Alaska’s fleet chief Kirby officially joined the Boeing NMA chorus. Wants 190-210 seats 4000-4500nm

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8046897153

Further states that Boeing's NMA concept is a twin aisle aircraft

And he confirms the Boeing NMA concept is a twin aisle. Boeing hasn’t officially said either way.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 3629411328

United is also interested in the concept

"It has a lot of merit and, if they decide to launch it, we’d be very interested," says United CFO Levy on Boeing MOM concept

https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/839206558156341249

Delta doesn't want an aircraft with too much range

"What we don’t want to see is an aircraft built with too much range. We don’t want a 787-3," says Delta's Pietrzak on a 757 replacement

https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/839207500511657985

Clearly the prime benefit to going two aisle would be that the A321 would still be single aisle. It would differentiate them as more of a medium-haul airliner vs a standard narrowbody. Aside from that, it's hard to say at this point if it would be a good idea or a bad idea. The A321 will be a strong, competitive platform.

I really wonder if the 737-10 will get built, seems the airlines it is targeting really want an MOM aircraft. Or they could do both I guess but $$$

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?

middle of market

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 love the 787 and I believe it meets a lot of the demands for the existing/former 763, A332/3, 772 markets and also created a new market... but it doesn't it leaves a large market unfilled... most of the US-EU 763 market... plus the 757 transatlantic market... looking forward to seeing what Boeing comes up with. If they hadn't screwed up the 787 program, perhaps we would be looking at the 737 replacement which could include the 757 replacement and the shorter range 763 market... instead of the warmed over MAX.

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.

Oh! Ok! I was wondering why they never made a direct 767 replacement. That makes sense.. Although, with Boeing going all in on the 779 and 77X, would a 767 replacement be a near-future project? It sounds like it is a "back burner" project for now.

Also, isn't the 737-10 suppose to be almost as large as 757-200? Just under by like 10 feet I think. Does that mean that 737-10 is really a 757 replacement? Would it compete directly with the A321NEO?

ikolkyo wrote:

I really wonder if the 737-10 will get built, seems the airlines it is targeting really want an MOM aircraft. Or they could do both I guess but $$$

I think that could explain why the 737MAX-10 is a bit underwhelming and Boeing opted to go with the less-different option - free up funds for a true MOM aircraft, but getting a stopgap for customers (and as a bonus, take away some A321neo pricing power).

aviationjunky wrote:

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.

Oh! Ok! I was wondering why they never made a direct 767 replacement. That makes sense.. Although, with Boeing going all in on the 779 and 77X, would a 767 replacement be a near-future project? It sounds like it is a "back burner" project for now.

Also, isn't the 737-10 suppose to be almost as large as 757-200? Just under by like 10 feet I think. Does that mean that 737-10 is really a 757 replacement? Would it compete directly with the A321NEO?

I really don't think we ll see any sort of commitment to the project from Boeing until late in to this decade. They have enough on their plate getting new planes such as the B737-9, -10 and 787-10 in to customer hands along with B777X to the flight test stage. First deliveries could come all the way in to the middle of the next decade by which time I fear it may be too late.

The B737-10 and B757 almost certainly have similar capacities but that's where the similarities end. The power to weight ratio of the 757 is far superior, giving it better range and payload capacities along with better hot and high ability.

by738 wrote:

middle of market

a new terminology to me as well. I guessed " Modified Older Model" !!! ..thanks for clarification

767MAX anyone???

With 2 aisles, would this be a true 2-4-2 abreast airframe? 7-abreast is regarded as too much drag for too small of an increase, but could Boeing tinker with the same dimensions of the 767 to somehow fit LD-3s side-by-side? Or can we expect a CFRP, 8-abreast fuselage somewhere between the lengths of the 762 and 763 with a 6000 mile range?

I still believe a 7-abreast CFRP fuselage can still be an efficient frame. It depends on how Boeing and the airlines view the importance of belly hold capacity.

The Boeing MOM aircraft is going to replace 757 and 767-200 models if it is indeed a two aisle plane. To me, then it makes little sense for boeing to pursue a 737-10 that would largely replace the 757-200 if the A321LR doesn't murder it by then. A MOM aircraft would render a 737-10 pretty much unnecessary, and if that small of a niche is needed, a shrink of the MOM could be warranted.

737 MAX 10 = D.O.A. Just as I stated in the other thread - waste of time, money and resources that could be productively and fruitfully used elsewhere.

Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.

TWA772LR wrote:

767MAX anyone???

With 2 aisles, would this be a true 2-4-2 abreast airframe? 7-abreast is regarded as too much drag for too small of an increase, but could Boeing tinker with the same dimensions of the 767 to somehow fit LD-3s side-by-side? Or can we expect a CFRP, 8-abreast fuselage somewhere between the lengths of the 762 and 763 with a 6000 mile range?

I still believe a 7-abreast CFRP fuselage can still be an efficient frame. It depends on how Boeing and the airlines view the importance of belly hold capacity.

As long as they make it so 2-4-2 is the most that can fit, and not go 3-3-3, I would like that. I love 2-3-2 but I don't think those economics work any more.

I feel like Boeing is a little late on the A321neo rival. I know the 757 was the original, and the A321 is the technical rival, but Airbus is still actively producing the A321. There is obviously a market for a stretched single-aisle aircraft.

Personally, I think Boeing should focus on the 797, and make that the MOM project. Push it back to when the A321 life is almost over, so they will have the superior stretch single-aisle aircraft on the market once the A321 times out.

Unless its ovoid then 2X3X2 can work....

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.

While I don't understand why Rome is important, 4000nm seems like a magic number. It is enough for Middle East to all of Europe and China as well as East Coast United States to all of Europe. The airplane also shouldn't be overbuilt because it needs to be competitive with current narrowbodies on shorter flights.

TWA772LR wrote:

767MAX anyone???

With 2 aisles, would this be a true 2-4-2 abreast airframe? 7-abreast is regarded as too much drag for too small of an increase, but could Boeing tinker with the same dimensions of the 767 to somehow fit LD-3s side-by-side? Or can we expect a CFRP, 8-abreast fuselage somewhere between the lengths of the 762 and 763 with a 6000 mile range?

I still believe a 7-abreast CFRP fuselage can still be an efficient frame. It depends on how Boeing and the airlines view the importance of belly hold capacity.

I think this is the key here for this aircraft if they wish to go for a twin-aisle design. In my mind it has to be a 2-4-2 airframe otherwise they really have to nail the design for 2-3-2 to be efficient enough.

If they stay with circular rather than oval/ellipse then a ~204in diameter tube would be as efficient at 8ab as is A320 at 6ab. That's ~9% less mass and surface area than for A300/310 at 8ab. You lose the ld3's but gain a lot of efficiency.

Bricktop wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

767MAX anyone???

With 2 aisles, would this be a true 2-4-2 abreast airframe? 7-abreast is regarded as too much drag for too small of an increase, but could Boeing tinker with the same dimensions of the 767 to somehow fit LD-3s side-by-side? Or can we expect a CFRP, 8-abreast fuselage somewhere between the lengths of the 762 and 763 with a 6000 mile range?

I still believe a 7-abreast CFRP fuselage can still be an efficient frame. It depends on how Boeing and the airlines view the importance of belly hold capacity.

As long as they make it so 2-4-2 is the most that can fit, and not go 3-3-3, I would like that. I love 2-3-2 but I don't think those economics work any more.

I also think LD3s are required for the economics. This means an oval 2-4-2 IMHO.

Lightsaber

so, they want a new A310?

With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

jbs2886 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I really wonder if the 737-10 will get built, seems the airlines it is targeting really want an MOM aircraft. Or they could do both I guess but $$$

I think that could explain why the 737MAX-10 is a bit underwhelming and Boeing opted to go with the less-different option - free up funds for a true MOM aircraft, but getting a stopgap for customers (and as a bonus, take away some A321neo pricing power).

I see it as a simple stretch of the MAX timed to hit the market as soon as possible and tailored to shorter stage lengths, neither of which describes the MoM. Nobody is getting a MAX 10 to go transatlantic (for example) and nobody is going to use a twin aisle medium range plane as a short haul people mover before at least 2030 or later. The MAX 10 has plenty of breathing room even if the MoM comes to fruition as described.

ikolkyo wrote:

With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

This quote from the article is interesting:

"“The 767 replacement that is available now is bigger than we’d like,” he said. “The 757 replacement that is available now is the A321, which is a great airplane. It can do 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of what we’d like it to do. But the other 5 to 10 percent is really critical.”

klkla wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

This quote from the article is interesting:

"“The 767 replacement that is available now is bigger than we’d like,” he said. “The 757 replacement that is available now is the A321, which is a great airplane. It can do 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of what we’d like it to do. But the other 5 to 10 percent is really critical.”

