Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:16 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 96):
It is a game changer in aircraft design, because hanging this fans at the current positions requires a very high landing gear and you have to handle the containment issues for a fan failure.

And as you go larger with the fan you start to trade cruise speed for efficiency, so you wing design needs to adjust as well.

It is if you do it in one massive leap (from say, BPR = 5 to BPR = 20).

But it won't be like that. The GTF already has a bypass ratio of between 9 and 13. A mid life update might push that to 15-18. The fan diameter on A320neo is 2.1m (up from 1.6m on A320ceo), if that BPR rises to say 16 and the existing core remains the same, the fan diameter only has to rise to 2.36m - nearly half of the jump from ceo to neo.


Also, as you know, fan tip speed remains roughly consistent, so only increased fan mass drives increased containment energies. Moving to CFRP blades will offset the increasing size of the blade.



Eventually, yes, someone will do a new single-aisle frame optimised around Mach 0.7-0.75 flight. But its an evolutionary step rather than revolutionary leap.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3793
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:29 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 100):

But it won't be like that. The GTF already has a bypass ratio of between 9 and 13. A mid life update might push that to 15-18. The fan diameter on A320neo is 2.1m (up from 1.6m on A320ceo), if that BPR rises to say 16 and the existing core remains the same, the fan diameter only has to rise to 2.36m - nearly half of the jump from ceo to neo.

Interesting, I found some numbers to compare the relative size of fans on both the A320NEO and the 737max compared to the space that the fan has to sit in (below the wing). I couldn't find the height to the top of the wing so as a proxy I used the sill heights for the main doors. I found a ratio of sill height to fan diameter for the 737max and NEO and then was able to determine that if the A320NEO was to use all the same tricks to squeeze the big engine underneath then 2.36m is the size of fan you'd get.

If anyone has the height of the wings from the deck that would be great.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:55 pm

Not sure this has been mentioned already in it's own thread - and I didn't want to start a new thread in case it has - but Boeing has taken on a new supplier for 737 seats that will be offered for direct sale with the airplane, as opposed to the current practice of seats being BFE - Buyer Furnished Equipment - and purchased seperately by the customer and delivered to Boeing for installation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-supplies-idUSKCN0X12AO

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...urist-class-seating-300246835.html

As an aside, the seat cushion width for these new seats is 17.9 inches, equal to the A320. So this must be the seats Southwest are buying for the MAX, which have been said to be of that width.

[Edited 2016-04-07 08:57:24]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:17 pm

Ah, but the A320 comes with a lovely supply of hot air into the cabin to keep the passengers cozy.
Ever concious of environmental concerns, Airbus are recycling over 90% of it from John Leahy interviews.


Boeing are trying to counter this on the 737-9, however I suspect passengers will start complaining when it seems the heat is more from steam rising from a load of bulls__t captured and reused from Randy's presentations.


Bombardier meanwhile are standing outside in the cold wondering if someone will give them a wee cuddle to warm them up.

[and Embraer are on the beach chilling out.]
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
As an aside, the seat cushion width for these new seats is 17.9 inches, equal to the A320. So this must be the seats Southwest are buying for the MAX, which have been said to be of that width.

For something that is apparently not that important to passengers, it sure seems like chasing wider seats is the way to go.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:01 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 104):
For something that is apparently not that important to passengers, it sure seems like chasing wider seats is the way to go.

If nothing else it is one less point for Airbus Aficionados and Boeing Boosters to argue over in these forums.  
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:09 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 100):

But it won't be like that. The GTF already has a bypass ratio of between 9 and 13. A mid life update might push that to 15-18. The fan diameter on A320neo is 2.1m (up from 1.6m on A320ceo), if that BPR rises to say 16 and the existing core remains the same, the fan diameter only has to rise to 2.36m - nearly half of the jump from ceo to neo.

Yet still it will mean the end for many current designs, who can not fit those fans under the wing without extensive re-designs. Even the first GTF could have been the game changer for the Boeing 737 if thinks turn out badly for Beoing.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:02 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
Boeing has taken on a new supplier for 737 seats that will be offered for direct sale with the airplane

Not to be "that guy"   but isn't it a bit unfortunate that the all-new 737 seats are called "Tourist Class Seating"? Could they have been any less inspired in their naming of the product? lol

-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.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:08 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 102):
As an aside, the seat cushion width for these new seats is 17.9 inches

I wonder what the "give" is then? Smaller armrests? Unusable seat cushion space? Smaller aisle? Seats matching the contour of the walls? Just curious.

-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.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 104):
For something that is apparently not that important to passengers, it sure seems like chasing wider seats is the way to go.

Actually, this may be where Boeing adding those deep sculpted reveals in the Sky Interior may come in handy as it will allow the seat frames to move slightly outboard, permitting a bit more shoulder room and the use of the wider seat cushions.

