I think Boeing will go for damage limitation.
They will probably build the max10 which will cover off the 321 in trans con operations whether it be US Europe or Far East.
They are proposing a max 800 erx which will be tatl capable too.
At the 'top end'the 788 is more than a match for the 338 (would be down to pricing).
Ok not perfect but probably enough right now.

keesje wrote:

Agree with seahawk here. Of course Boeing can develop an excellent twin aisle MoM up to 300 seats / 5000NM.

But it's an answer to a question not asked.

I'm approaching a point where I start concluding the battle for the huge 180-220 seat 3000NM segment is over for now.

It seems Boeing have concluded the same.

If they had moved a decade ago, the situation could have been very different.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=462775

Well United is asking questions and despite you posting pretty A321 pictures, United is asking questions and showing interest in a new Middle of the market plane.

There is a big gap between 180 and 300 seats. United only has 267 seats in their two class 777s and 219 in the 787-8. The gap between 179 seat 737-900ERs and 219 seat 787-8s doesn't look big when you focus on seat count. The gap looks much bigger when you look at payload. The 787-8 can take 240k lbs of payload, which is more than an A321 at MTOW weighs. A 737-9 can only take about 90k lbs of payload. So when we put aside the cabin width and configuration debate, there looks to be a pretty big hole right around 150-175k lbs of payload. That should carry 300 people a few thousand miles or 180 people 5000 miles. That is the market we are talking about. Currently nothing is optimized for this market. You can push the narrowbodies to their limit or under utilize a 787 or A330.

I think it is possible that such a MOM plane can get 10% efficiency improvements over utilizing an overbuilt plane and can carry more people farther than the A321. If half the A321neo customers can be lured away by offering more seats, then that alone is probably worth the investment. CASM can be better than the A321 in a higher density short haul configuration by offering more seats. CASM can be better than larger 787s and A330s by being optimized for shorter missions. The market exists, but we don't really know how big it is.

http://www.heraldnet.com/business/unite ... arket-797/

parapente wrote:

At the 'top end'the 788 is more than a match for the 338 (would be down to pricing).

range limited Mk1 product versus a mature A330 subtype with high commonality, more range and slightly more capacity/payload?

Not a given imho.

United only has 267 seats in their two class 777s and 219 in the 787-8. The gap between 179 seat 737-900ERs and 219 seat 787-8s doesn't look big when you focus on seat count.

The 787-8 can take 240k lbs of payload, which is more than an A321 at MTOW weighs

.

Lets hope Boeing takes the right decisions, based on realistic assumptions and market needs.

In the 2017-2022 time frame Airbus will meanwhile deliver another 1500-2000 A321 CEO, NEO's LR with CFM, IAE, GTF and LEAP engines.

Regardless of what Boeing does and including incremental improvement options in various areas.

A good link Newbiepilot thx.It lays out all the issues in an unbiased way.Certainly getting costs and sales costs right is a key ingredient.The article has a very clear view that Airbus can meet these 2 MOM gaps with revisions (wings mainly) with their 2 existing products that straddle this 'gap'.That must be worrying.
The lack of engine is a real problem in itself.Personally I would only give it to one OEM.
As for the aircraft itself? I would be very tempted to have a long hard look at the present (very up to date) 767 and consider whether most of what they are trying to achieve could not be met with a new wing and box section.Hell they could even use AlLi on the fuse. 767 NEO would certainly massively reduce costs and timings.

parapente wrote:

A good link Newbiepilot thx.It lays out all the issues in an unbiased way.Certainly getting costs and sales costs right is a key ingredient.The article has a very clear view that Airbus can meet these 2 MOM gaps with revisions (wings mainly) with their 2 existing products that straddle this 'gap'.That must be worrying.
The lack of engine is a real problem in itself.Personally I would only give it to one OEM.
As for the aircraft itself? I would be very tempted to have a long hard look at the present (very up to date) 767 and consider whether most of what they are trying to achieve could not be met with a new wing and box section.Hell they could even use AlLi on the fuse. 767 NEO would certainly massively reduce costs and timings.

I think a lot of people are getting distracted by the cabin width and interior configuration discussion and all the pictures. In reality the physical fuselage structure is only about 10% of the weight of an airplane. The different cabin widths and lengths are only a few percentage points different in OEW. It isn't a big factor in determining feasibility of the airplane or market.

