User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26432
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:45 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):
Are they talking about the A330 for the higher end of the MOM?

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

Against the A330-300 and A330-900 on missions below 2000nm, I would imagine it is not since it is smaller.

[Edited 2016-04-16 10:46:02]
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8768
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:17 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 49):
Are we supposed to understand that the 788 isn't competitive on medium range with the A330 ?

Yes, far to expensive to buy, investment cost is part of CASM.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6573
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sat Apr 16, 2016 6:28 pm

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.

Comparing those with the original post.....

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):

- there will be no up-dated 757

This agrees with the first bullet point in the OP.....

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
- Most Boeing execs believe that a cleansheet design is the only viable choice
.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
- customers would like a small wide body type for the purchase price of a large single aisle design

Jives with the second, third and fourth points (w/ a shot for a twin-aisle) but flies in the face of the fifth.....

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
- Single aisle misses the A300/A310/A330/B767 replacement market, belly cargo routes
- Twin aisle would stimulate new intra-Asia routes, Trans Atlantic routes, ME-EU routes
- Boeing can't build a twin aisle with single aisle production and operating economics
.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
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.

This runs against the first bullet point in the OP...though not without its merits. Exploring the possibilities.....

- Re-engine with a (lower thrust?) smaller diameter, improved derivative of GEnx2B54

- Lofted, wider span CFRP wings, maybe new CFRP wingbox

- Re-use taller landing gear from 767-400

- Adapt 787 cockpit

- Use flexible space-saving concepts to achieve target capacity (for a 762-size frame)


Depending on GE agreeing to develop an updated derivative of the GEnx2B54, it could be at par or a tad better than the Trent7000 technologically. The oft cited disadvantage of an added aisle in the 767 for just one more seat row could be offset with denser configurations, while the ability to carry containers side-by-side does not explain the lackluster orders for the A388 thus far. Certainly, a 762MAX (for lack of a better name) could be priced lower, being less efficient than and minus the staggering development and production costs of the 788...but those may be its biggest drawbacks ...for Boeing would like to see the latter amortized further.

[Edited 2016-04-16 11:56:18]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:25 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
Quoting william (Reply 34):
So Boeing has time and yes, let Airbus have their day with the A321. Airbus had to watch for years as the 777 printed money for Boeing with no competitive response.

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

It should be better for Airbus actually, seeing as the 737 was the cash cow for Boeing and not the 777. So Airbus will have the better product in the segment where the profits will be higher and they will have more sales as well.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 39):
As far as Boeings finances are concerned, I have read them, and don't see the problem. They are paying higher dividends, have lower debt, and have bought back 80 million shares, all in the last 5 years, when the 787 program was supposed to be bringing them to their knees.

Isn't this what happens with program accounting? At the time when the program should be in heading towards production break even it is actually showing profits. Now in the future when you would expect it to show good margins it will pay back those profits. So I don't know if I would be as bullish as you about their current position.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
- customers would like a small wide body type for the purchase price of a large single aisle design

This is not possible, otherwise it would have been done already. You either get a twin aisle or a single aisle. You cannot get a twin aisle at single aisle economics. I would like to have a ATM machine in my house that gives me money for free, what I want and the reality is two different things.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 45):
The other problem is that airlines had enough of moonshots after the 787 and were more positive towards up-dates instead of new designs.

Airlines care about getting their product on time and per agreed performance. Not 4 years late, heavy and having to add seats to match the performance guarantees. If you want to blame the airlines for these screw-up, go ahead.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17645
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:59 pm

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

It isn't? Boeing themselves say the 737 is the biggest contributor to their profits. So yes, Airbus will be delighted to be pumping out lots of A321s for years.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:04 am

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

The 777 is 3-4 times more expensive and widebodies have higher margin than the cut-throat narrowbody aircraft. No, I don't think its close.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
It isn't? Boeing themselves say the 737 is the biggest contributor to their profits. So yes, Airbus will be delighted to be pumping out lots of A321s for years.

