Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
sldispatcher
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:19 am

What does length of takeoff run have to do with whether an airline would purchase an aircraft? I guess only if it limits the airports it can fly into/out of with max load?

It's strictly a theoretical question, but how many single aisle airliners depart each day at max loads anyway? I would assume some of the 757 trips across the pond, but my goodness.....

I can only think that any stretch or derivation is being driven by customers WANTING said plane with that capacity. Otherwise, would Boeing even be investigating it?
 
flyabr
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:31 am

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 50):
I can only think that any stretch or derivation is being driven by customers WANTING said plane with that capacity.

As evidenced in A321ceo/ neo sales over the past few years.
 
hannahpa
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:33 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:34 am

I'm actually getting tired of A and B trying to "one-up" each other.

I wish either one of them would just start working on a clean sheet design NSA--MOM plane.
It would work out better in the long run....

My 2 cents....
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:37 am

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 50):
What does length of takeoff run have to do with whether an airline would purchase an aircraft? I guess only if it limits the airports it can fly into/out of with max load?

It's strictly a theoretical question, but how many single aisle airliners depart each day at max loads anyway? I would assume some of the 757 trips across the pond, but my goodness.....

Not just at max loads. Do you see many 737-900ERs at LaGuardia? It takes every last bit of the runway to take off even for a short LGA-ORD run. Also, that 9,900 ft take off run quickly becomes more than 10 and 11,000 ft in the Arizona heat, or at Mountain altitudes. For these reasons 739s are weight restricted much more often than other types, especially in summer.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:40 am

Is a telescoping gear possible to get roughly 8-10"? That said, adding the larger bypass LEAP 1A is a pretty expensive endeavor in itself, even without about the gear work around.

No way this includes a new wing. If anything flaps will be modified a bit to get some more lift at lower speeds, that's a bit if, a high enough AOA may make up for it. The NG wing is already bigger than A321, a bit more efficient, and holds significantly more fuel (it's also 10 years younger).

May include raked wing tips from the Posideon as its primary focus will be neoLR / longer stage flights. This would require more gate space but I don't think folding wing tips are cost beneficial. Really comes down to drag and weight between the new wing tip and true raked wings.

-9 hasn't sold real well as its only 3 rows bigger than the -8. The A321 is 6-7 rows longer than the A320 which is a little on the too small side for US carriers.

Another approach would be a simple stretch, no gear or major changes. Just some wing trickery to help field perform R and be a CASM King for 200 seats at 2000nm or less.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:50 am

Quoting moo (Reply 25):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Sunk costs are by their nature not to be considered. They could be $1 dollar or $1 billion dollars, but they have no impact on what is the best decision to make today.

That argument only really works when the sunk cost really is lost completely - if the sunk cost was spent making a product which will still turn a profit, thats entirely a different situation to a sunk cost which was spent making a product which will never be profitable.

For example, you wouldnt throw out the 787 program as a "sunk cost" simply because any 797 replacement would be better at this point in time.

Are the -7Max and -9Max likely to return a profit on the incremental investment needed as part of the Max program? Yes? Then those sunk costs most definitely do have an impact on the decision to be made today.

The point of the sunk cost issue is to not throw good money after bad - its not meant to disregard a good investment simply because the investment has already been made.

No. The point of ignoring "sunk costs" is to not get hung up over what you can't recover, and only look at what your best option is from this point going forward.

Using your 787 vs "797" example (assuming 797 would be a hypothetical 787 replacement in your example), the choice Boeing would face would be keep building 787s at, more or less, $0 development cost, or build a 797 at (to make up a number) $10 billion in development costs. If the sales of the 797 are such that the expected profit would be more than $10 billion greater than selling 787s, then yes, the right choice would be to scrap the 787 and build the 797. However, that is unlikely to be the case, and therefore the best course of action for Boeing is to continue with the 787 and not spend the $10 billion on the 797, because, at this point in time, the 797 wouldn't be $10 billion better than the 787.

However, in the case of the 737, even if they've spent $1 billion developing the -7 and -9 models, it's still right for them to assess whether the better course of action is to proceed with the models, as-is, or invest money in developing improved models.