We know the A320 has an interior width advantage of ~6". However that is measured at around hip level. With the different curvatures of the fuselage, the advantage at shoulder level (more important to me than butt level) is less. Sculpting out the panels with the really large reveals around the windows allows Boing to reduce that Airbus advantage.

I'm all for Boeing doing every little thing possible to make the MAX (and NG through retrofits) more comfortable, as it appears we will be flying them for some time. Whether Airbus continues to sell more NEOs than Boeing sells MAXes is secondary. MAXes will be around, and I will be flying on them allot (about 3/4 of my flying is on SouthWest).

(my wife always comments the seating on A320s is more comfortable than on 737s.. she has no idea what plane she's flying on)
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 105):
If nothing else it is one less point for Airbus Aficionados and Boeing Boosters to argue over in these forums.

I am not above silly point scoring though...one for Airbus and 18"!! 
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Not a sitting duck, but Boeing certainly had less options - both literally (no GTF) and figuratively.

I think Boeing's coziness with GE and giving GE project exclusivity lately on lots of airframes pretty much locked Pratt out of any chances of being a second engine option on the MAX...  

Pratt probably could have tried the old tricks, like a smaller than optimal fan. It works for the CFM-56   
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:59 am

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 111):
I think Boeing's coziness with GE and giving GE project exclusivity lately on lots of airframes pretty much locked Pratt out of any chances of being a second engine option on the MAX...    

Perhaps, but I just do not believe Pratt could get the GTF model used on the A320 mounted to the 737 without significant modification which effectively forced Boeing's hand to make the LEAP-X the only option.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:48 am

Reply 112
Yes I agree.Their was no alternative then any more than there is now.It should be remembered that at that time no one had successfully built a large scale geared fan engine.It was (then -even now perhaps) a huge gamble.Even Airbus was not going to bet the farm on it so ensured they had an alternative.
However looking at what Safran are doing in the clean sky programme it is clear (to me at least) that whilst the Cfm swan is swimming serenely across the pond underneath they are paddling like mad.Geared contra rotating fans and CR-OR,s are clearly being studied very hard indeed and I am sure GE are very much in the mix behind the scenes.Thing is that the final direction they take will have a major impact on which way Boeing go.Hence the present indecision IMHO .
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15570
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:52 am

The design and certification of a new airliner is very different to many other professions, and those outside the industry underestimate the depth of work required to have a new design certified. We will be stuck with the Boeing/Airbus duolopy for a very long time. It take more than an individual to design and certify an airliner, it takes a very large team.

There are other high paid professions such as law where you can pay enough money to get a law degree, get certified, and start their own law practice and take on whoever you want. There is no barrier to entry into the marketplace once the initial certification is obtained. Once in the marketplace, they are free to use any tricks or devices to gain business, we have all heard of ambulance chasers. This is very different in the large civil airliner world.

You cannot as a sole practitioner engineer design and build an airliner. Aircraft design requires a lot of very intelligent people working together in teams, with a lot of experience, with experienced project managers and design leaders. It requires knowledge on how to certify a product, and how to obtain a production certificate. It is not a rapid process, and trying to manage a program to meet publicity events to grab headlines (like the 787 rollout) often ends in disaster.

The most recent commercial airliner from Russia, the SSJ 100 took around 11 years to get certified domestically, and another year to get EASA certified. The ARJ21 airliner from China, which many call a MD-80 copy also took 12 years to get certified domestically at the end of 2014, and that was with Antonov doing the wing design. Now in 2016, after a brief few flights the commercial introduction it has been delayed indefinitely. Both of these projects, and you can add the MRJ and CSeries show that you don't get paid unless you can actually build and sell the aircraft. These new entrants are not providing much competition at all to the Airbus/Boeing duopoly.

While some people on here think they can sprout a few number, few percentage gains, or pontificate some aeronautical vernacular to add credibility to their posts to overgeneralize the easy of making performance gains. In reality the process of designing, certifying, and building an airliner and aircraft engines is orders of magnitude more difficult then many ever anticipate.

The barriers to entry into the large commercial airliner space are significant, and the most overlooked part of it is the certification and production process. Boeing and Airbus have significant advantage over anyone else given the recent history of developing new designs (777/A380/A400/A350) and various upgrades (777-300ER/A320Neo/737MAX).

I really dont see a way for the existing duopoly to being even closely matched by a new entrant. I also dont see a replacement for the 737MAX or the A320Neo until there is some meaningful powerplant improvements. Any improvements over the next decade I would see to be progressive insertion of technology rather than a whole new clean sheet design.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:37 am

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-slimmed...-aircraft-wing-fuel-emissions.html

Thought this was interesting.Whether anything comes of it is another matter.Of course power plants are critical but it appears there is much that can be achieved with the structure of the aircraft as well.Clearly the two are 'married' if the aircraft itself becomes far mor efficient then of course you need less power.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25012
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:58 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 80):
These seem like very different circumstances. The 7E7 was offering a new and broadly-attractive range/capacity package at an acceptable efficiency level only enabled by new tech.

