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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:32 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 141):
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.

Agreed. I can't think of a more risky recent venture than this. Hopefully the uncertainty is addressed with detailed and meaningful conversations of would be buyers. The sheer number and magnitude of narrowbody-only operators who will not consider A330s/787s, if interested in the MoM, would be meaningful in my opinion. But even commitments from those operators still implies risk as well. I accept its a tough call but I am good at spending other people's money.  
Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 141):
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.

Absolutely, and we see how that debate worked out. I wouldn't bet against further fragmentation.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 141):
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.

Agreed that is an element but I don't think its the biggest one. This is my personally hierarchy according to largest to smallest market/use-case:

(1) Upgauging non-range-limited 737/A320 routes to fit demand or gate/slot availability
(2) New Routes above 2,500nm
(3) Existing 757/A320/737 routes that are stretching narrowbody capability and could benefit from MoM range.
(4) Existing A330/787/767 routes that could benefit from higher yields, lower costs or higher frequency

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 149):
In fact I think these days the opposite is true- the first mover has an opportunity to hit the sweet spot in the market.

I think the concept of 'sweet spot' is a misnomer. I think the sweet spot or the area that generates the most sales are those that have an aircraft that has the best economics or capability in a size that is somewhat unique from competition. I think the airline industry does change based on the tools it has at its disposal as much as the OEMs produce aircraft that are response to the market. One is more flexible than the other.

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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:34 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 148):
CPD would bring software updates more continually

Sorry for all the questions, but what's CPD?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18305
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:15 pm

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 119):
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

A320NEO PIPs and production ramp. Includes A321LR.
A350-1100 (if launched)
A350 PIPs (already promised)
A330NEO EIS
I assume another A380 PIP, but I could be wrong.
A400 (issues to fix)

Enough that Airbus is too distracted to launch a new airframe at this time.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:57 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 150):
The sheer number and magnitude of narrowbody-only operators who will not consider A330s/787s, if interested in the MoM, would be meaningful in my opinion

The issue is not that they will consider widebodies, it's that they will be happy with a 321 for significantly less $$$.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 150):
I think the concept of 'sweet spot' is a misnomer. I think the sweet spot or the area that generates the most sales are those that have an aircraft that has the best economics or capability in a size that is somewhat unique from competition.

That is part of the definition of a sweet spot, yes, but there are other factors too. Some market segments are inherently less profitable than others.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:45 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 153):
The issue is not that they will consider widebodies, it's that they will be happy with a 321 for significantly less $$$.

Boeing would be silly if they don't plan on the MoM being about 25%-33% more expensive than the A321neo as that is how much more range and more revenue its expected to carry on its flights and the price of an airplane is a manifestation of the airline's profits. Surely they can't get 787-type pricing for this MoM which is why the 787- based solution is a non-starter. This price jump is one good reason why narrowbody operators resist the jump. The MOM has the option to change that.

tortugamon
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:55 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 153):
That is part of the definition of a sweet spot, yes, but there are other factors too. Some market segments are inherently less profitable than others.

That is true, but in the narrow body category the biggest part of of the market has relatively narrow segment. 80% of single aisle sectors flown are under two hours.

The manufacturer who moves first with new narrow body platform defines its product around what he thinks is the sweet spot in the market, then the other guy will make each model of its new product exactly 2 rows longer, and instantly the sweet spot has moved, and he has gained significant competitive advantage.

Just look how much Boeing gained from sizing the 737-800 just above the 320. They would have done the same thing with the 737-900 against the 321 if they would not have bin limited by factors much discussed here on A-net.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:30 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154):
Boeing would be silly if they don't plan on the MoM being about 25%-33% more expensive than the A321neo as that is how much more range and more revenue its expected to carry on its flights and the price of an airplane is a manifestation of the airline's profits

Well again, that goes without saying. The critical question is not where it should be priced but how many examples can be sold which are able to generate the profits you describe. Clearly there will be a few existing 757 routes which are more profitable when flown on a small widebody (likely not many), clearly many more which will be more profitable with a 321NEO or Boeing equivalent. What's left is the market for a MoM plane. I think that number isn't big enough to make a clean sheet viable.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 155):
Just look how much Boeing gained from sizing the 737-800 just above the 320.