OEW, MTOW and purchase price are likely leading the discussion. How heavy will the plane be, how much payload can it carry and how much will it cost to build. There can be multiple cabin lengths to address higher capacity short haul or lower capacity long haul. Given the Boeing and GE relationship, if Boeing thinks there is a market, they likely would have consulted with GE and GE probably will commit to a new engine.

IF they move forward with the MoM, I would imagine they'll need to have a pretty sizable launch customer portfolio, particularly in units but perhaps even in individual customers. As Keesje points out, there is so much of the market already locked up by the A321neo that they have inertia and fleet commonality on their side. Boeing is going to need to have some sure things locked up before they commit, and I don't see that as a certainty at this point.

The MAX 10 is really almost a no-brainer in that it's a small investment that keeps them modestly more competitive in the interim.

n5u wrote:

I think the MOM is just a fantasy of people who aren't ready to let the 757 go. Talk about beating a dead horse

AvWeek (paywall) has Rolls-Royce Might Pitch UltraFan For Boeing New Midsize Airplane:

Entering the busiest year yet on its development path toward the company’s next-generation Advance and follow-on UltraFan demonstrators, Rolls-Royce is reemphasizing the vast thrust range intended for both engines and eyeing Boeing’s proposed New Midsize Airplane (NMA) as a possible launch candidate.

It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

[code][/code]

PlanesNTrains wrote:

IF they move forward with the MoM, I would imagine they'll need to have a pretty sizable launch customer portfolio, particularly in units but perhaps even in individual customers. As Keesje points out, there is so much of the market already locked up by the A321neo that they have inertia and fleet commonality on their side. Boeing is going to need to have some sure things locked up before they commit, and I don't see that as a certainty at this point.

The MAX 10 is really almost a no-brainer in that it's a small investment that keeps them modestly more competitive in the interim.

I would expect the launch orders to look similar in size to what the 777x or A330neo launched with. The 777x launched with a small but stable list of airlines looking at fleet replacements and moderate growth. It wasn't flashy like the 787, A350, A320neo or 737MAX order books. That can be a good thing. Only larger or more stable airlines can accurately plan for fleet replacements more than 5 years in the future. The aviation market is too dynamic for airlines to have a solid plan 5 years out. What ends up happening is the airplane production list constantly gets shuffled and changed since airline needs changed. Also early orders can't have particularly accurate performance guarantees since the airplane design is not finished. That means in order to prevent future disappointment, the manufacturer will guarantee less than what they think they can achieve to build in a contingency. Selling a less capable airplane usually results in lower pricing. That is not ideal for Boeing. I don't think we will see as many airplanes enter production with 6-8 year backlogs like the 787, A350, 737MAX or A320neo in the future. I think sales are moving back towards slow and cautious like they were before the 787 came around. A dozen customers at first flight is probably reasonable for a new 797.

Newbiepilot wrote:

[code][/code]

PlanesNTrains wrote:

IF they move forward with the MoM, I would imagine they'll need to have a pretty sizable launch customer portfolio, particularly in units but perhaps even in individual customers. As Keesje points out, there is so much of the market already locked up by the A321neo that they have inertia and fleet commonality on their side. Boeing is going to need to have some sure things locked up before they commit, and I don't see that as a certainty at this point.

The MAX 10 is really almost a no-brainer in that it's a small investment that keeps them modestly more competitive in the interim.

I would expect the launch orders to look similar in size to what the 777x or A330neo launched with. The 777x launched with a small but stable list of airlines looking at fleet replacements and moderate growth. It wasn't flashy like the 787, A350, A320neo or 737MAX order books. That can be a good thing. Only larger or more stable airlines can accurately plan for fleet replacements more than 5 years in the future. The aviation market is too dynamic for airlines to have a solid plan 5 years out. What ends up happening is the airplane production list constantly gets shuffled and changed since airline needs changed. Also early orders can't have particularly accurate performance guarantees since the airplane design is not finished. That means in order to prevent future disappointment, the manufacturer will guarantee less than what they think they can achieve to build in a contingency. Selling a less capable airplane usually results in lower pricing. That is not ideal for Boeing. I don't think we will see as many airplanes enter production with 6-8 year backlogs like the 787, A350, 737MAX or A320neo in the future. I think sales are moving back towards slow and cautious like they were before the 787 came around. A dozen customers at first flight is probably reasonable for a new 797.

