Boeing MOM Update

glbltrvlr · Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:40 pm

[Scanned back 9 days and didn't see anything on this. Hopefully it's new and useful.] Commentary in the latest AvWeek from the Teal Group on the Boeing MOM dilemma. Much has already been identified by a.net members, but there are a few new nuggets:

- Most Boeing execs believe that a cleansheet design is the only viable choice
- Remaining question is Single Aisle vs Twin Aisle, which translates to Operating Economics vs. Market Potential
- Single aisle misses the A300/A310/A330/B767 replacement market, belly cargo routes
- Twin aisle would stimulate new intra-Asia routes, Trans Atlantic routes, ME-EU routes
- Boeing can't build a twin aisle with single aisle production and operating economics
- Previous 757/767 strategy won't work today, too expensive, too much risk
- Airbus owns both ends of the MOM market
- 787-8 is too expensive to buy, operate
- Airbus will have R&D cash available to respond starting in 2018
- Current Boeing R&D cash is committed to other projects through 2021 (737MAX, 787-10, 777-8X/-9X).
- Ability to increase R&D limited by 787 challenges, declining 777 and 737 margins
- Airbus won't launch first, but will respond

[Edited 2016-04-14 15:46:20]

Boeing778X · Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:25 am

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
Most Boeing execs believe that a cleansheet design is the only viable choice

Of course! A 737-10 or something isn't going to cut it, nor would it have ever. Capacity increase, sure, but still wouldn't match A320neo in terms of payload.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
Remaining question is Single Aisle vs Twin Aisle, which translates to Operating Economics vs. Market Potential

My guess is Single. Perhaps the MoM can also be a template for the eventual NSA.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
Previous 757/767 strategy won't work today, too expensive, too much risk

Agreed. Having two types of fuselages and wings makes things complicated.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
787-8 is too expensive to buy, operate

The 787-8 is by no means exempt from my theory of 3 member familes.

If done right, I can see the MoM effectively replacing the 787-8. Luckily, Boeing has gotten their money's worth out of the -8.

zeke · Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:30 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 1):
Luckily, Boeing has gotten their money's worth out of the -8.

Reminds me of someone I know that thinks they have got their moneys worth out of their credit card when they reach the spending limit.

adamblang · Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:34 am

What does MOM mean?

Filler.

EA CO AS · Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:42 am

Quoting adamblang (Reply 3):
What does MOM mean

Middle of Market. There's a gaping hole in the current offerings from Airbus and Boeing where there's no clear 200-250 passenger, 4,000nm range aircraft.

AA737-823 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:34 am

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 1):
Luckily, Boeing has gotten their money's worth out of the -8.

WHAT are you on??
The 787 program is a financial disaster. I'm confident that it will eventually become profitable, but the -8 is the biggest money pit in Boeing Commercial Airplanes history.

TheRedBaron · Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:57 am

They need to make a perfect bullseye with this one and control expenses and profitability....if they make the 787 version 2.0 they might not survive post 2035...

TRB

Devilfish · Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:18 am

Two analysts think that the MoM is a "mirage".....

http://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/mid...arket-boeings-lose-lose-situation/

http://pages.videotron.com/camsim/page%20798v5%20bo_1024.jpg

TWA772LR · Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:29 am

So we're looking at a 757-200 and 757-300 replacement?

An airplane with current 752 range (give or take) and an airplane with 753 capacity with meaningful TATL range with no restrictions?

rotating14 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:38 am

Boeing is going to have to take it on the chin for the next 5 years, predicated that R&D cash is already earmarked until 2021. Personally, it started when AA shook the branch and NG's and MAXs' fell instead waiting for the NSA to mature and bear fruit. By now they'd have something that would be viable to fill the MOM gap and give the A321 a run for its money.

cosyr · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:39 pm

I hate to say it, because the 757 and 767 are a couple of my favorite planes, but I think Boeing has to concede this market. The A321NEO LR is not perfect, but it is here and it works for the small niche that Boeing can't fill in time for 757 replacements. By the time they can, airlines will have already either replaced their 75's or reworked their strategies/networks.

I want a next generation 767 as a passenger, but with it's floorspace, it is either the heaviest small plane or the least capacious widebody, neither is right for most situations.

The only option that could possibly work is a 757 NEO with a new wing and some weight shed. It might just be fast enough to market and affordable enough to develop. It's not a cleansheet like they're describing, but if Airbus is going to respond, there just isn't a big enough market to capitalize on their first mover disadvantage. I think there's no way they're going to go this way, so just start planning for the 737 replacement for 2025ish. Make that a showstopper!

