JAAlbert
Topic Author
Posts: 1972
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:24 pm

It’s a slow news day, humor me folks!

A.net member 9patch recently posted his/her armchair suggestion for Boeing’s line-up using previous and current aircraft types in his assessment. Not surprisingly, by mentioning the 757, the post was given a traditional A.net water cannon beat down. (Here’s the post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1435857&start=50)

9patch's post led me to wonder, if Boeing started from scratch and created a clean sheet design for aircraft in each size and range category, what would that line-up look like? What would you propose?

Here’s the assumptions:
1. You have an ample, but not unlimited, budget to create the new line up and (in my world) a new line up makes economic sense (in other words, don’t bother arguing that it would be financial suicide for Boeing to replace its entire line up. Here, the board says it’s feasible and necessary and the market agrees);
2. You must listen to the “bean counters,” but they have been put in the back room someplace;
3. You must also listen to your engineers and safety minded folks;
4. You are constrained by currently, or soon-to-be-available, technology;
5. You must incorporate the demands/desires of your customers, the airlines, to the extent you know their wishes;
6. Incorporate style and new passenger amenities where possible and practical (my personal favorite category!);
7. Feel free to include a regional jet sized aircraft in your line up if you wish.

Questions:
1. (Obviously) What passenger capacity and range for each category? Why?
2. What materials will you use?
3. Can each category of aircraft use the same wing?
4. Which engine technology will you use?
5. Narrowbody or widebody for a particular category? Why?

Your thoughts? Let's hear your proposal to the enthusiastically waiting board of directors!
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:42 pm

It would be my dream to see a line up composed of the following

7E7- 737 and 757 replacement


Model- Variant- Seating- Range
Single Aisle
7E7- 1 - 150 - 3,600 nm
7E7- 2 - 175 - 4,000 nm
7E7- 3 - 225 - 4,400 nm (Door 2 boarding)

Small wide-body
7X7- 7 - 225 - 7,000 nm
7X7- 8 - 250 - 8,500 nm
7X7- 9 - 275 - 6,750 nm

Large Wide-body
7Q7- 5 - 300 - 8,750 nm
7Q7- 6 - 325 - 8,500 nm

All of my models would be made of Composite materials to maximize range.
 
rigo
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:52 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:55 pm

IMHO that question doesn't make sense. If Boeing was starting from scratch they would be in the same position as Irkut or COMAC are today (in fact, even those aren't starting completely from scratch). They would have a single aircraft type with everything to prove in terms of performance, safety, production quality, ability to provide support and, of course, huge political barriers in their way. Basically think of Airbus in its beginnings, when Boeing laughed the A300 off as a "typical government-subsidised plane; they will sell ten of them and then go bankrupt". Which, by the way, very nearly came true.

That's how Boeing would look like today if they were starting from scratch.
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:21 pm

The 737 replacement should be a full composite airplane with the smallest model on par or slightly above the proposed A220-500 and at the end of the lineup on par or slightly larger than a hypothetical A322. And this at least with two engine options

Based on the NMA idea as a two aisle airplane, the 757/767 replacement is full composite too, much lighter than and should also replace (size-wise) the current 787-8 minus its longhaul capabilities. At least two engine options as well.

If there is demand, make a new 787-8 as a 787-9 derivate. Other than that, the 787 is fine and just need new engines later on. RR Ultrafan and upgraded Genx and maybe even a PW GTF.

The 777X should get the RR ultrafan as well.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5438
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:23 pm

808-1/2/3: 6 Abreast Narrowbody Twin Engine
150/175/200 Seats
5000/4500/4000 NM Range

818-1/2/3: 7 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
250/275/300 Seats
7500/7000/6500 NM Range

828-1/2/3 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
350/400/450 Seats
9500/9000/8500 NM Range

828-L 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
325 Seats
10500 NM Range
With further developments to come
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:58 am

Well, here’s my proposal:

Since most new aircraft companies these days (Bombardier, Embraer, Dornier, etc.) start out with a regional aircraft, the new “Boeing” would too.

DC-9MAX (model 818): it would use the same 90 all-economy configuration of the -15, and would have a configuration just for regional airliners, with a 76 passenger configuration. Comes in an 818XL, which can fit up to 120 passengers in an all-economy layout, similar to the DC9-51 (kind of like the E170 vs E190). Range: 2500nmi.

Then, the new “Boeing” would come out with a midsize option, similar to the A220/CSeries

737/757/smaller 767 replacement (Model 828): Narrowbody, most similar to 757. Would come in 150 (828S), 200 (828M), and 250 (828L) all-economy layouts. Range: 4500nmi, or 6500nmi in an ER version.

Later, the jumbo jet option is added:

Bigger 767/777/787 replacement (model 838): Obviously widebody, would come in max capacity options of 320 (838S), 380 (838S), and 440 (838L). Range: 8000nmi.

It would basically be a large-scale version of bombardier without the bizjets, but with the addition of the widebody...
 
ItnStln
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:28 pm

rigo wrote:
Basically think of Airbus in its beginnings, when Boeing laughed the A300 off as a "typical government-subsidised plane; they will sell ten of them and then go bankrupt". Which, by the way, very nearly came true.