Regardless of which path they choose, the sunk costs are spent and can't be recovered. The question is, what choice will give them the greatest overall return going forward. If they determine it to be to continue with the models they've already developed, then that's what they should do. If, however, they determine it to be to start over with something different, then that's what it is.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:57 am

Concorde's main landing gear shortens during retraction process apparently
http://www.concordesst.com/gear.html

Boeing would have to look at something similar if they are to extend the main landing gear another 8 inches or so.

sv11
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12947
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 3:40 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
How many revisions of the A350 did Airbus make before getting it right?

Considering they're making the original A350 (now called A330Neo), that's quite debatable.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19538
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting UA444 (Reply 46):
The 319NEO has already been built. Too late to cancel it.

The Pratt powered version isn't being flight tested. Unless there are enough sales, that is unlikely. Considering how few ACJs are sold and the new option of the shortfield kit, I do not expect break even on the A319s development costs.

At this point, only because the LEAP flight testing has enough complete the best ROI on future money is to finish flight testing.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1173
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 4:07 am

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 45):
maybe with a third engine for additional power,

The 727-9 MAX! I knew it would happen someday!
Imagine a stretched 727 with GTFs mounted on the fuselage -- and an enlarged S-duct to match. Wow.
Weight and balance might get tricky...
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 4:08 am

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 50):
What does length of takeoff run have to do with whether an airline would purchase an aircraft? I guess only if it limits the airports it can fly into/out of with max load?

Up to a point, not much. But the -900ER is beyond that point. It either can't practically operate or is restricted to very short flights out of a fair number of major airports with shorter runways. It can't tolerate altitude very well -- UA folks report that it occasionally takes restrictions out of DEN despite the very long runways there. For large airlines like DL and UA, all of this is no big deal; they can have subfleets of smaller 737s or other aircraft for missions requiring good field performance. But for quite a few customers it is a major issue, and it's one of the reasons the A321 and A321neo have both outcompeted the 739 of the same generation.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 41):
I think the standard 739 (non-ER) has that dubious honor, actually.

No longer on the market.   Boeing discontinued availability of the 739A upon launch of the ER.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 4:36 am

What would it take to put 757 landing gear on a 737? Keep all the rest of the 737 systems, but use landing gear that has already been designed. I know the tooling no longer exists, but if the idea were worthwhile, Boeing could build new tooling. Perhaps Boeing could make some design tweaks to make new versions lighter while having the same dimensions. I was even thinking that as a rest of the concept take landing gear from an existing scrapped 757.
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 4:37 am

Quoting Flyingclrs727 (Reply 61):

What would it take to put 757 landing gear on a 737? Keep all the rest of the 737 systems, but use landing gear that has already been designed. I know the tooling no longer exists, but if the idea were worthwhile, Boeing could build new tooling. Perhaps Boeing could make some design tweaks to make new versions lighter while having the same dimensions. I was even thinking that as a rest of the concept take landing gear from an existing scrapped 757.

The wings are not compatible and would have to be redesigned. Might as well make a new plane.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 5:00 am

Quoting sv11 (Reply 56):
Concorde's main landing gear shortens during retraction process apparently
http://www.concordesst.com/gear.html

Boeing would have to look at something similar if they are to extend the main landing gear another 8 inches or so.

sv11

Something like this is likely.
 
rta
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 5:16 am

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 44):
I can see Boeing hoping they can tweak their design and see a few cancellations of those 885 sales that Airbus has in excess.

Definitely agree, given the engine issues with the NEO.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 5:52 am

Quoting StTim (Reply 8):
It would be a real admission that they got it wrong intitially.
Quoting StTim (Reply 18):
and a huge admission they got it wrong.

Who cares? All they did was MAX the existing frames. It wasn't like they designed the -7 and -9 fresh for today's market and then realized after that "they got it wrong" - it was just a quick and dirty re-engine/upgrade job.