What did they gain exactly, other than the obvious gain coming from ten years of technological progress? What advantage did they get that Airbus didn't?
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:43 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 156):
The critical question is not where it should be priced but how many examples can be sold which are able to generate the profits you describe. Clearly there will be a few existing 757 routes which are more profitable when flown on a small widebody (likely not many), clearly many more which will be more profitable with a 321NEO or Boeing equivalent. What's left is the market for a MoM plane. I think that number isn't big enough to make a clean sheet viable.

To be clear I do think this concept is dead in the water if it can't match A321neo economics on missions of ~1,500nm and more. It has been said by more informed people that the 739 and the A321 are really geared toward roughly two hour flight times and that cruising for longer with those small wings is not as appealing as what a larger wing can provide. There reaches a point where a MoM and an A321neo cross in term of seat costs and that cannot be at 3,000nm.

So, no, its not just about what the MoM can do vs Small widebody and whatever the A321neo can't do. It has to be competitive on shorter routes or it won't get built.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:22 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 157):
So, no, its not just about what the MoM can do vs Small widebody and whatever the A321neo can't do. It has to be competitive on shorter routes or it won't get built.

I don't think it will be particularly difficult to be competitive against a small widebody, but against a PiPed 321NEO (or, depending on the timeline, an ENEO*) I'd say it has to be more than competitive to garner the kind of order volume which will justify a clean sheet.

If they can build a plane which does everything brilliantly then of course they will clean up. But in reality every plane has to make compromises, and besting Airbus in the short and medium range market using a single frame is a pipe dream IMO. It might have been possible 40 years ago, but barring some incredible technological leap which is only available to Boeing I don't see it happening.

* Even Newer Engine Option, for want of a better term.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
astuteman
Posts: 6932
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:14 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 152):
A320NEO PIPs and production ramp. Includes A321LR.
A350-1100 (if launched)
A350 PIPs (already promised)
A330NEO EIS
I assume another A380 PIP, but I could be wrong.
A400 (issues to fix)

Enough that Airbus is too distracted to launch a new airframe at this time

Stand aside the "not yet launched" A350-1100, I see nothing in there that takes engineering more than 3 years out to complete, or become "BAU".

I'd consider PIP's to be pretty much BAU. Both OEM's do them all the time.

In "programme" terms, Airbus have
the A330-800NEO and A330-900NEO - should be done by 2018
The A350-1000 - should be done by 2017
neither of these are huge.
So apart from the usual PIPs, Airbus currently completely run out of development work in 2018

Airbus need another fairly big development programme in the next 12-18 months to maintain their engineering capability
perhaps 24-30 months if they intend to allow the engineering capability to shrink a bit (which they might)

Rgds
 
Aither
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:43 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:28 am

There is a middle of the market today, it's between the 747 and the A320 and it's crowded by many aircraft types already.

This middle of the middle and the low is just nonsense : an airline will continue to need the size of a single aisle, and if it's a bigger airline they will also need something like a widebody. Only a few markets will require something between and it will be always better to address these markets with a mix of aircraft, or maybe less frequencies, or maybe with some stimulation to fill a larger aircraft - but certainly not by adding again another aircraft type.

It's exactly for the same reasons aircraft between the A320s and the RJs struggle to sell well.

[Edited 2016-04-19 22:31:52]
Never trust the obvious
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:24 am

I would not call it nonsense but the whole topic has one major logic fault: If the market is big enough to warrant a new design, it is not logical for Airbus to wait for Boeing.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:28 am

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 156):
What did they gain exactly, other than the obvious gain coming from ten years of technological progress? What advantage did they get that Airbus didn't?

Extra seats? That is the easiest way to improve efficiency against your competitor. That is why the 787 went 9-abreast as standard and why Airbus is putting in space flex galleys, to add more seats to enhance the overall attractiveness of their product. If the 738 wasn't a little longer than the A320 I am confident that it would be a dud in the MAX/NEO campaign and you would have seen a 75-25 split in favour of the A320.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15463
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:42 am

In all of this, the thing I find funny is that Boeing has steadfastly denied that there is much of a requirement for a "MoM" aircraft, yet if you look back at 757 orders in the late 70s/early 80s, there wasn't a single operator calling for it to be used on transatlantic missions and so forth.

Point being, the aircraft's performance characteristics actually "created" markets that hadn't yet existed. I have to wonder if Boeing has considered this factor when looking at MoM economic justifications.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:49 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 161):
I would not call it nonsense but the whole topic has one major logic fault: If the market is big enough to warrant a new design, it is not logical for Airbus to wait for Boeing.

