travelhound
Posts: 1888
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:51 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 49):
Imho it obvious that there is no option to move before the early 2020ies for Airbus or Boeing when it comes to an new single aisle design and the EIS will be close to 2030.

Boeing were originally quoting a new narrow body would be 20% more efficient than today's offerings. I'd suggest this would be a result of the opportunity associated with higher integration and optimization with a clean sheet design.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:14 am

20% more efficient than the NG and the CEO. If they could have built a plane 20% better than the NEO, it would have been 40% better than the NG and the CEO. Well if they could really do this, they would be stupid not doing this as it would be a game changer and dominate the market.

But afaik they compared it to the NG/CEO generation and LH says their first NEOs are 20% more efficient than the old CEOs. (which is also because of the extra seats, but that is usually no different for a new design)

[Edited 2016-04-05 23:17:35]
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:27 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 42):
Nonetheless, on a per-pax basis, I could see a plane optimized around new engines and larger capacity being lighter per seat than the A321neo, as well as having better L/D. This is because the wing and span-loading *per pax* will be lower if optimized for lower mission fuel burn and thus lower operating weights. A NEO2 could have the same engine but won't be optimized for the mission weights. Plus I've read that a clean sheet would have smaller empennage due to relaxed stability enabled by FBW.

The A321NEO's basic design is originally optimized around the A320 which means a smaller plan with a much higher fuel burn. While it might be easier to beat the 320 on optimization as efficiency has improved significantly over the years, the 321 somehow have "used" the higher level of efficiency to get more capacity. So I'd guess as of today there is not so much to gain in optimizing on the 321. 2 to 3% at the most - and perhaps not even that much with today's technology.

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 42):
Right. That's my point, though. If the only obstacle is development cost, while the technological path is clear, at some point Russia/China/Brazil could probably implement the tech, maybe minus 2-3% fuel efficiency, and steal the market. Their developments costs appear to be lower and, for China and Russia at least, government subsidy is more available.

There is another thing that we need to take into account, namely that China and Russia in 2030 will be very different from the China and Russia we see today. They will pretty much be where Japan is today compared to the Japan of the 70'ties and 80'ties: old populations with very few young people. These two countries have some of the lowest birthrates in the world of today.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:21 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
Boeing has more employees per airplane built. They'll have to correct that. I'm skeptical of the LEAP-1B low turbine efficiency, but far from writing off the type.

Boeing has the (perceived) advantage of "hire and fire".
Thus the cheap thing to do is a production environment that is low on investment and fixed cost.
( you can't fire expensive tooling and production infrastructure).
downside is that your workforce has stronger facets of being an adversary than a cooperating partner.

Airbus ( fortunately ) is forced to have closer employee ties with a more sociable environment.
( for Germany "Mitbestimmung" is a strong "formatter" in this.)

The workforce has more interest in working with management "We are Airbus".
( Add that at least in Germany workforce qualification is formalized and happens in a state controlled environment.
much less lookee, learnee than in the US.)

For manufacturing this relation makes investing in production infrastructure and tooling much more
attractive. Reasonably happy and well educated workers aided by well designed manufacturing aids
will be much more productive than a rag tag of qualified on the job individuals that spend more thought
on how to not be fired in the next cycle than on the work at hand.

Like US politics just could not emulate EU softpwer ( but they tried to fake it )
Boeing will be unable to emulate Airbus production environment. It is incompatible.
Not enough voluntary cooperation and too much internal competition.
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:31 am

Quoting WIederling (Reply 53):
Reasonably happy and well educated workers aided by well designed manufacturing aids
will be much more productive than a rag tag of qualified on the job individuals that spend more thought
on how to not be fired in the next cycle than on the work at hand.

What an interesting perspective. I think most of us in the Seattle area know numerous Boeing employees. I can honestly say I've never met one that seems even remotely concerned about their job or value in the organization. Most seem to enjoy and appreciate what they do and contribute positively to our communities.

