Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

B764er wrote:

Boeing has to implement tried and true 787 technology on It's future 737 and 757 replacements and not depend on software for plane control (no MCA'S) in order to regain a share of the market. The 737 is done and must be replaced. So is the 757.

FBW is totally (almost) dependent upon software. The 737's problem is that it was pre-FBW and now has kludged itself to be partly FBW. MCAS was a particularly bad kludge.

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

Excellent plan. This is how Boeing can regain a good market position in single aisle aircraft. But, it is a large investment, an investment that might take two decades before there is a good return.

There is only one thing I disagree with in your plan. By the time the NSA phase 1 is ready for service (7 years from program launch?). At that time I don't think the A220 is where Airbus is most vulnerable, and Airbus might not have a low scale, low efficiency production of the A220 (at that time).

Boeing made a huge strategic mistake that ultimately lead to Airbus taking majority share of the Bombardier C-series. The C-series would be perfect for Boeing, and would have made it possible to do a 757 replacement (or NMA), instead of now having to focus on a 737-7/8 replacement.

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


[b]Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.

The current MAX saga has shown that is not correct, Boeing is still around today after already booking billions in losses with more to come until the a/c is RTS. So financially, reality has shown that the company could have survived the cost of a clean sheet design with existing technology to get beyond the physical limitations of the current 737.
All that was needed was for someone to make the case that the limitations of the 737 were too great to go beyond the NG, I wonder if there will be any leaked e-mails of memos from persons who may have actually proposed such and option?

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

Should Boeing wait for 7 years, first deliveries, while hoping Airbus and e.g. Southwest sit on their hands meanwhile?

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

You don't seem to have gamed out how Airbus would react to such an announcement. They have a nice fat backlog to pay for development. So they would continue to ramp 320NEO production and go further than currently planned in a play for market share with some end of line discounting. They'd launch the 225 and the 322/323 - rewinged and stretched versions of the 320N and 321N. They would drastically ramp up 220 production and buy out BBD and IQ's shares in that program. They could deliver all of that without breaking much of a sweat by 2025/2026.

Airbus has been slowly but methodically sorting out 220 and 320N production issues. They're quietly doing a lot of the PIPs that would enable a stretch of the 220. And they've been studying carbon fibre wing manufacturing for a future 320 replacement, while benefiting from the acquisition of the 220 program and its carbon fibre wing developments. A lot of that work is going to bear fruit in the next 2-3 years. If Boeing were to announce a 220 competitor, Airbus is already well positioned to respond. If they do it 2 years from now, Airbus will be laughing. So come 2026/2027, Boeing's 220 fighter would be facing a mature three member 220 family with substantial production numbers and a renewed 320 family perfectly positioned to take on the replacement market for the 321s, 757s and even some 767 routes. All for what? The lower margin sub-180 seat category? The best play is to skate to where the puck is going to be. Take the fat space global aviation is going to which Airbus can only tackle with the stretched and rewinged 320N/321N.


If a brand new type is to be developed, the play is incredibly obvious here. Two member family. Smallest is 180 seats two class or 200 seats in LCC config with TATL range. Next member is 220 seats 2-class or 240 seats in LCC config with minimum TCON range. That would sell massively.


Look at where aviation is going. Sure there's fragmentation leading to narrowbody TATL. There's also massive growth on all those boring 1-2 hr flights between established and emerging cities all over the world. And this is especially going to be the case going forward as the developing world continues to rapidly urbanize and carbon pricing adds more and more penalties to shorthaul and low capacity flying. By 2030, there will be 43 cities with more than 10 million residents. In 1990, there were 10. The 321N is going to prove to be too small in a lot of Asia and Africa in particular. Somewhere around 10% more capacity and a little less range would be a fantastic hauler for a lot of airlines. Even in the US. The smaller aircraft with 10% less capacity than a 321N and standard range closer to the LR can do just fine for airlines that want less than 200 seats or need the range for long and thin narrowbody routes. Maybe they can even offer differently optimized engines depending on what purpose the airline is buying the frames for. The sub-150 seat market is the new regional market.


Boeing's board just seems to be avoiding the obvious at this point because they really don't want to hurt dividends and all those nice investment metrics that get them bonuses. If Boeing doesn't pull the trigger on some version of the above, expect Airbus to take more and more share. Airbus is quietly moving to where the puck is going, while Boeing has been distracted with all its MAX troubles and makes short term decisions immediate returns over long term competitiveness.

TObound wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

You don't seem to have gamed out how Airbus would react to such an announcement. They have a nice fat backlog to pay for development. So they would continue to ramp 320NEO production and go further than currently planned in a play for market share with some end of line discounting. They'd launch the 225 and the 322/323 - rewinged and stretched versions of the 320N and 321N. They would drastically ramp up 220 production and buy out BBD and IQ's shares in that program. They could deliver all of that without breaking much of a sweat by 2025/2026.

Airbus has been slowly but methodically sorting out 220 and 320N production issues. They're quietly doing a lot of the PIPs that would enable a stretch of the 220. And they've been studying carbon fibre wing manufacturing for a future 320 replacement, while benefiting from the acquisition of the 220 program and its carbon fibre wing developments. A lot of that work is going to bear fruit in the next 2-3 years. If Boeing were to announce a 220 competitor, Airbus is already well positioned to respond. If they do it 2 years from now, Airbus will be laughing. So come 2026/2027, Boeing's 220 fighter would be facing a mature three member 220 family with substantial production numbers and a renewed 320 family perfectly positioned to take on the replacement market for the 321s, 757s and even some 767 routes. All for what? The lower margin sub-180 seat category? The best play is to skate to where the puck is going to be. Take the fat space global aviation is going to which Airbus can only tackle with the stretched and rewinged 320N/321N.


If a brand new type is to be developed, the play is incredibly obvious here. Two member family. Smallest is 180 seats two class or 200 seats in LCC config with TATL range. Next member is 220 seats 2-class or 240 seats in LCC config with minimum TCON range. That would sell massively.


Look at where aviation is going. Sure there's fragmentation leading to narrowbody TATL. There's also massive growth on all those boring 1-2 hr flights between established and emerging cities all over the world. And this is especially going to be the case going forward as the developing world continues to rapidly urbanize and carbon pricing adds more and more penalties to shorthaul and low capacity flying. By 2030, there will be 43 cities with more than 10 million residents. In 1990, there were 10. The 321N is going to prove to be too small in a lot of Asia and Africa in particular. Somewhere around 10% more capacity and a little less range would be a fantastic hauler for a lot of airlines. Even in the US. The smaller aircraft with 10% less capacity than a 321N and standard range closer to the LR can do just fine for airlines that want less than 200 seats or need the range for long and thin narrowbody routes. Maybe they can even offer differently optimized engines depending on what purpose the airline is buying the frames for. The sub-150 seat market is the new regional market.


Boeing's board just seems to be avoiding the obvious at this point because they really don't want to hurt dividends and all those nice investment metrics that get them bonuses. If Boeing doesn't pull the trigger on some version of the above, expect Airbus to take more and more share. Airbus is quietly moving to where the puck is going, while Boeing has been distracted with all its MAX troubles and makes short term decisions immediate returns over long term competitiveness.

