User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21404
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:39 pm

Quoting micstatic (Reply 95):
The simplest way to understand this in my opinion is to consider the 757 mission. The vast majority of 757 routes can be more efficiently operated by an A321 or 737-900. That would mean boeing would be making a re-engined 757 for the minority transcon routes etc. No business case

Yes, and threads like:

Airbus Poised To Win Delta Deal For 30+ A321's (by chiad Apr 17 2016 in Civil Aviation)

make it clear that A321 and to a somewhat lesser degree 739 are making it so that the business case won't be closing for a very long time, because the MOM market is going to be saturated with newly built aircraft.
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
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:43 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 98):
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 91):
Anyone that has more than a rudimentary grasp of aircraft design will know that 2 aisles won't work*. Fundamentally the trip cost economics will never stack up vs. an A321.



It will take a new 6-across airframe with a modern wing to compete. As much as we love widebodies here on a.net, the 789/A339 are the smallest viable widebodies. For the 5500nm market, a modern wing narrowbody would have the lowest per trip costs.

The cost is low to no cargo. Cest la vie. A plane that tries to be everything won't save enough to find a niche.

This is a plane that must have equal or lower per trip costs than the A321LR for 3,000 to 4,000nm missions to find a market.

Lightsaber




But then we have this ...

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
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.

The question remains why customers them to look at a small twin? Is it only for turnaround times? Or may the better business-class options play a role? Maybe they look at a dense 8-abreast configuration without LD3-cababillitty?

[Edited 2016-04-18 06:45:22]

[Edited 2016-04-18 06:46:02]

[Edited 2016-04-18 06:47:43]
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:51 pm

Quoting dare100em (Reply 101):
But then we have this ...

The question remains why customers them to look at a small twin? Is it only for turnaround times? Or may the better business-class options play a role? Maybe they look at a dense 8-abreast configuration without LD3-cababillitty?

"Customers would like a small wide body type for the purchase of a large single aisle design"
"Customers are very price sensitive"


Yes, and they'd like a money tree too.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:59 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 86):
I would not bet on that. Once the engineering team at Airbus is done with the A320NEO series and the A330NEO, they will start working another project. The A350 team will be busy with the A350-8000, but those working on the A320 and A330 today will be used for something different.

I do not think that is the way it works. I am sure design engineers swap between more family members than this makes out. I can't see the team who designed the wings for the original A320 being held on the bench when they designed the A350 wing just waiting for this opportunity to design an A322 wing. Likewise the A350 wing designers can't be prevented on working the A322 wing just because they were part of the A350 program....I just don't see Airbus working that way.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 86):
"The Airbus will wait for Boeing to move" line of thought is no longer correct. If Airbus can do a A322 or re-winged A321 with the resources they have available and if the demand for a such a plane is sufficient, they will do it once resources are available.

If you believe the article then Airbus stands to wing this market every year that there is no Boeing movement on the MoM. Moving too early and you cannibalize your own product. There is benefit is reacting once you know what your competitor is doing. I see Airbus taking that route.

Quoting Max752 (Reply 96):
Also seems to contradict that there's even a case in which a new MoM would be needed.

I think a modern day MoM is not yesteryear's 757. That market is being admirably filled by the A320 and the 737. This MoM market is what has been filled with 767s and to some extent A330s but mostly traffic that had been on high frequency medium haul 737/A320 routes - or - hub traffic that now can go direct with narrow body economics. It isn't a true 757 replacement.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 97):
- They probably don't have all the drawings.

Worst idea I have heard for why either OEM won't launch something.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 98):
This is a plane that must have equal or lower per trip costs than the A321LR for 3,000 to 4,000nm missions to find a market.

And ideally lower per seat economics on missions significantly shorter than that. It will need it to rationalize the higher purchase price and to be popular enough to sell enough aircraft to warrant the investment.

tortugamon
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:02 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 102):
Quoting dare100em (Reply 101):
But then we have this ...