As a whole it is the biggest contributor of profits but that is what happens when you deliver ~ 500 of them per year. Which they still will regardless of what the A321 does.

The A321s just started out pacing 777 deliveries and they are 1/3rd as expensive. I don't doubt that what you are suggesting could happen at some point down the road but to suggest that it is the current environment is really misinformed.


tortugamon
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8768
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:43 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 55):
The 777 is 3-4 times more expensive and widebodies have higher margin than the cut-throat narrowbody aircraft. No, I don't think its close.

It is hardly sensible to compare one model with a family, so I look at the A321 and the 777-300ER and 777X and A321neo.

Delivered 777-300ER 635 A321 1,247 1 to 1.96
on order 777-300ER 165 A321 394 1 to 2.39

on order 777X 306 A321neo 1,108 1 to 3.62

Yes, the A321 is and will earn quite a bit less per frame than the 777, but the numbers could well compensate, perhaps not in the past, but in the future, especially since the A321 sees little pressure regarding price.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:06 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 55):
The 777 is 3-4 times more expensive and widebodies have higher margin than the cut-throat narrowbody aircraft. No, I don't think its close.

More expensive doesn't always mean more profits though. It also depends on amount of deliveries and the margin, if you make $50 million per 777 and $20 million per 737, the 777 may have a higher margin but at 100 deliveries per year vs 500 it is only half as profitable for the company.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 55):
As a whole it is the biggest contributor of profits but that is what happens when you deliver ~ 500 of them per year. Which they still will regardless of what the A321 does.

The A321s just started out pacing 777 deliveries and they are 1/3rd as expensive. I don't doubt that what you are suggesting could happen at some point down the road but to suggest that it is the current environment is really misinformed.

Not sure what your original point was as it was unclear from your post. The 777 may have a larger margin on deliveries right now, but we know that they have future development cost that will need to be paid off with the 777X and they are selling end of the line 777s at less margin than they are receiving now. So you are correct that in the current environment the A321 may not be as profitable for Airbus as the 777 was for Boeing, but in a couple of years it will be different, not just some point down the road.

But we aren't talking about right now, unless the MOM is launched right now and it will take sales and margins from the A321 right now and it will start delivering right now. We are talking about the future and a few years down the line where the A321 will be in the same position as the 77W was. It will have a competitor but it will be the better option for most airlines and we can see this by airlines ordering the 737-8MAX and A321NEO.

It will also command a price premium for Airbus because there is no viable competitor against it. We know that airlines are complaining about A321 prices, yet we still see orders coming in. The 737 will still sell, but its market share has been declining. It will also be overtaken by the A320 at some point in the future in amount of orders and deliveries, even with a 20 year head start for the 737.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:46 am

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

I dont agree with this. I see Airbus looking at a longer A321 with a new wing that will fit the A320/A321/A321+ for the Chinese market. They could have a market in China for the A321+ in excess of 500 frames alone. The opportunity would allow them to move A350 systems/technology into the A320 series at the fraction of the cost of building a totally new airframe. The A321+ would exceeded current A320/737 economics by a margin which would then require Boeing to make a very significant investment in order to respond. Longer term it would provide Airbus with a common development/support mechanism for the A321+/A350/A380 sharing the same technology. Currently the A320/A330/A340 share the same technology.

When Boeing comes out with the MOM, then Airbus could Neo the A321+ and they are back to the duopoly. For Airbus the decision will come sooner than later as their R&D people are running out of work on the A350 & A330neo. The way to keep their R&D costs down it to have those R&D people working at a constant pace on longer term projects.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:07 am

Perhaps the most dangerous thing for Boeing is that this subject is being discussed at all!
Their 'new' plane (MAX) has yet to go into service or even close.Yet here ( and more importantly in general) the whole subject of NSA/MOM ( the latter perhaps 'a mirage' ) is being constantly discussed. It shows little faith in its current offering or how long it will be around.Thats not useful for the salesmen.If the MAX starts to be seen as a 'stopgap' then many sales will be lost to the NEO family IMHO.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:44 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 52):
This runs against the first bullet point in the OP...though not without its merits. Exploring the possibilities.....