Amiga500 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:45 pm

Boeing better be very careful about what they build as its likely to be their last ever clean sheet.

Amiga500 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:46 pm

['cos the marketing "gurus" will have a total system failure resulting in much jumping out of windows in Chicago when they realise they've run out of numbers beyond 797... Big grin

]

[Edited 2016-04-15 06:46:32]

a380787 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:50 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 11):
Boeing better be very careful about what they build as its likely to be their last ever clean sheet.

??? There's only so much NEO to any frame you can apply. Neither the 737 nor the 777 would last forever. I don't see why Boeing won't create clean-sheet redesigns for them eventually (particularly with the 737, which is at their 4th generation already)

cosyr · Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:51 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 12):

Or since, every plane has as many 8's in them as possible (787-8, A380-800) for Asian markets, they are probably itching to use up 797 as soon as possible so they can start with the 808!

parapente · Fri Apr 15, 2016 2:49 pm

Reply 8.

So we're looking at a 757-200 and 757-300 replacement?

An airplane with current 752 range (give or take) and an airplane with 753 capacity with meaningful TATL range with no restrictions?

Well I would agree (sort of) certainly in pax numbers/range.
The (very) tricky bit would be (in your parlance) a 757-100 (NSA) as well.Whilst the -300 is the so called MOM the -200 is the A321 NEO (+TATL). But - in time- the product must be capable of replacing the 737-800 MAX.
It's hard to see one wing doing all that.No doubt they are working on it (or them)

Also their exclusive engine partner (Cfm) is clearly not ready yet. We know the work that Safran is doing and of course so is GE.Sort of looks like it might be a geared contrarotating fan of some sort.But has to be 5 years out I would have thought.

Reply 5
WHAT are you on??
The 787 program is a financial disaster. I'm confident that it will eventually become profitable, but the -8 is the biggest money pit in Boeing Commercial Airplanes history.

I believe what he meant was that they sold a whole bunch of -8's (767 replacements) first prior to offering the 'real' aircraft the -9. Never would have worked the other way round.But yes of course the whole programme is at a loss position at the mo' but there is 30 years to go. It is a very fine aircraft.

AAlaxfan · Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:13 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 11):
Boeing better be very careful about what they build as its likely to be their last ever clean sheet.

Uh No.
There will be new clean sheets as the technology warrants them. To say that Boeing's next clean sheet is their last is ridiculous.

bobdino · Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:34 pm

Here's a link to the article - you may have to register, but you don't have to pay:

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...ng-s-single-or-twin-aisle-quandary

aviatorcraig · Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting cosyr (Reply 10):
The only option that could possibly work is a 757 NEO with a new wing and some weight shed.

The problem with this scenario is that none of the engine suppliers has a rightsized new technology engine sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer. They would have to develop one meaning timescale challenges.

parapente · Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:16 pm

Reply 18
Perversely enough the highest thrust GTF at 35K Lbs is only a whisker short of the original output of the 752 engines (36.5).Clearly the aircraft would not need to carry so much fuel and the BW,s add additional lift.If P&w could find perhaps 1,000 pounds of additional thrust they could (have) just permitted a NEO 752.
However as has been said so many times the aircraft tooling has now gone -shame.Would have been a mighty fine aircraft.Not the ,pocket rocket, of yesterday but certainly a 210 seater full TATL MOM and a 240-250 transcontinental aircraft .

Amiga500 · Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:35 pm

Quoting cosyr (Reply 14):
Or since, every plane has as many 8's in them as possible (787-8, A380-800) for Asian markets, they are probably itching to use up 797 as soon as possible so they can start with the 808!

Ah, you could be on to something.

808-8

ODwyerPW · Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):

- Most Boeing execs believe that a cleansheet design is the only viable choice

And then they can drag their heals forever taking a decision, until airlines ultimately force them to do something like a 767MAX.

This period from the 'false roll-out of 07/08/07 until now, almost 9 years, has really stripped Boeing of their nerve.
A cleansheet single-aisle MOM/NSA combo with as absolute commonality possible to replace 753/738 seems so unlikely.

cosyr · Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 18):
The problem with this scenario is that none of the engine suppliers has a rightsized new technology engine sitting on the shelf waiting for a buyer. They would have to develop one meaning timescale challenges.

Quoting parapente (Reply 19):
Perversely enough the highest thrust GTF at 35K Lbs is only a whisker short of the original output of the 752 engines (36.5).Clearly the aircraft would not need to carry so much fuel and the BW,s add additional lift.If P&w could find perhaps 1,000 pounds of additional thrust they could (have) just permitted a NEO 752.