To me the main circumstance that is different is that Boeing had absolutely no choice but develop a new cross section or leave the market, so they did develop the "eight and a half across" cross section we see flying on 787 today. The value of the rest of the tech seems to be highly debatable. It would be an interesting "what if" to retrospectively compare what would have happened if Boeing did a major reset after the Sonic Cruiser and shook off the moon shot mind set and set out to build a shrunken metal 777 or a shrunken 777 with plastic wings instead of the all electric all plastic all singing and dancing aircraft we did get, four years late and with 2x the budget. As mentioned here often enough we see that the engine is doing the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to efficiency improvements (especially considering how long it was that it had been since the 767 engines were designed) so much of the gain would get captured via a shrunken 777 with state of the art engines and a few aero tweaks (ala the A330neo) with or without plastic wings (ala the 777X). Note that various people have referred to the A350 as a plastic, shrunken A380 and it seems that formula has delivered a winner for Airbus.

With respect to this thread it's interesting how Leeham projects the right thing for Boeing to do is a clean sheet to retake the initiative in the market, whereas I can't see that happening any time soon given Boeing's short and near term fiscal challenges. It seems to me they need to have both 787 and 777X and MAX stabilized and producing positive cash before they can pour much cash into another narrowbody effort, which would put launch closer to 2025 than 2020. Maybe some day I'll pay for the privilege of peeking over the paywall.

Quoting zeke (Reply 114):
Both of these projects, and you can add the MRJ and CSeries show that you don't get paid unless you can actually build and sell the aircraft. These new entrants are not providing much competition at all to the Airbus/Boeing duopoly.

Indeed. In addition to your discussion of the technology side, the minute you do build the aircraft the duopoly players have so much market power they can and will do everything they can do to prevent you from establishing your product in the market. Boeing's Ray Conner recently pointed out that they should have done that to Airbus when they had the chance, because you don't get a second chance.
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
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:48 pm

Some interesting remarks made by the German FlugRevuew from off-hand talks they had with Boeing managers at the Singapore Airshow

- so far no customer from Asia has asked to cancel or delay their planes due to the economic trouble in the region
- Boeing expects that airlines from South East Asia will buy 3750 new airliners in the next 20 years
- Boeing sees a tendency that airlines tend to buy one size smaller, so that growth can be had by additional frequencies and new routes
- 70% of the planes ordered are single aisle
- MoM will EIS 2022 or later
- MoM will not be based on the 757
- customers are asking for an affordable widebody, offering extra capacity for the price of a large single aisle airliner
- MAX is doing just fine

Airbus is also confident:

- 40% of the orders placed in 2015 came from the South East Asia region
- Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Thai and Air China have bought the A350
- ANA and Iran Air the A380
- products are generally doing good in the region

I am most likely wrong, but Boeing´s comments make me believe that a 767MAX could be on the table again, because they said customers want a smaller widebody for the price of a single aisle plane and not that they want the economics of a single aisle plane. I do not see how a new design could achieve this low price.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:11 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 117):
I am most likely wrong, but Boeing´s comments make me believe that a 767MAX could be on the table again, because they said customers want a smaller widebody for the price of a single aisle plane and not that they want the economics of a single aisle plane.

Unless the operators are gate-space constrained, I don't see how a 767-300MAX is going to do any better against the A330-800 than the 767-300ER did against the A330-200.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:47 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 117):
- MoM will EIS 2022 or later
- MoM will not be based on the 757

Not really earth-shattering predictions though.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 117):
- MAX is doing just fine

My mother was recently in the hospital for several days and, to be honest, she was "doing just fine" too.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 117):
- ANA and Iran Air the A380

You take what you can get.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20956
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:44 am

As much as I want to chear the NEO, I'm just not seeing an end to the market for the -8 MAX. The 200 MAX in particular is in a sweet spot of the market.

The more I think about what the MAX and NEO are bringing to the market, the more I realize how long range narrowbodies will enable existing hubs and even a few new ones to grow rapidly thanks to the low cost per flight versus a widebody. While I'm most excited about the TATL citypairs, I personally believe India-China is the market to watch with the NEO and MAX. DEL-PVG is only 2,671 sm which means a 3,000nm range narrowbody (Both NEO and MAX in high density) can open up all of DEL to China. From China, CAN is even better positioned geographically as a hub (not to mention inland hubs...). Huge growth ahead in that market...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 116):
o me the main circumstance that is different is that Boeing had absolutely no choice but develop a new cross section or leave the market, so they did develop the "eight and a half across" cross section we see flying on 787 today.

