I think if the MOM is narrowbody, a 1.5 aisle is a prerequisite. You have to be able to pass at least a trolley and FA or 2 passengers on your way to or from the front/back. It will really help with boarding, which is bad enough on a 180 seat B738 or A320. As well as help with emergency evac.

keesje wrote:

Time flies, we've been discussing a rewinged, reengined, stretched A321 for years. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=272689

And it looks like Airbus has been reading this forum and liked your ideas. Next they will start using flies on A321++ renderings.

It is reported that the engines for the Boeing MOM will be from 40k to 45k thrust. That could probably indicate around 120t to 135t MTOW. More information in this tread: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1362063

The PW 1100G will be in a 35k version for the A321LR in 2019. The A321LR is under-winged when taking off at or close to its MTOW. Given a larger wingspan, wings optimized for long haul and high altitude cruise, that engine would allow a MTOW around 105t easily. PW says they can extend this engine to 40k, giving us at least a MTOW of 120t. My point is that it doesn't look like the Boeing MOM and the A321++ would be that different in pax and range capabilities after all.

I can envision an A322 that has identical length as the A321, but with a new wing box and wings made of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) to save weight. This version would have more range than the A321LR can offer, maybe around 5000 nm. Then, later when the 40k engine is ready, we would see a stretched variant using the new wings, wing box and main landing gear, an A323. This would be a simple stretch that takes a hit on range to maybe 4200 nm..

Two airliners.net myths:

1) Turnaround time
I frequently see people writing that turnaround time is shorter for a widebody than for a large narrowbody. Past a certain point and aircraft size, pax (de)boarding is not the limiting factor. A widebody usually exceeds 90 minutes to turnaround. For example filling those large fuel tanks seems to take forever.

2) Comfort for long haul
I frequently see people writing that it is ..... (select your preferred negative word) to fly longer haul in a narrowbody, and that the two aisles on a widebody makes moving around in the cabin much more convenient etc. I would say that the important thing is seat comfort (width and pitch) and aisle width. It's not like you can use the other aisle on a widebody to get to your seat anyway. When the FA's is doing meal service, both aisle will be blocked.

If we put the exact same Y seats as British Airways, United, American, Air France etc. use on their 787s onboard the A321, we would have a very wide aisle (40% wider than on the 787). This is an aisle where you can easily pass the trolley and other passengers. The European LCC Easyjet uses this configuration to speed up (đe)boarding, and each time I fly with them I'm amazed how wide the aisle is.

Blotto wrote:

Current wing has a width of 35,8m (max Code D width is 36m)

Code C is up to 36m (737 and A320 family aircraft). Code D is up to 52m (757, 767, A310/A300).

reidar76 wrote:

Blotto wrote:

Current wing has a width of 35,8m (max Code D width is 36m)

Code C is up to 36m (737 and A320 family aircraft). Code D is up to 52m (757, 767, A310/A300).

Of course. Typo...

Being in Automotive and involved in Architecture development I mainly see the Advantage in a perfect industrialization and a smooth Transition to the next gen 320:

I believe that (over time, or if planned well) the new wing will come in at least 2 Versions - let’s say MOM Version and 320 replacement Version.

The fuselage could have 1 or two stretches compared to the A321 and potentially an A320.5 stretch (attack the 737-8).

Engines can be P&W piped/ 2nd gen and a MOM variant in thrust and Performance.

All that Architecture Setup would allow Airbus to step by step go into industrialization of both: making a MOM competitor (being first at a similar time when the MOM is scheduled) and continue with any upgrade of the A20 Family step by step and per market need. No need to do a new plane for the A320 as long as there is nothing revolutionary like the Open Rotor technology coming to market.

Not sure if a 3rd derivative of the wing could be something for an A330 City twin isle variant, but at least theoretically it could be the A310 new.

Anyhow Airbus has the chance to well integrate their version of the MOM into the production base of the A320 family.

I would name the new Plane A325-800 and A325-900 for 2 length Large wing variants (MOM competitors- ) for 2025.
Later the smaller winged (but same architecture based) A320-800 and A321-800 engines can come – 2025 until 2028, but also nothing holds of Airbus to still produce and A320’s with the current wing for short steps.

Anyhow: perfect situation for Airbus overall I think. The only weakness probably could be to be competitive with the largest variant of the MOM, as my thought of an A330-with Large-A325 Wing may not fly.