Agreed, I think what we are seeing is Boeing receiving lukewarm responses from airlines to the 739MAX and realizing that the A321 is stealing all the thunder. They need a competitor for the A321 and they are the ones talking about this market in glowing terms. This is no different than Airbus talking up the market where the A380 resides.

If the MOM sits on top off the 757 in terms of size then Boeing just about gave up the market when they shut down the line. The fact that they did may speak more about the market than anything.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:57 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 163):

Today's 757 use is a result of investment shy airlines having frames
available whose original use case was encroached by range
extensions of the initially short rage NB families.
( and those being much more efficient at the task.)

Thus it is less of a demand slot than a secondary use slot.
Saturating airports with 757 "visits" is inefficient.

Synopsis: MOM is more of a mirage than anything else
... to contain further A321 sales via FUD.
And this seems to have some weight.
In defining the MOM Boeing appears to have been careful
to place it upwards of their current portfolio
where it does not overlay the MAX family.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:05 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 163):
In all of this, the thing I find funny is that Boeing has steadfastly denied that there is much of a requirement for a "MoM" aircraft, yet if you look back at 757 orders in the late 70s/early 80s, there wasn't a single operator calling for it to be used on transatlantic missions and so forth.

Or look at it the other way, when 737-800/900 and A321 offered a capacity close to the 757 (the 757 was designed when the 734 was the biggest jet in the class) they replaced the 757 on most shorter routes, as they are more efficient. So airlines needed to find new roles for their 757 fleet and they found it in those long thin routes. But one should not forget that those 757 are mostly paid for and have been available. It is not certain that airlines would buy a new plane for such routes, as a new plane would mean serious capital costs. It is the same as same airlines have found a role for their A343s, by using them in a high density configuration on medium to long routes and for lower yielding destinations.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:18 am

Quoting MPadhi (Reply 151):
Sorry for all the questions, but what's CPD?

Continuous Product Development.
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:58 am

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 167):
Continuous Product Development.

Thanks for the replies  
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:20 pm

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 163):
In all of this, the thing I find funny is that Boeing has steadfastly denied that there is much of a requirement for a "MoM" aircraft, yet if you look back at 757 orders in the late 70s/early 80s, there wasn't a single operator calling for it to be used on transatlantic missions and so forth.

Point being, the aircraft's performance characteristics actually "created" markets that hadn't yet existed. I have to wonder if Boeing has considered this factor when looking at MoM economic justifications.

Note that ETOPS wasn't a 'thing' till the mid 80s so 757s couldn't do a lot of TATL routings very well, they needed to stay within 60 minutes of land instead of 90 then 120 then 180.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 165):

Today's 757 use is a result of investment shy airlines having frames
available whose original use case was encroached by range
extensions of the initially short rage NB families.
( and those being much more efficient at the task.)

True.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 166):
Or look at it the other way, when 737-800/900 and A321 offered a capacity close to the 757 (the 757 was designed when the 734 was the biggest jet in the class) they replaced the 757 on most shorter routes, as they are more efficient. So airlines needed to find new roles for their 757 fleet and they found it in those long thin routes. But one should not forget that those 757 are mostly paid for and have been available. It is not certain that airlines would buy a new plane for such routes, as a new plane would mean serious capital costs. It is the same as same airlines have found a role for their A343s, by using them in a high density configuration on medium to long routes and for lower yielding destinations.

Also true.

The 757 was indeed launched in the era of the 734 and also the 727. It was initially going to be a more efficient 727 but the launch customers BA and EA pushed to make it a notch bigger and more capable than the 727. Note the 727 kept selling pretty well into the 80s so it probably wasn't too hard to convince Boeing to go a bit bigger. Therefore 757 was the MOM of its day. As there was no A320 and no suitable 737 to fly longer US domestic and intra-Europe routes it sold well, however it left a perfect 727 replacement market to the A320. Boeing was considering a clean sheet 7J7 but decided to respond with 737NG. As noted the proliferation of A320 and 737NG took away much of the need for 757. Then ETOPS came along and made it feasible to use 757 as a TATL platform, but I agree with the idea that it didn't sell many frames for such roles, it just gave some a new role to play.
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
william
Posts: 3194
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:33 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 169):
Boeing was considering a clean sheet 7J7 but decided to respond with 737NG

THIS...............Should have dropped the UDF powerplant concept and slap some turbofans back there and launched it. It would have had cockpit commonality with the 757 and 767. The 7J7 WAS the true 727 replacement and A320 answer.
 
morrisond
Posts: 1661
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:52 pm

If Boeing were to Adopt Folding tips from the 778/9 and assuming they could get the same 23' span increase and still fit in a Narrowbody gate (group III) - is this the technology that makes the MOM feasible?