The question remains why customers them to look at a small twin? Is it only for turnaround times? Or may the better business-class options play a role? Maybe they look at a dense 8-abreast configuration without LD3-cababillitty?

"Customers would like a small wide body type for the purchase of a large single aisle design"
"Customers are very price sensitive"


Yes, and they'd like a money tree too.

I'm with you regarding all this. I fully expected it to be a - probably wider - single aisle. But we constantly are hearing talk about some pressure from customers regarding a small twin.

However many if not most posters here thought that a clean-sheet is absolutely unpossible and unrealistic because only enginees have significant technological steeps in the last few years and a clean sheet is to expensive etc.

However it seems that it is more or less clean-sheet or nothing at all.

I just think there are more factors than we all see ATM. Maybe with the desired capacity and CRP a long single aisle isn't that technological favourable to a small 8-abreast ovel TWIN than we think.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18131
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:19 pm

I have an old link looking into costs of a 757 replacement:
http://www.aircraft-commerce.com/sam...ticles/fleet_planning_2_sample.pdf

Basically, no comparison in per flight costs of a narrowbody vs. widebody. The newest widebodies should be able to compete with cargo revenue, but not on routes with low cargo demand.

The A321LR is going to redefine TATL travel (or India to China). When will Boeing adapt to the new reality?

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:22 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Worst idea I have heard for why either OEM won't launch something.

You've obviously never had the experience of trying to operate as an engineer and some sort of technical Sherlock Holmes.


For example, in the MRA4 program; it was soon discovered that no two airframes were the same - and I don't mean dash variations. Modern day precision assemblies, which relied on tolerance of mm were no use when the old airframe was inches out!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:26 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 100):
make it clear that A321 and to a somewhat lesser degree 739 are making it so that the business case won't be closing for a very long time, because the MOM market is going to be saturated with newly built aircraft.

Those aircraft will replace 752s that are flying dense short haul routes. Not exactly MoM sweet spot. DL still has boatloads of 757s where the MoM makes sense. Too many airport pairs with very high frequency or gate space limited where a larger aircraft with folding wing tips that can fit at narrow body gates would come in handy. Market is only growing for such an aircraft.

If done well, single aisle airlines like AS, WN, FR, CM, B6, U2,FZ, etc. could be interested.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:39 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
I do not think that is the way it works. I am sure design engineers swap between more family members than this makes out. I can't see the team who designed the wings for the original A320 being held on the bench when they designed the A350 wing just waiting for this opportunity to design an A322 wing. Likewise the A350 wing designers can't be prevented on working the A322 wing just because they were part of the A350 program....I just don't see Airbus working that way.

Obviously the teams are not fixed and personal switches between projects. The wing designers could probably work on a A322 concept already.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
If you believe the article then Airbus stands to wing this market every year that there is no Boeing movement on the MoM. Moving too early and you cannibalize your own product. There is benefit is reacting once you know what your competitor is doing. I see Airbus taking that route.

So far Airbus has been busy, A380, A350, A320NEO, A330NEO in 2 years they will be much less busy. Surely Airbus could wait, as they have the lower part of the MoM market covered with the A321NEO and the upper with the A330NEO, but in the end it is a catch 22. If the market between those 2 is big enough to warrant a new design, it surely warrants an improved A321. Waiting becomes expensive when you wait so long, that Boeing has the technology to really conquer this market with a new design.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26388
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:52 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 89):
Then that will curtail the 700MAX sales as the C300 will now have a long term future (IMHO).

The CS300 will also curtail A319-100neo sales.



Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
The only advantage a 787-3 would have had compared to the 787-8 would have been an advantage regarding gate size/space because of a reduced wingspan, 52.5 instead of 60.1 m, through using winglets instead of raked wing tips.