By most measures, the 777X launch was a blockbuster in numbers. Total numbers, launch order size, dollar value - they all were pretty big imho. I agree that a small but stable list of airlines would be good, but I'm thinking at least 5 customers with 250 orders would be needed - is that doable?

The 777-8/9 was a ME3 launch, one airline ordering 150. Nobody but one airline orders 150 wide bodies in one single order.

mjoelnir wrote:

The 777-8/9 was a ME3 launch, one airline ordering 150. Nobody but one airline orders 150 wide bodies in one single order.

My suggestion would see a fraction of that by each launch customer, so....

Newbiepilot wrote:

Well United is asking questions and despite you posting pretty A321 pictures, United is asking questions and showing interest in a new Middle of the market plane.
....
http://www.heraldnet.com/business/unite ... arket-797/

Indeed there is a real posibility United shows real interest and places a big order for a new 797 MoM, EIS 2024 to replace real old 757 and 767s (25+ yrs, on average)

Another possibility is to order A321s like the rest of the pack and see what comes after that. Pulling forward efficiency 4-5 yrs / reducing risk.

W'll have to see what works best for United Airlines.

parapente wrote:

By process of elimination the Boeing MOM can only be one thing.
It's not ,according to them, an A321NEO NEO LR.Why?
Because their-
MOM needs to fly further (the 321 can't)
MOM needs to carry more passengers (the 321 can't )
MOM needs to carry some cargo (the 321 can't at high end ranges)
MOM therefore needs to have twin aisles.(the 321 isn't)
.

See, I agree with everything - except that last piece. A single-aisle 210-245 passenger airframe with hot/high capability and 4500-5500nm range is what I keep thinking MoM looks like.

EA CO AS wrote:

parapente wrote:

By process of elimination the Boeing MOM can only be one thing.
It's not ,according to them, an A321NEO NEO LR.Why?
Because their-
MOM needs to fly further (the 321 can't)
MOM needs to carry more passengers (the 321 can't )
MOM needs to carry some cargo (the 321 can't at high end ranges)
MOM therefore needs to have twin aisles.(the 321 isn't)
.

See, I agree with everything - except that last piece. A single-aisle 210-245 passenger airframe with hot/high capability and 4500-5500nm range is what I keep thinking MoM looks like.

I tend to agree and the engine is going to be a huge X-factor. And maybe exit options to push the 1-class version to the 757-300 capacity. It also wouldnt requite much radical design, pretty standard dimension.

Maybe it is the enthusiast in me and wanting to see a new plane in the 762/763/A310/A300 space, but CFRP opens up more options for the fuselage shape to make it economical.

If airlines build the MOM to have to fit in class 3 gates, that is the most limiting, but if they are to design it for class 4 it no doubt can be more capable. Maybe another case of folding wingtips?

MileHFL400 wrote:

aviationjunky wrote:

I'm a little confused.. So the MOM is the 737-10? Is it suppose to be a wide-bodied 737? Is that the whole premise of the MOM project? What does MOM even stand for?

I believe the MOM will be an all new aircraft. Think of it as a 767-300 with the latest tech slotting in between the 787-8 and the B737-10.

British airways comes to mind as a potential customer for high demand European flights. The US3 is an almost certainty.

I agree, It will more than likely be the digital upgrade of the B767-300 with Fly by wire or fly by light flight controls. all new 21st century controls..
This airplane will take Boeing well into the 21th century in design and architecture as this will probably be a baseline project for 'domestic airplanes for some time to come.
'

Revelation wrote:

n5u wrote:

I think the MOM is just a fantasy of people who aren't ready to let the 757 go. Talk about beating a dead horse

AvWeek (paywall) has Rolls-Royce Might Pitch UltraFan For Boeing New Midsize Airplane:

Entering the busiest year yet on its development path toward the company’s next-generation Advance and follow-on UltraFan demonstrators, Rolls-Royce is reemphasizing the vast thrust range intended for both engines and eyeing Boeing’s proposed New Midsize Airplane (NMA) as a possible launch candidate.