I am interested in seeing what comes of the "7.5", but I wish someone would just take the -9 back behind the barn and shoot it so we can stop talking about how bad it is. Cuz it's bad.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:36 am

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 32):

OK, so aside the questions regarding performance, the -9 stretch could work. But really, what is the point of a -7 stretch? I mean, the reason why the -7 is not selling is because of the -8 having similar operating costs and performance while offering more revenue opportunities. How would a -7 stretch, an aircraft even closer to the -8 in terms of size, rectify this???

This is an interesting question. Why not buy an -8 instead of an -7.5? I think the answer is that the -7.5 will have better runway performance, more suited for hot & high conditions, and quite a lot longer range than the -8. The -7.5 will basically be a shortened -8, not a stretched -7 as far as I understand. It will be the perfect aircraft for medium range routes between continental USA and Latin America where you often have high altitude and high temperatures at the same time. Or TATL routes between secondary cities. The -7 as is planned now, can do this as well, but with fewer revenue pax. The -8 will struggle, and the -9 doesn't have a chance. The current planned -7 will be the same size as the -700 or -300. While the -7.5 might be more similar to the -400, just shy of A320 capacity. I really can't see any downsides to developing the -7.5.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 63):
Something like this is likely.

I agree. Developing a main landing gear with a shortening strut and linkage might sound sketchy and complicated, but it sure would be a lot less complicated than having to built an entirely new wing box and centre fuselage section. If they could add 25 cm to the height it would solve a lot of problems. I think it would be a challenge though.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:50 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 66):
This is an interesting question. Why not buy an -8 instead of an -7.5?

Because you are Southwest Airlines and the 7.5 will have exactly 150 seats in your desired configuration, allowing for ops with three flight attendants.

Or, field performance or range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:50 am

http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150102163

Why not taking car technology to the aircrafts...
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7200
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 6:54 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 66):

Quoting seahawk (Reply 63):
Something like this is likely.

I agree. Developing a main landing gear with a shortening strut and linkage might sound sketchy and complicated

Can't they use a double bogey then take a play out of the 77Ws book and use a bar to lock the wheels in place on rotation so it rotates on the rear axle? Seems a lot less ckmplex than gear that shortens itself. And if they absolutely have to, inclose the whole MLG.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:15 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 67):
Because you are Southwest Airlines and the 7.5 will have exactly 150 seats in your desired configuration, allowing for ops with three flight attendants.

Or, field performance or range.

It was a retorical quesiton in response to someone else. The flight attendant point is a bit overrated in my opinion. But more revenue is more revenue.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 69):
Can't they use a double bogey then take a play out of the 77Ws book and use a bar to lock the wheels in place on rotation so it rotates on the rear axle? Seems a lot less ckmplex than gear that shortens itself. And if they absolutely have to, inclose the whole MLG.

It has to fit inside the current wheel wells with just minor changes, because if the centre section has to be redesigned, it will cause a domino effect of changes down the line which are very costly. I don't think double bogeys are going to fit.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 68):
http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150102163

Why not taking car technology to the aircrafts...

Looks like Goodrich are doing just that. Interesting patent. 40% shortening is very promising. That would allow for very tall main landing gear.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18955
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 7:55 am

Quoting tomcat (Reply 30):
Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment

Any penalties for delayed neo deliveries will be paid by PW, not Airbus.
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.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 8:41 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 66):
Quoting seahawk (Reply 63):Something like this is likely.
I agree. Developing a main landing gear with a shortening strut and linkage might sound sketchy and complicated, but it sure would be a lot less complicated than having to built an entirely new wing box and centre fuselage section. If they could add 25 cm to the height it would solve a lot of problems. I think it would be a challenge though.

But I wonder why Boeing didn't pursue this option in the first place with the MAX. If they develop it now, their compromise with the reduced fan diameter on the LEAP engine will look kind of silly.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6905
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 9:55 am

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 59):
Imagine a stretched 727 with GTFs mounted on the fuselage -- and an enlarged S-duct to match.

   That would be one massive tail section...the structure will be impossibly beefy. A DC-10 configuration is neater though a maintenance nightmare. But why three GTFs...is the technology at its limits that no further thrust increase could be squeezed from it?


Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 59):
Weight and balance might get tricky...

I could just see them removing the nose gear and putting it under the tail to make it a true tail-dragger. There may not be enough space for a gear well they could just opt for a fixed gear and drag be damned.   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Passedv1
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 9:59 am

Quoting moo (Reply 25):
when the sunk cost really is lost completely - if the sunk cost was spent making a product which will still turn a profit, thats entirely a different situation to a sunk cost which was spent making a product which will never be profitable

This is probably one of the first rules taught to business school students. Ignore sunk costs...and all variations on the theme in your analysis. Period. All it means is that you ignore what you've spent already in any analysis going forward. More often, it has you keep a program that ex-post, loses money.


Say you spend 1B developing product X expecting to gross 1.2B for a pofit of .2M. After you spend 1.0B, its not enough. You are confident though that another .5B will get the results you need. You are still expecting 1.2B in gross profits. A new business student might give into the temptation and combine the development cost and come up with 1.5B cost compared to 1.2 expected gross and conclude that you should kill the program. But in actuality, the correct analysis is to keep the program going since the proper analysis is to compare the 1.2B sales to the additional .5B of r&d...you keep going. In fact the later analysis is stronger in favor of development then your original analysis.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 963
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 10:51 am

Oh god just launch the 797 already... 180, 210 and 240 seats. New wing, around 40m. Range, around 4,500nm. Cabin slightly wider than A320, but still 6 abreast. Enough for a trolley and passenger to pass.
Both 4 and 8 wheel main gear depending on weight and version. Composite, 787-style structure. Advanced 787+ cockpit. GTF and CFM engine options, with optimized fan diameter.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 10:59 am

Quoting tomcat (Reply 30):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 27):
Quoting tomcat (Reply 23):
I'm inclined to think that the NEO is starting to become expensive for Airbus...

Why?

Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment.

30 to 40 frames from perhaps 1 month to 8 month late, with the culprit being the engine manufacturer. Hardly noticeable compared with other delays on other frames. Put that against a backlog of perhaps 2,000 ordered frames looking at P&W frames only.

No I do not think that the NEO is getting expensive for Airbus, it will be the main money maker the next years.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:01 am

I would reserve final judgement on the NEO until the problem is fixed.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:10 am

Quoting Passedv1 (Reply 74):
This is probably one of the first rules taught to business school students. Ignore sunk costs...and all variations on the theme in your analysis. Period. All it means is that you ignore what you've spent already in any analysis going forward. More often, it has you keep a program that ex-post, loses money.

Yeah, sorry, I don't buy that, and if that is what is being taught in business schools these days then the world is pretty much doomed.

Sunk costs should only ever be disregarded where they were a bad investment - otherwise absolutely no program ever would proceed to completion, as the next proposal put forward would have a slightly better profitability and therefore, if sunk costs were always ignored, the current program would always be dropped in favour of the next proposal. Always.

So no, sunk costs are not always ignored, and they serve as a good basis for many decisions.

What should be avoided is the "escalation of commitment" issue, which is invariably linked to sunk costs. But sunk costs should not be dismissed out of hand.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3479
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:14 am

Not exactly sure how the structure works around the wheel well (is there a keel beam or did I make that up) could the left gear be stored in the right wheel well and the right gear in the left wheel well, sort of one with a trailing link setup and one with a leading link setup so that each wheel fits within the nape of the other.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:25 am

Quoting moo (Reply 78):
Quoting Passedv1 (Reply 74):
This is probably one of the first rules taught to business school students. Ignore sunk costs...and all variations on the theme in your analysis. Period. All it means is that you ignore what you've spent already in any analysis going forward. More often, it has you keep a program that ex-post, loses money.

Yeah, sorry, I don't buy that, and if that is what is being taught in business schools these days then the world is pretty much doomed.

There's a very good reason not to simply ignore sunk costs: the concomitant human factors of very specific knowledge acquired and experience gained up to that specific point in a product's life cycle. Apart from investment in machinery et al.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 11:43 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 57):
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
How many revisions of the A350 did Airbus make before getting it right?