And that proved to be a huge disadvantage, aerodynamically. Better modeling showed the 787-8 offered better operating economics on missions beyond 500km which is why even the Japanese dropped the -3 for the -8 to use on domestic routes.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:12 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 91):
Nope. Far too expensive, in both acquisition and trip costs.

Assuming no advances since first considered. And acquisition costs - well your guess is as good as anyone's.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 91):
Anyone that has more than a rudimentary grasp of aircraft design will know that 2 aisles won't work*. Fundamentally the trip cost economics will never stack up vs. an A321.

Hey I'm not arguing for a twin aisle MoM. But if people are including the A330-200 in the "upper end" of the MoM then the 787 surely comes into it as well.

The very ill-defined nature of what the MoM doesn't help this bizarre conversation.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 98):
As much as we love widebodies here on a.net, the 789/A339 are the smallest viable widebodies.

The 787-8 and A330-200 would seemingly disagree with such a broad generalisation.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 100):
Yes, and threads like:

Airbus Poised To Win Delta Deal For 30+ A321's (by chiad Apr 17 2016 in Civil Aviation)

make it clear that A321 and to a somewhat lesser degree 739 are making it so that the business case won't be closing for a very long time, because the MOM market is going to be saturated with newly built aircraft.

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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:59 pm

Reply 109 Stitch.
Quoting parapente (Reply 89):
Then that will curtail the 700MAX sales as the C300 will now have a long term future (IMHO).

The CS300 will also curtail A319-100neo sales.

Absolutely although I wonder if it is not DOA already.But with their 320 sales in general are they bothered?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:27 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 110):
The 787-8 and A330-200 would seemingly disagree with such a broad generalisation.

There have not been nor will there by that many 788 or A338 orders when 789 and A339s are readily available. The additional cost to purchase these larger aircraft are tiny in comparison to economic savings of operating the more efficient aircraft in the families. His statement is highly accurate.

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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:41 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 108):
Waiting becomes expensive when you wait so long, that Boeing has the technology to really conquer this market with a new design.

From the article posted above and something I do agree with:

"Airbus’s advantage in new product development resources probably will not lead to a decision to launch its own MOM jet before Boeing does. But it does guarantee that Airbus will be able to promptly respond to Boeing with a new aircraft. Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right. After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes."

tortugamon
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18131
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:34 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 110):
The 787-8 and A330-200 would seemingly disagree with such a broad generalisation.

A338 sales prove the point. The A332 sold well until the A333 broke 5700nm range. Now that for about the same cost per flight, the statement of the 789 and A339 being the going forward minimum widebody sizes holds.

The 7 across 767 was pushed out of the market by the A330.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
But it does guarantee that Airbus will be able to promptly respond to Boeing with a new aircraft. Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right. After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes."

Airbus has a lot of engineering going on. I think they have a small team doing concept trade studies, but would launch a year behind Boeing. Due to excellent A321 sales, Airbus can lag a few years.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
nry
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:36 pm

Maybe the MOM is some form of the 787-3/8. Just need to wait long enough for Boeing to run further down the cost curve to be able to discount it to the right level. mid-2020s or 2030 timeframe? Sure beats the risk of a clean-sheeter.

[Edited 2016-04-18 14:37:32]
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320, A321, A340 (surprisingly no A330 yet)
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:08 pm

Quoting nry (Reply 115):
Maybe the MOM is some form of the 787-3/8. Just need to wait long enough for Boeing to run further down the cost curve to be able to discount it to the right level. mid-2020s or 2030 timeframe? Sure beats the risk of a clean-sheeter.