You seriously think that they are capable of bringing an A225 and rewinged/stretched A320neos by 2025? Airbus is already having issues just introducing the NX fuselage configuration into their production line and it’s causing lots of delivery delays. Plus the A220s are being produced at a snails pace as it is already. What you’re suggesting isn’t as easy as it sounds.

ikolkyo wrote:

TObound wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

Go after the A220 first!


I've said this before but it has become more urgent due to the 737MAX troubles/delays; spending resources (mainly money and time) on NMA introduction at a time where the MAX, which is already in troubled waters, is increasingly vulnerable to A320 updates is a very risky proposition.


Boeing has two main challenges when launching NSA:

1 There needs to be a large enough tech leap to justify an all new design.
2 It needs to compete with a mature and still evolving production infrastructure that is by then probably pumping out 70+ planes a month.


To address both I would propose the following:

Focus the first phase of the NSA as a smaller replacement of the 737 with less range. Largest variant would be 737-800 size. Do this phase of NSA together with Embraer. Phase 2 will take on the A320 series based on the same fuselage cross section, cockpit and many systems, but wait till technology has improved enough and production of phase 1 is running smoothly.
That way you can now start at addressing your weakness in the single aisle market (but not jeopardizing your MAX backlog and possibly the future of the company) by going after the Airbus single aisle offering that is still the least mature and least efficient to produce; the A220, while laying the ground works for the A320 killer once production maturity and sufficient technology advancement is there.

People might say that a 5W cross section is much less draggy in this capacity range, but at these short ranges parasitic drag is less relevant. I think the advantages of commonality between phase 1 and 2 would vastly outweigh that small disadvantage.


To sum up the advantages of this strategy:

- You hit Airbus hardest were it is most vulnerable: the A220 (and it’s low scale, low efficiency, C-series legacy based production).
- Airbus can’t directly react with A320 variants or production volume (because it Is at a different capability bracket).
- Production architecture state of the art not matched by either A220 or A320 (because production efficiency has been designed in from the start without legacy limitations).
- With composite wings, additive manufacturing and limited size and range you can keep MTOW low enough to get efficient wings within the 36m gate limit without needing folding wings.
- Low MTOW will also make it brutally efficient on the shorter ranges which is by far the majority of NB flights (it will grow in range with technology over time).
- Operation cost per pax will be extremely low (fuel, maintenance, cabin crew) on the 737-8 sized variant (far more than -10% compared to a 320NEO). LCC’s will love ‘m.
- You have an answer to Airbus' combined A220 and A320 single aisle production capacity without risking the company.
- You can keep the line of the 737 running for a while producing 9 and 10’s.
- Latter part of MAX backlog can shift to NSA phase 1 or to the MAX 9/10.
- Phase 2 will be good enough as NMA and certainly more capable than any (current) A320 variant.
- Embraer can help out with resources
- Fit’s nicely above the E2.

For phase 2 of NSA you can use the fuselage diameter, cockpit and many systems for a higher MTOW variant, with more capacity and range. This variant will get a much higher MTOW, with wings clearly extending past the 36m limit, new MLG, etc.

Once efficiency has improved enough (so range won’t be an issue) and 737MAX production is drawing to an end, you could add the 228 single class to the phase 1 MTOW variant as well.


NSA phase 1:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: 36m

Single class: 174
MTOW: 70t
Range: 3.000Nm

Single class: 198
MTOW: 72t
Range: 2.800Nm



NSA phase 2:

Fuselage: 6-abreast (around A320 width)
Wingspan: ~42m

Single class: 228
MTOW: 100t
Range: 5.200Nm

Single class: 252
MTOW: 102t
Range: 4.500Nm

You don't seem to have gamed out how Airbus would react to such an announcement. They have a nice fat backlog to pay for development. So they would continue to ramp 320NEO production and go further than currently planned in a play for market share with some end of line discounting. They'd launch the 225 and the 322/323 - rewinged and stretched versions of the 320N and 321N. They would drastically ramp up 220 production and buy out BBD and IQ's shares in that program. They could deliver all of that without breaking much of a sweat by 2025/2026.

Airbus has been slowly but methodically sorting out 220 and 320N production issues. They're quietly doing a lot of the PIPs that would enable a stretch of the 220. And they've been studying carbon fibre wing manufacturing for a future 320 replacement, while benefiting from the acquisition of the 220 program and its carbon fibre wing developments. A lot of that work is going to bear fruit in the next 2-3 years. If Boeing were to announce a 220 competitor, Airbus is already well positioned to respond. If they do it 2 years from now, Airbus will be laughing. So come 2026/2027, Boeing's 220 fighter would be facing a mature three member 220 family with substantial production numbers and a renewed 320 family perfectly positioned to take on the replacement market for the 321s, 757s and even some 767 routes. All for what? The lower margin sub-180 seat category? The best play is to skate to where the puck is going to be. Take the fat space global aviation is going to which Airbus can only tackle with the stretched and rewinged 320N/321N.


If a brand new type is to be developed, the play is incredibly obvious here. Two member family. Smallest is 180 seats two class or 200 seats in LCC config with TATL range. Next member is 220 seats 2-class or 240 seats in LCC config with minimum TCON range. That would sell massively.


Look at where aviation is going. Sure there's fragmentation leading to narrowbody TATL. There's also massive growth on all those boring 1-2 hr flights between established and emerging cities all over the world. And this is especially going to be the case going forward as the developing world continues to rapidly urbanize and carbon pricing adds more and more penalties to shorthaul and low capacity flying. By 2030, there will be 43 cities with more than 10 million residents. In 1990, there were 10. The 321N is going to prove to be too small in a lot of Asia and Africa in particular. Somewhere around 10% more capacity and a little less range would be a fantastic hauler for a lot of airlines. Even in the US. The smaller aircraft with 10% less capacity than a 321N and standard range closer to the LR can do just fine for airlines that want less than 200 seats or need the range for long and thin narrowbody routes. Maybe they can even offer differently optimized engines depending on what purpose the airline is buying the frames for. The sub-150 seat market is the new regional market.


Boeing's board just seems to be avoiding the obvious at this point because they really don't want to hurt dividends and all those nice investment metrics that get them bonuses. If Boeing doesn't pull the trigger on some version of the above, expect Airbus to take more and more share. Airbus is quietly moving to where the puck is going, while Boeing has been distracted with all its MAX troubles and makes short term decisions immediate returns over long term competitiveness.

You seriously think that they are capable of bringing an A225 and rewinged/stretched A320neos by 2025? Airbus is already having issues just introducing the NX fuselage configuration into their production line and it’s causing lots of delivery delays. Plus the A220s are being produced at a snails pace as it is already. What you’re suggesting isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Like I said, Airbus hasn't been standing still. They're building a pre-FAL in Mirabel to facilitate higher output. They're working on the supplier chain to get prices down. They're building the Mobile line. And they're going through with those PIPs. This is all pre-positioning. At minimum it buys them a ton of options and makes the 225 a lower risk effort. All of which also buys time for the 322/323 work. If pushed, they can do it all by 2025.