Would this give it the performance to beat A321NEO economics and possibly take more passengers if they adapt a 7W 2 aisle oval tube?
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3272
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:21 pm

I posted this :

Quote:
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...

answered this:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
This speculation is very poor analysis and does no one any favors around here.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 113):
From the article posted above and something I do agree with:

"Boeing, therefore, absolutely needs to get its MOM product choices right.

Did you read the posts?, and Please spare me the Carlos Slim BS?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 163):
In all of this, the thing I find funny is that Boeing has steadfastly denied that there is much of a requirement for a "MoM" aircraft, yet if you look back at 757 orders in the late 70s/early 80s, there wasn't a single operator calling for it to be used on transatlantic missions and so forth.

Point being, the aircraft's performance characteristics actually "created" markets that hadn't yet existed. I have to wonder if Boeing has considered this factor when looking at MoM economic justifications.

Agree. That is why I posted that Boeing needs to hit a bullseye (on a moving target).

IMHO Boeing cornered itself by failing to build the NSA in the 90's, now they are in a sour place, even with the orders of the MAX, if Airbus announces a successor to the A320, and Bombardier secures 400 to 1000 orders of the C series, they will be in deep problems ...

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:31 pm

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 172):
IMHO Boeing cornered itself by failing to build the NSA in the 90's, now they are in a sour place, even with the orders of the MAX, if Airbus announces a successor to the A320, and Bombardier secures 400 to 1000 orders of the C series, they will be in deep problems ...

Even if Airbus didn't make a successor to the A320, if they launched an A320.5 it would further marginalise the MAX lineup*. I wouldn't see that happening in the near future, not till real erosion of backlogs and drastic softening of market.


Even if they didn't stretch to an A322, its arguable Airbus would then (with an A320.5) have the superior product for 150-300 passengers for
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9264
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:14 pm

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 172):
IMHO Boeing cornered itself by failing to build the NSA in the 90's, now they are in a sour place, even with the orders of the MAX
In the 90s?! So the entire 737NG family was a mistake? On the contrary, the 737NG has been a resounding success for Boeing.

If Boeing is in a "sour place" with the 737MAX, then it's because of decisions they made on the 737MAX.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3272
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:33 pm

While I agree partly with your assessment, if Boeing had gone clean sheet on the 90´s, they would have sold the same amount of aircraft because Airbus did not have multiple FAL´s at the time, now its a different ballpark, they are even churning out aircraft in Alabama.
If Boeing had the boldness to design a new one they would be Neo ing the 78X (or whatever the name would be)

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:42 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 174):
In the 90s?! So the entire 737NG family was a mistake?

Yes.

No supercritical wing.
No increased u/c height.
No full FBW FCS.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 174):
On the contrary, the 737NG has been a resounding success for Boeing.

That's the short term view.... a wall street view. But it has crippled the ability of Boeing to respond now and in the medium term future. The profitability of the narrowbody range is at major risk.

Due to prolonging the easy-profit with the NG, now Boeing can no longer:
- respond in a timely fashion (that time was about 4 years ago)
- with a technical advantage
- ramp sufficiently quickly to meet demand
- build a replacement at a manufacturing cost that will allow sufficient sales or profits.
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:59 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
That's the short term view.... a wall street view.

What?
I mean - I'm all in favour of taking a long-term view as opposed to a short-term/quarter-based view.
But to call the 737NG a mistake that was made based on a view that was "too short-term" is - a pretty unique perspective, to be honest.
By the time MAX comes online, the NG family will have been in service for 20 years, with way over 7,000 ordered/delivered. That's not a short-term programme, nor a short-term commercial success by any stretch of the imagination.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
No supercritical wing.
No increased u/c height.
No full FBW FCS.

None of these would have pushed sales that much higher (if at all), while each item on this list would have introduced significant increases in cost, i.e. it would have been detrimental to profit. Profit not measured over a quarter, but over the ~20 year life of the programme, during which it's supposed to generate profits to pay for R&D in various fields and programmes.
42
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9264
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 174):
In the 90s?! So the entire 737NG family was a mistake?

Yes.

I have officially "seen it all."   