Boeing has been having a hard time making a profit on 788s above $115 million a piece. A321s go for half that. The 788 is more than twice as large as an A321 and can be produced at a tenth of the production rate. These aircraft just do not compete with each other. Something smaller, lighter, and cheaper needs to be developed to be competitive in this space. The 787 is not and cannot be the answer to this question.

tortugamon
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:43 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
I think a modern day MoM is not yesteryear's 757. That market is being admirably filled by the A320 and the 737. This MoM market is what has been filled with 767s and to some extent A330s but mostly traffic that had been on high frequency medium haul 737/A320 routes - or - hub traffic that now can go direct with narrow body economics. It isn't a true 757 replacement.
Quoting dare100em (Reply 104):
I just think there are more factors than we all see ATM. Maybe with the desired capacity and CRP a long single aisle isn't that technological favourable to a small 8-abreast ovel TWIN than we think.

As much as people here would hate it, how would the economics of a re engined re winged 762 at 8 across do? It would put it right around 220-240 seats in two class form. There would also have to be weight that can be taken out of the frame besides the wings for it to have any shot. I would think this is at least plausible since the original 762 had growth built into the design and became the much heavier and longer legged 762ER and 763ER with minimal design modification, capabilities this airplane would never need. A better wing and lower OEW would hopefully mean the airplane could manage with less powerful engines than the original 762, helping fuel savings further. A counter point to this is how much it would cost to do a new wing, new engines, and serious diet for a 762 and at what point are you better off doing a new plane.

That all being said, I remember for the longest time that the 753 was supposedly the CASM champ in both UA and DL's fleet. I would think that if any currrent airframe was to serve as the base, it should be that, although you'd likely just use the tube and maybe landing gear. You'd still need a new wing and engines.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:54 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
"Airbus’s advantage in new product development resources probably will not lead to a decision to launch its own MOM jet before Boeing does. But it does guarantee that Airbus will be able to promptly respond to Boeing with a new aircraft. Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right. After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes."

That is based on the premise, that

a) Boeing will decide soon
b) will launch a MoM

and therefore is too Boeing centric. I stand by my opinion, that Airbus will not wait for Boeing, if the market is really big enough for a new design from Boeing and a larger up-date from Airbus to be commercially viable. If the market is that big is open to discussion though.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:20 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 114):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
But it does guarantee that Airbus will be able to promptly respond to Boeing with a new aircraft. Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right. After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes."

Airbus has a lot of engineering going on.

Could you expand on that please Lightsabre? (I'm here to learn afterall)

Airbus has the 320neo series just about finished from an engineering point, the 3510 and 330neo under development. I don't see that as alot of engineering going on. I think the engineer's will soon need something new to keep them occupied.

Does anyone now how big the engineering teams are at Boeing and Airbus and how many people would be working on each project?
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 1962
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:11 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 119):
he 3510 and 330neo under development. I don't see that as alot of engineering going on

Well they are likely working on a possible A350-1100 and possible other secret projects, apart from regular
improvement research for currently existing products (?).
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
StTim
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:16 am

One thing Airbus has done very well over the years is incremental improvement of their frames. We have all marvelled at how much extra has been gained from the standard A330. We also know that the baseline NEO is just the start - they have a plan to incrementally improve this - not just with the LR but with cabin improvements and addition weight saving/aero improvements.

I am sure Boeing does the same - I have just not seen such evidence.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:06 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 118):
That is based on the premise, that

a) Boeing will decide soon
b) will launch a MoM

and therefore is too Boeing centric. I stand by my opinion, that Airbus will not wait for Boeing, if the market is really big enough for a new design from Boeing and a larger up-date from Airbus to be commercially viable. If the market is that big is open to discussion though.

Unless the thought process is that Airlines only talk to Boeing about their needs and Airbus then responds to the response of Boeing. If the market is there and Airbus can launch their own derivative to fill the market they will not look at what Boeing is doing.

Quoting StTim (Reply 121):
One thing Airbus has done very well over the years is incremental improvement of their frames. We have all marvelled at how much extra has been gained from the standard A330. We also know that the baseline NEO is just the start - they have a plan to incrementally improve this - not just with the LR but with cabin improvements and addition weight saving/aero improvements.