Meanwhile Boeing is still dithering over whether to even build the NMA

Boeing will launch a small widebody at the first public airshow after the 737 is back in service.

It would be bad publicity to launch a new aircraft while the 737MAX is grounded. The MAX10 rollout was kept very quiet for this reason.

The 737 will then pump through the huge backlog at full produxtion rate for 5+ years. I do expect the fallout from the 737MAX to result in around a quarter of the current orders to now be in doubt and airlines will defer delivery. Boeing will then launch the 737 replacement earlier and probably in service by 2030. It definitely will not follow the doomsday scenario some make out.

My sources say the 797 now has most of Boeings design resources hard at work. With the MAX10 and 777X engineering complete pretty much everyone is moving to the 797. It wouldn't surprise me if it is flying in 2025.

RJMAZ wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if it is flying in 2025.

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand. Or no new engine to be precise. A de-rated version of a current generation is definitively possible but then they might better wait a few years and have a current one ready.

FluidFlow wrote:

If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand.

Next Paris air show is 2021. The major show next year will be Farnborough in July.

scbriml wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand.

Next Paris air show is 2021. The major show next year will be Farnborough in July.

Oh yeah, my bad.

Anyway the engine problem. I just can not see a wide body engine being ready except some de-rated GEnx derivative. RR is not in it, GE only with CFM and there is P&W.

So we have either a CFM or a P&W. Both seem to go for a NB aircraft: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-engine-makers-prep-for-next-narrowbody-lau-458100/

So while they are prepping for another generation of NB engines, both could probably upscale their engines, but P&W has enough trouble with their GTF and I could not see them ready for 2025 with an upscaled version and CFM never built a commercial engine with more than 150 kN of thrust and only once for a wide body (A340, which was acutally just 4 A320 engines). The MoM proposed from Boeing would need around 200-220 kN. So I really can not see an engine ready till then that is actually reliable. CFM might make it but will they have the capacity to produce another enigne next to the almost 200 Leap they have to pump out per month in 2025.

FluidFlow wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if it is flying in 2025.

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand. Or no new engine to be precise. A de-rated version of a current generation is definitively possible but then they might better wait a few years and have a current one ready.

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Who in their right mind would accept Max's from now til 2027? It's already got the stigma behind it and this essentially becomes a product that is dead on arrival. Boeing would have to slash prices further than they already have for 7 years to keep production and coffers flowing. I realize we live in a vastly different world but wouldn't Boeing have had some preliminary work studies done on the NSA? If the 747 took 28 months to go from zero to flying couldn't Boeing dedicate all their resources to this project and fast track it to be flying sooner than 2025?

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if it is flying in 2025.

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand. Or no new engine to be precise. A de-rated version of a current generation is definitively possible but then they might better wait a few years and have a current one ready.

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand. Or no new engine to be precise. A de-rated version of a current generation is definitively possible but then they might better wait a few years and have a current one ready.

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I don't disagree - I actually think they should do NMA first but that doesn't mean they will as it will. NMA first will allow them to prove out the production system at lower rates first. You would be able to Build NMA and NSA on the same line with the first line possibly using the 747 factory space which should be available relatively soon. NSA would not be ready until 2030 or so when a clean sheet state of the art engine with a huge bypass ratio could be ready .

There are 4,000+ MAX's in the backlog - they will probably sell at least another 1,000 at big discounts (but still cash flow positive) as Grounding Compensation. It's not to believe they will sell another 1,000 on top of that.

At Rate 52 next year and rate 57 after that that means a backlog of 5,000 takes them to about 2027 on the MAX - another 1,000 takes them into 2028.

Boeing is forecasting 32,000 single aisle deliveries for the industry between now and 2038 so it's not hard to see them delivering another 7-8,000 MAX's by the time of a 2030 NSA and I would guess MAX goes on for a bit in produciton past NSA EIS as a low cost alternative and as NSA won't be at rate 60 at least for the first few years - it will take them time to ramp.

Airbus and Comac won't take 75% of the deliveries. But more than 50%? - most likely. Lets say Boeing gets 40% of the SA deliveries - that's 12,800 frames - more than enough to take MAX to 2030 and ramp up NSA to get to 2038.

Boeingphan wrote:

Who in their right mind would accept Max's from now til 2027? It's already got the stigma behind it and this essentially becomes a product that is dead on arrival. Boeing would have to slash prices further than they already have for 7 years to keep production and coffers flowing. I realize we live in a vastly different world but wouldn't Boeing have had some preliminary work studies done on the NSA? If the 747 took 28 months to go from zero to flying couldn't Boeing dedicate all their resources to this project and fast track it to be flying sooner than 2025?

I think NMA has been "delayed" past 2030 and a 737 replacement has been back on the table since last summer. viewtopic.php?t=1415977.
It has to be kept quiet to prevent MAX customers starting to re-negotiate, at this sensitive stage.

Boeing can't afford to go for high rate composites fuselages, 7 abreast cabins, new 2025 engines by 2025 or other dangerous promises.
Something that can work with 85 inch geared fans and offer superior economics to the A321NEO, on 1- 2 hour flights, the bulk of the market.

Of the top 50 busiest routes in the world, only 1 can not be be flown by a 737-200. (LAX-JFK) the rest is under 1300 NM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World

Go ahead 7 abreast 5000 NM range & get toasted ? Don't think so.

keesje wrote:

Boeingphan wrote:

Who in their right mind would accept Max's from now til 2027? It's already got the stigma behind it and this essentially becomes a product that is dead on arrival. Boeing would have to slash prices further than they already have for 7 years to keep production and coffers flowing. I realize we live in a vastly different world but wouldn't Boeing have had some preliminary work studies done on the NSA? If the 747 took 28 months to go from zero to flying couldn't Boeing dedicate all their resources to this project and fast track it to be flying sooner than 2025?

I think NMA has been "delayed" past 2030 and a 737 replacement has been back on the table since last summer. viewtopic.php?t=1415977.
It has to be kept quiet to prevent MAX customers starting to re-negotiate, at this sensitive stage.

Boeing can't afford to go for high rate composites fuselages, 7 abreast cabins, new 2025 engines by 2025 or other dangerous promises.
Something that can work with 85 inch geared fans and offer superior economics to the A321NEO, on 1- 2 hour flights, the bulk of the market.

Of the top 50 busiest routes in the world, only 1 can not be be flown by a 737-200. (LAX-JFK) the rest is under 1300 NM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World

Go ahead 7 abreast 5000 NM range & get toasted ? Don't think so.