   7 across Y just doesn't pay its way in today's environment.

The "767 MAX" would be squeezed between the A321LR, 787, A330NEO, and A350. I just cannot come up with a business scenario that makes its sub-optimal wing, cargo hold, or Y cabin sell today. Now when the plane will come out years after the A321LR (and -8 MAX) have started major shifts in the market.

I know you get it that the longer range of the narrowbodies is going to shift the market just as the A320 and 737NG did, just at further ranges. The fraction of the market that is widebodies will continue to drop (but I predict overall widebody production will increase due to growth in the overall market). This eliminates the market space for a sub-optimal widebody configuration where too much is being paid to fly that 2nd isle.

The reality is the NEO and MAX are going to expand the market opportunities for B6, NK, FR, U2, 6E, Air Asia, LionAir, WN, WizAir, AS, and all those other LCCs/ULCCs that are off my radar, but have a business plan to grow. This will allow the 'narrowbody only' airlines to dramatically extend their markets without the expense and risk of buying widebodies. This is a good thing as all fragmentation requires is surplus growth at hubs or focus cities that might grow into hubs. e.g., the 2nd runway at DUB.


Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:24 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 120):
The "767 MAX" would be squeezed between the A321LR, 787, A330NEO, and A350. I just cannot come up with a business scenario that makes its sub-optimal wing, cargo hold, or Y cabin sell today.

It would have to be pretty darn cheap, as it would need to steal sales from the A321neo, but would also be hitting the low end of the 787 market. Boeing wouldn't be able to recoup their investment, even on a limited warm-over, imho.

But I would LOVE IT if they did it. I think the 767-MAX 8 (for example) with all the latest cosmetic and customer facing innovations, combined with some basic aerodynamic improvements and of course some great new engines would be a force to be reckoned with for the right LCC. It just wouldn't be profitable to produce.

Of course, I didn't address the 7 abreast thing. I'm sure some sort of magic 8 abreast platform would need to be designed (something like the new Tourist Class Seating for the MAX), with 7 abreast being Premium Economy.

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

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:31 am

The simple truth is that the A321 NEO (LR when required) has,via a long series of incremental improvements created a new market that Boeing simply cannot enter with their present line up.I am sure Airbus would like them to 'move early' but that is not Boeings style.They have (as stated above) a fantastic line up with the MAX series in all sectors other than this one.They will simply have to concede it until they are ready to respond.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:47 am

Some 767 were flown in 8 abreast. Add some sculptured side walls and call it regional configuration and maybe it works.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:49 am

Re reply 123.
Are you sure?I believe 4X4 is illegal.Never heard of it.But stand to be corrected!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:55 am

Thomson:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Tho...on_Airways_Boeing_767-300ER_V4.php

2-4-2 and with 18" seats. Now move to 17.5" (like 9 abreast 787), work on the sidewalls a bit and you should have a workable 2-4-2 767 solution.

[Edited 2016-04-09 02:00:08]
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:02 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 116):


....
Indeed. In addition to your discussion of the technology side, the minute you do build the aircraft the duopoly players have so much market power they can and will do everything they can do to prevent you from establishing your product in the market. Boeing's Ray Conner recently pointed out that they should have done that to Airbus when they had the chance, because you don't get a second chance.

Reading that seems to me that Boeing is on amission to block Bombardier. Just with Airbus they missed it.

I beleive that it is good that to some extend the duopoly is broken. It can't be that from now on the World of Aircraftdesign and manufacturing is in the hands of 2 Major players.

So to some extend I can agree that Canada, Brazil, Japan, Russia and China give some goverment starting aid and protection to their local manufacturers. Other Nations, should have a chance to develop some technology themselves.

Question is under which global rules all this should work.
What Boeing did with UA to sell the 737 dammed cheap to buy out (or keep out) Bombardier is over the top for me. Not sure if it would fulfill criteria of dumping. Same would apply for Airbus in case they would do the same thing.

Flyglobal
 
User avatar
GlenP
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:33 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:30 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 125):
Thomson:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Tho...on_Airways_Boeing_767-300ER_V4.php

2-4-2 and with 18" seats. Now move to 17.5" (like 9 abreast 787), work on the sidewalls a bit and you should have a workable 2-4-2 767 solution.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 125):

I used to have to board the things, at MAN, when briefly working for a ground handling agent. & I genuinely couldn't imagine being crammed in that densely for a flight to Florida or the Dominican Republic (which were the 2 destinations Thomson flew their 767's to from at the time).

There again, they served the purpose the airline, the travel companies & the passengers wanted, i.e. getting lots of package holiday traffic from one place to another. Comfort is always going to be a secondary consideration in such circumstances.