Some of the latest tweets from Jon Ostrower are interesting as well.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

ikolkyo wrote:

klkla wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

This quote from the article is interesting:

"“The 767 replacement that is available now is bigger than we’d like,” he said. “The 757 replacement that is available now is the A321, which is a great airplane. It can do 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of what we’d like it to do. But the other 5 to 10 percent is really critical.”

Some of the latest tweets from Jon Ostrower are interesting as well.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

It kind of confirms the 757/A321LR are coming a little short (~500NM). Leahy will deny, but probably has been discussingb back in TLS. From the looks of it, the A321 is maxed out.

keesje wrote:

It kind of confirms the 757/A321LR are coming a little short (~500NM). Leahy will deny, but probably has been discussingb back in TLS. From the looks of it, the A321 is maxed out.

Cool! Bring on the A322!

Newbiepilot wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.

While I don't understand why Rome is important, 4000nm seems like a magic number. It is enough for Middle East to all of Europe and China as well as East Coast Uniteed States to all of Europe. The airplane also shouldn't be overbuilt because it needs to be competitive with current narrowbodies on shorter flights.

Just thinking of the farthest major tourist spot from mid sized markets not on the coast like Austin

So, which will come out first...the long or short version of it? And how soon can the engine OEMs come up with derivatives of their GTF and LEAP powerplants for these two

models A completely new design will probably be too cost prohibitive. But potential operators will surely demand a choice of engines for better pricing, which likely makes an

'exclusive' untenable. OTOH, this is highly dependent on the forecast market size.

The only way a twin isle 200 passenger aircraft can possibly be economically competitive is if has some sort of advanced elliptical fuselage like the "kermit cruiser" otherwise its going to have to be single isle.

I'll be the first to say that I love and prefer "short" fuselage aircraft such as the 762, 747SP, A310, A318, etc., but that design philosophy runs completely counter to current trends in economically viable aircraft design.

What is with this apparent obsession with MOM being twin isle anyway? Single isle between 752 and 753 size should be perfect for this VERY specific mission.

Devilfish wrote:

So, which will come out first...the long or short version of it?

Generally it seems like the shorter model comes out first, but if the MAX 10 is launched I'd think Airbus would go A322 which in turn would lead Boeing to start with the larger of the two to cut the A322 off from some of it's potential sales. Who's to say....

Wouldn't a MOM face growing to a 5500 range and upwards of 300 passengers? And that before it even gets into the air.

ikolkyo wrote:

klkla wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

With UA struggling to find a perfect 767 replacement it likes what it sees in the MOM from Boeing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... at-it-sees

This quote from the article is interesting:

"“The 767 replacement that is available now is bigger than we’d like,” he said. “The 757 replacement that is available now is the A321, which is a great airplane. It can do 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of what we’d like it to do. But the other 5 to 10 percent is really critical.”

Some of the latest tweets from Jon Ostrower are interesting as well.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

I guess Boeing is further along with 797 plans than we all think? He is tweeting several quotes from prominent aviation industry insiders referring to the 797.

It won't replace narrow body aircraft
It won't replace wide body aircraft
It's just another aircraft type to be added in the fleet which would be a good fit for... only 10% of the routes maybe.
Fleet planners will enjoy...

what seem obvious for the Boeing Team, your team seem always REACTIVE as compared to pro active which will again enforce the standing testament why its trailing way behind airbus

I think the 797 will launch soon and it will be a twin aisle CFRP design with about 4500nm range and economics similar to a A321NEO.

airlinebuilder wrote:

what seem obvious for the Boeing Team, your team seem always REACTIVE as compared to pro active which will again enforce the standing testament why its trailing way behind airbus

Please elaborate. I think it will become painfully obvious that Boeing didn't have such easy choices as Airbus over the past 6-7 years. Such is life.

Aither wrote:

It won't replace narrow body aircraft
It won't replace wide body aircraft
It's just another aircraft type to be added in the fleet which would be a good fit for... only 10% of the routes maybe.
Fleet planners will enjoy...

An airplane which is a better fit for 10% of all flights is an airplane that will sell well. 10% of all flights is quite a lot of flights. If this airplane could sell 10% of all airplanes ... that's about the 787/A350 level of success.

But this airplane would need to have a clear advantage for these 10% of flights, not just an economic tie.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Wouldn't a MOM face growing to a 5500 range and upwards of 300 passengers? And that before it even gets into the air.