Hummm.. once again, many people thinks the Boeing strategy is to launched the NMA before the 737Replacement because is too risky for the manufacturer to launch an all-new narrowbody

The NMA could be a lesson to learn for the 737 Replacement and B wants stay the leader in 2-class 220-425 seats / widebody market IMO.. (797X-787-777X)

keesje wrote:

Boeingphan wrote:

Who in their right mind would accept Max's from now til 2027? It's already got the stigma behind it and this essentially becomes a product that is dead on arrival. Boeing would have to slash prices further than they already have for 7 years to keep production and coffers flowing. I realize we live in a vastly different world but wouldn't Boeing have had some preliminary work studies done on the NSA? If the 747 took 28 months to go from zero to flying couldn't Boeing dedicate all their resources to this project and fast track it to be flying sooner than 2025?

I think NMA has been "delayed" past 2030 and a 737 replacement has been back on the table since last summer. viewtopic.php?t=1415977.
It has to be kept quiet to prevent MAX customers starting to re-negotiate, at this sensitive stage.

Boeing can't afford to go for high rate composites fuselages, 7 abreast cabins, new 2025 engines by 2025 or other dangerous promises.
Something that can work with 85 inch geared fans and offer superior economics to the A321NEO, on 1- 2 hour flights, the bulk of the market.

Of the top 50 busiest routes in the world, only 1 can not be be flown by a 737-200. (LAX-JFK) the rest is under 1300 NM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World

Go ahead 7 abreast 5000 NM range & get toasted ? Don't think so.

Keesje - I'm just kidding you here.

You want Boeing to go 6W as you know the best response to that would be a tight light 7W especially as Airbus has the nice 220 5W cross section as well for those 49 out of 50 routes that are less than 1,300NM.

BTW I was 2,700 NM range on my NSA-L - not 5,000nm.

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand. Or no new engine to be precise. A de-rated version of a current generation is definitively possible but then they might better wait a few years and have a current one ready.

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

Boeingphan wrote:

Who in their right mind would accept Max's from now til 2027? It's already got the stigma behind it and this essentially becomes a product that is dead on arrival. Boeing would have to slash prices further than they already have for 7 years to keep production and coffers flowing. I realize we live in a vastly different world but wouldn't Boeing have had some preliminary work studies done on the NSA? If the 747 took 28 months to go from zero to flying couldn't Boeing dedicate all their resources to this project and fast track it to be flying sooner than 2025?

I think NMA has been "delayed" past 2030 and a 737 replacement has been back on the table since last summer. viewtopic.php?t=1415977.
It has to be kept quiet to prevent MAX customers starting to re-negotiate, at this sensitive stage.

Boeing can't afford to go for high rate composites fuselages, 7 abreast cabins, new 2025 engines by 2025 or other dangerous promises.
Something that can work with 85 inch geared fans and offer superior economics to the A321NEO, on 1- 2 hour flights, the bulk of the market.

Of the top 50 busiest routes in the world, only 1 can not be be flown by a 737-200. (LAX-JFK) the rest is under 1300 NM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World

Go ahead 7 abreast 5000 NM range & get toasted ? Don't think so.

Keesje - I'm just kidding you here.

You want Boeing to go 6W as you know the best response to that would be a tight light 7W especially as Airbus has the nice 220 5W cross section as well for those 49 out of 50 routes that are less than 1,300NM.

BTW I was 2,700 NM range on my NSA-L - not 5,000nm.

Boeing will not have a 7W for their NSA/FSA whatever they call it. For the NMA maybe but not for the smaller versions if they want to compete in the <200 pax market. In a MoM the 7W might work but the last 7W got trashed by a 8W so why not go 8W straight away. Possibilities to have more space in the hold so on TATL you can fill the belly not only with bags, the aisle to seat ratio improves drastically compared to the weight gain from the bigger diameter.

Thats what already killed the pax 767. Airbus can kill off the 330 whenever they want with almost no impact on their business. Just transform standing orders into 350 and Delta will take some end of the line 330s as they always do. Build a composite light 8W 250-350 (two class/one class) 170t MTOW 8ab aircraft with 5500nm range. Thats then a massive squeeze for the NMA between that and the A321.

Boeing is poised to go FSA but not yet. They will launch a new 6W in 2023. This includes no risk and also allows to cash in. Business is not about risks anymore but about constant positive cash flow. Status quo is good for another 10 years so why change?

DenverTed wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

there is a 35K Leap on the A321 neo. How does this help the NSA? It then will be a more expensive frame with maybe a little improvement on CASK. Who would buy that? And due to big investment costs this NSA would be sold at a way higher prize than the A321 or Boeing would make no profit on it and possibly even at a loss.

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think NMA has been "delayed" past 2030 and a 737 replacement has been back on the table since last summer. viewtopic.php?t=1415977.
It has to be kept quiet to prevent MAX customers starting to re-negotiate, at this sensitive stage.

Boeing can't afford to go for high rate composites fuselages, 7 abreast cabins, new 2025 engines by 2025 or other dangerous promises.
Something that can work with 85 inch geared fans and offer superior economics to the A321NEO, on 1- 2 hour flights, the bulk of the market.

Of the top 50 busiest routes in the world, only 1 can not be be flown by a 737-200. (LAX-JFK) the rest is under 1300 NM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes#World

Go ahead 7 abreast 5000 NM range & get toasted ? Don't think so.

Keesje - I'm just kidding you here.

You want Boeing to go 6W as you know the best response to that would be a tight light 7W especially as Airbus has the nice 220 5W cross section as well for those 49 out of 50 routes that are less than 1,300NM.

BTW I was 2,700 NM range on my NSA-L - not 5,000nm.

Boeing will not have a 7W for their NSA/FSA whatever they call it. For the NMA maybe but not for the smaller versions if they want to compete in the <200 pax market. In a MoM the 7W might work but the last 7W got trashed by a 8W so why not go 8W straight away. Possibilities to have more space in the hold so on TATL you can fill the belly not only with bags, the aisle to seat ratio improves drastically compared to the weight gain from the bigger diameter.

Thats what already killed the pax 767. Airbus can kill off the 330 whenever they want with almost no impact on their business. Just transform standing orders into 350 and Delta will take some end of the line 330s as they always do. Build a composite light 8W 250-350 (two class/one class) 170t MTOW 8ab aircraft with 5500nm range. Thats then a massive squeeze for the NMA between that and the A321.

Boeing is poised to go FSA but not yet. They will launch a new 6W in 2023. This includes no risk and also allows to cash in. Business is not about risks anymore but about constant positive cash flow. Status quo is good for another 10 years so why change?

That is not what a lot of the rumors are suggesting or what NSA was probably going to be back in 2011. You are thinking in Circles vs. more Ovalish cross sections - it's not really a penalty to do a tight light 7W.

7W could work nicely for 200 Y seats with about 31" pitch. Below that I think Boeing's solution will be something done with Boeing Brazil - most likely as a 5W.

There are tradeoffs in everything.

One of the Potential benefits of 7W NMA for the A321 + Space is that the Wider fuselage and assuming that a folding wing would be less than 36M folded to fit into Class III/Code C gates with equivalent capacity will fit into a lot existing gates.

If the Middle of the Market is getting bigger there may not be enough bigger Class IV Code D gates around that sufficient length for Super long 6W tubes.

