, said financiers would need to see at least 1,000 MOMs in the market with a broad customer base to feel comfortable financing the airplanes.
(At a media breakfast preceding this panel, lessor CIT sees a market of 2,000.)"
....
"Baur said United allows an extra 10 minutes to turn the 757-300, which is about the size of a single-aisle MOM, which is a trade-off for the extra capacity."
....
"A stretched MAX, to what’s been called a 737-10, will be difficult to do, said van Leeuwen. “I don’t see it as a viable solution.”
http://leehamnews.com/2016/03/01/istat-day-2/


tortugamon
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:23 pm

To counter the notion that ISTAT are full of infallible sages (or rather, are wholly representative of the entire world):

Quote:
In audience polling, 53% of the 1,900 people attending voted that Airbus has the better single aisle/narrow body product family.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/02/29/istat-day-1/#more-18888


You can argue the 737-8 is better than the A320. But you cannot argue the 737max family is better than the A32Xneo family. The sales numbers are just too different for counter argument.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:37 pm

This thread is part 4 and no one - and certainly not Boeing from the sounds of it, are any closer to resolving the issue.
It's easy to see why. It's a bit of a Gordian knot really.I will be fascinated to see - perhaps at Farnbrough, where they have got to on this.
Personally I am not even sure Airbus saw the opportunity when they started out with the NEO. The board hardly seemed keen on the project in the early stages and they went for the minimum changes/cost at the time. For instance the wing root body fairing was one area slated for improvement but they never (to the best of my knowledge) made even this improvement.
But much has moved in their favour and they are simply 'sitting pretty'.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:13 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 223):
You can argue the 737-8 is better than the A320. But you cannot argue the 737max family is better than the A32Xneo family. The sales numbers are just too different for counter argument.

Clearly lessors and customers believe the 737max is a good line-up. So while we discuss how good the A321 is, only 53% of the audience believe the A320 family is better. So adding a MadMax to the family should be enough to satisfy the remainder. Even less reason to go clean-sheet.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:52 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 225):
Clearly lessors and customers believe the 737max is a good line-up.

IMO; no they don't (at least, believing it is as good as A32Xneo).

Otherwise they'd put their money where their mouth is.

Talk is cheap, but show me the Benjamins! 
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 226):
Otherwise they'd put their money where their mouth is.

Well that's what airlines are doing, hence the large 737 MAX backlog. The MAX-8 is a very good airplane, the only thing Boeing needs to add is something above the 737-9 / A321 to extend the family.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:39 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 216):
What 'advanced stuff' would that be? What do you have in mind?

Well, obviously further work on software and aerodynamic improvements. I mean, true, engines make most of the difference when it comes to an efficiency increase. You don't really expect a Mad-MAX to have a 737 nose section, right?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 225):
Clearly lessors and customers believe the 737max is a good line-up. So while we discuss how good the A321 is, only 53% of the audience believe the A320 family is better.

Would an Mad-MAX be able to carry to same payload an an A321neo? How about pallets, if needed?

Again, if Boeing is just going to stretch the MAX just to accommodate more people, they'll probably lose big time in the long run.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:12 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 227):
Well that's what airlines are doing, hence the large 737 MAX backlog. The MAX-8 is a very good airplane, the only thing Boeing needs to add is something above the 737-9 / A321 to extend the family.

But the MAX-8 has less orders than the A320neo, and that is with a viable competitor to the A320 in the A321. The MAX-8 doesn't really have that same competition. Or if we were following the threads about the MAX-9 sales there are conversions within the MAX family that will still go to the MAX-9. This would mean less MAX-8 orders, surely that would mean a less capable MAX-8, at least from a sales point of view?
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:36 am

Both the 787-8 and 757-300 appear to seat around 242 passengers in 2 class. So should BA build a 787 with smaller wing and range 5000 nautical miles? Probably it would be too expensive to manufacture.

sv11
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5574
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:11 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 135):
Why is the rear door... at the back? Is it to maximise cabin space?