Flyglobal

It might be a better idea for Airbus to pre-empt a Boeing MoM, say EIS 2022.

If the product is relatively low risk ((a hybrid wing seems doable, engines <40k lbs) and some launching customers ready to move (AF, BA, LH, Air Asia, Delta, AA, China, TUI) there seems to be little advantage in waiting until Boeing comes up with something.

Airbus successfully pre-empted the NSA in 2011.

I have always been saying, that if the market is big enough to make a 797 viable, it is surely big enough to make a re-winged A321 viable and that it would be stupid for Airbus to wait until Boeing launches something.

this A32something should be able to carry between 230 and 250 passengers, for (at least) a 4000 nm range.

Not talking just of a simple rewing. New main landing gear and more powerful engines are a must, and maybe larger rudder and elevators are required.

Would love to be a fly on the wall as to what the 'plus' is (also the plus plus in fact).I personally cannot believe it's about extra range as there is simply no place/space to put it.They have to leave one cargo hold available.I also feel that their single bogey MLG at 97T must be getting very close to the max poss' both in terms of structure and indeed pavement loading.
But since the GTF has been bench tested to 40k then it mat we'll be poss to up output to perhaps 35/6k safely.
For me the obvious thing to do would be a stretch and loose range.About 90% of narrobodied a/c movements are 3k miles or less.So plenty to go for.
The investment in the stretch would also be invaluable if a full blown 323? (Plus plus) was required.Because the ( now existing) stretch would be part of that.But one has to imagine a new MLG would be required for anything flying 5k plus.It would also require a new wing to be competitive.Thats no small job.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/news/co ... d=37403673

Jon Ostrower indicating Airbus may be looking at out of autoclave methods for the new wing....

seahawk wrote:

I have always been saying, that if the market is big enough to make a 797 viable, it is surely big enough to make a re-winged A321 viable and that it would be stupid for Airbus to wait until Boeing launches something.

I agree with you. I think that the proposed Boeing MOM is different than the A321+. Both would have their strengths and weaknesses. I expect that the market is big enough for two different airplanes. Scott Hamilton at Leeham talking about Airbus killing the Boeing design is rather amateurish in my opinion. I think the days of one plane killing the other are over. Airbus and Boeing are much more cautious than they used to be with new launches. I think it all comes down to the individual needs of the airlines and what routes and payloads they intend to fly. I think an A321 stretch with a modernized composite wing will have great market potential.

parapente wrote:

Would love to be a fly on the wall as to what the 'plus' is (also the plus plus in fact).I personally cannot believe it's about extra range as there is simply no place/space to put it.They have to leave one cargo hold available.I also feel that their single bogey MLG at 97T must be getting very close to the max poss' both in terms of structure and indeed pavement loading.
But since the GTF has been bench tested to 40k then it mat we'll be poss to up output to perhaps 35/6k safely.
For me the obvious thing to do would be a stretch and loose range.About 90% of narrobodied a/c movements are 3k miles or less.So plenty to go for.
The investment in the stretch would also be invaluable if a full blown 323? (Plus plus) was required.Because the ( now existing) stretch would be part of that.But one has to imagine a new MLG would be required for anything flying 5k plus.It would also require a new wing to be competitive.Thats no small job.

The A321-neo-plus-plus is reputed to have
A) out of autoclave CFRP wings
B) 105t MTOW
C) the same engines as the MOM/797
according to Jon Ostrowers twitter
To me this looks like a 230 pax two class narrowbody (270 pax single class ULCC) probably with a range of about 4600nm in a two class configuration

I would think rather 5000nm range. If you do a new wing you can fit the fuel capacity as needed and in this case wingspan might not be limiting, as you will probably go over 37m, but have a lot room left until you reach the next size.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Scott Hamilton at Leeham talking about Airbus killing the Boeing design is rather amateurish in my opinion.

What they're talking about is an A322 taking enough sales to 'kill' the business case for a 2-model MOM launch. There are still quite a few people who think the case is flakey at best, even without competition from Airbus.

G'day

reidar76 wrote:

PW says they can extend this engine to 40k, giving us at least a MTOW of 120t.