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
No supercritical wing.
No increased u/c height.
No full FBW FCS.

Totally irrelevant and factually wrong. Irrelevant because all of those technologies are just a means to achieving lower weight and higher reliability. The 737NG achieved lower weight and higher reliability than the A320 without Them. Factually wrong because the 737NG wing did, in fact, implement supercritical methods and the MLG height was raised slightly.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
That's the short term view.... a wall street view.

The 737NG will have a 25-30 year production run with over 7,000 units built. There is nothing short-term about it.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
But it has crippled the ability of Boeing to respond now and in the medium term future.

The 737NG has done no such thing.

If Boeing is "crippled" by the limitations of the 737 platform, then that is the fault of the 737MAX team who chose to retain a platform with those shortcomings. Boeing had no obligation to use the 737 platform for a fourth generation.

It is not the fault of the 737NG team for failing to "future-proof" a product with features that the market did not want/need for a quarter century.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
Due to prolonging the easy-profit with the NG, now Boeing can no longer:

And this is just the coup-de-grace. Boeing can no longer compete because the profits came "too easily" with the 737NG. Thanks again for the laugh.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26448
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:00 pm

Quoting TheRedBAron (Reply 172):
IMHO Boeing cornered itself by failing to build the NSA in the 90's...

They'd just sunk billions into the 777 program so I doubt Boeing had the cash to spend another huge chunk on launching an all-new narrowbody.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 174):
So the entire 737NG family was a mistake?
Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
Yes.

No supercritical wing.
No increased u/c height.
No full FBW FCS.

And yet it still sold over 80% as many as the A320 family.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 176):
That's the short term view.... a wall street view. But it has crippled the ability of Boeing to respond now and in the medium term future. The profitability of the narrowbody range is at major risk.

No, completely blowing the 787 program crippled Boeing's ability to respond now. Airbus also launching a true 777-300ER competior didn't help, either. Between the two, Boeing lacks the engineering and financial resources to launch an all-new narrowbody.

And honestly, what if the 787 had worked to plan and Boeing had invested deep into ten figures to have NSA about ready to enter service instead of MAX? We know the biggest benefit right now is the new engines and NSA and neo would both have them. And Airbus, having spent fantastically less on the A320neo, would likely be able to undercut Boeing on pricing just as they are doing with the A330neo against the 787.

So would Boeing really be doing so much better with NSA than the MAX?
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:32 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
So would Boeing really be doing so much better with NSA than the MAX?

No, but they would have taken the hit of designing a clean sheet at a time when the narrowbody market is at record levels.

Boeing need a clean sheet at some point, but they can kick the can down the road a bit. They just need to make sure that when the time comes, the 737's profit margins haven't already dried up. Right now when fuel is cheap and orders plentiful, there's nothing to worry about, but these conditions may not last.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 162):
Extra seats? That is the easiest way to improve efficiency against your competitor. That is why the 787 went 9-abreast as standard and why Airbus is putting in space flex galleys, to add more seats to enhance the overall attractiveness of their product.

In terms of long term strategy it didn't necessarily gain them a whole lot though. And remember neither of these were clean sheets- their base designs' entry into service were nearly twenty years apart- so I don't think they tell us much about first/second mover advantage with a MoM or NSA.

Don't get me wrong, there are clearly some advantages to going second, they're just dwarfed by the advantages of going first.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:35 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 177):
What?
I mean - I'm all in favour of taking a long-term view as opposed to a short-term/quarter-based view.
But to call the 737NG a mistake that was made based on a view that was "too short-term" is - a pretty unique perspective, to be honest.

Yet look at the hole Boeing find themselves in now and the much deeper hole they may find themselves in around 2025.

We've yet to see anything like the extent of the problem the NG and MAX lineage will cause Boeing.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 178):
Totally irrelevant and factually wrong

Elements of supercriticality does not equate to a supercritical wing.

My bad on the MLG lift, indeed you are right. They raised it as much as they could without changing the installation wells. Which got around the immediate problem.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 178):
The 737NG has done no such thing.

Tying themselves to the NG airframe means Boeing will now (and for the next 15 years) be at least 1 step behind Airbus. In technology, production and/or profit.

If they'd decided to launch a replacement for the NG in 2005, then it wouldn't have been so bad. They didn't 'cos NG wasn't old enough, which meant they were in no position to respond adequately when Airbus launched the neo.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:45 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 178):
And this is just the coup-de-grace. Boeing can no longer compete because the profits came "too easily" with the 737NG. Thanks again for the laugh.