My train of thought - if you have 2 doors, one 1/4 way down the cabin, and another 3/4 way down the cabin - you've effectively got a "quad-aisle" aircraft for embarking - as long as people can use both doors and use the door nearest their seat.

Sorry I meant to talk to this earlier. Both the A321 and the 757 (in some configurations) have doors at the 1/4 and 3/4 points (well probably closer to 1/3 and 2/3 on the A321 and 757-200), however I don't know how useful these are. I *believe* door 2 on the A321 can't be used for boarding because it is too close to the engine, and door 3 on both the A321 and the 757 can't be used for boarding because it is too close to the trailing edge of the wing.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T.Laurent
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Hentschel


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto Bianchi Piti Spotter Club
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Terry Wade


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nacho Rguez - Canary Islands Spotting
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nacho Rguez - Canary Islands Spotting



So it isn't beyond the realm of possibility to do what you suggest, but it would pose challenges around the geometry of the aircraft, and the ground service equipment around it. The following documents might be worth looking at to get a better understanding of the dimensions of the aircraft:

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...h_data/AC/Airbus-AC-A321-Jan16.pdf
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/757_23.pdf

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

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:07 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 229):
But the MAX-8 has less orders than the A320neo, and that is with a viable competitor to the A320 in the A321.

When Airbus has a viable [two aircraft] family in the neo, and Boeing has only a viable single aircraft in the MAX 8, some are simply going to go the family route. That's not to say that the neo family doesn't have other inherent advantages that also tip the scales, but comparing the MAX 8 and the A320neo in a vacuum is perhaps not the best way to measure success.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
dare100em
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:05 am

From the linked Leeham article:

"A stretched MAX, to what’s been called a 737-10, will be difficult to do, said van Leeuwen. “I don’t see it as a viable solution.” (In a separate interview, Airbus’ John Leahy said a 737-10 would be an all-new airplane except for the fuselage itself, requiring an investment of $8bn-$10bn.)"

OFC Airbus in't neutral in this aspect. I would expect a simple "me too" A321/A322 737-MadMax to be in the 6-8b $ ballpark, about half or even slightly more than half the investment in a clean sheet. The quesetion is do you get 50% of the orders for 50% of the investment and for the same price. I think while the first 10 years the balance would favour the MadMAx over 20 years your'e much better off with a clean sheet MOM:
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:13 am

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 231):
Sorry I meant to talk to this earlier. Both the A321 and the 757 (in some configurations) have doors at the 1/4 and 3/4 points (well probably closer to 1/3 and 2/3 on the A321 and 757-200), however I don't know how useful these are. I *believe* door 2 on the A321 can't be used for boarding because it is too close to the engine, and door 3 on both the A321 and the 757 can't be used for boarding because it is too close to the trailing edge of the wing.

I am surprised door 2 can not be used for boarding on the A321, it works very well on the 757 and speeds up boarding using it comparing to the frond door.

The door right aft of the wing, called "station three" is so called typeII exit, and is only for emergency use.

Over wing exits are not allowed any more on new design aircrafts, A350 and B787 do not have them because of this new certification criteria. If the derivative certification is grandfathered like 737 MAX the overawing exit can be retained.

Another example is 16g seats that is requirement to day, and I am curious to know if Boeing has to go with 16g seats on the MAX or if they can grandfather in the old 9g (I think) seats from the NG.

The 737 has lighter structure compared to the 320, and I would like to know how much of that relates to different certification requirements compared to the 320 since the NG and MAX certification is grandfathered from the original 737-100 if somebody in the know could chip in.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:34 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 234):
I am surprised door 2 can not be used for boarding on the A321, it works very well on the 757 and speeds up boarding using it comparing to the frond door.

Boarded an A321 the other day in Dublin (hmm, maybe it was Frankfurt on the way back) using Door 2.

But the rear 3/4 door wasn't used, only the aftmost door.