I would suspect the amount of time it would take to have a 757 new wing designed, would be enough time for PW to enlarge the GTF. Also, if in addition to a new wing, they were able to meaningfully shed some weight, they might not need a big boost to thrust.

Quoting parapente (Reply 19):
However as has been said so many times the aircraft tooling has now gone -shame

That didn't stop the Chinese from building their DC-9/717 doppleganger, I'm sure Boeing could retool for less than the cost of a clean sheet design.

Beatyair · Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:51 pm

I hope they do something new. This is the segment Bombardier should have jumped into. It will be a long time until Boeing looks at this or even has the time for it, well unless they nobody buys any more fighters. I think Boeing should have left the 777 alone, other then better engines and started work on developing a new single isle airplane with range - the 757 replacement. Airline are going to have to look are reducing there carbon foot print. Anyway the "Hyperloop" will take care of the smaller birds.

PlanesNTrains · Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:09 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 11):
Boeing better be very careful about what they build as its likely to be their last ever clean sheet.

I assume you're joking.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 21):
This period from the 'false roll-out of 07/08/07 until now, almost 9 years, has really stripped Boeing of their nerve.

They have really set themselves up for a period of rough sledding to be sure, though it started well before 07/08/07. Planning a turnaround of four-ish years while simultaneously farming everything out and trying to reinvent their wheel is what really killed them. The false rollout and issues beyond were due to over-confidence and under-competence. Deadly combo.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 21):
A cleansheet single-aisle MOM/NSA combo with as absolute commonality possible to replace 753/738 seems so unlikely.

I think it seems very likely, but when is the question? There seems to be no powerplant for it right now that would make it worth the investment.

-Dave

StTim · Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:20 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
I assume you're joking.

I suspect it was tongue in cheek that if they had a similar cock up with the next clean sheet as they did with the 787 then it really could be their last clean sheet.

Not sure I am in that camp - even tongue in cheek. Airbus with the 330NEO certainly aren't helping them though....

PlanesNTrains · Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:38 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 25):

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
I assume you're joking.

I suspect it was tongue in cheek that if they had a similar cock up with the next clean sheet as they did with the 787 then it really could be their last clean sheet.

Well, perhaps it was the wording. I didn't take him seriously but you never know around here.

-Dave

Revelation · Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:11 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 7):
Two analysts think that the MoM is a "mirage".....

I think the Goldman Sachs note was pretty succinct:

Quote:
Boeing has no true 757 replacement and is losing share in the segment to the A321NEO. We see a lose-lose scenario where Boeing either invests heavily and arrives late-to-market, or foregoes the segment completely. It would be extremely costly for Boeing to start developing a replacement today, and it would likely not enter service for another seven years. By then we expect the majority of 757s to already have been replaced or retired. On the other hand, if Boeing elects not to develop a 757 replacement, it will almost undoubtedly lose market share long-term in this larger narrow-body category.

Clean sheet seems far more riskier than MadMax.

Meanwhile the note points out Conner has given his team a year to figure out what kind of plane to build (longer/thiner route opener vs shorter/fatter people hauler, I suppose) or even recommend not going forward.

Stitch · Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:31 pm

I agree that MoM is a mistake. They should just wait a decade for an optimized NSA to cover the 180-240 seat market. Yes, Airbus will sell plenty of A321-200neos during that time, but that will constrain slots for the A320-200neo and open up availability for Boeing to push the 737-8 and 737MAX-200. And yes, Airbus will respond with their own new small airplane, but Boeing will have first-mover momentum for a time and then they'll both settle down into a comfortable duopoly.

PlanesNTrains · Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:40 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
Airbus will respond with their own new small airplane, but Boeing will have first-mover momentum for a time and then they'll both settle down into a comfortable duopoly.

I admire your optimism.

-Dave

Prost · Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:49 pm

If Boeing just tries to out do the A321 NEO by a few percentage point margin then yes, it'll be a failure. If they're able to offer a low acquisition cost coupled with 10% better operating costs, they may succeed. My solution? Have the customer engagement team distill what the plane needs to be, and then let the engineers get to work. Send the marketing team on vacation or something, nut don't allow the marketing team to dictate the schedule.

Stitch · Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:01 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 29):
I admire your optimism.

If NSA does to neo what neo is doing to MAX, Airbus will have no choice but to respond themselves with a new family.