- Re-engine with a (lower thrust?) smaller diameter, improved derivative of GEnx2B54

- Lofted, wider span CFRP wings, maybe new CFRP wingbox

- Re-use taller landing gear from 767-400

- Adapt 787 cockpit

- Use flexible space-saving concepts to achieve target capacity (for a 762-size frame)

Good points. My comments:
1) What would the benefit of smaller diameter be?
2) Why not just use the wing of the 767-400 if you want a wider span? Or at least the wing root. Then you avoid the CFRP wingbox, which would be a heavy investment.
3) Yes, and would be very easy in combination with 2)
4) Already done and certified with the 767-2C
5) Drop the floor a little so 8-across instead of 7-across.
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:59 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 55):
Which they still will regardless of what the A321 does.

Against the background of reducing margins, which I see this as Boeing 'achillies heel' in the mid term future. They are building plenty of aircraft, but the margins are reducing across the board for future sales. How do you think the reducing margins would affect the decision regarding the MOM/MADMAX launch?

I see the 737NG is having to be discounted heavily to fill the line, the 737MAX is not achieving the margins desired against the 320 series.

I see the 787 is having a hard time achieving its projected margins due to the stiff competition from the 330, AND it has $30b+ of deferred production costs to recoup.

The 777 is also being heavily discounted to fill the line and the 777X is costing alot at the same time. I wonder what price the launch orders sold at, considering the are over half the currant backlog. I hope Boeing learnt from selling early 787's too cheaply. The threat of a 3511, and if it comes to fruition, also puts dampener on sales at the top end of the range.

I also see Airbus struggling to make the margins it forecast years ago, on the 388 and that is what makes the business case for the NEO harder to stack up. When the original business case was presented years ago, 250 was the original break even number, but that had to be at better margins than has been achieved on the 388 sales so far.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:11 am

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 61):
I also see Airbus struggling to make the margins it forecast years ago, on the 388 and that is what makes the business case for the NEO harder to stack up. When the original business case was presented years ago, 250 was the original break even number, but that had to be at better margins than has been achieved on the 388 sales so far

Well...seems Airbus focus right now is on production ramp up on the 350 and 320/321neo....meanwhile they're still churning out 330s as well.

Quite a good postion seeing as they don't have an $30+ billion albatros around their neck!
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:10 pm

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

Really? Both ends? Finishing up the 330CEO line and struggling to get 330NEOs - hardly what I'd call "owning" that end of the market. And are we really now saying long-range 260-seaters are the upper end of the MoM?

The MoM segment is relatively minor - if both manufacturers do nothing, then airlines will just have to make do, which they have for some time. Maybe Boeing will lighten the 787-8, maybe revive the -3? Maybe Airbus will go for the A322.

It just doesn't seem significant enough to justify an entirely new type. Let alone all the Boeing doom-and-gloom voiced in these threads.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2247
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:23 pm

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 63):
Maybe Boeing will lighten the 787-8, maybe revive the -3?

I don't see how Boeing can lighten the 787-8 much without adding more titanium, and it's the titanium that they're trying to get rid of now to get costs down. The -3 model was supposed to be a medium range 3500nm - 4000nm aircraft using the same fuselage as the -8 but with wings optimized for the shorter range. So I wouldn't call that a "Middle of Market" size either. It was supposed to be the same size as the -8.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 63):
It just doesn't seem significant enough to justify an entirely new type. Let alone all the Boeing doom-and-gloom voiced in these threads.