I seriously doubt Airbus would launch a rewinged stretched beefed-up and modernized A32X-XYZ version solely relying on PW as potential engine supplier, even for early lighter weight versions only. They were forced to produce gliders for the NEO rampup and are still suffering from PW shortcomings. They surely are not going to risk having no engine for their latest baby. Unless RR can be motivated to advance the Advance I do not see an entry into service much sooner than the Boeing 797.

Not trying to be overly pessimistic but some things just take a bit more time to mature

Cheers

Peter

kelvin933 wrote:

The A321-neo-plus-plus is reputed to have
A) out of autoclave CFRP wings
B) 105t MTOW
C) the same engines as the MOM/797
according to Jon Ostrowers twitter
To me this looks like a 230 pax two class narrowbody (270 pax single class ULCC) probably with a range of about 4600nm in a two class configuration

Sounds like a great aircraft to me. I think Airbus is smart waiting until Boeing launches a MoM though, Airbus owns this market segment right now. If Boeing decides to go for an NSA instead, upgrading the A320 series might not be the best idea. The article quotes one source who says that Airbus is also contemplating a new single aisle product that can enter market around 2030 or so.

Boeing has the problem in that if they decide to launch the expensive 797 it will probably trigger Airbus counter move with a new wing and even newer engines for the A320 series. That will be the end of the 737MAX for which Boeing has no resources to answer when they have their hands tied up with the 797. So even if the A320neoplus or whatever ends up being technically inferior to the 797 it will still be comfortably cheaper while at the same time being superior to the 737MAX.

What I find extraordinary is any assumption that the possible all new mid market Boeing will get built. Its return of shareholders funds give every appearance of being a sure fire disaster. The natural human optimism bias will have to be extremely strong to get past the accountants and shareholders. But this being the USA of President Trump, who knows what will happen?

I think the wing is the main investment / risk for Airbus.

Apart from a better L/D, wingloading (performance) it must able to handle fuel for ranges of 4000+NM, getting rid of the A321LR auxiliary tanks which will compromise operational flexibility on the A321LR. And house next gen turbofans with diameters surpassing the current Pratt's and LEAP's.

I can see no escape going into an ICAO Annex 14 - Aerodrome Reference Code D wingspan. Folding wing tips add weight and complexity, specially when used on 6 flights a day operations too. And limits space for controls & fuel.

In the past I looked at a seagull type, high aspect ration hybrid materials wing. To be able to house large diameter fans with the main landing gears and supporting structure getting long & heavy. E.g. an wingspan of approximately 4 meters could lead to a 20% larger surface and 30% more wing fuel capacity.

kelvin933 wrote:

parapente wrote:

The A321-neo-plus-plus is reputed to have
A) out of autoclave CFRP wings
B) 105t MTOW
C) the same engines as the MOM/797
according to Jon Ostrowers twitter
To me this looks like a 230 pax two class narrowbody (270 pax single class ULCC) probably with a range of about 4600nm in a two class configuration

An MTOW of 105t sounds like a bit of an underestimation to me, particularly if using the MOM's engines...

kelvin933 wrote:

parapente wrote:

Would love to be a fly on the wall as to what the 'plus' is (also the plus plus in fact).I personally cannot believe it's about extra range as there is simply no place/space to put it.They have to leave one cargo hold available.I also feel that their single bogey MLG at 97T must be getting very close to the max poss' both in terms of structure and indeed pavement loading.
But since the GTF has been bench tested to 40k then it mat we'll be poss to up output to perhaps 35/6k safely.
For me the obvious thing to do would be a stretch and loose range.About 90% of narrobodied a/c movements are 3k miles or less.So plenty to go for.
The investment in the stretch would also be invaluable if a full blown 323? (Plus plus) was required.Because the ( now existing) stretch would be part of that.But one has to imagine a new MLG would be required for anything flying 5k plus.It would also require a new wing to be competitive.Thats no small job.

The A321-neo-plus-plus is reputed to have
A) out of autoclave CFRP wings
B) 105t MTOW
C) the same engines as the MOM/797
according to Jon Ostrowers twitter
To me this looks like a 230 pax two class narrowbody (270 pax single class ULCC) probably with a range of about 4600nm in a two class configuration

A fairly obvious question goes along with B) does airbus risk building its next generation technology wing building facility in the UK with regards to brexit..

This could show if Airbus intents to disinvest out of the UK.