AviationAddict · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:37 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 29):

In some ways the roles have reversed for the first time since 1970. Boeing didn't take Airbus seriously at first and their arrogance came back to bite them hard. Regardless of which "side of the aisle" we're on I think we can all admit that Airbus has been in the drivers seat for several years now. The A320NEO and A330NEO were grand slams before they were even built and the A350, despite some initial issues has, if nothing else, proven that Airbus can build a widebody that at least matches if not bests anything from Boeing. Sometimes it's easier to play catch-up than it is to keep the lead (ask Jordan Spieth)! Boeing has the opportunity to leapfrog ahead on the small to medium size market with the NSA and MOM.

I think the real questions boil down to:
1. Should MOM be a variant of the NSA or it's own independent product?
2. How long is it going to take Boeing to introduce one or both products?
3. Will said product(s) be advanced enough to hold their own against whatever inevitable response Airbus will bring to market afterwards?

ODwyerPW · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:39 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
it started well before 07/08/07

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 24):
turnaround of four-ish years while simultaneously farming everything out and trying to reinvent their wheel

I agree with both of those sentiments above. I picked the roll-out date as that is when it became really obvious to the rest of us that things weren't going too well.

william · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:58 am

We had another thread mention any appreciable progress in engine tech will not be ready till mid 2020s. So Boeing has time and yes, let Airbus have their day with the A321. Airbus had to watch for years as the 777 printed money for Boeing with no competitive response.

par13del · Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:19 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
If NSA does to neo what neo is doing to MAX, Airbus will have no choice but to respond themselves with a new family.

Except NEO is doing to MAX because the 737 cannot take the more advanced engines, its not about the technology but the limitation of the frame.
So when Boeing does the NSA, unless an engine OEM has exclusive patent on the technology, it will also be available to both sides and even if Airbus does not go clean sheet, the gap in performance will not be as large as the NEO to MAX.
If a new frame, based on the current high cost of development, they won't be able to offer the clean sheet at much lower cost.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
I agree that MoM is a mistake. They should just wait a decade for an optimized NSA to cover the 180-240 seat market. Yes, Airbus will sell plenty of A321-200neos during that time, but that will constrain slots for the A320-200neo and open up availability for Boeing to push the 737-8 and 737MAX-200.

Boeing better pray that Airbus does not continue to up its production rate, if they do, there will be more slots available and Airbus selling loads of A321's will not force customers to buy Boeing MAX in any variant.

parapente · Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:11 am

I guess timings (for a new family) will depend largely on Cfm.As of today apart from 'inside hear say'no one actually knows how the 2 new engines are performing back to back.One is lead to understand that the GTF concept has proved 'a winner' but nothing 'on the record'.
However if the rumours are true then you can be certain that GE have a gearbox wiring away somewhere behind closed doors.We can see Safran developing a contra rotating fan ( no idea whether it is designed to be geared or not though).
But it is this engine timetable that will set Boeings timetable effectively.

tortugamon · Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:16 am

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 6):
They need to make a perfect bullseye with this one and control expenses and profitability....if they make the 787 version 2.0 they might not survive post 2035...

The 787 is expected to at least break even. What you suggest is that Carlos Slim goes bankrupt after making a bet that he makes zero money on. Lets see if we can keep an even head with at least some degree of financial wherewithal. This speculation is very poor analysis and does no one any favors around here.

Quoting william (Reply 34):
So Boeing has time and yes, let Airbus have their day with the A321. Airbus had to watch for years as the 777 printed money for Boeing with no competitive response.

You really do realize that the comparison in terms of profitability is not even close.

tortugamon

PlanesNTrains · Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:19 am

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 32):

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 29):

In some ways the roles have reversed for the first time since 1970. Boeing didn't take Airbus seriously at first and their arrogance came back to bite them hard. Regardless of which "side of the aisle" we're on I think we can all admit that Airbus has been in the drivers seat for several years now. The A320NEO and A330NEO were grand slams before they were even built and the A350, despite some initial issues has, if nothing else, proven that Airbus can build a widebody that at least matches if not bests anything from Boeing. Sometimes it's easier to play catch-up than it is to keep the lead (ask Jordan Spieth)! Boeing has the opportunity to leapfrog ahead on the small to medium size market with the NSA and MOM.

I'm not clear of your response to my quoted statement to Stitch (I'm preparing to travel so am probably just tired) so I'll just say that my position is that Airbus has the more compelling lineup currently and I'm not overly optimistic for Boeing over the medium term. Not saying it's doom and gloom, but I don't think they have any easy choices at this stage. I believe the MAX was the best way to go for the 737 refresh but it wasn't an easy decision for them and even within the context of a refresh they had tough choices to make.