Many Airports are already slot restricted/gate limited - Mainline aircraft will keep getting bigger due to this limitation. It's already moving into the A321 Space aggressively which is about 200 Y seats at 31" pitch - where will it be by the time a NMA or NMA could enter service?

DenverTed wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Flying doesn't necessarily doesn't mean in service - call it first flight in 2025 - delivery in 2027 which seems more reasonable and time enough to do a derivative of an existing engine (Possibly an GTF LEAP using the existing core).

Yes Boeing may lose a bunch of orders on the MAX but I think this will be more than offset by compensation orders for the MAX grounding.

No idea if it wlll be NSA or NMA first but I think for cost reasons both will be based on the same Nose, systems and Fuselage cross/section (tight light 7W).

I don't think it really matters which is first. That may be dependent on commercial realities. However the main thing to do will be to not over range the NSA if it's first to keep it really light - start it lower than 737 ranges and allow it to evolve over time. Call it 3,000 NM for NSA-S and 2,700NM for NSA - L.

You would probably have enough thrust with existing LEAP's (maybe slightly bigger fan than A321) to make the above work. That engine could be ready quite quickly.

NMA would have more thrust/larger wings and NMA - S (call it A321 Capacity plus 5-10% more seats) would be good for 5,000-5,300NM and NMA - L - A321 plus 20-25% more seats and 4,500-4,700 NM range.

NSA-L and NMA-S would be the same length/Passenger Capacity. NSA- S 200 Y seats(A320+ Capacity) at 31" seat pitch and NMA-S/NSA-L at about 225-235 Y seats at 31" pitch. NMA - L - 260-270 Y seats at 31" pitch.

Then Boeing Brazil does a 5W Carbon design using 797 tech/systems and common cockpit to fight in the space up to 738/A320 size (170-180 Y seats 31" pitch, the smaller version 150 Y seats 31" pitch to maximize use of 3 flight attendants.

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

Things have probably changed a bit since about 5 years ago, but the span Boeing was kicking around for the NMA was 140’with a max length of 180’. Slightly larger than the 757 gate footprint. They weren’t specific if this was a 767 type span with a folded wing or modern airfoil design. They simply talked about a gate box dimension. Boeing at the time was being very cognizant of gate spacing for this aircraft, and I can’t imagine that line of thinking would have changed. There are a lot of 757 gates out there that can’t handle a much larger span, so if it’s too big, you start losing gates and screwing up the ability to effectively support the aircraft from existing facilities. The concept being that it will fit in a 757 gate with slightly reduced wingtip separation (reduction from 25’ to 20’) or allow a an existing mixed config terminal with a 767 gate between two 737 gates next to it be converted to 3 NMA gates, given there are no 767s rolling off the line. There was no discussion about this fitting in a 737/A320 gate given what it has to do in terms of performance. They also indicated that such an aircraft needs to address the needs of cargo carrier for which there is no 757 replacement. The 767s rolling off now have a long useful life, but the 757 is going to be a problem in 10-15 years and there is presently nothing in the 757 void for cargo. The 737-8BCF isn’t the answer to the long term 757 cargo problem and there is no current solution to the long term 767 cargo problem.

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Keesje - I'm just kidding you here.

You want Boeing to go 6W as you know the best response to that would be a tight light 7W especially as Airbus has the nice 220 5W cross section as well for those 49 out of 50 routes that are less than 1,300NM.

BTW I was 2,700 NM range on my NSA-L - not 5,000nm.

Boeing will not have a 7W for their NSA/FSA whatever they call it. For the NMA maybe but not for the smaller versions if they want to compete in the <200 pax market. In a MoM the 7W might work but the last 7W got trashed by a 8W so why not go 8W straight away. Possibilities to have more space in the hold so on TATL you can fill the belly not only with bags, the aisle to seat ratio improves drastically compared to the weight gain from the bigger diameter.

Thats what already killed the pax 767. Airbus can kill off the 330 whenever they want with almost no impact on their business. Just transform standing orders into 350 and Delta will take some end of the line 330s as they always do. Build a composite light 8W 250-350 (two class/one class) 170t MTOW 8ab aircraft with 5500nm range. Thats then a massive squeeze for the NMA between that and the A321.

Boeing is poised to go FSA but not yet. They will launch a new 6W in 2023. This includes no risk and also allows to cash in. Business is not about risks anymore but about constant positive cash flow. Status quo is good for another 10 years so why change?

That is not what a lot of the rumors are suggesting or what NSA was probably going to be back in 2011. You are thinking in Circles vs. more Ovalish cross sections - it's not really a penalty to do a tight light 7W.

There are tradeoffs in everything.

One of the Potential benefits of 7W NMA for the A321 + Space is that the Wider fuselage and assuming that a folding wing would be less than 36M folded to fit into Class III/Code C gates with equivalent capacity will fit into a lot existing gates.

If the Middle of the Market is getting bigger there may not be enough bigger Class IV Code D gates around that sufficient length for Super long 6W tubes.

So a tight oval with folding wing tips new production methods for super efficiency and as testbed for the FSA?

What will this thing cost? 180m list price and 85 after discounts? Pitched against a 50m A321?

Or just prize it at 60m and lose 20m on every sale and hope you sell enough like on the 787?

Lessons were hopefully learned from that debacle. It will either be a new thing in 2030+ or a low risk 767 wash up. But we will see... especially who will be CEO when something is announced.

FluidFlow wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

there is a 35K Leap on the A321 neo. How does this help the NSA? It then will be a more expensive frame with maybe a little improvement on CASK. Who would buy that? And due to big investment costs this NSA would be sold at a way higher prize than the A321 or Boeing would make no profit on it and possibly even at a loss.

I think the NSA-L should be able to beat the seat mile costs of the A321. Then there are cost benefits of loading time, economy of scale, and upselling aisle seats, and customer and aircraft loyalty towards those extra aisle seats.
Who will buy it? Southwest, Delta, Untied, AA. I don't see an 8 abreast aircraft being the solution because it ends up being too big or misproportioned and inefficient when shrunk to 36m gates or close in size to the A321.

FluidFlow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Boeing will not have a 7W for their NSA/FSA whatever they call it. For the NMA maybe but not for the smaller versions if they want to compete in the <200 pax market. In a MoM the 7W might work but the last 7W got trashed by a 8W so why not go 8W straight away. Possibilities to have more space in the hold so on TATL you can fill the belly not only with bags, the aisle to seat ratio improves drastically compared to the weight gain from the bigger diameter.

Thats what already killed the pax 767. Airbus can kill off the 330 whenever they want with almost no impact on their business. Just transform standing orders into 350 and Delta will take some end of the line 330s as they always do. Build a composite light 8W 250-350 (two class/one class) 170t MTOW 8ab aircraft with 5500nm range. Thats then a massive squeeze for the NMA between that and the A321.

Boeing is poised to go FSA but not yet. They will launch a new 6W in 2023. This includes no risk and also allows to cash in. Business is not about risks anymore but about constant positive cash flow. Status quo is good for another 10 years so why change?