Considering they're making the original A350 (now called A330Neo), that's quite debatable.

Debatable whether they should have.

Not debatable whether they did.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2332
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:33 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 78):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 80):

Ignoring sunk costs doesn't mean you don't have the benefits from whatever you spent those costs on. It just means you don't factor in whatever financial expenditures you can't recover.

A couple of us have tried explaining it already, but apparently some still don't get it.

If a company has spent money (the amount doesn't matter, could be ten cents, could be a gazillion dollars) on a project so far, that money is spent regardless of which future decision they make. If the decision is to continue with the project, change the project, or cancel the project completely, that money is already spent, in the past, in all three scenarios. Since past expenditures are going to be the same regardless of which decision you make today or tomorrow (in other words, your decision can't change what you've already done before you made the decision), there's no point in factoring them into the decision.

Let's say a project has cost a million dollars thus far. A company now faces a choice: complete the project as planned, which has an expected cost of a (a being the amount of money that still has to be spent to finish the project), and expected return of b; change the project, which has an expected cost of c (and depending on the extent of the change, c could be cheaper than a, the same cost as a, or maybe a ton more expensive than a), and expected return of d, or cancel the project completely, which would have an expected cost of 0 (or maybe some small cancellation penalties), and an expected return of 0.

At this juncture, which of those options (b - a, d - c, or 0) is the greatest return? In each scenario, the million dollars has already been spent, so it effectively cancels out of each equation.

It doesn't mean that every project close to completion should be cancelled just because something better is available, and that's the misunderstanding I think people have. If changing the project requires respending the million dollars on new development, and the new development is only going to yield an extra $500,000 in benefits over the original project, then "d - c" will be a half million less than "a - b" in the above equations. If the change yields $1.5 million in additional benefits, then it would be a half million more. In the first case, the best decision would be to proceed with the original project. In the second case, it would be to change the project.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:58 pm

Simply, you do not look at the money spent you look at the revenue expected compared to the expected costs.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4926
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:01 pm

Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 82):
A couple of us have tried explaining it already, but apparently some still don't get it.

The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't get your explanation. I just don't agree with the opinion that sunk costs should always be disregarded.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:12 pm

The other issue to consider here what Southwest (and other airlines) would do if you didn't develop the 737-7.5 MAX

Surely WN would just buy more 7s or 8s? They're hardly likely to buy A319s or the C Series...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27039
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:13 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 66):
Developing a main landing gear with a shortening strut and linkage might sound sketchy and complicated, but it sure would be a lot less complicated than having to built an entirely new wing box and centre fuselage section
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 72):
But I wonder why Boeing didn't pursue this option in the first place with the MAX. If they develop it now, their compromise with the reduced fan diameter on the LEAP engine will look kind of silly.

Because at the time they felt they didn't need to.

Now they do.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3323
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:14 pm

Quoting sv11 (Reply 49):
Well a new plane might cost $10bil. Boeing doesn't have the appetite to build one, the airlines are not willing to pay a premium compared to cheap 737-Max,A320neo. So a minimum change would be to extend 737-9 fuselage a few inches, maybe put in a few auxiliary tanks (no change in wing). Putting the LEAP-1A engines would need another 8 inches ground clearance on the main landing gear, maybe Boeing will do a foldable landing gear that would go into the current bay (kind of like the foldable wingtip being worked on 777X).

Thank you for making this point, none of us here on Anet know what the airlines are telling Boeing. This may be what there biggest customers want. And yes with gas as cheap as it is right now, the itch to buy something shiny and new is not there for the airlines. I mean look at BBD, they have this shiny new aircraft that has awesome operating numbers and still has to put clearance prices on it to move it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:16 pm

Soooo....

Airbus to rename the A320 as an A319 then upsize the A320 to 180 seats?

And sure build an A322 while they are at it?


Roughly the same committment as BCA, yet would ensure they continue to capture >55% of the market.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14898
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:21 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 57):

Considering they're making the original A350 (now called A330Neo), that's quite debatable.