(BTW. I never had any dealings with Monarch, as they used a different terminal & handling agent, but I wonder if they went for 9 abreast on their A300s & A330s?)
Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:08 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 125):

Thomson:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Tho...on_Airways_Boeing_767-300ER_V4.php

2-4-2 and with 18" seats. Now move to 17.5" (like 9 abreast 787), work on the sidewalls a bit and you should have a workable 2-4-2 767 solution.

Seatguru is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, the Thomson 2x4x2 configuration had 17.2" seats.

Slightly ironic that now, 20 years later, scheduled airlines have enhanced the Y experience to such an extent that their Dreamliners now have almost similar seat widths.
Flying around India
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9867
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 2:26 pm

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 128):
Seatguru is incorrect.

If I remember correctly, the Thomson 2x4x2 configuration had 17.2" seats.

Slightly ironic that now, 20 years later, scheduled airlines have enhanced the Y experience to such an extent that their Dreamliners now have almost similar seat widths.

I thougth sdo too, but I never flew that configuration. But 17.2" sounds acceptable for a regional configuration today.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 3:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Unless the operators are gate-space constrained, I don't see how a 767-300MAX is going to do any better against the A330-800 than the 767-300ER did against the A330-200.

Except the 767-MAX most talked about in the NB field is based on the 767-200 which will place it above the A321 in comfort with greater range and payload, and below the 767-300 / A330-XXX any version and the 787.
It will certainly be less competitive as a pure A321 competitive but it would be able to handle routes at the top of the A321 with no restrictions and even include additional routes.

I am willing to bet that if the MOM is a new design it will very close to the 767-200, weight will most likely be the biggest difference.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:01 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 124):
Are you sure?I believe 4X4 is illegal.Never heard of it.But stand to be corrected!

In 1968 Channel Airways introduced the Trident 1E into the charter market with 7 abreast seats in the fwd cabin. Four on the left and three on the right
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1967/1967%20-%201998.html



Trident 1E-140 is the designation of Channel's version. It
differs from the standard Trident IE—as operated by PIA,
Kuwait and Iraqi—in that seating is increased from 115 to no
fewer than 139. This remarkable increase in passenger capacity,
which cuts seat-mile costs by about 20 per cent, is achieved
by the installation of a new-type seat (by Flying Service
Engineering and Equipment, Chesham) at
31
in pitch.
This was the subject of some comment at the news con-
ference. Mr Cecil White, executive director (civil sales and
service production), Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Hatfield,
claimed that seating at this pitch gave ample leg room and
was,
to his personal satisfaction, as comfortable as 34in pitch.
The key to this union -between close pitch and comfort is
claimed to be the removal of the bar at the back of the seat.

The IE-140's combination of high capacity and long range should put
Channel well into the lead in the European charter market; above,
seating in the forward part of the cabin is four and three
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:40 pm

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

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:32 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 116):
It seems to me they need to have both 787 and 777X and MAX stabilized and producing positive cash before they can pour much cash into another narrowbody effort, which would put launch closer to 2025 than 2020. Maybe some day I'll pay for the privilege of peeking over the paywall.

I don't see it that way. The 737, 777 and 787 are all cash positive right now. I think they will try to keep their R&D roughly consistent. So as 777X costs reduce is when MOM costs will increase. As you know initial design phase is not the most expensive part of production so I would expect them to launch it before the 77X has reached its apex in expense. The MAX is really an inexpensive product; that will be cash positive before the MoM enters the picture.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 132):
If I remember correctly, the Thomson 2x4x2 configuration had 17.2" seats.

Which cabin is that?

tortugamon
 
StTim
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:41 pm

737 cash positive - yes, but less than previous years as investment in MAX and selling final NG frames at a steeper discount than they would like.

787 cash positive - frames probably - progamme no as they are still working the -10

777 cash positive - reducing as the 777X investment ramps up.

It isn't the doom and gloom some above might believe - but then it isn't all sweetness and light either.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:04 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 133):
Which cabin is that?

B762 and B763.

If the question is regarding the photo, it is the 4x3 config mentioned which featured on the Trident.

Rgds

[Edited 2016-04-09 14:06:13]
Flying around India
 
14ccKemiskt
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:46 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:14 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 134):

787 cash positive - frames probably - progamme no as they are still working the -10

30+ Billion USD deferred costs in the programme. Whatever plus they can find on the frames now delivered, it will be sunk into that giant hole.
 
StTim
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:39 pm

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 136):
30+ Billion USD deferred costs in the programme. Whatever plus they can find on the frames now delivered, it will be sunk into that giant hole.

I do not think that many argue that the 787 was a well executed project.