Way to completely misread.


If they'd spent the development money on a NSA in the 90s, they'd have lost a few billion in profit between 1995-2000, but made themselves tens of billions in additional profits between 2010 and 2030.

This is why the NG was a mistake.

[Edited 2016-04-20 10:46:03]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:58 pm

The NG was perfectly fine, but in the time between the launched the NG and today, there must have gone something wrong. I must say I was very surprised that they did not touch the MLG with the MAX, simply because the need to do so must not have come as a surprise. The 900 was already rotation angle limited and they should have known long ago that fans were getting bigger. I was confident that they would have a new MLG already designed and ready to implement for the MAX. Fact is they did not go this route, which imho was a major mistake and I would like to know the reason for it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:01 pm

Because it requires fundamental changes to wing and fuselage.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):

And honestly, what if the 787 had worked to plan and Boeing had invested deep into ten figures to have NSA about ready to enter service instead of MAX? We know the biggest benefit right now is the new engines and NSA and neo would both have them.

I'd say since its design center would be close to or somewhat larger than 738 it could be stunting the growth of the A321 and could be well positioned to hang an even better GTF than the one that fits onto an A321. Also the A321 wing is sub-optimal for the load it carries or the amount of fuel it should be carrying, and one could hope a clean sheet could do the 738 and the A321 missions better than the current frames.
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
william
Posts: 3194
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:06 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
We know the biggest benefit right now is the new engines and NSA and neo would both have them. And Airbus, having spent fantastically less on the A320neo, would likely be able to undercut Boeing on pricing just as they are doing with the A330neo against the 787.

So would Boeing really be doing so much better with NSA than the MAX?

Spot on.....
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2438
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:11 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
We know the biggest benefit right now is the new engines and NSA and neo would both have them. And Airbus, having spent fantastically less on the A320neo, would likely be able to undercut Boeing on pricing just as they are doing with the A330neo against the 787.

So would Boeing really be doing so much better with NSA than the MAX?

Yes.

They wouldn't have surrendered the market to the A321 in both proft and share. They may also have had a viable MoM option already in their portfolio.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18305
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:29 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 153):
The issue is not that they will consider widebodies, it's that they will be happy with a 321 for significantly less $$$.

B6, 6E, NK, and U2 wouldn't consider a widebody this decade. All will significantly expand their route network with the NEO. All would look at a MoM. They want the low cost on shorter flights to keep up utilization.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 154):
This price jump is one good reason why narrowbody operators resist the jump. The MOM has the option to change that.

Widebody design is too optimized for range and cargo. The MoM would open a new segment not served since the 707 and DC-8.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 156):
Clearly there will be a few existing 757 routes which are more profitable when flown on a small widebody (likely not many)

Not many compared to the MoM.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 158):

I don't think it will be particularly difficult to be competitive against a small widebody, but against a PiPed 321NEO (or, depending on the timeline, an ENEO*) I'd say it has to be more than competitive to garner the kind of order volume which will justify a clean sheet.

The NEO has quite a bit of legacy that adds fuel burn and maintenance cost. Now that the 787 is (more) debugged, Airlines are asking for the diagnostics.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 159):
Airbus need another fairly big development programme in the next 12-18 months to maintain their engineering capability
perhaps 24-30 months if they intend to allow the engineering capability to shrink a bit (which they might)

I think the A350-1100 makes that 36 to 48 months. Yes, they will launch something. But not as soon as Boeing.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26448
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:33 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 182):
If they'd spent the development money on a NSA in the 90s, they'd have lost a few billion in profit between 1995-2000, but made themselves tens of billions in additional profits between 2010 and 2030.

Actually they'd have lost billions between 1995-2005 thanks to 9/11 and SARs. So they would have started making money in 2006. And Airbus likely would have jumped themselves and had a competing narrowbody in place, denying Boeing the ability to charge a premium anymore.



Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 182):
This is why the NG was a mistake.

NSA in 1995 would have been a bigger one.


Quoting seahawk (Reply 183):
The NG was perfectly fine, but in the time between the launched the NG and today, there must have gone something wrong.