I will say though that you seem to have a unique way of finding all the faults on this side of the Atlantic.

-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.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:08 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 54):
What an interesting perspective. I think most of us in the Seattle area know numerous Boeing employees. I can honestly say I've never met one that seems even remotely concerned about their job or value in the organization. Most seem to enjoy and appreciate what they do and contribute positively to our communities

I don't know where you are spending your time but I guarantee you that there thousands of Boeing workers that are wondering if there jobs will be around next month, much less next year.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1888
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:51 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 51):
20% more efficient than the NG and the CEO. If they could have built a plane 20% better than the NEO,

Sorry, I should have qualified my statement by referencing the NG and CEo as the current generation aircraft.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:20 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 54):
I will say though that you seem to have a unique way of finding all the faults on this side of the Atlantic.

Happy to Help.
Obviously I had it packed in some tacky words. But you are used to that, aren't you?   *

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 55):

Workforce relations talk at Boeing usually tends to come in a war setting language.
Slight change of tone recently from Muilenberger resulted in widely positive commentary.

With 8k workers now destined to go this now has changed color and looks more than ever like a feint well placed.

* For a long time I though overstatement from US posters to be a rhetoric instrument and a culture thing just
like euro's tend to have a thing for going into "singing cumbaja"  
But that doesn't seem to be the case it is seen as statement of fact. The black/white filter seems to be applied in the
observational step already.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21747
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:26 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 49):
Imho it obvious that there is no option to move before the early 2020ies for Airbus or Boeing when it comes to an new single aisle design and the EIS will be close to 2030. Only then they will have the engines and the production technology to make a new single aisle work. (and that means producing it at acceptable costs and in needed numbers - which means mature production technologies)

Reminds me of a few statements John Leahy made leading up to the launch of the NEO which has been over five years ago already. I think he used 2025 as the notional date for launch of a single aisle replacement program.
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
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:51 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Reminds me of a few statements John Leahy made leading up to the launch of the NEO which has been over five years ago already. I think he used 2025 as the notional date for launch of a single aisle replacement program.

He felt mid-next-decade would be when materials and propulsion systems technology advanced sufficiently to warrant moving to a new family (just as it did mid-last-decade for the 787 and A350).
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:22 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 59):
He felt mid-next-decade would be when materials and propulsion systems technology advanced sufficiently to warrant moving to a new family (just as it did mid-last-decade for the 787 and A350).

He did - there was loads of things where we would have seen demonstrators to reach TRL6 in time for application on projects beginning towards the end of the decade, to EIS in the middle of the next. In Europe they we're principally under the clean sky project (and are still under Clean Skies 2). After the NEO was launched the timescales were pushed back to support a 2030 EIS, for example:

Quote:
Airbus has regularly pushed back the development of a next-generation, single-aisle aircraft and predicts a clean-sheet successor will not arrive before 2030, blaming the unavailability of new powerplants for the later arrival. “We have now a bit more time which is very good for us, because there are still a lot of challenges in the development of the technology. In the end, we are happy that the timeframe is not as close as it was before,” Koenig says.
http://www.cleansky.eu/sites/default...files/documents/flight-laminar.pdf
This 2011 Flight Global (i.e. Post NEO launch) article is referring to Airbuses work on laminar flow wings - the flying testbed is now scheduled for 2017 (up from 2014).
http://aviationweek.com/greene-tweed...ied-airbus-laminar-flow-experiment
Both articles well worth a read as is the clean skies website. I was reading on there a few weeks ago (typically can't find it now) that the geared contra-rotating open rotor looks the most promising engine architecture for the narrowbody replacements - if that's the case, and the NLF wing work resolves the manufacturing/contamination issues, the next generation could look quite different from this.

As an aside, I think these dates are important, both as to why Leahy could be confident Boeing wouldn't respond to the A320 NEO with a clean sheet design, and why they won't initiate one now.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 3:32 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 60):
As an aside, I think these dates are important, both as to why Leahy could be confident Boeing wouldn't respond to the A320 NEO with a clean sheet design, and why they won't initiate one now.