That is not what a lot of the rumors are suggesting or what NSA was probably going to be back in 2011. You are thinking in Circles vs. more Ovalish cross sections - it's not really a penalty to do a tight light 7W.

There are tradeoffs in everything.

One of the Potential benefits of 7W NMA for the A321 + Space is that the Wider fuselage and assuming that a folding wing would be less than 36M folded to fit into Class III/Code C gates with equivalent capacity will fit into a lot existing gates.

If the Middle of the Market is getting bigger there may not be enough bigger Class IV Code D gates around that sufficient length for Super long 6W tubes.

So a tight oval with folding wing tips new production methods for super efficiency and as testbed for the FSA?

What will this thing cost? 180m list price and 85 after discounts? Pitched against a 50m A321?

Or just prize it at 60m and lose 20m on every sale and hope you sell enough like on the 787?

Lessons were hopefully learned from that debacle. It will either be a new thing in 2030+ or a low risk 767 wash up. But we will see... especially who will be CEO when something is announced.

I think it is a given that it will have CFRP wings. If CFRP is too expensive for the fuselage, perhaps a circular AL fuselage at 160" outside diam. with a wide aisle, or 172" at 2-2-2, or 192" at 2-3-2 which is quite a bit smaller than a 767.

FluidFlow wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if it is flying in 2025.

Do you think so?

Because even if Boeing could get it done till 2025 I can not see how there will be a new engine ready till then. If launched in Summer 2020 in Paris, I expect EIS in 2027 probably 2028 just because there will be no engine ready beforehand.

AFAIK the engine has already been selected. We had heaps of noise about engines 12 months ago. Development money has probably already changed hands.

People claim a 7 year period between program launch and EIS. But the signs are Boeing is already working as if the program has been fully launched. They must have strong commitments from airlines and they might even have signed orders that they would usually have days leading up to a publuc launch. The public launch simply hasn't happened this year because it would look bad. The clock of the 7 year development has already started internally inside Boeing so once the public launch happens it will enter service quicker than 7 years.

I expect a scaled up or down engine based on current tech.

With GE, EIS of the 797 will be 5 years behind the 777X so GE has plenty of time to add GE9X tech into a scaled up LEAP.

The Pratt GTF could also be selected, they would now know the primary cause of the current reliability problems. The 797 would be perfectly timed for an uprated GTF to be 100% reliable. The GTF doesn't really need any extra tech added as it already has industry leading fuel burn.

Even Rolls Royce has a chance as 5 years is a long time to fix their reliability. A perfectly scaled down XWB would work perfectly well with no new tech added.

ILNFlyer wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Top executives at global airlines and lessors, including many who were thought to be likely large launch carriers for the NMA (which would eventually become the 797), have soured on the idea of Boeing’s 220 to 270-seat twin-aisle concept and are privately pushing for a successor to the 737 Max and the aging fleet of 757s


Behind the scenes, Boeing has been recently briefing a small handful of U.S., European and leasing customers on an all-new aircraft — dubbed the Future Small Airplane (FSA) — whose first models would notionally be 180 to 210-seats. That’s larger than the 737 Max 8, which seats 162 passengers in a two-class configuration.

There is a paywall.

I find it very interesting airlines are pushing for FSA over the NMA.

https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-deve ... placement/

Why doesn't Boeing just ask "What do you want your next airplane to be?"

Easy....a 757. New engines might be nice.... it beats anything in its class made today and new engines would seal that advantage for another decade. Our airline CEO has pushed Boeing for it.

DL717 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

Going your way would actually kill off Boeing. No sane business person would launch an NSA-S and -L in your configuration with an EIS before 2030. If this aircraft would be ready in 2027 to be delivered, why accepting any MAX-9/10 at all. Even the MAX-8 would be at risk of getting everything that is not firmed yet delayed by airlines so long till they are transferred into the new one. You might have a great order book for the new thing but on the back of losing all your old orders. This would result in really low cash flow for Boeing and production cuts. Not gonna happen. The MAX is unfortunately doomed to life on for a while.

So you would have to start off with the NMA. Purely from a business perspective. And there is the thing: Can it beat the NEO/NEO-XLR combo with a slightly improved LEAP engine? Do not forget until then you get them for probably $40m-$60m a piece. That is a tough sell especially as it is a double aisle that only competes on passenger capacity (if it is a somewhat oval design), with the same MTOW as the A321. How much more is it allowed to cost? can it be produced cheap enough if there are a lot of new carbon structures in it? Is it efficient enough to wary such a price increase over the NEO?

Tough stuff to predict. Will the BoD even allow Mullenberg to make such a decision or will there be a new CEO in? Will this mean further delays?

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

Things have probably changed a bit since about 5 years ago, but the span Boeing was kicking around for the NMA was 140’with a max length of 180’. Slightly larger than the 757 gate footprint. They weren’t specific if this was a 767 type span with a folded wing or modern airfoil design. They simply talked about a gate box dimension. Boeing at the time was being very cognizant of gate spacing for this aircraft, and I can’t imagine that line of thinking would have changed. There are a lot of 757 gates out there that can’t handle a much larger span, so if it’s too big, you start losing gates and screwing up the ability to effectively support the aircraft from existing facilities. The concept being that it will fit in a 757 gate with slightly reduced wingtip separation (reduction from 25’ to 20’) or allow a an existing mixed config terminal with a 767 gate between two 737 gates next to it be converted to 3 NMA gates, given there are no 767s rolling off the line. There was no discussion about this fitting in a 737/A320 gate given what it has to do in terms of performance. They also indicated that such an aircraft needs to address the needs of cargo carrier for which there is no 757 replacement. The 767s rolling off now have a long useful life, but the 757 is going to be a problem in 10-15 years and there is presently nothing in the 757 void for cargo. The 737-8BCF isn’t the answer to the long term 757 cargo problem and there is no current solution to the long term 767 cargo problem.

Interesting. So at 180' long that is about 757-300 length (178.7') and 140' (42.6M) Wingspan could fold down to 36M relatively easily as the tips would be about 11' high which seems ok as they would be shorter than the tail(777 tips are about 11.5').

Just think of an NMA as a 7W Carbon 757 with with folding tips to fit inside more gates as an option. NMA-S 752 Length, NMA-L 753 Length.

DenverTed wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

there is a 35K Leap on the A321 neo. How does this help the NSA? It then will be a more expensive frame with maybe a little improvement on CASK. Who would buy that? And due to big investment costs this NSA would be sold at a way higher prize than the A321 or Boeing would make no profit on it and possibly even at a loss.

I think the NSA-L should be able to beat the seat mile costs of the A321. Then there are cost benefits of loading time, economy of scale, and upselling aisle seats, and customer and aircraft loyalty towards those extra aisle seats.
Who will buy it? Southwest, Delta, Untied, AA. I don't see an 8 abreast aircraft being the solution because it ends up being too big or misproportioned and inefficient when shrunk to 36m gates or close in size to the A321.