It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

This shows the timeline imho. Ultrafan has been given as a 2025 engine by RR; so the EIS of the MoM will have to be after 2025. If we are talking 2027 the whole project makes more sense. The 787 will be looking at an up-date by 2030-35 and they could drop the 787-8 in the process, opening the space for a MoM.

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

n5u wrote:

I think the MOM is just a fantasy of people who aren't ready to let the 757 go. Talk about beating a dead horse

AvWeek (paywall) has Rolls-Royce Might Pitch UltraFan For Boeing New Midsize Airplane:

Entering the busiest year yet on its development path toward the company’s next-generation Advance and follow-on UltraFan demonstrators, Rolls-Royce is reemphasizing the vast thrust range intended for both engines and eyeing Boeing’s proposed New Midsize Airplane (NMA) as a possible launch candidate.

It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

This shows the timeline imho. Ultrafan has been given as a 2025 engine by RR; so the EIS of the MoM will have to be after 2025. If we are talking 2027 the whole project makes more sense. The 787 will be looking at an up-date by 2030-35 and they could drop the 787-8 in the process, opening the space for a MoM.

Thank you like i said the mom is a fantasy Ill just say one more ting the 787-300 that boeing dropped for lack of sales or interest. There was your mom. Nobody wanted it then and i doubt any one will want it in 2027

Thinking about what UH said about the MOM.He said (I paraphrase) 'don't know why people keep calling it mom.Its going to be called the 797 so why don't we just call it that'.
So in fact that rules out revamping the 767 too.
So it must be a totally new aircraft.This also ties in with RR's interest and stated timelines above.2025+ eis..
So we will most likely see both the 737-10 and the 737-8ERX maybe even an improved-9 using the improved 10 mlg
Not perfect but will just have to do right now.

If this turns out to be the case it will be interesting to see what Airbus do.They could sit on their hands and print good money OR
Go first with a 'simple stretch'322 using upgraded P&W GTF's? Personally I doubt it but they may be tempted.

Even a stretched A321 won´t compete with something like a new 767. The big question for me is how many airlines want a new 767.

n5u wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

AvWeek (paywall) has Rolls-Royce Might Pitch UltraFan For Boeing New Midsize Airplane:


It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

This shows the timeline imho. Ultrafan has been given as a 2025 engine by RR; so the EIS of the MoM will have to be after 2025. If we are talking 2027 the whole project makes more sense. The 787 will be looking at an up-date by 2030-35 and they could drop the 787-8 in the process, opening the space for a MoM.

Thank you like i said the mom is a fantasy Ill just say one more ting the 787-300 that boeing dropped for lack of sales or interest. There was your mom. Nobody wanted it then and i doubt any one will want it in 2027

range of MoM is not going to be limited to 3000nm

n5u wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

AvWeek (paywall) has Rolls-Royce Might Pitch UltraFan For Boeing New Midsize Airplane:


It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

This shows the timeline imho. Ultrafan has been given as a 2025 engine by RR; so the EIS of the MoM will have to be after 2025. If we are talking 2027 the whole project makes more sense. The 787 will be looking at an up-date by 2030-35 and they could drop the 787-8 in the process, opening the space for a MoM.

Thank you like i said the mom is a fantasy Ill just say one more ting the 787-300 that boeing dropped for lack of sales or interest. There was your mom. Nobody wanted it then and i doubt any one will want it in 2027

Markets change

n5u wrote:

I think the MOM is just a fantasy of people who aren't ready to let the 757 go. Talk about beating a dead horse

767. Not 757.

Yes, ordering additional 787-9s to replace the remaining 767s sometimes next decade isn't a bad idea, but the MOM on the horizon could be both a 757 and 767 replacement.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/analysi ... -its-767s/

I know they god rid of all of their 200s both the original ones dating from the 80s and the ex-Continental ones dating from the early 2000s, but I don't think they retired any of the 300s and 400s yet.

As the maps show, they fly mostly to Europe from these three bases: EWR, IAD and ORD. I'm not surprised they don't fly the 767 to BRU and FRA anymore, because since those are Star Alliance hubs they need extra capacity for feeding on SN and LH flights respectively.

There is already 1 or 2 lengthy MOM threads still ongoing about this.

The Boeing 767 is still offered for sale---why not just get newer 767s with GE engines?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The Boeing 767 is still offered for sale---why not just get newer 767s with GE engines?