Looks like from what one can read on concurrent a.net threads today, Boeing cant afford anything much at the moment, certainly not another moonshot. The last "moonshot" was an own goal shot!
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:00 pm

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 61):
Looks like from what one can read on concurrent a.net threads today, Boeing cant afford anything much at the moment, certainly not another moonshot. The last "moonshot" was an own goal shot!

They're going to have to get back on that bike sooner or later! In all honesty I'd be concerned that both Air-framers have considerable gaps between greenfield projects - 15 and 20 years respectively - and follow that with a development in their most important segment. If you want a four model lineup you'd expect to average 8 years or so between them. They must figure that projects like the 777X are adequate.
Down with that sort of thing!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:07 pm

Quoting sassiciai (Reply 61):
Looks like from what one can read on concurrent a.net threads today, Boeing cant afford anything much at the moment, certainly not another moonshot.

I believe it is more market timing and a lack of will that is delaying new major projects rather than a lack of funds.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:26 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 62):
They're going to have to get back on that bike sooner or later! In all honesty I'd be concerned that both Air-framers have considerable gaps between greenfield projects - 15 and 20 years respectively - and follow that with a development in their most important segment. If you want a four model lineup you'd expect to average 8 years or so between them. They must figure that projects like the 777X are adequate.

A new plane every 8 years would mean constantly having the financial costs of new design in your budget. And to be honest who says that up-dates are not the better way to go, as they do much better balance risk and potential gain.

Imho it might be possible that even the next single aisle jets will be up-dates of the A320 and the 737, because if one is honest it might be a good idea to start using cold cured CFRP, 3D printing and other new technologies on a limited scale. In the end even Boeing (I say even because the 737 has less growth potential remaining) could probably do a new wing box using cold cured CFRPs and a new MLG together with a new CFRP wing and new engines and still be competitive.

Airbus could probably achieve the same with with a new wing and the new engine alone, maybe change some of the fuselage to A350-stlye CFRP construction using cold cured CFRP.

In the end and for the customer the money spent to get the last few percent on efficiency are often not worth the increased price caused by the need to use new and not mature technologies.
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
A new plane every 8 years would mean constantly having the financial costs of new design in your budget. And to be honest who says that up-dates are not the better way to go, as they do much better balance risk and potential gain.

I'm simply saying that if an average design lasts 32 years and you have 4 products (excluding sub types) in your lineup (as both will *if* Boeing does the MOM) then that's a clean sheet every 8 years - excluding product refreshes. Now the figure 32 was pulled from the deepest recesses of my ample backside - I actually have no idea. You have the 737 on one hand, in production practically forever, but then you have the 757 at 21 years. And in reality the lines between clean-sheet and derivative are blurred at the best of times. But either way, 15-20 years gap is a long one and would have me concerned regarding the corporate memory / skillbase.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
In the end and for the customer the money spent to get the last few percent on efficiency are often not worth the increased price caused by the need to use new and not mature technologies.
If they deliver, the kind of technologies being currently developed are far from the last few percent, and require major architectural changes that couldn't be obtained from a derivative of the current narrowbodies..
Down with that sort of thing!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2425
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:56 pm

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 60):
I was reading on there a few weeks ago (typically can't find it now) that the geared contra-rotating open rotor looks the most promising engine architecture for the narrowbody replacements - if that's the case, and the NLF wing work resolves the manufacturing/contamination issues, the next generation could look quite different from this.

For what its worth, when I was last working on Airbus R&T a few years back, A30X momentum had reversed away from the open rotor and back to nacelle housed turbofans.

May have changed again since of course, but I'd be somewhat surprised. It wasn't that long ago and it seems acoustics is a noisy elephant in the room.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:59 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
A new plane every 8 years would mean constantly having the financial costs of new design in your budget. And to be honest who says that up-dates are not the better way to go, as they do much better balance risk and potential gain.