I think Boeing needs to focus their resources on the NSA instead of the MOM. A new 3 size NSA with the 737-8 as the base size, A321neo as the middle size and close to the 757-300 as the larger size would cover most of the MOM market as well as today's most sought after size aircraft. It's the only way to get Airbus playing catch-up again. And I mean serious catch-up, not easy like stretching the A321neo. The downside would be that they wouldn't have a competitive product in the sub 150 seat category, but that's something Airbus is struggling with too.
 
bobdino
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:13 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 59):
Perhaps the most dangerous thing for Boeing is that this subject is being discussed at all!
Their 'new' plane (MAX) has yet to go into service or even close.Yet here ( and more importantly in general) the whole subject of NSA/MOM ( the latter perhaps 'a mirage' ) is being constantly discussed. It shows little faith in its current offering or how long it will be around.Thats not useful for the salesmen.If the MAX starts to be seen as a 'stopgap' then many sales will be lost to the NEO family IMHO.

Well said. That expresses nicely a something I've been failing to put into words for a while now.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 63):
Really? Both ends? Finishing up the 330CEO line and struggling to get 330NEOs - hardly what I'd call "owning" that end of the market. And are we really now saying long-range 260-seaters are the upper end of the MoM?

The Aboulafia / Teal Group analysis intimates that the high end of the MOM is the low end of the A330/787 market, and that the A330 is winning in that space because of the 787's price. Essentially "it's cheap and on shorter legs the fuel burn difference doesn't matter as much".
 
User avatar
jambrain
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:28 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 40):
The quandary is that there currently is no path to a sufficiently advanced product.
Quoting seahawk (Reply 41):
- customers are very price sensitive
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 51):
Yes, far to expensive to buy, investment cost is part of CASM.

Hindsight perhaps but:-

Would an affordable option have been a 2 model 737 MadMax, one sized between -7 &-8 and one between -8 & -9 with a new wing-box / gears that allowed for the GTF?

I could see a MadMax 737-8.5 winning more RFPs against the 321 NEO than the -9 does, if it's CASM was better and range was sufficient.

I suspect the ship has sailed on that option with the deal B have signed giving CFM exclusivity.
Jambrain
 
bobdino
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:31 pm

Quoting jambrain (Reply 66):
Would an affordable option have been a 2 model 737 MadMax, one sized between -7 &-8 and one between -8 & -9 with a new wing-box / gears that allowed for the GTF?

My understanding was "once you redo the wing and main gear, you're most of the way towards paying for a new airplane." But that understanding is gleaned from this forum - I could be very wrong.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:32 pm

Quoting bobdino (Reply 67):
My understanding was "once you redo the wing and main gear, you're most of the way towards paying for a new airplane." But that understanding is gleaned from this forum - I could be very wrong.

No, think 737NG, 744, 748, 777X.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26432
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:27 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 58):
I dont agree with this. I see Airbus looking at a longer A321 with a new wing...The opportunity would allow them to move A350 systems/technology into the A320 series at the fraction of the cost of building a totally new airframe. The A321+ would exceeded current A320/737 economics by a margin which would then require Boeing to make a very significant investment in order to respond.

So Airbus does the A320NG and Boeing does an all-new plane. Essentially the reverse of what we have now with the A320 and 737NG.

I could see that, with the end result still being a general duopoly, though this time it will be Boeing selling more frames per year to help compensate for the more expensive investment (just as Airbus has consistently sold more A320s over the same period as Boeing has 737NGs).
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:13 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 69):
So Airbus does the A320NG and Boeing does an all-new plane. Essentially the reverse of what we have now with the A320 and 737NG.

Yes, the strategy worked well to replace the 737-200 and 727 and got Boeing to where it is today still building 737NGs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:01 pm

Most of the 757s in service are stated to be replaced by 737-9max or A321neo. Delta has 87 757s in domestic config as per wiki and older ones to be replaced by 737-900er. So it comes down to the 100 or so 757s flying long thin routes to Europe and S.America which dont have any replacement. BA might as well skip MOM. The 737 can't take any more bigger fanned engines and Boeing would have to replace it in the next generation probably.

sv11
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21588
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:26 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):

- Airbus will have R&D cash available to respond starting in 2018
- Current Boeing R&D cash is committed to other projects through 2021 (737MAX, 787-10, 777-8X/-9X).