Should we not be careful to look at the A330 and its improvements, seeing as it had the A340 that was designed for longer operations and higher weights. This has allowed the A333 to learn from the A343 and up its capabilities as well. So I don't expect the same amount of growth from the new designs, at least not the same as the A333.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2649
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:07 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 112):
There have not been nor will there by that many 788 or A338 orders when 789 and A339s are readily available. The additional cost to purchase these larger aircraft are tiny in comparison to economic savings of operating the more efficient aircraft in the families. His statement is highly accurate.

Or, alternatively, the 250-seat segment - which, apparently, is within the MoM, according to a bunch on this thread - is now saturated with sufficient types. The 332, 338, 788, hell even newer 763s and 764s have catered to a pretty niche segment.

This thread is getting very echo-chambery - the only place where a MoM segment DEFINITELY exists appears to be on this thread.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 114):
A338 sales prove the point. The A332 sold well until the A333 broke 5700nm range. Now that for about the same cost per flight, the statement of the 789 and A339 being the going forward minimum widebody sizes holds.

Like I said - or perhaps that segment is now catered for. And perhaps the concept that Airbus has effectively nailed this market at both the lower and upper ends (321 and 332/8 respectively) is balls.

Because, just maybe, the market segment doesn't exist/warrant any pursuit.

When the day comes for both Boeing and Airbus to develop their respective NSAs, it's not hard to see the baseline being the existing 738/320 size, with two stretches. Until then, if I was a manufacturer, I wouldn't invest billions in aproduct that will likely be superceded by my real breadwinner in ten or so years (assuming a 2022-ish EIS for the MoM type).

Quoting StTim (Reply 121):
I am sure Boeing does the same - I have just not seen such evidence.

Willfuly blindness? The 77W improved incrementally over the years, as did the 737NGs. I don't have stats to hand but if you're on this site it's surprising you missed that one.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:41 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 123):
Willfuly blindness? The 77W improved incrementally over the years, as did the 737NGs. I don't have stats to hand but if you're on this site it's surprising you missed that one.

I have not either seen the incremental improvement at Boeing. I have seen improvements in jumps, doing several things all at once, perhaps with a new version like ER, but not this steady change, where you can not define a new model, but looking at a ten years difference.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:46 am

Regarding the MoM, it was Boeing talking about it, so it is not a complete A.net fantasia.

I do not believe that Boeing will do the MoM, at least not in the near future. I do not think a 757MAX or a 737MADMAX will bring an airplane able to compete. A downsizing of the 787 would lead to a too heavy and too expensive frame. That leaves a clean sheet. Too small a market, and Boeing has neither the money nor will have the stomach to do that now.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:08 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 123):
Or, alternatively, the 250-seat segment - which, apparently, is within the MoM, according to a bunch on this thread - is now saturated with sufficient types. The 332, 338, 788, hell even newer 763s and 764s have catered to a pretty niche segment.

250 seats is not always 250 seats.

Is that 2-class 250 seats or single class 250 seats?

As we all know, 332 and 788 can be fitted out to take about 240-250 seats. But consider also an A321 can be fitted out to take 240 seats.


We'd be safer referring to a single metric, sardine single class - or SSC . So the 332 capacity is actually over 400 and the 788 capacity is actually over 380!

Boeing's take is that MoM would be between 250-300 seats SSC (should that be SSSC?).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26388
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:13 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 121):
One thing Airbus has done very well over the years is incremental improvement of their frames. We have all marvelled at how much extra has been gained from the standard A330.

I am sure Boeing does the same - I have just not seen such evidence.

The 787 family has seen steady growth in operating weights just as the A330 family has. And the 747 family has seen amazing growths in operating weights from the 747-100 through the 747-400 on the same basic airframe structure.


The rest of the Airbus family has followed the same trend as the Boeing family - incremental reductions in empty weight combined with incremental increases in aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency over the years. An A320 or 737NG delivered today is north of 10% more efficient than one delivered at the start of the respective programs thanks to the cumulative effect of these improvements.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:29 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
The 787 family has seen steady growth in operating weights just as the A330 family has. And the 747 family has seen amazing growths in operating weights from the 747-100 through the 747-400 on the same basic airframe structure.