But, definitely door 2 was used on one of the legs.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:36 pm

You do have to wonder just how fair it is to allow OEMs to do extensive reworks while allowing requirements to fall under grandfathering.


After all, it is passenger safety they are dicking around with. If the new rules aren't worthwhile, then why do they exist in the first place?
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:18 pm

Quoting planesntrains (Reply 232):
When Airbus has a viable [two aircraft] family in the neo, and Boeing has only a viable single aircraft in the MAX 8, some are simply going to go the family route. That's not to say that the neo family doesn't have other inherent advantages that also tip the scales, but comparing the MAX 8 and the A320neo in a vacuum is perhaps not the best way to measure success.

The general consensus seemed for a long time to be that the 738 is a better frame than the A320 because it had more sales. However when the A320 started catching up and eventually overtook the 738 in sales those same arguments still count just in reverse, right? I just find it interesting how the arguments goes on here. I think you will still find that many think that the 738 is the better frame over the A320. They would see the difference in sales between the NEO and MAX to only be with the 739 and A321.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:19 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 236):
You do have to wonder just how fair it is to allow OEMs to do extensive reworks while allowing requirements to fall under grandfathering.


After all, it is passenger safety they are dicking around with. If the new rules aren't worthwhile, then why do they exist in the first place?

There is no such thing as grandfathering. That's not what happens.

There are certification classifications of major and minor changes. "Minor changes have no appreciable effect on weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product."

One legitimate certification method is qualification based on similarity. If a design is similar to a previous design, it is acceptable to be used. For major changes, qualification can come from demonstration that the design and functionality are similar to what was used in previously approved data.

Here is some good reading:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/media/CPI_guide_II.pdf

The FAA has published Advisory Circulars for many different ATA and design functions to describe the certification process and what is acceptable and what is not. Here is a good example: AC 2023.1309-1E

In general there is no grandfathering and "dicking around". There are highly specialized people who qualify as designated engineering representatives who make the decisions on certification methods. These people are specialists in their own field and system. There are some designs that are carryover from previous designs. This has proven safe and effective and is no less legitimate than new designs.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 236):
If the new rules aren't worthwhile, then why do they exist in the first place?

Great question. There are constant additions to design requirements that make each design safer and safer. Some of these are retroactively required through airworthiness directives. For example SFAR88 for fuel tank flammability and ignition source prevention was required to be retrofitted on existing designs and even in the fleet. Another example is enhanced flammability and burn through requirements. These keep getting upgraded and about 10 years ago the FAA mandated that they be incorporated i n new airplanes, which resulted in significant redesign of existing production lines, although no requirement to retrofit the fleet. There is a decision criteria for what has to be retrofitted and what has to be incorporated in existing designs. For the critical requirements, they are being mandated and every new airplane will follow.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:39 pm

You are talking about methods, and pass by similarity is something I am well versed with [and why I kept droning on about BBD not making CS300 first in one of the other threads]. I am talking about the requirements.

Taking your own example, all new aircraft have to have the fuel tank ullage flammability exposure reduced to (off the top of my head) something like 3% over the lifetime of the fleet of that airframe ON ALL FUEL TANKS.


But legacy do not - hence why aircraft like the A320 and B737 have only NEA/ODA injected into their centre tank/CWT.


So, which is it? Are current aircraft safe to fly, or are the new rules unneccessary?



[and its not composite reasons either, the MRJ has a full FTIS as far as I am aware.]
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:49 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 238):
In general there is no grandfathering and "dicking around". There are highly specialized people who qualify as designated engineering representatives who make the decisions on certification methods. These people are specialists in their own field and system. There are some designs that are carryover from previous designs. This has proven safe and effective and is no less legitimate than new designs.

You describe (desired) theory and not reality. 787 certification oversights show that there is quite a bit of "dicking" around.
( Reading up on the circus FAA created over A380 separation issues is another hint )

737 still is a 9g cabin with higher G certifiied seating. The deathrate on the Amsterdam TK crash shows as much.
Murphy is an optimist
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:14 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 239):
So, which is it? Are current aircraft safe to fly, or are the new rules unneccessary?