If that's the case, then BCA is finished as a MoM player. Airbus can beat them to market and Boeing will be left responding years late. Unless BCA can convince its parent company to front them some R&D money, I don't see how they are going to compete.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6573
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:17 pm

Quoting hilram (Reply 60):
1) What would the benefit of smaller diameter be?

Better ground clearance, less frontal drag and likely less weight.

Quoting hilram (Reply 60):
2) Why not just use the wing of the 767-400 if you want a wider span? Or at least the wing root. Then you avoid the CFRP wingbox, which would be a heavy investment.

Boeing could very well do that and save a bunch although airlines might see it as older technology (20 yrs almost). All that will be left is testing to see how the wing behaves in combination with the shorter fuselage.

Quoting hilram (Reply 60):
4) Already done and certified with the 767-2C

All well and good then...so it won't need a supplemental type cert for a pax version.

Quoting hilram (Reply 60):
5) Drop the floor a little so 8-across instead of 7-across.

This is where it gets tricky. The floor diaphragm is integral with the structural design of the fuselage. The fuse will need to be re-evaluated, tested and recertified once the floor is altered. Better use the 763 frame if the 762 couldn't meet the capacity requirements. It will be a clean-sheet design otherwise.

Overall, a plausible plan to bring a refreshed, medium-long range plane to market in time, at close to a new, clean-sheet, narrowbody price, while airlines may still be willing to buy. Or Boeing might just grin and bear it.

[Edited 2016-04-17 10:36:25]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
glbltrvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:38 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 72):
If that's the case, then BCA is finished as a MoM player. Airbus can beat them to market and Boeing will be left responding years late. Unless BCA can convince its parent company to front them some R&D money, I don't see how they are going to compete.

And that gets back to the business case which leads to an acceptable return on investment for that increase in R&D. It's an interesting problem - ideally the airlines would like to have a unique aircraft design that uses a common cockpit, engines and parts for every route they currently fly, or are interested in flying. From the OEM perspective, the OEMs would like to produce one aircraft design, optimize the production process to the nth degree, and sell as many of that design as possible. Marketing and engineering have to figure out how to come up with an acceptable compromise.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18301
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:14 pm

I personally see a single isle to minimize per flight costs at the compromise of list cargo revenue.

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

Per who? Leeham's? Right now Boeing has such a backlog they won't discount. Thus buyers upgauge.

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

Pratt is working on a 3.5:1 GTF..

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

I disagree. If the C-series survives, it will prove its value as clean sheet.


I see Boeing doing a MoM. It is when.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
glbltrvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:33 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 75):
Quoting glbltrvlr (Thread starter):
787-8 is too expensive to buy, operate

Per who? Leeham's? Right now Boeing has such a backlog they won't discount. Thus buyers upgauge.

Per the Teal Group - but my summary was a bit terse. What Teal are saying is that the 787-8 is too expensive to buy and operate for MOM routes - i.e. as a 757/767 replacement.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3193
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:42 pm

Quoting scotron11 (Reply 62):
Well...seems Airbus focus right now is on production ramp up on the 350 and 320/321neo....meanwhile they're still churning out 330s as well.

Quite a good postion seeing as they don't have an $30+ billion albatros around their neck!

Airbus is still on the hook for the R&D for the A380, or was that "written off"?

Both Airbus and Boeing have recently stated to expect variants going forward for a while, both OEMs have spent a lot of money on clean sheet designs and now is the time to reap the benefits or profits from said programs. Sorry Anet, we cannot expect a new design every five years, airplanes aren't automobiles.
 
StTim
Posts: 3470
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:48 pm

Quoting william (Reply 77):

Airbus is still on the hook for the R&D for the A380, or was that "written off"?