What is wrong is that the market, post-consolidation, is starting to favor larger narrowbody planes. So this is playing up the A321-200neo's strengths as well as the 737-9's weaknesses.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 185):
I'd say since its design center would be close to or somewhat larger than 738 it could be stunting the growth of the A321 and could be well positioned to hang an even better GTF than the one that fits onto an A321. Also the A321 wing is sub-optimal for the load it carries or the amount of fuel it should be carrying, and one could hope a clean sheet could do the 738 and the A321 missions better than the current frames.

But is seems perfectly reasonable to assume Airbus would have responded with an A321NG - longer fuselage, new wing and said new engines. Boeing would still have the "better" product, but I expect the delta between it and the "A322" would not be as wide as the current delta between the A321-200neo and 737-9.



Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 187):
Yes. They wouldn't have surrendered the market to the A321 in both proft and share. They may also have had a viable MoM option already in their portfolio.

They would have instead likely shared the top-end of the market with the A321, but at a much higher cost than Airbus expended to do so.



As such, MOM designed around the 757-200 and 757-300 might very well make sense. If the market is going larger, then starting fresh with an optimized design might very well be better-positioned to fight off the "A322" then a stretched NSA.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):
What is wrong is that the market, post-consolidation, is starting to favor larger narrowbody planes. So this is playing up the A321-200neo's strengths as well as the 737-9's weaknesses.

But that weakness was known and I wonder why it was not addressed.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26448
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 190):
But that weakness was known and I wonder why it was not addressed.

As others have noted, the costs to do so (both in direct R&D and certification) was too high for the timeframe MAX is intended to cover (which I honestly believe will be 15 years, tops). And Boeing may yet be able to tweak the 737-9's field performance a bit down the road to improve it - not to the level of the A321, perhaps, but sufficient to make it desirable again to 737-8 / 737MAX-200 operators.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9264
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:39 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 181):
Elements of supercriticality does not equate to a supercritical wing.

You and WIederling should enjoy a beer together. Afterwards, you can tell me which aircraft has a "pure" supercritical wing. All production supercritical wings are a compromise between laboratory concept and real-world design.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 182):
Way to completely misread.

If they'd spent the development money on a NSA in the 90s, they'd have lost a few billion in profit between 1995-2000, but made themselves tens of billions in additional profits between 2010 and 2030.

This is why the NG was a mistake.

I understood you perfectly, but you don't understand net present value. By your own judgement, launching NSA in the 1990s would have been either negative NPV or greatly reduced NPV versus the 737NG. Dollars in the near-term are worth more than dollars in the long-term. Launching a program with lower NPV in the 1990s would have left Boeing with fewer resources to compete in 2016. You always take the "easy profit," especially when you can do so for another quarter century.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8852
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:43 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 191):
As others have noted, the costs to do so (both in direct R&D and certification) was too high for the timeframe MAX is intended to cover (which I honestly believe will be 15 years, tops). And Boeing may yet be able to tweak the 737-9's field performance a bit down the road to improve it - not to the level of the A321, perhaps, but sufficient to make it desirable again to 737-8 / 737MAX-200 operators.

But with a new MLG, the MAX would be competitive for a longer period..
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:52 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):

They would have instead likely shared the top-end of the market with the A321, but at a much higher cost than Airbus expended to do so.

As such, MOM designed around the 757-200 and 757-300 might very well make sense. If the market is going larger, then starting fresh with an optimized design might very well be better-positioned to fight off the "A322" then a stretched NSA.

Yet Airbus's cost for narrow body dominance now is nothing (presuming MAX and NEO cost a similar amount0 and they are in position to be out producing and out earning Boeing shortly with no end in sight.

Note that a NSA would be pressuring Airbus's A320 market as well as A321.

Instead Boeing chooses to use its money to pay dividends and buy back stock, which interestingly enough puts a lot of money into their executive's pockets.
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: 26448
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:16 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 193):
But with a new MLG, the MAX would be competitive for a longer period..

Yes it would have been on a pure performance basis. But if the trade-offs for customers on things like maintenance, training, etc. were equally high or higher...



Quoting Revelation (Reply 194):
Yet Airbus's cost for narrow body dominance now is nothing (presuming MAX and NEO cost a similar amount) and they are in position to be out producing and out earning Boeing shortly with no end in sight.

Well Airbus has generally delivered more narrowbody planes than Boeing. The change now is that the highest-margin model (A321) is increasing.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 194):
Note that a NSA would be pressuring Airbus's A320 market as well as A321.

It would, but by how much? 737-8 and 737MAX-200 are already strong competitors to the A320-200neo.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 194):
Instead Boeing chooses to use its money to pay dividends and buy back stock, which interestingly enough puts a lot of money into their executive's pockets.