The arguement here is that whatever happened in the past - is exactly that - in the past. So are the current programme contributing cash or consuming cash.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1919
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:37 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 137):
The arguement here is that whatever happened in the past - is exactly that - in the past. So are the current programme contributing cash or consuming cash.

If they were doing unit accounting instead of program accounting I would agree. The A380 being cash positive brings in cash to the books of Airbus. The 787 being cash positive is a long way away from bringing in cash to the books due to the deferred costs, so you have to look at the past if you have cost from the past that still need to be paid.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 125):
2-4-2 and with 18" seats. Now move to 17.5" (like 9 abreast 787), work on the sidewalls a bit and you should have a workable 2-4-2 767 solution.

Seatguru is wrong here, there is no way that the 767 will have 18" seats at 8-abreast, more like 16.5". You would have to sculpt a lot to get to 17.5" as you would have to find 8 inches of width.

Wasn't another problem with the 767 that it would only fit two LD2's in the cargo hold and not two LD3's as the A330? Seems like the LD3's have become the standard for all of the remaining passenger produced aircraft out there right now.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27367
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:25 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 130):
Except the 767-MAX most talked about in the NB field is based on the 767-200 which will place it above the A321 in comfort with greater range and payload, and below the 767-300 / A330-XXX any version and the 787.

The 767-200 could not compete on TOC with the 757-200, much less the A321-200. So even if a 767-2MAX is 15% more efficient than a 767-200, it's going to be at least that much less efficient than an A321-200neo. As such, I don't see it securing any orders.



Quoting par13del (Reply 130):
I am willing to bet that if the MOM is a new design it will very close to the 767-200, weight will most likely be the biggest difference.

The above being said, I am in general agreement with you here. While it will likely be similar in length, iit will be wider (to support 2+4+2 at ~18 inches), much lighter in terms off empty weight and with a much better span than the 767-200 family (folding wingtips).
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1748
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 138):
If they were doing unit accounting instead of program accounting I would agree. The A380 being cash positive brings in cash to the books of Airbus.

Not necessarily.
Part of Boeings program accounting is that they add the deferred cost per unit back in as a Cost Of Sales. If the selling price covers the build price the deferred Cost of Sale component, then they will be bringing in cash on the books.

But, the whole debate of A.net about program verses unit, contract or program accounting is imo ridiculous , because these deferred costs for both Airbus and Boeing have already been largely met.
These costs are somewhere in the books of Airbus even if they don't call them Deferred production costs.
While it is true that Airbus only have about 3 billion in loans (Euro medium term Notes), they do also have out 6.3 billion in Commercial Paper, 5.5 billion in EGRA (European Govt Repayable Advances), 5.5 billion in Derivative liabilities, 4 billion in other borrowing liabilities, this adds up to about 24 billion in what most people would call borrowings.
In addition they have received 34.5 billion in advance customer payments, and I don't know what the figure is, and while it is not a borrowing, but they would have over 100 billion in advance contact liabilities, attributable to contracts with suppliers to supply components for future builds.

I would expect Boeing would have similar large amounts out.

The point is the fact that Boeing has l large deferred production cost for the 787, and the 320 series is out selling the 737 series, does not mean they will have trouble competing as a result, because just like Airbus, the costs have already been met, by some means, eg out of profits, by borrowings, issuing Commercial Paper in some form, using pre payments to cover costs now and hope demand holds up to cover the actual build in the future, and my favourite converting development costs into intangible assets, so the cost becomes an asset, etc.

These things don't overly concern me, both Airbus and Boeing manage them.

Ruscoe
 
tealnz
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:21 am

If the market is looking 2+4+2 (makes sense to me - heaps of passenger appeal, adds more capacity for the extra aisle than 2+3+2) would Airbus look at a new A310? The original A310 wing had the reputation of being efficient. But to compete with a new MoM Airbus would presumably need to look at a new wing, wing box, undercarriage as well as engines. Would the A300/310/330 fuselage section itself be too heavy to be competitive?
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:04 am

Quoting tealnz (Reply 141):
If the market is looking 2+4+2 (makes sense to me - heaps of passenger appeal, adds more capacity for the extra aisle than 2+3+2) would Airbus look at a new A310? The original A310 wing had the reputation of being efficient. But to compete with a new MoM Airbus would presumably need to look at a new wing, wing box, undercarriage as well as engines. Would the A300/310/330 fuselage section itself be too heavy to be competitive?