It's an Airbus owned factory. They are very likely to keep it this way. Brexit or not.

Noshow wrote:

It's an Airbus owned factory. They are very likely to keep it this way. Brexit or not.

Of course but the question is will it get new work packages.

Just a point of note, as I understand it, the highest MTOW 321s have the highest wing loading and thus highest approach speeds (Cat D) of any currently produced Airbus aircraft by quite some margin.

These high approach speeds are despite the more complex 321 double slotted flap system that is used over the lighter, simpler, singe slot, A318/9/320 flap system. This is another reflection that a newer wing (perhaps giving increased fuel tankerage and thus less dependence on hold tanks?) could remove one of the more limiting factors of the A32X series particularly on the larger erosions of the A32X).

With a new wing giving lower wing loading and more lift it may be possible to ditch the 321s more complex double slot flap system requirement and thus save weight and thus allow the current generation of NEO engines with little new increase in engine thrust to power a new A322? (The new B777-7/8 has lower thrust engines than the B777-300er primarily because of a new lighter wing being in place).

TP313 wrote:

kelvin933 wrote:

parapente wrote:

The A321-neo-plus-plus is reputed to have
A) out of autoclave CFRP wings
B) 105t MTOW
C) the same engines as the MOM/797
according to Jon Ostrowers twitter
To me this looks like a 230 pax two class narrowbody (270 pax single class ULCC) probably with a range of about 4600nm in a two class configuration

An MTOW of 105t sounds like a bit of an underestimation to me, particularly if using the MOM's engines...

The A321LR will probably have a MTOW of around 97t. Add a stretch penalty of 2t per meter (typical for 320/737 class aircraft ). Looking at a 4 meter stretch, new but lighter material wings/wingbox and 20% heavier engines, aux tanks out (unloading the wings/wingbox!), 105t could be about right. Maybe 36-40k lbs PW1100G's / LEAP's are just fine, reducing costs / weight / risks significantly.

I'm not a firm believer 5000NM is required. Solid TATL range ~4300NM might be enough. More than enough is waste / compromising efficiency.


3500, 4000, 4500NM ranges from EWR

keesje wrote:

I'm not a firm believer 5000NM is required. Solid TATL range ~4300NM might be enough. More than enough is waste / compromising efficiency.

Completly agree with this. By the way, 4300nm is the A310-300 baseline range... coincidence?

More range comes with the engine pips or an optional fuel tanks in the hold.

reidar76 wrote:

It's not like you can use the other aisle on a widebody to get to your seat anyway. When the FA's is doing meal service, both aisle will be blocked.

Though you are generally correct in these statements, I beg to differ a little here as there are always exceptions. On a WB with a 3-seat centre row, I can choose to use any of the two aisles with the same number of (body) obstacles.
During meal service, the FAs' meal carts are not going to be perfectly synchronized most times. One will invariably be ahead of the other a few rows after they started together (they might also start at a slightly different time which will increase the gap). As such I can choose to use the aisle that is, to my row, unblocked in the direction I want to go.

MON wrote:

Just a point of note, as I understand it, the highest MTOW 321s have the highest wing loading and thus highest approach speeds (Cat D) of any currently produced Airbus aircraft by quite some margin.

These high approach speeds are despite the more complex 321 double slotted flap system that is used over the lighter, simpler, singe slot, A318/9/320 flap system. This is another reflection that a newer wing (perhaps giving increased fuel tankerage and thus less dependence on hold tanks?) could remove one of the more limiting factors of the A32X series particularly on the larger erosions of the A32X).

With a new wing giving lower wing loading and more lift it may be possible to ditch the 321s more complex double slot flap system requirement and thus save weight and thus allow the current generation of NEO engines with little new increase in engine thrust to power a new A322? (The new B777-7/8 has lower thrust engines than the B777-300er primarily because of a new lighter wing being in place).

Yes A321++ needs a larger wing, this is obviously obvious.

Removing double slotted flaps will also make aircraft quieter.

B777X wing is larger, probably not much lighter and MTOW is going up anyway. Its the increase in wing area and improvements in design that allows the thrust adjustment.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I agree with you. I think that the proposed Boeing MOM is different than the A321+. Both would have their strengths and weaknesses. I expect that the market is big enough for two different airplanes. Scott Hamilton at Leeham talking about Airbus killing the Boeing design is rather amateurish in my opinion. I think the days of one plane killing the other are over. Airbus and Boeing are much more cautious than they used to be with new launches. I think it all comes down to the individual needs of the airlines and what routes and payloads they intend to fly. I think an A321 stretch with a modernized composite wing will have great market potential.