Kinda hard to do with the culture of big bonuses and keeping Wall Street happy
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:07 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
A new plane every 8 years would mean constantly having the financial costs of new design in your budget.
Quoting scotron11 (Reply 67):
Kinda hard to do with the culture of big bonuses and keeping Wall Street happy.

Kind of hard to do even without that, frankly. Even when they go relatively smoothly, they're ten-figure expenditures and you need some time to digest that and start earning a return on the investment.

Even if Boeing had not monumentally c**ked-up the 787, we might have seen NSA launched by decade's end to compete with the A320neo, but I still think MAX might very well have happened, anyway, due to market demands at the time. And NLA was definitely not going to happen considering how well the 777 was doing (even more so if fuel had stayed cheap during 2006-2011).

[Edited 2016-04-06 13:07:57]
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:20 pm

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 42):
.IMO the U.S. should just cancel the new bomber and fund the NSA, MoM, and Y3.

By U.S. you mean good old tax payers?
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:47 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
Even when they go relatively smoothly, they're ten-figure expenditures and you need some time to digest that and start earning a return on the investment.

Exactly so, and that's where their use of program accounting comes in.......artificially inflating their profits in the short term. You just need look at McNerney and the money he pulled....and is still pulling. Does he care? Everyone has high hopes for Muilenberg coz he's from an "engineering" background......but ...remains to be seen if he really makes a difference
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
Even if Boeing had not monumentally c**ked-up the 787, we might have seen NSA launched by decade's end to compete with the A320neo, but I still think MAX might very well have happened, anyway, due to market demands at the time. And NLA was definitely not going to happen considering how well the 777 was doing (even more so if fuel had stayed cheap during 2006-2011).

I wonder how Boeing completely failed to anticipate the NEO effect on the market. First they said Airbus was jus catching up, and talked vaguely about 737 replacement sometime in the future, and then finally the MAX was launched, which is now according to LNC inadequate answer.

I think if Boeing had laid out firm roadmap towards 737 replacement, at the time of NEO launch loyal customers would have waited for the new aircraft.

If the reason for trying to get away with doing nothing to the 737 was the 787 debacle, they should have realised that after 10 years of sales with razor thin margins, they would be in no better position to take the plunge towards NSA
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:26 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 71):
I think if Boeing had laid out firm roadmap towards 737 replacement, at the time of NEO launch loyal customers would have waited for the new aircraft.

Loyalty has its limits.

NSA frames would not have been readily available before ~2020..25.
( Boeing admitted that they did not have the tech available to build
their envisioned NSA in an acceptable timeframe.)

Why wait for a plane that is deliverd in the far future with 5..10%
improvements over a readily available model 3..5 years ahead.
( and that has time to improve in the EIS to EIS interlude.)

i.e. most everybody would have bought A320NEO.
NG would have fallen by the wayside ( funding for NSA : poof! )

That would have been a repeat of the soundly killed A330
but without the drug like sales rush that filled the 787's order book.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:01 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 71):
I wonder how Boeing completely failed to anticipate the NEO effect on the market.

Airbus and Boeing both failed to anticipate that Jet-A would quadruple in price in a handful of years. When it did, Airbus was better-positioned to move sooner because of the A320's taller platform and Pratt's desperation to get a GTF on a mass-produced narrowbody.



Quoting packsonflight (Reply 71):
I think if Boeing had laid out firm roadmap towards 737 replacement, at the time of NEO launch loyal customers would have waited for the new aircraft.

I believe Boeing had a firm idea of what NSA would entail based on the Yellowstone program (which gave us NMA - the 787). And they might have been ready to move within a handful of years of a successful 787 EIS. But I don't believe Boeing had the engineering resources to move on NSA as they were all tied up salvaging the 787.