The A310-200 has an OEW of 80,142KG and the 767-200 an OEW 80,130KG.
The A310 does a comfortable 2-4-2 or an uncomfortable 3-3-3 and uses standard LD3 container.
The 767-200 does a comfortable 2-3-2 or an uncomfortable 2-4-2 and uses LD2 containers.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:15 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 140):

Yes, Boeing did spend on development and early production cost in a similar way as Airbus, but program for cost accounting aloud Boeing to spend the money on early production cost, defer it, increase earnings and spend it AGAIN on share buy backs and dividends. This spending the money, cash or how you want to call, twice instead of only once is the difference to how Airbus accounts, or spends its money.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4534
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Again I wonder, Boeing has built two carbon fiber wings, one in house and an update for the 777. There seems to be general agreement that the real advantage of carbon is for wings. A 737 for all its ancient history is still just a six passenger wide tube, wings with engines hanging from them. Doing carbon wings and box likely would involve new MLG anyway. Could that allow a longer plane? , and Boeing knows about how much it would cost. Any reason that it would not be receiving major consideration?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
WIederling
Posts: 9622
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:06 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 137):
The arguement here is that whatever happened in the past - is exactly that - in the past. So are the current programme contributing cash or consuming cash.

That does not work with program accounting. The past has amassed a vast amount of deferred cost. That is a lot of negative energy   ( If this was about Airbus you would be right. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
StTim
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:16 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 145):
That does not work with program accounting. The past has amassed a vast amount of deferred cost.

Yes it has amassed a vast amount of costs that have not yet been passed to the bottom line. This will need to be corrected at some point in one of two ways. Either the 787 programme generates enough real profit to reel back those costs or they take a forward loss on the programme.

In cash terms however the cash has already been spent. So in fact Boeing has done a neat trick. It has spent an outrageous amount of cash building 300+ 787's a lot of what has been deferred. So cash out of the business.

Because of the deferral it has managed to declare large profits. This results in dividends being paid - more cash out of the business.

It has also had a share purchase scheme - more cash going out of the business.

It has encouraged customers to advance deposits on future planes. To encourage them to do this surely they must have been something given back to the airlines. Thus future cash coming into the company has been reduced.


Now that is all history and what actually matters from here is how are the current programmes doing in generating cash. If they are cash positive then Boeing can start digging themsleves out of the hole they have been so busy digging themselves into. If they are not then they really are in difficulty.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20956
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:42 pm

Just one added (late) comment:
All of this poor MAX sales is really at the top size. Boeing knows this as does airbus.

We have 4,500+ orders for the NEO vs. 2,800+ (some sources have 3090) for the MAX.
While officially the A321 only accounts for 600+ of the difference, I believe the sum is actually greater with airlines have 'options' to convert the the A321NEO driving their decision. But that is just my opinion... e.g., Indigo having A321NEO options.


From the -9MAX thread:
It takes 300+ orders of a sub-type to fully estabilish a resale market. That was done with the 737-900ER and the -9MAX. So while the A321NEO dominates going forward sales, for the price of the development, there is a ROI for the -9.

So the "One Derivative too many" is incorrect. The business case paid off. An ideal airframe? But we armchair CEOs need to keep things in perspective on the fact that the type is still a success. Further sales will happen.

Quoting xdlx (Thread starter):
Their reluctance to admit the 757 jig destruction story is lame at best.

Drop the 757 bit. The plane has incredibly high maintenance costs for a narrowbody due to the widebody features. While the performance was great, to be competitive, the plane needs a new wing, new subsystems (cabin pressurization maintenance, hydraulic maintenance), and new engines. Since it won't cost much more for a new fusalage, it is best to let the type fade into the sunsut.

There are already more A321NEO orders than *total* 757 orders. I fully expect the A321 to be 50% to 60% of the total NEO deliveries (long term). Look at how A321CEO sales spiked with the winglets as the mission performance improved to attract more sales. The same will be true of the A321NEO. To compete, Boeing needs a new airframe.

I would argue the 757 also needed new landing gear (just not optimal packaging for weight/cost), but I'm really starting to digress.... That said, if Boeing aims to save cost, I wouldn't be that shocked if the MoM 'borrows' the 757 gear to save development cost (as Boeing must now pay outside companies to develop landing gear as those engineers were laid off or jumped ship a long time ago).

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 6):
Uh huh....737-9's 418 orders vs. the A321neo's 1094 orders. A real hit with the airlines! *rolling eyes emoji*

Not a hit, but 'good enough' for the business case. The MAX is a far lower cost and earlier time to market than a new airframe (or a new wing/gear). With the 748, 787 (including 787-10), 777X, and MAX, the funds going out for new development was too high for too long. Boeing had to push out a new plane.

I 'waffle' on the MoM, I admit. But from a business standpoint, I approve of the strategy Boeing pursued (issues selling 737NGs prove the market wasn't going to wait for a new type). The C-series and NEO forced Boeing's hand (ironically forced by the MRJ launch, but I digress...). So if Boeing wants that market, they must develop a new type.