It's about killing the business case.

The MOM business case is difficult: the potential market is believed to be some 1,000 - 1,500 airplanes. On a 20 years period, that equals a production rate of no more than 75 airplanes per year. If you split that across two vendors, one can understand why investing > $10 billion into a new program is difficult.

Amiga500 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

If Airbus wants to put 2025 generation engines under that CFRP wing, it won't be much earlier.

Would probably depend on what P&W and CFM think they can get out of the current engines with PiPs.

Pratt particularly, were pretty aggressive in their expectations of performance - and while the GTF is having teething issues - thrust and fuel burn are not among them.

If the 797 gets a new engine, I can imagine Airbus would want to put the same engine technology on the re-winged A320 family. A new wing design requires a new pylon anyway, might as well put a new engine on the airplane.

Besides, CFM, P&W and RR will bid on the 797 and Boeing will most likely not select all 3 vendors. So there should be enough engine applications left for the A322.

There is absolute no reason not to go for the bigger wingspan without going for a folding version. There are heaps of D sized gates on airports today, used by 757 and 767. With the decreasing numbers of 757 and 767 more and more D sized gates will be unused. The 787 and the A330 need E sized gates.
A wingspan up to 51 m would be possible, IMO about 45 m should be reasonable.

keesje wrote:

It might be a better idea for Airbus to pre-empt a Boeing MoM, say EIS 2022.

If the product is relatively low risk ((a hybrid wing seems doable, engines <40k lbs) and some launching customers ready to move (AF, BA, LH, Air Asia, Delta, AA, China, TUI) there seems to be little advantage in waiting until Boeing comes up with something.

Airbus successfully pre-empted the NSA in 2011.

This time, Boeing will have a clean sheet type. Airbus is upgrading.

It will be interesting.

inferno wrote:

Long narrowbodies would beat short widebodies anytime in fuel efficiency. Also, comparing an A322 to Boeing's elliptical fuselage concept, cargo space is severely limited at Boeing. But the problem with long narrowbodies is that it takes forever to turnaround. The solution could be a wider fuselage to allow a wider aisle. Wide enough so people can quickly walk through while someone is stowing their carry-ons on the overhead bins. A wider fuselage would also help stabilize such a long tube. Airbus still has time to develop an all-new narrobody family.

I could imagine that this market segment will be divided into two where Airbus A322 takes the lower end (200-250 single class) and Boeing elliptical widebody MoM/797 takes the higher end (250-300 single class).

The 200-250/250-300 here you mentioned is in two-class configurations. 787s tend to take 375-440 while 321is at 230-240. In contrast, it's going to be interesting to see how will 2-class MoM/NMAs doing against 3-class 787/330s on domestic routes. Afterall, capacity is similar, though layout will be different. Thin narrowbody brings better fusalauge aroedynamics but loses range, comfort and potentially OEW, if the aircraft is really skinny and it's going to be a fight just to keep structral integrity. Also, this airbus disign will result in less cargo and lack of under-wing capacity (737-ish problem). Airbus may do well in increasing capacity but may not do so well in flying further than 7000km with acceptable economics, comfort, payload and speed. However Boeing can do well in these with the 797 except for too much capacity. 797+long-geared 737-10ER extended to 46m will be an Airbus killer combination !

Boeing778X wrote:

This time, Boeing will have a clean sheet type. Airbus is upgrading.

It will be interesting.

Like the original A350 vs. the B787.

Its interesting in that people (and I'd wager, airlines) have already vastly different mindsets to an upgraded A321 compared to the A330.

AirCal737 wrote:

inferno wrote:

Long narrowbodies would beat short widebodies anytime in fuel efficiency. Also, comparing an A322 to Boeing's elliptical fuselage concept, cargo space is severely limited at Boeing. But the problem with long narrowbodies is that it takes forever to turnaround. The solution could be a wider fuselage to allow a wider aisle. Wide enough so people can quickly walk through while someone is stowing their carry-ons on the overhead bins. A wider fuselage would also help stabilize such a long tube. Airbus still has time to develop an all-new narrobody family.