Not what the airlines (ie. customers) want and not efficient enough even with new wings and engines. Basic platform is too heavy. Do we really believe Boeing has not floated this to the airlines already? Boeing wishes they could go this route.

Boeing should take care not to overspecify a MoM; 280 passengers 5500NM, lots of cargo, twin aisles.. A competitor might easily undershoot/ beat it if, on average, 240 seats at 3000 NM are what is needed for the bulk of the flights. Capability has a price..

n5u wrote:

Ill just say one more ting the 787-300 that boeing dropped for lack of sales or interest. There was your mom. Nobody wanted it then and i doubt any one will want it in 2027

The 787-3 was not the MoM we're talking about.

It was not designed as a clean sheet optimized for its target market, but as a modest defeaturing of a long range widebody. It had a higher seating capacity than a notional MoM aircraft and several dozen tons of excess deadweight inherited from its progenitor's different role.

keesje wrote:

Boeing should take care not to overspecify a MoM; 280 passengers 5500NM, lots of cargo, twin aisles.. A competitor might easily undershoot/ beat it if, on average, 240 seats at 3000 NM are what is needed for the bulk of the flights. Capability has a price..

Yet if you 'underspecify' you end up spending a lot of money to create a product that your competitor can cheaply undermine.

It seems in recent times the vendors try to made sure their products hit gaps in their competitor's portfolio.

Time will tell what the design point ends up being, if MOM ever does get launched.

iamlucky13 wrote:

n5u wrote:

Ill just say one more ting the 787-300 that boeing dropped for lack of sales or interest. There was your mom. Nobody wanted it then and i doubt any one will want it in 2027

The 787-3 was not the MoM we're talking about.

It was not designed as a clean sheet optimized for its target market, but as a modest defeaturing of a long range widebody. It had a higher seating capacity than a notional MoM aircraft and several dozen tons of excess deadweight inherited from its progenitor's different role.

Seems clear you can't shrink an A330/B787 and compete head-on with a clean-sheet MOM optimized for the task. The big unknown is if one can create a clean-sheet MOM with enough sales at high enough prices to return a good profit.

The big problem is that it covers a huge part of the market, but I am not sure that this market can be covered by one aircraft family. The airline survey was quite telling. Interest starts at the 757-2 size and ends at the 787-8 size, range wise it starts below 2000nm and ends over 5500nm. With all possible combinations in the mix. The safest bet is a 767 replacement, but one can not deny that this would impact 787 sales more than anything else.

Sounds like a perfect plane for Lufthansa to fill the gap the A300 has left......

seahawk wrote:

The big problem is that it covers a huge part of the market, but I am not sure that this market can be covered by one aircraft family. The airline survey was quite telling. Interest starts at the 757-2 size and ends at the 787-8 size, range wise it starts below 2000nm and ends over 5500nm. With all possible combinations in the mix. The safest bet is a 767 replacement, but one can not deny that this would impact 787 sales more than anything else.

It won't have enough capacity/range to impact the 787-9/10 and the 787-8 is already wilting away sales wise.

I see plenty of 787s flying TATL already. Add the huge number of A330CEO and 767 doing the same and I think so far Boeing had those booked under possible 787 buyers.

seahawk wrote:

The big problem is that it covers a huge part of the market, but I am not sure that this market can be covered by one aircraft family. The airline survey was quite telling. Interest starts at the 757-2 size and ends at the 787-8 size, range wise it starts below 2000nm and ends over 5500nm. With all possible combinations in the mix. The safest bet is a 767 replacement, but one can not deny that this would impact 787 sales more than anything else.

What the survey clearly identified to me was that there is no consensus on what is actually required. There was no telling sweet spot to aim for. There were however lots of fragments of markets. How many of these can be effectively covered economically and profitably is the telling question. I suspect it is one Boeing are tussling with at the moment.

seahawk wrote:

I see plenty of 787s flying TATL already. Add the huge number of A330CEO and 767 doing the same and I think so far Boeing had those booked under possible 787 buyers.

I think it's likely they didn't correctly anticipate the impact of the A321LR on the TATL market when doing those books. Also they were presumably thinking after Y2 (787) they'd be doing Y1 (NSA) and that would deal with the A321 effectively. Instead we end up with 737MAX and a market gap.