It should easily if you build NSA with a Range that is much lower than A321 meaning it could weigh a lot less. Then you would also have the longer ranged bigger wired NMA variant to handle the longer routes. But the Commonality would be extreme - same avionics, same systems, same LRU's - different Gear and engines (and wing of course).

You should be able to get by with a 36m wing at this range pretty efficiently.

Basically NMA would just be an NSA-XL.

The secret would be the production system to keep the labour cost down and using automation to get the production hours below A320 and MAX.

DenverTed wrote:

I don't see an 8 abreast aircraft being the solution because it ends up being too big or misproportioned and inefficient when shrunk to 36m gates or close in size to the A321.

I see 8ab as the only solution. A very tight 8ab at that.

The 767 fuselage is 5.03m 198" wide but 5.41m 213" high. A 5.25m 206" circular fuselage is the same frontal area as the 767 but allows 8ab while retaining LD2 containers. This is leading option in my opinion. The fuselage external appearance will still look exactly like the current 767-200 and 767-300.

The 797 will stay firmly in code D gates which allow long slender wings up to 52m.

I do not expect any kind of shrink to become the 737 replacement. The 737 replacement will get a unique 6ab cross section but the design techniques and construction technology will be shared. Morrisond has the crazy idea that they can both share the same cross section but this makes no sense as the 300 seat and 200 seat categories are too far apart.

The 797 will be further away from the A321 than people think. The 797 will be placed exactly half way in size and range between the 737 and 787. We already have the range and seat numbers. The shorter fuselage 797 will have 25% more seats than the A321 and 25% more range. The longer 797 version will have 50% more seats with the same range as the A321. Even with 8ab there will be a much bigger range and capacity gap between than 797 and 787 than between the 787 and 777X. It will not take sales away from the 787-9 but 787-8 sales will and probably already have been effected. Boeing for a couple years would have been collecting firm commitments for the public 797 launch. Most of these would have otherwise gone to more 787-8 or A321XLR orders.

Is there a defacto Code C+ gate? A 40m wide, 757 gate that is common in airport infrastructure across the world? For example will the gate expansion at ORD have lots of 40m gates designed in for UA and AA?

RJMAZ wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I don't see an 8 abreast aircraft being the solution because it ends up being too big or misproportioned and inefficient when shrunk to 36m gates or close in size to the A321.

I see 8ab as the only solution. A very tight 8ab at that.

The 767 fuselage is 5.03m 198" wide but 5.41m 213" high. A 5.25m 206" circular fuselage is the same frontal area as the 767 but allows 8ab while retaining LD2 containers. This is leading option in my opinion. The fuselage external appearance will still look exactly like the current 767-200 and 767-300.

The 797 will stay firmly in code D gates which allow long slender wings up to 52m.

I do not expect any kind of shrink to become the 737 replacement. The 737 replacement will get a unique 6ab cross section but the design techniques and construction technology will be shared. Morrisond has the crazy idea that they can both share the same cross section but this makes no sense as the 300 seat and 200 seat categories are too far apart.

The 797 will be further away from the A321 than people think. The 797 will be placed exactly half way in size and range between the 737 and 787. We already have the range and seat numbers. The shorter fuselage 797 will have 25% more seats than the A321 and 25% more range. The longer 797 version will have 50% more seats with the same range as the A321. Even with 8ab there will be a much bigger range and capacity gap between than 797 and 787 than between the 787 and 777X. It will not take sales away from the 787-9 but 787-8 sales will and probably already have been effected. Boeing for a couple years would have been collecting firm commitments for the public 797 launch. Most of these would have otherwise gone to more 787-8 or A321XLR orders.

I like this 8abreast machine idea. It’s a proper step up from the A321 and allows the use of the standard 767 container. A 300seat all economy layout at 8abreast may be a little short but as you say the shortest of the family. When you talk about the range of A321 + 25% do you imagine 5800nm @300pax or [email protected] ~250pax (A321xl range x1.25). Do you anticipate any cargo capability over the 300pax level? I guess it depends on the number of positions available after bags are loaded.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

I like this 8abreast machine idea. It’s a proper step up from the A321 and allows the use of the standard 767 container. A 300seat all economy layout at 8abreast may be a little short but as you say the shortest of the family. When you talk about the range of A321 + 25% do you imagine 5800nm @300pax or [email protected] ~250pax (A321xl range x1.25). Do you anticipate any cargo capability over the 300pax level? I guess it depends on the number of positions available after bags are loaded.

This really isn't my idea, it is just painting the picture from all of the passenger, range and engine thrust numbers that have been posted.

The A321XLR does not do 4700nm at max seating density but with around 200 seats. So I expect the longer range short fuselage 797 to do 5800nm with 250 seats. The XLR would probably only do 4200nm with 240 seats so that means 5250nm with 300 seats in the 797.

I think landing weight will be kept low to extract as much empty weight as possible. This means at full economy seating there will be very little weight available for extra cargo.

Widebody seating densities are often very low when an aircraft is used for long haul. Qantas fit 236 seats on their 787-9 which is less than some A321 operators despite the 787-9 having more than twice the cabin area. This is why I expect premium airlines to stretch the 797 across the Pacific. With widebody seating density the 797 would have around 150 seats this should bring range up to 6000nm and allow many long thin routes to open. These long thin routes would normally have no cargo requirement.

We can also look at the shorter range, longer fuselage. This model would have better CASM making it highly attractive but it could not do transpacific.

I believe the figures we have for the 797 are 225 and 267 seats in Boeing two class layout. 4500nm, 5200nm range and 52,000lb thrust.

Boeing needs to end the 737 series all together and begin developing a new line that starts with a new fuselage and landing gear arrangement that can expand for growth of the line. The 737 was engineered for the JT8D to be mounted underwing. It later accepted the CFM-56 but it was already at it's ground limit …
they could start with a 757 fuselage scaled to the 737-900 wing with the pylons re-engineered to accept the CFM-56 or the PW V2500 just as they're available on the A320/A321 series. Boeing is not Nearly out of options yet. They still have many cards to play and when they finally get their HEADS out of their FUNK. They'll play them and Airbus like a fiddle.

strfyr51 wrote:

Boeing needs to end the 737 series all together and begin developing a new line that starts with a new fuselage and landing gear arrangement that can expand for growth of the line. The 737 was engineered for the JT8D to be mounted underwing. It later accepted the CFM-56 but it was already at it's ground limit …
they could start with a 757 fuselage scaled to the 737-900 wing with the pylons re-engineered to accept the CFM-56 or the PW V2500 just as they're available on the A320/A321 series. Boeing is not Nearly out of options yet. They still have many cards to play and when they finally get their HEADS out of their FUNK. They'll play them and Airbus like a fiddle.

It’s a good thing people like you aren’t running Boeing, they would have been 6 feet under years ago.

To effectively compete with A321 versions, a new Boeing has to be light and nimble, 50t. If not, Airbus will sell thousands more.

RJMAZ wrote:

I believe the figures we have for the 797 are ... 52,000lb thrust.