It is not the same, the original A350 had a new wing, new tail, new cockpit, and the fuselage was changed to Al-Li. The A330neo is the latest W/V A330 with wing extensions, new engines and little else.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
SeJoWa
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:11 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:22 pm

Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 82):

Quoting moo (Reply 78):
Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 80):

Ignoring sunk costs doesn't mean you don't have the benefits from whatever you spent those costs on. It just means you don't factor in whatever financial expenditures you can't recover.

A couple of us have tried explaining it already, but apparently some still don't get it.

It's not that I don't get it. It's that I didn't express myself clearly enough.

I'm afraid that ignoring costs on a spreadsheet can too easily bleed into ignoring not so easily tabulated gains.
 
User avatar
deltadawg
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:23 pm

This sounds more like posturing for the future NSA/MoM program in order to judge customers reactions. Perhaps it is a real proposition but it is obvious that Boeing has to make a move in order to secure more orders as well as secure a single aisle future but the stretching of the -9 just seems ludicrous at this point. The -9's that DL has I have flown on seemingly take the whole runway to get off the ground and I just could not imagine getting the same performance out of a larger version.

Bring on the 797!   
GO Dawgs, Sic' em, woof woof woof
 
morrisond
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:41 pm

Isn't the 739 already tail heavy?

If they are going to stretch it - why not stretch it in front of the wing - or proportionately more in front of the wing vs behind the wing.

Going in front of the wing should take care of the rotation issues.

What about a thrust bump? It seems like a 35,000 lb Leap is possible (read down in the article)

https://leehamnews.com/2014/05/20/pw-media-day-2-gtf-gets-35000-lb-thrust-rating/

Couple that with some higher lift devices on the wing and a better performing 'MadMax' at not silly cost should be possible without new gear or wings.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19538
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:50 pm

I remain excited about the -7.5 MAX. The more I think about it, the more likely we'll see a 4 member MAX family:
-7.5, -8, -9, and -10.

Quoting HOMsAr (Reply 82):
At this juncture, which of those options (b - a, d - c, or 0) is the greatest return? In each scenario, the million dollars has already been spent, so it effectively cancels out of each equation.

Nice to explanation of sunk costs. Everyone should take Engineering economics or other courses that teach the basic business economics. For your excellent simplified scenario negates cash flow and the time value of money.  

For many of Boeing's prior decisions were time to market based. Judging by the 'gap' in 737NG orders, Boeing made the right call for early MAX EIS. For by having the -8 MAX first and only doing as much as could be done on the engine timeline, Boeing maximized cash flow and by ensuring early deliveries maximized the time value of money.

But now Boeing has to face the stark realities that the -7 is the wrong aircraft. Efficiency is relative so the -9 must be adapted.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 72):
But I wonder why Boeing didn't pursue this option in the first place with the MAX. If they develop it now, their compromise with the reduced fan diameter on the LEAP engine will look kind of silly.

Only in that new gear delays entry into service (EIS). If all MAX had the new gear, we're talking a minimum year later EIS or instead of late 2017, a 2018 EIS. Boeing cannot sell enough MAX for the 2017 EIS.

So now they create a -10. I suspect new gear will come with a wing extension and probably an engine fan diameter increase. It is also likely the current -9 will be produced as any gear change is a long lead item hence why not change the fan diameter and add a little wing root extension a LA A321.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:53 pm

Quoting morrisond (Reply 92):
If they are going to stretch it - why not stretch it in front of the wing - or proportionately more in front of the wing vs behind the wing.

Going in front of the wing should take care of the rotation issues.

Not if you can't pitch the nose though.

Also, you'd have trim drag issues in flight from the inherent nose down pitching of the wing/body.
 
F14TCT
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:48 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:56 pm

Why is the airplane called a 737 MAX 7X, when it is a shrink of the 737 MAX 8?
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:01 pm

Boeing is wasting their time dinking around with 50 Lengths of 737!

I love that plane, I truly do! In fact, it's a favorite!

It's also being obliterated on all fronts now! A321 is absolutely creaming the 737-9, The A320 is still trumping the 737-8, sales wise (while the 737-8 is probably the best model anyways), and now we have the C-Series, which is now a legitimate competitor, which will further marginalize the 737-7.