Both Airbus and Boeing write off the R&D to the bottom line as it occurs.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:42 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 56):
It is hardly sensible to compare one model with a family

Precisely my point to the post I was responding to:

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

....

Quoting parapente (Reply 59):
It shows little faith in its current offering or how long it will be around.

~3,000 orders does wonders for faith. Boeing is not going to abandon the MAX after 5 years. Its a 15 year program at least. 15% improvements over the MAX/neo are just not attainable at scale before that.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 61):
They are building plenty of aircraft, but the margins are reducing across the board for future sales. How do you think the reducing margins would affect the decision regarding the MOM/MADMAX launch?

But volumes are increasing. They are booking record revenues with record deliveries and record earning per share. The narrowbody business is becoming a commodity and in that environment, margins shrink but volumes are at least partially compensating.

How does this impact MOM? If Boeing or Airbus thinks they can carve out a niche that doesn't have competition then that will do wonders for margins. Listen to the A321-Fans around here.

Quoting Ncfc99 (Reply 61):
I see the 787 is having a hard time achieving its projected margins due to the stiff competition from the 330, AND it has $30b+ of deferred production costs to recoup.

Its hard to 'recoup' costs if you don't win the order. The backlog allows Boeing not to chase low margin orders at present. Down the road if they can't keep the 14/month line busy then I see them dropping prices just like Airbus would. Pricing is really about what the market will support and that has to do with the value of the product to the customer relative to the competitive product...nothing to do with how much cost it took to develop. I see the A330 winning orders from price-sensitive buyers for quite some time.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 72):
If that's the case, then BCA is finished as a MoM player. Airbus can beat them to market and Boeing will be left responding years late. Unless BCA can convince its parent company to front them some R&D money, I don't see how they are going to compete.

If Airbus does something first...maybe. However, I think we will see Airbus go with the A350-1100 and maybe even an A380neo so those developments costs will sidetrack any MoM effort.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 75):
I personally see a single isle to minimize per flight costs at the compromise of list cargo revenue.

Me too. With all the widebody belly cargo opportunities coming into the market I am not sure there would be much cargo left over for the MoM anyway. It should be a people-hauler focused aircraft.

Quoting william (Reply 77):
Sorry Anet, we cannot expect a new design every five years, airplanes aren't automobiles

The time between the A380 and the A350 was about 7 years. A 2023 EIS for an MOM would be 12 years after the 787. I don't see why that is unreasonable.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21588
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:01 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 79):

If Airbus does something first...maybe. However, I think we will see Airbus go with the A350-1100 and maybe even an A380neo so those developments costs will sidetrack any MoM effort.

I will believe the A380NEO once the engines are hanging from the airplane.

Still, it's disturbing. If Boeing does not have the capability to introduce a new aircraft, then there is no competitor to Airbus. Airbus came together as a consortium of some experienced civil airline OEMs (BAe, Aerospatiale, SUD, etc.) so it's not as if a new competitor to Airbus can start up from scratch somewhere.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
14ccKemiskt
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:46 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:12 pm

On a sidenote, why would it be so hard to put a longer landinggear on the 737? On the face of it, it seems like one of thr easiest things to develop for an airplane.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26432
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:08 pm

Quoting 14ccKemiskt (Reply 81):
On a sidenote, why would it be so hard to put a longer landinggear on the 737? On the face of it, it seems like one of thr easiest things to develop for an airplane.

It has been quoted that such a change would require a not-insignificant amount of re-work for other systems and the entire process would likely kick off an expensive round of re-certiication which would likely trigger an expensive round of updates to meet regulations that are currently grandfathered in under the existing main gear structure and systems.
 
klkla
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:42 pm

When it's all said and done the 737 is pretty effective against the 320 series except for one thing: The ability to hang bigger engines under the wing. Boeing is known for their engineering, one would think they could find a solution to that and get started on MadMax before they lose more market share.