I think the word incremental changes or growth is badly understood here on A.net. It does not mean growth per se, it means repeated small changes.

That is exactly the difference between Boeing and Airbus. Doing something in single big steps or incrementally.

737 Classic to NG is not incremental, it is a big step. A320-20 1988 to A320-200 2016 is incremental, big change but in small steps never enough to call a model change.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26388
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:26 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
I think the word incremental changes or growth is badly understood here on A.net. It does not mean growth per se, it means repeated small changes.

That is exactly the difference between Boeing and Airbus. Doing something in single big steps or incrementally.

I guess one has to define what "small" means.

The A330-300 went from 217,0000kg to 230,000kg (13,000kg) and the A340-300 went from 257,000kg to 271,000kg (18,000kg). Yes, Airbus subsequently raised them in 3-5000kg increments, but the original increases were, IMO, rather large.

The 787-8 rose from 220,000kg to 228,000kg and the 787-9 went from 245,000kg to 247,000kg to 252,000kg and now 254,000kg. So the 787-8 saw a smaller "major bump" than the A330/A340 and the 787-9 has seen additional small increases in line with those Airbus did (after they did the first major jump).

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
737 Classic to NG is not incremental, it is a big step. A320-20 1988 to A320-200 2016 is incremental, big change but in small steps never enough to call a model change.

Which is why I compared the A320 to the 737NG.  
 
morrisond
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:39 pm

In terms of increments has the 77W not gotten more efficient since service entry as well? There have been a number of Aero Cleanups, weight reductions and engine improvements - but the same basic engine. It has improved over time just like the 330-300.

Has the MTOW gone up at all on the 77W?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:48 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 123):
Or, alternatively, the 250-seat segment - which, apparently, is within the MoM, according to a bunch on this thread - is now saturated with sufficient types. The 332, 338, 788, hell even newer 763s and 764s have catered to a pretty niche segment.

Well there are about 1,800 767s, 757s, A310s, and A300s in current airline operation yet zero new aircraft available in this segment. And there are very few A332/A338/788 orders left to fill. You may call that saturated. I don't.

tortugamon
 
glbltrvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 973
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:55 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 131):
Well there are about 1,800 767s, 757s, A310s, and A300s in current airline operation yet zero new aircraft available in this segment.

But that isn't the question. The question is what percentage of the routes currently being flown by those 1800 aircraft could be flown economically by other aircraft models that are in production? What's left is the market that MoM would be addressing and is insufficient to make a business case for the investment. So then you look at how much of the overlap from other models could MoM cannibalize? That's where the crystal ball gets very hazy.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):

A330-300 MTOW steps 212, 217, 230, 233, 235, 238, 242. I do not know if I forgot a step. Same engines over the time but with PIPs. But there were other improvements over that time, all out of step with the MTOW increases. Improvements to aerodynamic, FBW, cabin, and so on. I am not saying Airbus does it better than Boeing just different. Airbus does it in small steps, Boeing collects and does a new model or version.

http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/ look at FAST special edition / October 2015

[Edited 2016-04-19 07:25:30]
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:20 pm

Why all the discussion about a widebody for narrowbody routes?

Would it be such a problem to produce a "large" narrowbody which a high landing gear (right between 757 and A320 series)?

It could load containers and large size cargo, it would be able to hold large engines on its wings and be the perfect aircraft for the MoM AND large narrowbody market: 180 seats, 216 seats, 252 seats.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:32 pm

Quoting CARST (Reply 134):
A330-300 MTOW steps 212, 217, 230, 233, 235, 238, 242. I do not know if I forgot a step. Same engines over the time but with PIPs. But there were other improvements over that time, all out of step with the MTOW increases. Improvements to aerodynamic, FBW, cabin, and so on. I am not saying Airbus does it better than Boeing just different. Airbus does it in small steps, Boeing collects and does a new model or version.

http://www.airbus.com/support/publications/ look at FAST special edition / October 2015

So how did the 77W go from 7200Nm range to close to 7900Nm and a little bit better with next years changes?