If Bombardier listens to DL and IAG about CS500, that could be a direct 737-8/A320 competitor. In an industry where the competition is cutthroat, airlines are looking for the best. I'd think the CS300/500 would be a smash hit pair.

Boeing needs to do an NSA/MoM pair, and quite soon too. I agree with 77west in Reply 75; three models, seating 180, 210 and 240, respectively, with all the advancements of the 787, with traits of the 737 and 757.

I'd say the larger of the three has a larger, optimized with and engine to maintain economics, similar to the approach Embraer did with the EJet family.
United Airlines: $#!ttin' On Everyone Since 1931
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:37 pm

Quoting william (Reply 87):
Thank you for making this point, none of us here on Anet know what the airlines are telling Boeing. This may be what there biggest customers want. And yes with gas as cheap as it is right now, the itch to buy something shiny and new is not there for the airlines. I mean look at BBD, they have this shiny new aircraft that has awesome operating numbers and still has to put clearance prices on it to move it.

I believe that the order book for the MAX9 is not as rosy as it seems and many operators will convert orders from MAX9 to MAX8 and therein lies the incentive for Boeing to improve the MAX9

Company in Iceland ordered the MAX9 and MAX8 combo and the word in the company is that they will exercise conversion rights of the MAX9 to MAX8 and not take the MAX9. This is decision is not showing up in the in the order book yet

Quoting deltadawg (Reply 91):
Isn't the 739 already tail heavy?

If they are going to stretch it - why not stretch it in front of the wing - or proportionately more in front of the wing vs behind the wing.

Going in front of the wing should take care of the rotation issues.

What about a thrust bump? It seems like a 35,000 lb Leap is possible (read down in the article)

With heavier engines that are sitting more forward the aircraft is most likely nose heavy as it is, and if the thrust is increased the fin and rudder has to be redesigned and made bigger to counter greater thrust asymmetry in engine out situation
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:57 pm

Doing a 7.5 is really all about (as stated in various press articles) getting to the magic 150 pax mark.But (in dense form) the A319NEO (Flex) already does this - and look at the (lack of) sales of that aircraft. The problem is the plane(s) is too big (aka) too much wing/range/weight for the type of (shorter) sectors these 100-150 seat aircraft are primarily used for. OK would not cost much for Boeing to do it and perhaps get some sales - but is it really worth the effort?

Doing a 9.5 is different ,at least it's in the right market direction.But like everybody else it's very hard to see how they will do it without changing the plane a huge amount.But they must have found a way.
But anyway the A321NEO is still likely to be the better aircraft (and a transcon 322 up their sleeve if they are pushed?) In fact the optimal aircraft for the market in this area is likely to be 250 pax in dense one class (obviously less in 2 class - perhaps 220-230).This cannot be achieved with the 737 frame.

Farnbrough will be interesting.Although the optimal announcement timing for Boeing (for a new aircraft) would be 24 months later.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21798
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 3:04 pm

Quoting sv11 (Reply 56):

Concorde's main landing gear shortens during retraction process apparently
http://www.concordesst.com/gear.html

That would add weight and complexity and make the new airplane even less competitive than the A320 family.

Quoting Flyingclrs727 (Reply 61):
I know the tooling no longer exists, but if the idea were worthwhile, Boeing could build new tooling.

When people here speak of "tooling," they are often speaking of large jigs used to assemble entire aircraft. Many of the pieces of tooling used by Boeing are the size of small-to-medium office buildings.

Producing the 757 landing gear again would probably not be an insurmountable task, but it would be pointless. Landing gear are designed and optimized for their individual aircraft wing boxes. A 757 wing box is designed to hold a 757 fuselage (which has a different cross section forward and aft of the wing). To mount a 737 fuselage on a 757 wing box would require redesign of the entire wing box. And Boeing probably does not have the tooling to assemble the wing box anymore, anyway. So it would be an entire new wing box and thus an entirely new wing for the 737 at which point you have a clean sheet design with limited commonality with the 737, thus not a 737.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

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