I could imagine that this market segment will be divided into two where Airbus A322 takes the lower end (200-250 single class) and Boeing elliptical widebody MoM/797 takes the higher end (250-300 single class).

The 200-250/250-300 here you mentioned is in two-class configurations. 787s tend to take 375-440 while 321is at 230-240. In contrast, it's going to be interesting to see how will 2-class MoM/NMAs doing against 3-class 787/330s on domestic routes. Afterall, capacity is similar, though layout will be different. Thin narrowbody brings better fusalauge aroedynamics but loses range, comfort and potentially OEW, if the aircraft is really skinny and it's going to be a fight just to keep structral integrity. Also, this airbus disign will result in less cargo and lack of under-wing capacity (737-ish problem). Airbus may do well in increasing capacity but may not do so well in flying further than 7000km with acceptable economics, comfort, payload and speed. However Boeing can do well in these with the 797 except for too much capacity. 797+long-geared 737-10ER extended to 46m will be an Airbus killer combination !

Huh? Did you take a look at MOM's proposed cargo bay cross-section?
Hate to break it to you but it is identical to that of the A320 family (LD3-45 dimensions).
Since for the same cargo cross-section the MOM carries 1 more passenger in Y, arguably the Boeing is going to run into cargo capacity problems before the Airbus does.

Boeing778X wrote:

This time, Boeing will have a clean sheet type. Airbus is upgrading.

It will be interesting.

Didn't we have a thread not long back where we discussed that Boeing had basically run out of cash to develop anything (due to cash flow problems across the board) and are going to lay off thousands of staff ?

In relation to Airbus launching before or after the Boeing MoM, if the business case is indeed iffy for Boeing, you can ask yourself what would be smarter for Airbus, launching before to prevent the Boeing MoM launch or letting Boeing launch this multi-billion project and then put in difficult waters by launching a relatively cheap but sufficient upgrade and sell at lower margins.

Boeing of course knows this as well. So indeed it depends how strong the business case is and Boeing will want reassurances from the airlines, not just nice feedback.

Taxi645 wrote:

In relation to Airbus launching before or after the Boeing MoM, if the business case is indeed iffy for Boeing, you can ask yourself what would be smarter for Airbus, launching before to prevent the Boeing MoM launch or letting Boeing launch this multi-billion project and then put in difficult waters by launching a relatively cheap but sufficient upgrade and sell at lower margins.

Its a good question. Many factors in it.

- Pre-empt and grab most launch orders Boeing would have got.
- But those launch orders would have been at adverse prices for Boeing.
- Pre-empt and Boeing would likely pull out and not counter with a MoM, leaving you with the marketplace.
- This would however leave Boeing free to spend that money/resource somewhere else - could that cause larger damage to your business? (i.e. NSA)
- Hold off and you have Boeing tied up for a decade with their finance/resource. You may be able to counter quicker with an iteration on A321. Does that mean you can roll up a follow-on new design/build to get ahead of them somewhere else?

With a new wing, would it be possible to further stretch it to like A323 or A324 with length up to what DC-8 have been? such machine can probably seat 300+ people one class?

zeke wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

This time, Boeing will have a clean sheet type. Airbus is upgrading.

It will be interesting.

Didn't we have a thread not long back where we discussed that Boeing had basically run out of cash to develop anything (due to cash flow problems across the board) and are going to lay off thousands of staff ?

Yes we did! This is also a common discussion point on Leeham. It has zero basis in fact, but certain message board Boeing detractors love to claim this from time to time.

Boeing has a half trillion dollar order backlog (commercial aircraft), and a net operating cash flow of 10.5 billion dollars (free cash flow of 7.9 billion, after buybacks etc) last year. These audited totals don't appear to many actual investors/analysts to be significant aberrations. If Boeing wanted to either borrow funds or use cash flow to develop NSA and MoM concurrently it would not be a real problem for them, though it's not being actively considered.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/st ... /cash-flow

What about these articles, are you saying it is not true ? This is just some massive conspiracy by "certain message board Boeing detractors" to say there are layoffs, revenue is down, reduced output etc ?

http://wolfstreet.com/2017/01/10/boeing ... -year-low/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-cutt ... s-of-jobs/

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/17/news/co ... y-layoffs/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tting-push

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... t-at-risk/

It looks like these "certain message board Boeing detractors" are working at places like CNN, Bloomberg, and Seattle Times now.