There's already a MOM for that. It's called 787-10.

keesje wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

klkla wrote:

This quote from the article is interesting:

"“The 767 replacement that is available now is bigger than we’d like,” he said. “The 757 replacement that is available now is the A321, which is a great airplane. It can do 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of what we’d like it to do. But the other 5 to 10 percent is really critical.”

Some of the latest tweets from Jon Ostrower are interesting as well.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

It kind of confirms the 757/A321LR are coming a little short (~500NM). Leahy will deny, but probably has been discussingb back in TLS. From the looks of it, the A321 is maxed out.

Actually no he does not deny and no it not necessarily is maxed out
See 1:02:59 of the Airbus annual briefing
https://youtu.be/9DcePvsD49w

"We have a comfortable single aisle airplane with good range - we're talking to our engineers about pushing that range up another couple hundred miles"

Were I at Airbus, I'd be milking that thing for everything I can, just like the A330. Make Boeing's life miserable. Of course, being a Seattle guy I hope that they accidentally forget to update the CATIA software again.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Were I at Airbus, I'd be milking that thing for everything I can, just like the A330. Make Boeing's life miserable. Of course, being a Seattle guy I hope that they accidentally forget to update the CATIA software again.

Over the years the ideal cross section has been discussed a lot. I think the 767 cross section proved to heavy.

Most people (Leeham) seem to settle for the flattened 7 abreast with the LD3-45's of the A320 series.

Maybe circular is lighter?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

It would differentiate them as more of a medium-haul airliner vs a standard narrowbody.

Differentiate to who: AvGeeks? ...that hardly means much of anything to the airlines.

They're concerned about available seating density, cost thereof, potential revenue therewith, and range.
They don't really care what form it comes in, if it meets their ideals.

In fact, too small of a widebody could actually be a competitive disadvantage to a narrowbody in that regard:
the 767 for example, adds a significant amount of weight, structure, and cost; in exchange adding only a single additional row of seats over an A321, yet not enough cargo space for tandem LD3s.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Has to have at least 4500nm range. It needs to do Rome from anywhere in the lower 48.

Not sure the point of the latter sentence:
(1) Why Rome?
(2) 4500nm from Rome wouldn't even get you to Texas, nor just about anywhere west of the Mississippi.

seahawk wrote:

I think the 797 will launch soon and it will be a twin aisle CFRP design with about 4500nm range and economics similar to a A321NEO.

If Boeing is able to design a twin aisle with A321 economics then the A321 and 737-10 is dead. Those models will float away to heaven/hell (depending which OEM you favour) and will be forgotten forever as the A320/738 will be the highest capacity single aisle aircraft out there.


Seems to me that Boeing spending money on the 739MAX and the 737-10MAX makes your prediction seem more wishful thinking than reality.

Looking at those diagrams: If the MOM diameter is unable to carry two LD3 besides each other a twin aisle is not needed. You could stay with a lighter single aisle with just top-modern engines (big diameter...) and long wing and built it from CFRP. Who would want that middle seat anyway?

One thing Boeing aren't is stupid.They will not offer something that can easily be copied.Either by design or economics.
However considering the very tight pricing required and the stated EIS timings it will not be a 'blue sky' (say Sugar volt for instance) design.So it will be 'conventional' in the broadest sense.
We know the range,we know it's a twin aisle (their patents suggest ovoid)we know the capacity which fits with this concept.
We know they have (will have) just designed two state of the art carbon wings in the 787 and 777X.We also know they will have perfected the folding wing mechanics.So a 'thin wing'with very high aspect ratio (folding to stay within narrow body gates).
Engines?
Must be super efficient both for commercial reasons and environmental issues (quiet too).
So (particularly looking at sfc returns on the gtf and RR ultra plans).It will be a geared fan.But perhaps 5:1 with ground breaking high bypass ratios.
-would it even fit under an A320??I doubt it. Frankly with P&W and RR going down this path I think we can be 100% certain GE are well down this road too.
But let's see.I look forward to seeing their plans.

Sorry, I just don't get it in this time period.

We've seen with the A330/787 how hard it is to make new airframe technology pay for its capital cost. I wonder if this MOM exists enough to justify the investment?

The talk of CFRP seems to ignore that manufacturing on a bigger scale is difficult, and on smaller aeroplanes the benefits seem less clear.

I think the middle will be squeezed too much from the bottom and the top to justify the investment.