The reality is the A321NEO wing loading is far too high to be optimal for the missions it pursues. The plane takes too long to turn for the mission lengths that wing is optimized for. So a new entrant with more optimal wing loading will 'take the market.' This brings up will the new entrant have folding wingtips to fit into -8 gates? I think so... but again I digress.

But that doesn't mean Airbus couldn't salvage the A321 with a new wing (and probably gear/engines) at a later date. Competing in commercial aircraft is a 'death march.' It is a race that never ends... Just a debate about the ROI.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 13):
only the B736 or the A318 are real sales flops in the B vs A battle.

We can add the -7MAX and A319NEO to that list. The fact the Pratt powered A319NEO is being mothballed (not worth the cost of flight testing) isn't a surprise to me. The shortfield kit for the A320NEO (not family, that size) removes the need for the high weight (for the size) shorties. Now all there needs to be is a 'thrust bump' for the A320NEO to maximize the short field performance (say like the C-series where thrust 'kicks in' over 100kts to ensure rudder action. I see the A320NEO going to 30k of thrust).

Lightsaber

[Edited 2016-04-10 10:47:43]
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 592
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:50 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 147):
Just one added (late) comment:
All of this poor MAX sales is really at the top size. Boeing knows this as does airbus.

Etc.

A fine and easy to understand write-up. Thanks, Lightsaber.

Re the subject of wing-loading, and then folding wingtips. Is there not a way to engineer a bit more lift into a wing that is the same length as the present one? Or, are things at maximum now, based on the state of the art?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 147):
The plane takes too long to turn for the mission lengths that wing is optimized for.

I'm not sure what you mean here, LS. Do you mean the amount of time (and space) needed for the aircraft to change direction? Or, do you mean to "turn" it at the terminal (unload, cater, clean, load)? As for the latter, I can't see where the wing size has much to do with it, and for the former, would this not be more a function of rudder and aeleron authority?

Thank you.
Never employ grandios verbiage when the utilisation of diminutive phraseology will suffice.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 20956
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 139):
The 767-200 could not compete on TOC with the 757-200, much less the A321-200. So even if a 767-2MAX is 15% more efficient than a 767-200, it's going to be at least that much less efficient than an A321-200neo. As such, I don't see it securing any orders.
Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 148):
Re the subject of wing-loading, and then folding wingtips. Is there not a way to engineer a bit more lift into a wing that is the same length as the present one? Or, are things at maximum now, based on the state of the art?

Longer wingspans reduce fuel burn more (lower L/D ratio). Due to new materials, the optimal wing span is growing. However, real estate at airports has become *far* more expensive, so the easy 'trick' to minimize costs is folding wingtips. I'm of the opinion the current single level airport design will morph into a 2-level design (e.g., DXB) where passengers load from two levels (typically, I expect premium passengers from the higher deck). In fact, due to rising real estate values, I wouldn't be surprised if 5 or 6 level concourses become the norm. (Ground level for baggage, probably a level below for baggage conveyors and crew rooms/offices, 1st floor above for Y, 2nd floor above for premium/shops, 3rd floor above for restaurants/shops/lounges with the 6th floor (4 above ground) for premium restaurants/lounges and possibly even swimming pools for 1st class/premium business class.

It is about fuel burn, a larger aspect ratio (greater wingspan) will always burn less fuel. Thanks to new materials, the optimum wingspan has growth 15% to 20% from when the A320 was engineered. But getting between gates... will require folding wingtips. While the 777X will be the first with folding wingtips, I expect the larger narrowbodies and all future widebodies to have them. Imagine how the A380 would have sold with 6% to 8% less fuel burn. That is what folding wingtips would have done for it. (Albeit, requiring runway to runway/taxiway spacing for a 92m or so wingspan.)

Quoting WesternDC6B (Reply 148):
Or, do you mean to "turn" it at the terminal (unload, cater, clean, load)? As for the latter, I can't see where the wing size has much to do with it, and for the former, would this not be more a function of rudder and aeleron authority?

You are correct in that wing size has nothing to do with turn at the terminal times. However, what wing loading has is the optimal mission length. For the A321, for the current wing, it is a sub-2 hour optimal mission. While it can perform longer missions, a 'purpose built design' at range will have 6% to 8% lower fuel burn. A purpose built wing for longer missions would also have more fuel capacity and thus a longer range too. So the MoM has a 'clear market' it could win orders. What the A321 has is a mis-match between the turn times at the terminal and its competitive mission lengths against a hypothesized new entrant.

Now, the A321NEO easily has the lowest CASM of the near term aircraft. But I'm an engineer, we look at the world how it could be improved. Or as an aerospace engineer, 'future market opportunities.' Mate it with the more efficient 3.5:1 ratio GTF, and we would see quite the 5,000nm to 5,500nm airframe that would have dominate economics on the 2+ hour missions.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.

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