Boeing issued a request for proposals (RFP) with a June 27, 2018 deadline for a 45,000 lbf engine with a thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) 25% lower than the 757's engines.

Reference
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/boeing- ... plane.html

PacoMartin wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I believe the figures we have for the 797 are ... 52,000lb thrust.

Boeing issued a request for proposals (RFP) with a June 27, 2018 deadline for a 45,000 lbf engine with a thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) 25% lower than the 757's engines.

Reference
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/boeing- ... plane.html

If for 250 seat single class 4000NM range an NMA needs more than 35k lbs thrust engines, I'm not sure if it will be able to meet the benchmark cost efficiency levels.

morrisond wrote:

DL717 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I think the 737 could happily coexist with NSA-S and NSA-L. Even if there is some overlap with the NSA-S and 737-10, one would assume NSA-S would be more expensive, but have better runway performance, so two similar size aircraft for different purposes. I think that by 2025 they could have a 35K version of the LEAP or GTF ready to go. The wing question is folding wingtips, or a fixed wider chord 757 style wing with split wingtips to fit into 36m gates?

Things have probably changed a bit since about 5 years ago, but the span Boeing was kicking around for the NMA was 140’with a max length of 180’. Slightly larger than the 757 gate footprint. They weren’t specific if this was a 767 type span with a folded wing or modern airfoil design. They simply talked about a gate box dimension. Boeing at the time was being very cognizant of gate spacing for this aircraft, and I can’t imagine that line of thinking would have changed. There are a lot of 757 gates out there that can’t handle a much larger span, so if it’s too big, you start losing gates and screwing up the ability to effectively support the aircraft from existing facilities. The concept being that it will fit in a 757 gate with slightly reduced wingtip separation (reduction from 25’ to 20’) or allow a an existing mixed config terminal with a 767 gate between two 737 gates next to it be converted to 3 NMA gates, given there are no 767s rolling off the line. There was no discussion about this fitting in a 737/A320 gate given what it has to do in terms of performance. They also indicated that such an aircraft needs to address the needs of cargo carrier for which there is no 757 replacement. The 767s rolling off now have a long useful life, but the 757 is going to be a problem in 10-15 years and there is presently nothing in the 757 void for cargo. The 737-8BCF isn’t the answer to the long term 757 cargo problem and there is no current solution to the long term 767 cargo problem.

Interesting. So at 180' long that is about 757-300 length (178.7') and 140' (42.6M) Wingspan could fold down to 36M relatively easily as the tips would be about 11' high which seems ok as they would be shorter than the tail(777 tips are about 11.5').

Just think of an NMA as a 7W Carbon 757 with with folding tips to fit inside more gates as an option. NMA-S 752 Length, NMA-L 753 Length.

No. A 767 wing (160-170) with a fold to 140’, or simply a wing under 140, but the larger span makes more sense.

A321neo take off thrust 32,160 -33,110 lbf

keesje wrote:

If for 250 seat single class 4000NM range an NMA needs more than 35k lbs thrust engines, I'm not sure if it will be able to meet the benchmark cost efficiency levels.

That's a strong statement that I have not heard before. It may well be true.

keesje wrote:

To effectively compete with A321 versions, a new Boeing has to be light and nimble, 50t. If not, Airbus will sell thousands more.

Of course... I think the 737MAX-10 and the NMA can selling well too...

I can not imagine the manufacturer replace the 737-MAX-10 too prematurely while this one is a "new 737 Strech" /never built before

IMO after the 737MAX /MCAS debacle, the 737MAX will fly for a long time with the game changer NMA/797X..

seahawk wrote:

What is the point for both to launch such a plane? Or to put if differently, what would airlines buy if neither does launch such a plane?

If the answer is nothing, the new plane has no business case.
If the answer is A330 and 787, it might also have no business case.

The best narrowbody for medium haul routes is the A321XLR. The best widebody for shorter regional work is the A330NEO.

If the 797 didn't launch 80+% of the sales would go to Airbus. That is a clear business case to launch the 797.

seahawk wrote:

But the market created that gap, as all planes inside this segment found no buyers.

I disagree. The global airline market 20 years ago was less than a quarter of the size of today. There were more aircraft models available and not all of them could get updated with new engines. The hub and spoke model of the 20th century also helped the very big and very small aircraft sell well. With point to point routes becoming the model moving forward, smaller longer ranged aircraft are the best solution. Unfortunately these models did not get a refresh so they went out of production.

The NMA may never be built. Boeing should focus on 787-8 as replacement for 757 and 767.

SQ32 wrote:

The NMA may never be built. Boeing should focus on 787-8 as replacement for 757 and 767.

Boeing should concentrate on a 737 replacement. That is where the bulk of the revenue was made.

All talk about missing technology to make a big step, are just excuses. Boeing should build a frame using today's tech, to be able to compete.

Thinks can only get worse for Boeing, the A220 family is ramping up, the A320 family is ramping up. Boeing is seriously falling behind in firm orders.

The backlog for the 737 is around 4,400 frames and would have fallen under 4,000 by now, if Boeing could deliver.

The firm backlog for the A320 family is about 6,200 frames and for the A220 family about 436. Airbus is drawing away.

The A321neo, LR, XLR are taking brunt of the market the NMA is supposed to cover.

raylee67 wrote:

And when Boeing confirms it will develop a clean sheet MAX replacement, all Airbus needs to do is to stretch the A220 to develop a 160-seat A220-500. The A220 will then effectively becomes the A318/A319/A320 "clean-sheet" replacement, while the A321NEO stays on with another stretch to make the A322NEO, which together will be the replacement of 757s.

More stretches of the 321 Neo might suffers the same fate as the 737 programme....

RJMAZ wrote:

If the 797 didn't launch 80+% of the sales would go to Airbus. That is a clear business case to launch the 797.

No, it's just one of many factors that make the overall business case. Boeing first mentioned "middle of the market" in 2003 and has been actively studying a new plane for that segment since 2015. The overall business case would seem to be a lot less compelling than many here think.

alyusuph wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

And when Boeing confirms it will develop a clean sheet MAX replacement, all Airbus needs to do is to stretch the A220 to develop a 160-seat A220-500. The A220 will then effectively becomes the A318/A319/A320 "clean-sheet" replacement, while the A321NEO stays on with another stretch to make the A322NEO, which together will be the replacement of 757s.

More stretches of the 321 Neo might suffers the same fate as the 737 programme....

Not likely, given that the airbus is fully fly by wire.

JoseSalazar wrote:

alyusuph wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

And when Boeing confirms it will develop a clean sheet MAX replacement, all Airbus needs to do is to stretch the A220 to develop a 160-seat A220-500. The A220 will then effectively becomes the A318/A319/A320 "clean-sheet" replacement, while the A321NEO stays on with another stretch to make the A322NEO, which together will be the replacement of 757s.

More stretches of the 321 Neo might suffers the same fate as the 737 programme....

Not likely, given that the airbus is fully fly by wire.

And that they have not launched a stretch yet, that was not part of the original design plan.