And to be fair it puts more money in my pocket as a Boeing shareholder thanks to a rising stock price. That being said, I'd rather Boeing spend the money on product as that will also raise the stock price and earn me more money.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:23 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 191):
As others have noted, the costs to do so (both in direct R&D and certification) was too high for the timeframe MAX is intended to cover (which I honestly believe will be 15 years, tops). And Boeing may yet be able to tweak the 737-9's field performance a bit down the road to improve it - not to the level of the A321, perhaps, but sufficient to make it desirable again to 737-8 / 737MAX-200 operators.

What's going to change in 15 years though? Particularly if, as you suggest, an NSA doesn't actually gain much compared to a potential A322. When will the NSA be a justifiable expense?
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:23 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 180):
No, but they would have taken the hit of designing a clean sheet at a time when the narrowbody market is at record levels.

Well, launching when the market is at record levels can be a two-edged sword, looking at how Boeing hit just that sweet spot and then messed up the 787 execution. Had the same thing happened with an NSA it would have had the potential to break the company, especially as Boeing had only just lived through the 787 (and 747-8) experience.
To that background, doing a lower-risk evolutional step that maybe won't quite reach the sales numbers of the NEO but will still do very well and make a lot of money for all parties involved seems like a very prudent and sensible step, to be honest.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 182):
If they'd spent the development money on a NSA in the 90s, they'd have lost a few billion in profit between 1995-2000, but made themselves tens of billions in additional profits between 2010 and 2030.
This is why the NG was a mistake.

So you're saying 15 years is "short term" and 20 years is a more suitable "long term" view. Taking away, as you nonchalantly do, a good portion of 15 years' worth of 737NG cash-flow and profit is a really, really big deal. And then you keep on assuming quite a lot of things beyond that - not least of all that Airbus would not have responded in kind, thus enabling Boeing to make all those additional 2010-2030 profits to begin with.
Sorry, but it's nigh-impossible to take that line of argument seriously.

Quoting william (Reply 186):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):
We know the biggest benefit right now is the new engines and NSA and neo would both have them. And Airbus, having spent fantastically less on the A320neo, would likely be able to undercut Boeing on pricing just as they are doing with the A330neo against the 787.
So would Boeing really be doing so much better with NSA than the MAX?

Spot on.....

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 189):

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 182):
This is why the NG was a mistake.

NSA in 1995 would have been a bigger one.

  

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 187):
They wouldn't have surrendered the market to the A321 in both proft and share. They may also have had a viable MoM option already in their portfolio.

So they would have maybe been closer to 50:50 or even 60:40 instead of the current 40:60 split in their favour. Except at much higher cost and risk.
42
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26448
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:03 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 196):
What's going to change in 15 years though?

Better engines. Better materials (either CFRP or newer, lighter aluminum alloys). Perhaps better aerodynamics (more extensive use of the laminar flow drag reduction systems found on the 787 and 737MAX). Perhaps a more electric architecture (as also found on the 787) depending on the maturity level.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:29 pm

Quoting anfromme (Reply 197):
Well, launching when the market is at record levels can be a two-edged sword, looking at how Boeing hit just that sweet spot and then messed up the 787 execution.

Now imagine the 787 had been launched in a market slump. Assuming the same mistakes had been made, things would have been far worse.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 197):
To that background, doing a lower-risk evolutional step that maybe won't quite reach the sales numbers of the NEO but will still do very well and make a lot of money for all parties involved seems like a very prudent and sensible step, to be honest.

I think it's a safe option after the 787 disaster. But I'd rather have seen them take the initiative rather than waiting for slumping narrowbody profits to force their hand. Building it in 1995 would have been silly, I agree. But building it today rather than in 20 years time would have made a lot of sense to me.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 198):
Better engines. Better materials (either CFRP or newer, lighter aluminum alloys). Perhaps better aerodynamics (more extensive use of the laminar flow drag reduction systems found on the 787 and 737MAX). Perhaps a more electric architecture (as also found on the 787) depending on the maturity level.

Incremental technology improvements are always happening though. That doesn't really make the case for the NSA being made at a particular point in time. An NSA built today would have many of the improvements you suggest above right away.

If there's some particular piece of killer technology that Boeing are waiting for which will lead to a big increase in efficiency I can understand waiting for it. Gradual improvements don't make the case though.
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