This round goes to Airbus. Hopefully in a decade things are turning the other way for Boeing.

-Dave

Ruscoe · Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:09 am

I'm with Stitch on this one.
I just can't see two clean sheet designs NSA & MOM when it could be covered by one.

I would therefore anticipate a narrow body design starting at around 180 seats and going to 250 seats or so.

I would expect a wider fuselage, not for a wider seat, but for a wider aisle, which would improve comfort anyway, but also improve getting om and off the plane.

As far as Boeings finances are concerned, I have read them, and don't see the problem. They are paying higher dividends, have lower debt, and have bought back 80 million shares, all in the last 5 years, when the 787 program was supposed to be bringing them to their knees. They have correctly identified, a problem,
in that Commercial Aircraft yield has gone from 10 to 7%, because achieved prices are lower in response to Airbus prices. Things like this happen to business all the time. The good companies which servive manage the problem and Boeing have identified it and are managing it.
Boeing could finance a new clean sheet simply by delaying it's share buy back program.

Ruscoe

WIederling · Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:32 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Clean sheet seems far more riskier than MadMax.

Mad Max will buoy Boeing's way deeper into the bog quite well, .. for a couple of years.

But then they will come out: much deeper into trouble than today.

The 787 project is a reflection on Boeing's general standing today.

Be it deferred cost or deferred investment into timely R&D for an "over the horizont" competitive product.

to finish:

There is no way around Boeing loosing massive market share in the NB segment.
Depending on how they go about it
this will either be a path to irrelevance
or for a comeback with a competitive product.

The quandary is that there currently is no path to a sufficiently advanced product.
the only thing that Boeing can achieve with the expectably available technology basket
is a competitive product that comes with uncompetitive attached cost.
Airbus current position is quite a bit "upwind" to Boeing. Lots of tacking needed.

[Edited 2016-04-16 01:42:44]

seahawk · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:13 am

As i already wrote in another thread, the German magazine Flug Revue also had some info gained from unofficial discussions with high ranking Boeing.

- there will be no up-dated 757
- customers would like a small wide body type for the purchase price of a large single aisle design
- customers are very price sensitive
- the project needs to make money for Boeing and help them reach their financial targets
- no EIS before 2022
- still plenty of time to decide

For me this list only works with something 767 based, as it could be developed quickly, would see limited development costs and limited investments, as the line is already available.

mjoelnir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:23 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
You really do realize that the comparison in terms of profitability is not even close.

Do you think the profitability is so much higher on the A321?

StTim · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:26 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 42):
Do you think the profitability is so much higher on the A321?

No - we all know a-net lore that Airbus have to almost give them away.

I have to say that it is however seen less and less these days, but it was so prevelant if you go back a year or so.

mjoelnir · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:50 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 39):
have lower debt

how do you manage to deduct that?

everything in million USD

Total liabilities and equity

2015 94,408 and 2014 92,921

Equity

2015 6.397 and 2014 8,790

That makes total liabilities in

2015 88,011 and 2014 84,131

That looks to me like an increase in debt of $ 3,880 million.

seahawk · Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:53 am

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 32):
In some ways the roles have reversed for the first time since 1970. Boeing didn't take Airbus seriously at first and their arrogance came back to bite them hard.

What bit them was the GTF. The fact that P&W really pushed forward with the GTF was the development that blew the NSA bluff. Suddenly Airbus had the option for a big improvement of the A320 series for very little own money to be invested and they called the bluff.
The other problem is that airlines had enough of moonshots after the 787 and were more positive towards up-dates instead of new designs.

PW100 · Sat Apr 16, 2016 12:33 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 42):
Do you think the profitability is so much higher on the A321?

That would seem to be a reasonable expectation.

Stitch · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:23 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 40):
There is no way around Boeing loosing massive market share in the NB segment.
Depending on how they go about it this will either be a path to irrelevance or for a comeback with a competitive product.

They must really be in a "pickle", eh? (With apologies to Halibut).

JetBuddy · Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:52 pm

I think Boeing should forget about a pure MOM development, and start focusing resources on an NSA as the 737MAX replacement instead. Three sizes, where the smallest one is 737-8 size, and the middle one is A321 size, and the large one is close to 757-300 size. This way they will cover the best selling size classes, as well as close to MOM size. They would have to leave the sub 150 pax category for others though, such as C-Series. But that's a dilemma Airbus is facing as well.

Aesma · Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:42 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
Airbus owns both ends of the MOM market

Are they talking about the A330 for the higher end of the MOM ?

Are we supposed to understand that the 788 isn't competitive on medium range with the A330 ?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net