StTim wrote:

What the survey clearly identified to me was that there is no consensus on what is actually required. There was no telling sweet spot to aim for. There were however lots of fragments of markets. How many of these can be effectively covered economically and profitably is the telling question. I suspect it is one Boeing are tussling with at the moment.

Very true. However John Leahy and I both don't think the market represented by the lower end of the survey responses is available to Boeing because it's already owned by the A321. That's what is squeezing Boeing into the 763-replacement end of the fragmented market. I have my doubts if that spot is sweet enough to justify an all-new plane. However it does give us something to talk about here on a.net!

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I see plenty of 787s flying TATL already. Add the huge number of A330CEO and 767 doing the same and I think so far Boeing had those booked under possible 787 buyers.

I think it's likely they didn't correctly anticipate the impact of the A321LR on the TATL market when doing those books. Also they were presumably thinking after Y2 (787) they'd be doing Y1 (NSA) and that would deal with the A321 effectively. Instead we end up with 737MAX and a market gap.

StTim wrote:

What the survey clearly identified to me was that there is no consensus on what is actually required. There was no telling sweet spot to aim for. There were however lots of fragments of markets. How many of these can be effectively covered economically and profitably is the telling question. I suspect it is one Boeing are tussling with at the moment.

Very true. However John Leahy and I both don't think the market represented by the lower end of the survey responses is available to Boeing because it's already owned by the A321. That's what is squeezing Boeing into the 763-replacement end of the fragmented market. I have my doubts if that spot is sweet enough to justify an all-new plane. However it does give us something to talk about here on a.net!

I agree with your assessment.

Revelation wrote:

I think it's likely they didn't correctly anticipate the impact of the A321LR on the TATL market when doing those books.

Or their launch business case envisioned a handsome return on investment well before 2020 tech disruption, as that business case didn't include the "corporate suite full of MBA sophists" factor.

I remember Udvar-Hazy saying circa 2005 that Boeing should have focused on the TATL market rather than TPAC, btw. Boeing probably foresaw that the 787 would be "good enough" for a decade, and that it could return to TATL later. If so, probably the right move product-wise.

Revelation wrote:

However John Leahy and I both don't think the market represented by the lower end of the survey responses is available to Boeing because it's already owned by the A321. That's what is squeezing Boeing into the 763-replacement end of the fragmented market.

Boeing could surely beat the A321 with a clean sheet though.
There's an interesting game theory dynamic here where Boeing may want to leave Airbus enough with its cheap A321 that Airbus won't commit $billions to a clean sheet replacement.
If Boeing occupies the ~767-sized space, it maybe takes the bigger slice of the market, leaving Airbus some residual.
If, OTOH, Boeing sought the whole market, and if that market ends up being sufficiently large for two multi-billion investments, then Airbus' optimal move might be to launch its own MoM competitor.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I see plenty of 787s flying TATL already. Add the huge number of A330CEO and 767 doing the same and I think so far Boeing had those booked under possible 787 buyers.

I think it's likely they didn't correctly anticipate the impact of the A321LR on the TATL market when doing those books. Also they were presumably thinking after Y2 (787) they'd be doing Y1 (NSA) and that would deal with the A321 effectively. Instead we end up with 737MAX and a market gap.

StTim wrote:

What the survey clearly identified to me was that there is no consensus on what is actually required. There was no telling sweet spot to aim for. There were however lots of fragments of markets. How many of these can be effectively covered economically and profitably is the telling question. I suspect it is one Boeing are tussling with at the moment.

Very true. However John Leahy and I both don't think the market represented by the lower end of the survey responses is available to Boeing because it's already owned by the A321. That's what is squeezing Boeing into the 763-replacement end of the fragmented market. I have my doubts if that spot is sweet enough to justify an all-new plane. However it does give us something to talk about here on a.net!

If Boeing is able to make a "domestic" version, then for a little more capacity than a A321, the MOM or whatever this is can cipher sales from the A321. A single aircraft for domestic and international use. I would be more interested to know what SWA wants from this aircraft.

With more and more airlines talking about overcapacity and the need for yield and capacity management, I am not sure that the demand for a domestic wide body is that huge, but I am increasingly confident that the demand for a 767 replacement is real.