Quoting packsonflight (Reply 71):
If the reason for trying to get away with doing nothing to the 737 was the 787 debacle, they should have realized that after 10 years of sales with razor thin margins, they would be in no better position to take the plunge towards NSA

Boeing might have considered that at the time based on how they waffled on the 737 MAX, but once they started losing even their most loyal customers to the A320neo, they ran the risk of not having any customers to sell their expensive new NSA to when it was ready - especially if the market dipped again (being cyclical in nature).
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:19 pm

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 69):
By U.S. you mean good old tax payers?

Of course. Unless President Trump is going to make Mexico pay for everything and "take the oil" from ISIS.

It was a somewhat humorous suggestion, but IMO deserves serious policy consideration.
Air travel should, IMO, be viewed at least partially as public infrastructure like highways, rail, ports, electric grids, sewage systems, etc.
If we left these things to the private sector, the scale of risk would be so great that sub-optimal investment would occur even were private firms able to overcome the collective action and bargaining problems inherent in, e.g., building a highway.
Arguably we have too little total investment in aircraft development right now:
-Boeing projects $5,570bn worth of airplane deliveries through 2034.
-Airliner acquisition costs are ~25% of the airline industry, so we're talking over $20 trillion in economic activity through 2034.
-Reducing airline unit costs by 5% would save $1,000bn dollars and would stimulate additional travel and economic activity

Therefore:
-The scale of airliner efficiency's global benefits far outweighs even $50bn in a generation's development costs.

The problem, however, is that (1) capturing more than a sliver of these benefits is difficult for the OEM, and (2) individual private investments in airliner development are tremendously risky and hard to diversify, despite the long-run returns across society being great.

A truly long-term, economy-changing product might be best financed by the most risk-hungry investor with the longest time horizon: the public fisc. Even if that investor makes less efficient decisions than private investors (the government surely does), the increase in overall level of investment may be socially optimal and economically efficient.
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:44 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 72):
Why wait for a plane that is deliverd in the far future with 5..10%
improvements over a readily available model 3..5 years ahead.
( and that has time to improve in the EIS to EIS interlude.)
Quoting Stitch (Reply 73):
Boeing might have considered that at the time based on how they waffled on the 737 MAX, but once they started losing even their most loyal customers to the A320neo, they ran the risk of not having any customers to sell their expensive new NSA to when it was ready - especially if the market dipped again (being cyclical in nature).

Does that mean that Boeing was just a sitting duck with no viable strategy (in the narrow body category) once the NEO was launched?

Looks like the NEO really screwed Boeing and Bombardier over.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:17 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 75):
Does that mean that Boeing was just a sitting duck with no viable strategy (in the narrow body category) once the NEO was launched?

Not a sitting duck, but Boeing certainly had less options - both literally (no GTF) and figuratively.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21747
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:56 am

Quoting WIederling (Reply 72):
( Boeing admitted that they did not have the tech available to build
their envisioned NSA in an acceptable timeframe.)

I suppose if they had done the same level of analysis about the 7E7 they would have reached the same conclusion, but they went ahead regardless. The main difference was that they had lost the 767 market to the A330 and had no other choice but do the 7E7. It's interesting how they managed to get everyone to sign up based on some incredible (in the true sense of the word, not credible) marketing. Part of me thinks that it's too bad they can't get away with that now.
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
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:03 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 77):
It's interesting how they managed to get everyone to sign up based on some incredible (in the true sense of the word, not credible) marketing. Part of me thinks that it's too bad they can't get away with that now.

But they are trying to do the same but this time no one believes them
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:06 am

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

If the GTF is that much of a problem they could have extended the landing gear and dealt with the associated cost with it and added it as a option. Seems they have either underestimated the GTF, or the financial appetite isn't there for this to happen. Either way the 787 debacle has really set the company back a few years and made life a real struggle right now. If no 787 delays, no need for restricted engineering resources or the financial blocks for either the Y1 or a new landing gear on the 737.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:12 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 77):
I suppose if they had done the same level of analysis about the 7E7 they would have reached the same conclusion, but they went ahead regardless

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.