And Boeing wasn't wrong. Like the ME3, I'm sure that's part of why airbus is still around.
 
ItnStln
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:32 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
808-1/2/3: 6 Abreast Narrowbody Twin Engine
150/175/200 Seats
5000/4500/4000 NM Range

818-1/2/3: 7 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
250/275/300 Seats
7500/7000/6500 NM Range

828-1/2/3 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
350/400/450 Seats
9500/9000/8500 NM Range

828-L 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
325 Seats
10500 NM Range
With further developments to come

That’s a good lineup to start. What about freighters?
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7322
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:50 pm

Not accounting for technical feasibility.

2-Class capacity, maximum mission duration
----------------------------------------------
200-250 - 5hrs Medium capacity short haul
150-200 - 9hrs Small capacity medium-haul
300-350 - 9hrs Large capacity medium-haul
200-250 - 12-14 hr Small Capacity (ultra)long-haul

Anything bigger than 350/2-Class is a waste of money.
No bleed air, common flight deck.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5438
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:45 pm

ItnStln wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

808-1/2/3: 6 Abreast Narrowbody Twin Engine
150/175/200 Seats
5000/4500/4000 NM Range

818-1/2/3: 7 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
250/275/300 Seats
7500/7000/6500 NM Range

828-1/2/3 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
350/400/450 Seats
9500/9000/8500 NM Range

828-L 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
325 Seats
10500 NM Range
With further developments to come


That’s a good lineup to start. What about freighters?


818-2/828-2/838-2. Basically the middle sized aircraft in those models will have a freighter package option. The 828-L is primarily an ultra long range pax aircraft carrying pax, their luggage and minimal freight (if any), The 818-3 and 828-3 will also have combi options, I see no need for the single aisle model to offer the options though they would make conversion to pure freighters possible by a third party.
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
IADCA
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:01 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
It would be my dream to see a line up composed of the following

7E7- 737 and 757 replacement


Model- Variant- Seating- Range
Single Aisle
7E7- 1 - 150 - 3,600 nm
7E7- 2 - 175 - 4,000 nm
7E7- 3 - 225 - 4,400 nm (Door 2 boarding)

Small wide-body
7X7- 7 - 225 - 7,000 nm
7X7- 8 - 250 - 8,500 nm
7X7- 9 - 275 - 6,750 nm

Large Wide-body
7Q7- 5 - 300 - 8,750 nm
7Q7- 6 - 325 - 8,500 nm

All of my models would be made of Composite materials to maximize range.


Unintentionally, perhaps, the first model designation you chose (7E7) has already been used publicly and for an extended period. It's the plane now known as the 787.
 
rigo
Posts: 174
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:52 am

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:13 am

ItnStln wrote:
rigo wrote:
Basically think of Airbus in its beginnings, when Boeing laughed the A300 off as a "typical government-subsidised plane; they will sell ten of them and then go bankrupt". Which, by the way, very nearly came true.

And Boeing wasn't wrong. Like the ME3, I'm sure that's part of why airbus is still around.


Wasn't wrong? The A300 was a sales success and some 40 years later Airbus is still not bankrupt (and doing rather well, lately).
Boeing was totally off the mark (like IBM's CEO who declared in the 1950s that the world's market for computer won't exceed five units).
I just quoted that simply to illustrate how extremely difficult it is for a company starting in this industry to gain credibility, whether it is from clients or from its competitors.
 
ItnStln
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:41 pm

OzarkD9S wrote:
ItnStln wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

808-1/2/3: 6 Abreast Narrowbody Twin Engine
150/175/200 Seats
5000/4500/4000 NM Range

818-1/2/3: 7 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
250/275/300 Seats
7500/7000/6500 NM Range

828-1/2/3 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
350/400/450 Seats
9500/9000/8500 NM Range

828-L 9 Abreast Twin Aisle Twin Engine
325 Seats
10500 NM Range
With further developments to come


That’s a good lineup to start. What about freighters?


818-2/828-2/838-2. Basically the middle sized aircraft in those models will have a freighter package option. The 828-L is primarily an ultra long range pax aircraft carrying pax, their luggage and minimal freight (if any), The 818-3 and 828-3 will also have combi options, I see no need for the single aisle model to offer the options though they would make conversion to pure freighters possible by a third party.

If only you worked for Boeing!
 
ItnStln
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 pm

Re: Theoretical Line-up -- If Boeing Started From Scratch. Your Ideas?

Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:42 pm

rigo wrote:
ItnStln wrote:
rigo wrote:
Basically think of Airbus in its beginnings, when Boeing laughed the A300 off as a "typical government-subsidised plane; they will sell ten of them and then go bankrupt". Which, by the way, very nearly came true.

And Boeing wasn't wrong. Like the ME3, I'm sure that's part of why airbus is still around.


Wasn't wrong? The A300 was a sales success and some 40 years later Airbus is still not bankrupt (and doing rather well, lately).
Boeing was totally off the mark (like IBM's CEO who declared in the 1950s that the world's market for computer won't exceed five units).
I just quoted that simply to illustrate how extremely difficult it is for a company starting in this industry to gain credibility, whether it is from clients or from its competitors.

Boeing wasn't wrong that it was a "typical government-subsidised plane."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cedarjet, steveinbc and 14 guests

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