Matt6461 wrote:

Boeing could surely beat the A321 with a clean sheet though.
There's an interesting game theory dynamic here where Boeing may want to leave Airbus enough with its cheap A321 that Airbus won't commit $billions to a clean sheet replacement.
If Boeing occupies the ~767-sized space, it maybe takes the bigger slice of the market, leaving Airbus some residual.
If, OTOH, Boeing sought the whole market, and if that market ends up being sufficiently large for two multi-billion investments, then Airbus' optimal move might be to launch its own MoM competitor.

I agree A321 is vulnerable to a clean sheet but in turn the expensive clean sheet can be undermined by cheap A321s with A320 family commonality so it's a dangerous strategy.

The game theory aspects are fascinating, especially given the high stakes.

It seems in general they aim for gaps in their competitors portfolios rather than head-to-head competition.

Although some refute it, it's my understanding that the original 7E7 proposals were smaller and only got bumped into near-perfect capacity alignment with the A330 family members based on airline feedback.

Revelation wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Boeing could surely beat the A321 with a clean sheet though.
There's an interesting game theory dynamic here where Boeing may want to leave Airbus enough with its cheap A321 that Airbus won't commit $billions to a clean sheet replacement.
If Boeing occupies the ~767-sized space, it maybe takes the bigger slice of the market, leaving Airbus some residual.
If, OTOH, Boeing sought the whole market, and if that market ends up being sufficiently large for two multi-billion investments, then Airbus' optimal move might be to launch its own MoM competitor.

I agree A321 is vulnerable to a clean sheet but in turn the expensive clean sheet can be undermined by cheap A321s with A320 family commonality so it's a dangerous strategy.

The game theory aspects are fascinating, especially given the high stakes.

It seems in general they aim for gaps in their competitors portfolios rather than head-to-head competition.

Although some refute it, it's my understanding that the original 7E7 proposals were smaller and only got bumped into near-perfect capacity alignment with the A330 family members based on airline feedback.

Yes if Boeing had built the 787 narrower (A330 width plus a couple of inches) then not only would the aircraft have been lighter (and more comfortable for passengers as an 8 across only config), but the aircraft itself would have been that little bit smaller. They could have built the 7811 which would have been about the same seating capacity as the current 7810 but at the low end the 788 would have been smaller and better suited to those long narrow routes. Also the 783 would have been viable as a MoM option. This would have then left the space above well clear for the 778 rather than it overlapping with the 78X that it currently does.

Yes - that would have made the most sense then they would have 6W (737), Real 8W(787) and 10W(777W/X), cross sections on which to build out there Product Range.

Now they have a 9W which is pretty close to there much heavier 10W and if they want to cover the whole 737/757/767 Market ideally they would have a new narrow optimimized 6W and then maybe a Twin Aisle 7W.

My Favorite would have been a new 11W Oval Replacement for 777 based on 787 Tech, 9W 787 and new 7W Oval for 737/757/767 replacement (Which I think we will still get).

seahawk wrote:

With more and more airlines talking about overcapacity and the need for yield and capacity management, I am not sure that the demand for a domestic wide body is that huge, but I am increasingly confident that the demand for a 767 replacement is real.

With a looming pilot shortage on the horizon, I bet the airlines will be changing their tune.

Boeing could reduce the 'gap' at the top by giving up on the idea that it can add $30 million in lost production costs to each new 787 it sells. The 787 was not suppose to be an expensive plane to produce.

william wrote:

seahawk wrote:

With more and more airlines talking about overcapacity and the need for yield and capacity management, I am not sure that the demand for a domestic wide body is that huge, but I am increasingly confident that the demand for a 767 replacement is real.

With a looming pilot shortage on the horizon, I bet the airlines will be changing their tune.

Well embraer is the champion of right size capacity aren't they?

Revelation wrote:

It looks like RR is thinking of joining the dead horse beaters club...

seahawk wrote:

Ultrafan has been given as a 2025 engine by RR; so the EIS of the MoM will have to be after 2025.

morrisond wrote:

and if they want to cover the whole 737/757/767 Market ideally they would have a new narrow optimized 6W and then maybe a Twin Aisle 7W

Hmmn..... .....


http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-conte ... 8/BA10.jpg


Perhaps its time has come. .....


http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... otor-3.jpg