The current airplanes are safe. New designs are safe. Safety requirements that meet the threshold to require retrofit or redesign for new production are incorporated. It is a balance of safety and reasonable costs. The FAA has no problem issuing airworthiness directives to mandate design changes and/or retrofit changes. It happens about monthly on 737s.

Even with the "grandfathering" that you talk about, the 737NG fatality rate is very good. 737-100/200 had a fatality rate of 0.61 per million hours with the 737-300/400/500 at 0.15 and the 737-600/700/800/900 at .07 per million hours. Airplanes are getting safer. I hate using fatality rates and trying to compare airplanes, but I feel it is relevant.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 240):


You describe (desired) theory and not reality. 787 certification oversights show that there is quite a bit of "dicking" around.
( Reading up on the circus FAA created over A380 separation issues is another hint )

737 still is a 9g cabin with higher G certifiied seating. The deathrate on the Amsterdam TK crash shows as much.

Are you implying that the 737 is not safe? If you are being snarky, I'll mention that the A320 rate is no better than the 737NG. The A320 rate is actually worse than the 737NG, but it also has about 30% more total hours and an older fleet, so it isn't a useful comparison. The 737NG has the lowest fatality rate of any airplane with more than 10 million cycles on it. That is a really good place to start designing from.

[Edited 2016-03-02 07:26:04]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:20 pm

If we look at the 737, adva

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 238):
In general there is no grandfathering and "dicking around". There are highly specialized people who qualify as designated engineering representatives who make the decisions on certification methods. These people are specialists in their own field and system. There are some designs that are carryover from previous designs. This has proven safe and effective and is no less legitimate than new designs.

That is BS in nice words. If something is not aloud on a clean sheet design, than there is a reason to have it removed from consideration for new designs. If something has been "proven safe" their would absolutely no reason to remove it from new designs, it least it is looked on as inferior to other solutions.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:23 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 242):
That is BS in nice words. If something is not aloud on a clean sheet design, than there is a reason to have it removed from consideration for new designs. If something has been "proven safe" their would absolutely no reason to remove it from new designs, it least it is looked on as inferior to other solutions.

Qualification based on similarity to existing designs is a perfectly legitimate and in many ways better than the testing done in a laboratory for a new design. The FAA usually prefers real life proven designs over lab testing where they try to replicate 2-4 life cycles in only a few months time.

I don't know if you are familiar with damage tolerant designs. That's the way new airplanes are designed and it is a scientific but also predicted and calculated approach to safety. The methods used for fatigue including design and inspections is not an exact science. The strategies have changed over the years and have been refined. However existing proven designs can demonstrate that they are adequate based on experience. While engineers might not be using the same analytical methods that were used thirty years ago, that does not mean that the previous work was wrong. Newer designs are taking advantage of more advanced analytical methods. The result is usually structure is getting lighter where possible. If you add technologies like load alleviation, structural designs are getting more efficient and lighter. One area where there has been tremendous improvement is the aft pressure bulkheads. While older planes have complex and elaborate repair and even replacement requirements, newer designs are able to reduce the inspection requirements and reduce repairs. That doesn't mean that the older design is not safe, but it does show that the newer design may be the lower cost solution.

[Edited 2016-03-02 07:31:28]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
WPIAeroGuy
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:52 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 242):
That is BS in nice words. If something is not aloud on a clean sheet design, than there is a reason to have it removed from consideration for new designs. If something has been "proven safe" their would absolutely no reason to remove it from new designs, it least it is looked on as inferior to other solutions.

There is no line between 'safe' and 'unsafe' - everything has a varying degree of safety. A 16g seat won't save you in a 20g crash, but for economic reasons the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you take a black and white approach like you're doing you either live with 60+ year old designs forever, or immediately ground the fleet when a new change is made.
-WPIAeroGuy
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:09 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 243):
Qualification based on similarity to existing designs is a perfectly legitimate and in many ways better than the testing done in a laboratory for a new design. The FAA usually prefers real life proven designs over lab testing where they try to replicate 2-4 life cycles in only a few months time.