The NSA's value proposition is purely efficiency-based: it won't offer a new range/capacity package (assuming we're not talking about the MoM/NMA here).

The MoM would offer a new capacity/range package but in a market whose size is unclear.

7E7 was the right move; Boeing just c&*cked up the execution. It'll be spinning off $5bn in cash by 2020. If the OEM's are so bad at industrialization that a $5bn annual profit stream won't entice investment then there simply aren't any clean sheet "good moves" by the OEM's.

[Edited 2016-04-06 18:21:51]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26434
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:16 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 79):
If the GTF is that much of a problem they could have extended the landing gear and dealt with the associated cost with it and added it as a option.

It depends on how much they could do under the existing certification and how much work it would have required to prop the 737 up.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:39 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 74):
Air travel should, IMO, be viewed at least partially as public infrastructure like highways, rail, ports, electric grids, sewage systems, etc.

If US taxpayers are keen to pay higher taxes to support the aviation industry, could they please improve their airports and connecting transport infrastructure, before underwriting a new Boeing model, which incidentally, they have already done by deferring tax on current and past Boeing projects thanks to the accounting methods used.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:08 am

Quoting BaconButty (Reply 65):
If they deliver, the kind of technologies being currently developed are far from the last few percent, and require major architectural changes that couldn't be obtained from a derivative of the current narrowbodies..

That is a big if to start a commercial product on. Yes, if the technologies mature and prove to be a success there will be a point when you need a new design, but it is better to wait until the technologies have matured and you know which one is a winner and which not. The open rotor engine is a classic example considering how often it was on or off depending on future noise regulations discussed by the politicians.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 66):

May have changed again since of course, but I'd be somewhat surprised. It wasn't that long ago and it seems acoustics is a noisy elephant in the room.

Again that depends on the noise level targeted. Chapter 14 is possible, the unanswered question is where will the next limit be and is Chapter 14 enough considering the huge CO2 saving the open rotor promises.

http://www.icao.int/Meetings/Green/D...y%201pdf/session%202/2-Dickson.pdf
http://www.ana.co.jp/eng/aboutana/anaenvironment/pdf/e2003-5.pdf

Should the ducted fans or the open rotor engines arrive, you will need a completely new design, as the engines are optimized for slower speeds and you would need new wings and a new fuselage to mount them, especially considering a design to limit noise emissions and to handle the problem of a fan failure and keeping the debris from hitting something vital.

Should those engines no come and should the GTF remain the leading technology for the next 20 decades, we will surely see incremental steps in the development. Which means new engines every 10-15 years, new wings and probably changing production methods for parts of the fuselage, even with re-designs of the tailfin and other bigger changes.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:49 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):
It depends on how much they could do under the existing certification and how much work it would have required to prop the 737 up.

I understand that is what they did, I want to know why they didn't go for new certification and some extra time to prop up the 737 a little. Is it a case of being arrogant and thinking the 737MAX would be comfortable at a 50/50 split instead of 60/40? In hindsight it may have been better to go for the NSA, to update their offering in this space and get it up to date with the 787 systems (if that is the direction the company is going instead of having 3 systems on their offerings).

Or go for the intermediate option, MAX the 737 but do more that will cost more but at least get you to 50/50. Instead they went with the least change and we have a 60/40 split at the moment. If this holds true for the next 10 years they have made the wrong decision as their bread and butter will be reduced to lowering its price and it won't be the bread and butter any longer. Where will they make their profits from?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:20 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 77):
The main difference was that they had lost the 767 market to the A330 and had no other choice but do the 7E7.

That and that the 7E7 was the first project that Boeing FUBARed soundly.
787 started with good hope and a full order book.
A really exceptionally well designed and executed PR campaign
pushing all the right buttons in all the right places.