I understand the 320 is newer and has some advanced technologies, but that's negated by the 737's smaller (therefore lighter) diameter. The biggest difference is the ability to hang those bigger engines when it's all said and done.

Do MadMax now. Do NSA when there's a ROI scenario for an all new narrow body.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:39 pm

This entire thread (and its progenitors) can be summarised as follows:


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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:02 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 80):
Still, it's disturbing. If Boeing does not have the capability to introduce a new aircraft, then there is no competitor to Airbus. Airbus came together as a consortium of some experienced civil airline OEMs (BAe, Aerospatiale, SUD, etc.) so it's not as if a new competitor to Airbus can start up from scratch somewhere.

You are overreacting Doc. Of course Boeing has the capability to introduce a new aircraft. What do you peg the 77X program R&D costs at? $5 Billion, $7? Boeing has made a loose commitment to keep R&D around $5B. The bulk of the 77X's costs are starting now and by EIS they should be declining especially as the 78X will be in service and the 737 MAX will be as well. That opens up a lot of opportunity in 2018 / 2019. The 778 is a cut and shut derivative unlike the A350-1000 which requires a different wing, different gear, different engine....that spreads out that program's R&D costs.

Plus I do not see Airbus investing in the MoM space in the near term. I think they will wait to see what Boeing does. It makes sense to do that.

I do agree that I have a very hard time seeing a straight A380neo program. But I have a hard time seeing them abandon the program and yet I don't see orders post 2020 either. Something has to give there.

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

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:13 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):

Plus I do not see Airbus investing in the MoM space in the near term. I think they will wait to see what Boeing does. It makes sense to do that.

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.

"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. Airbus wants to keep the engineering team quite large, even when they are not doing a clean sheet design, as this team is seen as a valuable resource and nearly the core of the business. And if you want to keep those engineers, you can let them work.

1-2 years ago Airbus defined 3 possible near term options that they could pursue

- A380NEO
- further A350 stretch
- A321 stretch, full 757 replacement

One is now officially in the works.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:20 am

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 85):
Plus I do not see Airbus investing in the MoM space in the near term. I think they will wait to see what Boeing does. It makes sense to do that.

Unless their customers are asking for a new derivative that they can offer. It would be foolish of Airbus to ignore their customers if the demand is there. If there is no demand from their customers then they will not spend the money and will focus where they will make their sales.
 
aerokiwi
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:04 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 64):
I don't see how Boeing can lighten the 787-8 much without adding more titanium, and it's the titanium that they're trying to get rid of now to get costs down. The -3 model was supposed to be a medium range 3500nm - 4000nm aircraft using the same fuselage as the -8 but with wings optimized for the shorter range. So I wouldn't call that a "Middle of Market" size either. It was supposed to be the same size as the -8.

So the 787-3 would seem to fit the "upper" MoM nicely, no?

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 64):
I think Boeing needs to focus their resources on the NSA instead of the MOM. A new 3 size NSA with the 737-8 as the base size, A321neo as the middle size and close to the 757-300 as the larger size would cover most of the MOM market as well as today's most sought after size aircraft. It's the only way to get Airbus playing catch-up again. And I mean serious catch-up, not easy like stretching the A321neo. The downside would be that they wouldn't have a competitive product in the sub 150 seat category, but that's something Airbus is struggling with too.

On that I totally agree. Or, just milk the MAX for as long as possible, then jump on the NSA in mid 2020s.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 65):
The Aboulafia / Teal Group analysis intimates that the high end of the MOM is the low end of the A330/787 market, and that the A330 is winning in that space because of the 787's price. Essentially "it's cheap and on shorter legs the fuel burn difference doesn't matter as much".

Which strikes me as braket creep in the extreme. There seems to be huge vagaries in the definition of the MoM. Which suggests this "market" probably isn't there, but a wet dream of aviation nerds seeking a shiny new design.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 84):
This entire thread (and its progenitors) can be summarised as follows:

Boom. Nailed it perfectly.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 86):
One is now officially in the works.