I don't know if you are familiar with damage tolerant designs. That's the way new airplanes are designed and it is a scientific but also predicted and calculated approach to safety. The methods used for fatigue including design and inspections is not an exact science. The strategies have changed over the years and have been refined. However existing proven designs can demonstrate that they are adequate based on experience. While engineers might not be using the same analytical methods that were used thirty years ago, that does not mean that the previous work was wrong. Newer designs are taking advantage of more advanced analytical methods. The result is usually structure is getting lighter where possible. If you add technologies like load alleviation, structural designs are getting more efficient and lighter. One area where there has been tremendous improvement is the aft pressure bulkheads. While older planes have complex and elaborate repair and even replacement requirements, newer designs are able to reduce the inspection requirements and reduce repairs. That doesn't mean that the older design is not safe, but it does show that the newer design may be the lower cost solution.

Keeping on with the BS. If something is not accepted for a clean sheet design it was deemed not as safe or inferior, and no road or argument leads past that fact
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:21 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 241):
The current airplanes are safe. New designs are safe.

As WPI indicates - varying degrees of safety. As you yourself have said, its also economics.


Now - is it reasonable to allow any company to update a design and ignore/bypassing/mitigating/diluting the changing requirements in the meantime? Which is not really what the original clauses were meant for.

Or is it more reasonable to have a line beyond which the legacy design is no longer allowed to be iterated on to take advantage of (older and cheaper) safety requirements?
 
WPIAeroGuy
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:52 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:18 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 246):
Now - is it reasonable to allow any company to update a design and ignore/bypassing/mitigating/diluting the changing requirements in the meantime? Which is not really what the original clauses were meant for.

Or is it more reasonable to have a line beyond which the legacy design is no longer allowed to be iterated on to take advantage of (older and cheaper) safety requirements?

If a legacy design was no longer allowed to be iterated then it would be grounded by the FAA. As long as the design meets the certification basis in the TCDS, and any modifications have been approved and also meet the TCDS, the airplane is airworthy. Should you not be able to modify a Grumman Mallard with turboprops because it first flew in 1946?

The intent of new regulations such as the ones described above is introduce safety improvements in an economically feasible manner. It is NOT saying all previous designs are unsafe, and this is the fix. There is a big difference. What you're proposing would effectively ground any airplane whenever a regulation is updated.
-WPIAeroGuy
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:51 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 237):
The general consensus seemed for a long time to be that the 738 is a better frame than the A320 because it had more sales. However when the A320 started catching up and eventually overtook the 738 in sales those same arguments still count just in reverse, right? I just find it interesting how the arguments goes on here. I think you will still find that many think that the 738 is the better frame over the A320. They would see the difference in sales between the NEO and MAX to only be with the 739 and A321.

I apologize - I misunderstood. I think you are trying to prove that the A320neo is better than the 737 MAX 8 because it sales better, and are wanting to do a turn-the-tables thing on the B crowd in the process. I'm not really interested in going down that road. I was simply trying to posit a reason ***maybe*** why some customers go for the neo and not the MAX.

Carry on with the table-turning.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: New 757 Replacement NMA Information - Part 4

Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting WPIAeroGuy (Reply 247):
If a legacy design was no longer allowed to be iterated then it would be grounded by the FAA.

No - in what I envisage, it (the aircraft) wouldn't get certified in the first place as the "legacy" components wouldn't meet current cert requirements.

i.e., update (not PIP) your aircraft engine and you can no longer pass the wing by the requirements in place at the time of the original.


Basically, after XX years, IF you are doing a redesign/significant modification, you are no longer allowed to carry legacy assemblies that don't meet current (new-build) requirements.


You are talking about retrospective changes on frames currently flying. I am talking about doing away with the loophole of legacy assemblies avoiding current requirements when an OEM is issuing a major update to the design.

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