Not even the share holder community is tone deaf enough to go for
the same spiel for a second time.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:31 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 64):
A new plane every 8 years would mean constantly having the financial costs of new design in your budget.

Yes.

I'm struggling to find many other design and manufacturing industries around the world that do anything other than this. Airbus moves from one design to the next and has the R&D function as an overhead to the business.
Apple (Any electronics company) doesn't launch a product and then sit on it's hands for a while and then start up again on a new one later.
Car companies don't do it.

Maybe program accounting makes you see the projects in more isolation away from the health of the total Business.

Innovate or Die.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Quoting enzo011 (Reply 79):
If the GTF is that much of a problem they could have extended the landing gear and dealt with the associated cost with it and added it as a option. Seems they have either underestimated the GTF, or the financial appetite isn't there for this to happen. Either way the 787 debacle has really set the company back a few years and made life a real struggle right now. If no 787 delays, no need for restricted engineering resources or the financial blocks for either the Y1 or a new landing gear on the 737.

   To me that would have put B into a much better place, if they had made room for GTF and stretched the Max 3 rows for both the -7 & -8 (I think the future is 2 length families the compromises to make 3 lengths work off a common wing seem sub-optimal) a 218 seater -8.5 with 2% better COC would have won a better market share against the 321NEO than the -9 has.
Jambrain
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 am

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 86):
I'm struggling to find many other design and manufacturing industries around the world that do anything other than this. Airbus moves from one design to the next and has the R&D function as an overhead to the business.

Constant product improvement is necessary, on the other hand they are not selling to the wider public so the need for a new model for marketing purposes is non existent. The pressure to constantly improve your product it there anyway, the way to achieve this is flexible though. You might need to do 2 new designs in the 10 years or just product improvements for 10 years, it all depends on available technology. But as long as you can achieve your performance targets with up-dates it is the better way.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:22 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 88):
Constant product improvement is necessary, on the other hand they are not selling to the wider public so the need for a new model for marketing purposes is non existent. The pressure to constantly improve your product it there anyway, the way to achieve this is flexible though. You might need to do 2 new designs in the 10 years or just product improvements for 10 years, it all depends on available technology. But as long as you can achieve your performance targets with up-dates it is the better way.

It all depends on the timeframe. An update, e.g. 737NG may be the better / more economic solution short-to-medium term but may hurt you badly in the long run. It's very complicated to summ all this up over e.g. 20 years and over several procucts, e.g. what consequencies had the 757 termination on the 737-9 or even on the A321.

Because of that and a short-to-medium term focused capital marked Boeing may be forced to act more focused on the next 3-5 years than it would be healthy for them in e.g. 20 years. As a family business I doubt that there would have been that much capital extraction in the last 5 years (stock paybacks plus dividends).

Would Airbus have been equaliy short term driven they may have proceeded with the A350MKI/II instead of doing the XWB. Yes I know different times but by that logic they may have just said "With the A380 problems and the marked refusal of the [MKI/II] A350 we do nothing for now and wait for a bigger technological lape". Would that have been the better choice? I guess no.

And this is all witout considering the problem of laying your design department "idle" for a few years and than start back with "fresh blood" (with all the experienced designers in retirement).

[Edited 2016-04-07 04:25:41]
 
sphealey
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:39 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:31 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 83):
Should those engines no come and should the GTF remain the leading technology for the next 20 decades, we will surely see incremental steps in the development.

I would expect a lot of incremental development by 2216  
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:36 am

I do not how you come to that conclusion? Airbus is not better or worse and when it comes to experience and use of R&D resources it matters little if you spent it on a new design, product improvements or a large up-date of an existing design.

Boeing has made on strange move with the MAX and that was not doing a new MLG. I call it strange because the 900 is already suffering from rotation angle limitations and it was obvious that the available ground clearance will limit the engine design. So an obvious design limitation was not fixed. And oblivious design limitations are usually the best reason to do a new design, if you can not fix them with upgrades to the existing designs.