Did I miss something? This was the result of incremental changes over time. There was no 77W NG.

The 77W didn't need to add further weight to extend range - they just worked on improving efficiency with lots of little changes, and the amount of weight it can carry has gone up over time as they have taken weight out of it.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:38 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 130):
In terms of increments has the 77W not gotten more efficient since service entry as well? There have been a number of Aero Cleanups, weight reductions and engine improvements - but the same basic engine. It has improved over time just like the 330-300.

Yes it has. Here is an article about the latest installment of the improvements announced last year resulting in a 2-5% improvement over the existing 777.
http://aviationweek.com/advanced-mac.../boeing-rolls-out-777-upgrade-plan

Here is an article about Project Ozark improvements to the 747-8.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...747-8-improvements-sales-campaigns

I am personally [not] surprised this is even questioned.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 132):
But that isn't the question. The question is what percentage of the routes currently being flown by those 1800 aircraft could be flown economically by other aircraft models that are in production? What's left is the market that MoM would be addressing and is insufficient to make a business case for the investment. So then you look at how much of the overlap from other models could MoM cannibalize? That's where the crystal ball gets very hazy.

But even a corollary to that questions is 'What routes aren't being operated, that would be operated if the right aircraft existed'. There are a lot of ways to define this market.

Its obvious that narrow body aircraft are taking a larger share and expanding their route profiles. Its also true that there is a trend toward larger narrow body aircraft yet the small widebody of yesteryear that used to be the next step up has now grown to the 789/A339 size making a large void that has not existed previously.

Also, by just looking at previous aircraft sales and existing route structures we fail to appreciate the changes that have occurred in regulation that has resulted in a very fragmented market that did not exist before. Look at what DY and WOW and Scoot and Jetstar are doing with long haul LCC largely due to deregulation. A true MoM would work perfectly for airlines with this model and those that chose to grow similarly.

Bottom line is that it is hard to look back to predict forward when the rules of the game have changed.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:40 pm

Quoting CARST (Reply 134):

Would it be such a problem to produce a "large" narrowbody which a high landing gear (right between 757 and A320 series)?

No, but that will be the replacement of the A320NEO and 737MAX series anyway. The challenge would be to differentiate the MoM against those.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:48 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
A330-300 MTOW steps 212, 217, 230, 233, 235, 238, 242. I do not know if I forgot a step. Same engines over the time but with PIPs. But there were other improvements over that time, all out of step with the MTOW increases. Improvements to aerodynamic, FBW, cabin, and so on. I am not saying Airbus does it better than Boeing just different. Airbus does it in small steps, Boeing collects and does a new model or version.

The A330 had A340 DNA and Airbus spent Billions of Euros making the conversion and was brought on by A340's ineffectiveness vs the 777. Using it as an example of normal Airbus operating procedure is...well I will let others identify that.

tortugamon
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:54 pm

How do the improvements actually get implemented by the manufacturers?

And say there's an airline with orders for 50 A330 over 7 years. Would the first A330 they receive be worse than the last one they receive? And would the airline pay more for the more capable aircraft that was latest off the line, even if it was part of an order made a long time ago, along with the first off the line?
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:03 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 137):
No, but that will be the replacement of the A320NEO and 737MAX series anyway. The challenge would be to differentiate the MoM against those.

Erm...

pardon my stupidity... but why would you want to differentiate them again?
 
glbltrvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 973
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:31 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):
But even a corollary to that questions is 'What routes aren't being operated, that would be operated if the right aircraft existed'. There are a lot of ways to define this market.