Which? The 350-1100? I thought that was still being mulled over? Hasn't Airbus just redesigned the 321NEO doors to up capacity? Kinda suggests the 322 won't be happening anytime soon either.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:37 am

Mind you if this is true.
Flight Mag.
A six-year-long, on-again-off-again courtship of Delta Air Lines by a series of Bombardier sales teams appears to be nearing a final consummation, with the SkyTeam carrier reportedly poised to sign deals for up to 125 C Series aircraft.

Then that will curtail the 700MAX sales as the C300 will now have a long term future (IMHO). So (re this A321NEO discusion- which it is effectively) the 800MAX becomes a very good - but orphan - model.....
 
MPadhi
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:06 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 88):
Which? The 350-1100? I thought that was still being mulled over? Hasn't Airbus just redesigned the 321NEO doors to up capacity? Kinda suggests the 322 won't be happening anytime soon either.

I believe the door change is just an option. The test model has the doors in the conventional places.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:40 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 88):
So the 787-3 would seem to fit the "upper" MoM nicely, no?

Nope. Far too expensive, in both acquisition and trip costs.

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.


*Boeing can dance around it for several more years in the press if they want, but ultimately that is their executives/PR division talking bull while engineering already knows fine well what is viable and what is not.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8768
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:53 am

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 88):
So the 787-3 would seem to fit the "upper" MoM nicely, no?

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.
It would have made the 787-3 a modern 767-400 with similar sales expectations.
 
Max752
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:56 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:55 pm

I know this was mentioned fairly early on but why can't Boeing develop a 757NEO or 757MAX?

I believe engine options were the main issue as was wing materials however, that was originally an issue in developing the 737MAX. Wouldn't it be as economically sensible to invest in a new engine and new materials for a 757MAX/NEO with an updated flight deck compared to the development of a completely new design?

Just seems more sensible especially because the 757 performed so well the first time around. I could see American, Delta, and British Airways coming in droves to get a few 757NEO/MAXs.

-Max
Super 80, pff, more like Stupid 80 | TravelUpdate.com |
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17645
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:01 pm

Quoting Max752 (Reply 93):
I know this was mentioned fairly early on but why can't Boeing develop a 757NEO or 757MAX?

Boeing themselves said there was no business case for a 757MAX. I don't know why people can't seem to accept that.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
micstatic
Posts: 734
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:04 pm

Quoting Max752 (Reply 93):
I know this was mentioned fairly early on but why can't Boeing develop a 757NEO or 757MAX?

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
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
Max752
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:56 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:12 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

Makes sense. Also seems to contradict that there's even a case in which a new MoM would be needed. Doesn't the 737MAX fill the gap?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 94):
Boeing themselves said there was no business case for a 757MAX. I don't know why people can't seem to accept that.

Thx for your understanding. :/

-Max
Super 80, pff, more like Stupid 80 | TravelUpdate.com |
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:24 pm

Quoting Max752 (Reply 93):
I know this was mentioned fairly early on but why can't Boeing develop a 757NEO or 757MAX?

- They don't have the tooling.
- They probably don't have all the drawings. They certainly don't have them in electronic format, which is how the world works now... so they'd all need re-drafted for CAM.
- Its too heavy.
- Its too maintenance intensive.

Take your pick.

[Edited 2016-04-18 06:25:07]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18301
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:24 pm

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
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Boeing MOM Update

Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:35 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 98):
The cost is low to no cargo. Cest la vie.

True... but in saying that if they can find enough volume in the wing (without compromising too much on weight and aero), then you might avoid the need for ACTs, add that to big overhead bins that can take 1 case per passenger, you might leave a long, largely unused LD3-45 cargo bay ahead and aft of the wingbox.

Obviously it'll be no widebody; but if the better economics mean the difference between a direct flight from A to B rather than routing thru C, then you'll still get into the time sensitive cargo market.

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