However I would not draw any general conclusion from the MAX. Especially as the biggest "issue" seems to be the lack of success of the 9, which is totally expected as the 900 did not sell like hot cakes either.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:42 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 83):
Should the ducted fans or the open rotor engines arrive,

Not picking up on what you have said here seahawk and its more of a general question that I have googled but not sure it answered my question.

What is a ducted fan if it isn't a turbofan?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
speedygonzales
Posts: 643
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:49 am

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):
What is a ducted fan if it isn't a turbofan?

I'm guessing something like the Kuznetsov NK-93:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Il-76LL_%28RA-76492%29_NK-93_engine.jpg
Ignorance kills. :tombstone:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:52 am

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 92):

What is a ducted fan if it isn't a turbofan?

Very much the same, just with a higher bypass ratio. The GTF can be considered a ducted fan engine, at least when you add variable pitch fan blades.

[Edited 2016-04-07 04:54:04]

[Edited 2016-04-07 04:54:24]
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:05 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 94):
Very much the same, just with a higher bypass ratio. At least the GTF can be considered a ducted fan engine, at least when you add variable pitch fan blades.
Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 93):
What is a ducted fan if it isn't a turbofan?

I'm guessing something like the Kuznetsov NK-93:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Il-76LL_%28RA-76492%29_NK-93_engine.jpg

I guess the GTF could sit right between those and be the middle ground.
https://c4.staticflickr.com/2/1421/5143381691_9d41663883_b.jpg

Seems to me the ducted fan will not be a game changer, it will evolve to become the norm.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8846
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:32 pm

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 not much of a topic for the twin aisle designs, as on long routes the slower speed makes the trade-off more problematic, but for the single aisle designs this is different - or one should say "could be different" today.

[Edited 2016-04-07 05:34:49]
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:23 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 91):
Boeing has made on strange move with the MAX and that was not doing a new MLG. I call it strange because the 900 is already suffering from rotation angle limitations and it was obvious that the available ground clearance will limit the engine design. So an obvious design limitation was not fixed. And oblivious design limitations are usually the best reason to do a new design, if you can not fix them with upgrades to the existing designs.

My point was not about Airbus beeing better, just an example (the A350). Airbus initially tryed to go the neo way for two years before finally surrendering. Boeing however is more exposed to the capital market and their "desires" than Airbus (EADS).

Regarding your point above: I read somewhere an interview with an Boeing design-chief that to chance the MLG of the 737 regarding more clearence and higher MTOW would mean essentially to chance nearly everything around the wingbox. After that would have been done, a new wing would be necessary to use the full potential regarding bigger engines, higher MTOW and further range (tank volume), leading to an 50% plus new plane which wasn't possible/ worth the effort.. To summ it up he said if they had changed the MLG they would be closer to the discussed MadMAX-MOM than to the 737-8.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:34 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 97):

Regarding your point above: I read somewhere an interview with an Boeing design-chief that to chance the MLG of the 737 regarding more clearence and higher MTOW would mean essentially to chance nearly everything around the wingbox. After that would have been done, a new wing would be necessary to use the full potential regarding bigger engines, higher MTOW and further range (tank volume), leading to an 50% plus new plane which wasn't possible/ worth the effort.. To summ it up he said if they had changed the MLG they would be closer to the discussed MadMAX-MOM than to the 737-8.

I would be really interested to see the options that they discussed for raising the landing gear. (guess We'll never see it).
If it was just a case of "how do we fit a longer leg in that same gap" or if there were potentially more novel options looked at.

Fred
Image
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3219
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

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

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting Planesmart (Reply 82):
and connecting transport infrastructure

Connecting traffic nodes is horribly under done in the US.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 86):
Maybe program accounting makes you see the projects in more isolation away from the health of the total Business.

Innovate or Die.

Wonder if an economist could weigh in on this, it is an interesting possibility.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

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