Agreed. But that gets back to the hazy crystal ball and tolerance for risk. As an airline, it's pretty easy to look at a current route and equipment and determine how a new aircraft will affect trip costs, revenue and yield. When you look at unserved routes, there are a lot more guesses involved, which affect the airline willingness to take a chance.

In some respects, this is similar to the A380/787 debate. That was whether the growth would be major hub to major hub, vs. major hub to secondary city. The MoM debate is that plus whether there will be sufficient growth in secondary city to secondary city traffic to warrant the investment in a new design.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:34 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 136):
Yes it has. Here is an article about the latest installment of the improvements announced last year resulting in a 2-5% improvement over the existing 777.
http://aviationweek.com/advanced-mac.../boeing-rolls-out-777-upgrade-plan

Here is an article about Project Ozark improvements to the 747-8.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...747-8-improvements-sales-campaigns

I am personally [not] surprised this is even questioned.

You are supporting the viewpoint though that Boeing does do their improvements in batches rather than over each year. Your links support this where it talks about improvements that is being done in the recent past, yet you haven't supplied information from the years before.

Also about your surprise, I haven't seen where it is said that Boeing doesn't improve their aircraft and Airbus does, just that it is done differently.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:04 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 140):
Erm...

pardon my stupidity... but why would you want to differentiate them again?

So that you do not develop a MoM with an EiS by 2025 that would end up as a direct competitor for your NSA that would see the EiS by 2030.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:08 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 143):
So that you do not develop a MoM with an EiS by 2025 that would end up as a direct competitor for your NSA that would see the EiS by 2030.

Why reinvent the wheel when you could use one to bridge to the other and cut your development costs/risks?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26388
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:22 pm

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 139):
How do the improvements actually get implemented by the manufacturers?

Generally via PiP (Performance Improvement Packages). Often some or all of the PiP can be retrofitted to existing frames.

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 139):
And say there's an airline with orders for 50 A330 over 7 years. Would the first A330 they receive be worse than the last one they receive?

Depends on what PiPs, if any, were released during the intervening period,



Quoting MPadhi (Reply 139):
And would the airline pay more for the more capable aircraft that was latest off the line, even if it was part of an order made a long time ago, along with the first off the line?

I imagine a customer would not be directly charged for a PiP for a to-be-built airframe. Such costs are generally accounted for in the MSRP hikes the manufacturers perform on an annual basis. Sales contracts also include Escalation Clauses to account for projected future rises in MSRP so the delivery price of a Year 7 A330 in the contract will be higher than the delivery price for a Year 1 A330.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8725
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:23 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 144):
Why reinvent the wheel when you could use one to bridge to the other and cut your development costs/risks?

If they can do this, good for Boeing.
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 145):
Generally via PiP (Performance Improvement Packages). Often some or all of the PiP can be retrofitted to existing frames.

Regarding this, are PIPs usually a software change, or are there any hardware changes done too?

Thanks for the answer so far  
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:34 pm

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 147):
Regarding this, are PIPs usually a software change, or are there any hardware changes done too?


Something large enough to be wrapped into a PiP is usually both, although thats not a hard rule. CPD would bring software updates more continually, but (while sometimes very very useful), in isolation usually not worthy in itself of PiP status.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2784
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
After all, jetliner market history shows that very often the second mover has the advantage, as the second mover learns from the first mover’s mistakes."

I'm not sure there's enough data to support that conclusion. In fact I think these days the opposite is true- the first mover has an opportunity to hit the sweet spot in the market. Mistakes can and are generally rectified if the sales are there.

For the narrowbodies I think the sheer size of the market means the sales of the planes will be largely dependent on the quality of the product rather than who moves first. For the MoM plane though the market is much smaller, so I think the first mover has a big advantage.

Personally though I believe the market is too small for any such clean sheet, so I doubt this plane will ever materialize.
Four Granavox Turbines!

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