One could argue that Boeing is cutting costs so that it can have the cash to launch a new plane. A leaner and more efficient company could design and build a new plane for less. If they find a way to sell a new 797 for under $70 million, they may be able to compete against the A321+. Dropping revenue could be a reason to launch a new plane to take back lost market share. That is a pretty Rosey view with a lot of ifs, but I can see Airbus leadership getting nervous watching Boeing cutting costs while preparing to launch a new plane that hits Airbus where it has its highest margins.

Airbus is doing the right thing evaluating expanding its product line. Given how the A338 only has 6 orders, there is a gap between the A321 and A339. Airbus probably doesn't want Boeing to exploit that gap.

I clicked two of your links zeke. One was a Seattle times article that concluded Boeing isn't hiring in Washington but has a 4300 plane backlog for 737s. The other was CNN which didn't in any way disagree with or question the financials I posted, though it noted layoffs in Seattle.

The situation in Washington is indeed grim I think. This has essentially only tangential impact as to boeing's motivation and ability to launch a new model. Labor has won many battles in the state of Washington, but they've basically lost the war at this point. Many partisans in the media and labor force alike are conflicted as to how to report/digest this.

The math, however, as to Boeings ability to launch a new model, is not in any reasonable analysis in doubt.

Therefore you lied before when you said this was "certain message board Boeing detractors" ? There is a genuine economic slowdown which is impacting Boeing significantly.

The number of aircraft in backlog and their list price has little to do with free cash flow available to launch a new aircraft. It is well known Boeing has a lot of expenses at the moment on the 737MAX, 787, 77X, and 767 tanker. A lot of their upcoming cash has already spoken for or spent.

zeke wrote:

Therefore you lied before when you said this was "certain message board Boeing detractors" ? There is a genuine economic slowdown which is impacting Boeing significantly.

The number of aircraft in backlog and their list price has little to do with free cash flow available to launch a new aircraft. It is well known Boeing has a lot of expenses at the moment on the 737MAX, 787, 77X, and 767 tanker. A lot of their upcoming cash has already spoken for or spent.

737MAX development is winding down. 787 is almost done. 767 tanker is also nearing completion. 3 of the 4 programs you mention are in the flight testing phase and past the design phase. That would imply that Boeing has the cash flow to launch a new plane since before long the 737MAX will be bringing in cash with first deliveries imminent. The 787 is cash positive. The tanker is still in trouble but is a smaller program. Engineers that had been working on 737MAX, 787, and Tanker will be available for a new airplane. Boeing is doing layoffs indicating they have more than they need.

In the context of Airbus, Boeing is making moves. Airbus probably doesn't want to sit still.

mjoelnir wrote:

There is absolute no reason not to go for the bigger wingspan without going for a folding version. There are heaps of D sized gates on airports today, used by 757 and 767. With the decreasing numbers of 757 and 767 more and more D sized gates will be unused. The 787 and the A330 need E sized gates.
A wingspan up to 51 m would be possible, IMO about 45 m should be reasonable.

What if Airbus plan to place the new center section / wing into the A320 at some point? Folding tips may then make sense.

Newbiepilot wrote:

737MAX development is winding down. 787 is almost done. 767 tanker is also nearing completion. 3 of the 4 programs you mention are in the flight testing phase and past the design phase. That would imply that Boeing has the cash flow to launch a new plane since before long the 737MAX will be bringing in cash with first deliveries imminent. The 787 is cash positive. The tanker is still in trouble but is a smaller program. Engineers that had been working on 737MAX, 787, and Tanker will be available for a new airplane. Boeing is doing layoffs indicating they have more than they need.

You haven't addressed any of the deferred costs which the cash flow is already been spoken for, one day Boeing will have to use unit cost accounting.

c933103 wrote:

With a new wing, would it be possible to further stretch it to like A323 or A324 with length up to what DC-8 have been? such machine can probably seat 300+ people one class?

Wouldn't it be easier to get a A338 for this kind of capacity?

A modern small twin aisle with about 4500 mile range (and sure to be improved in the future) will be a formidable competitor. I can see Alaska, WN, EasyJet, Ryan, Iceland, Norwegian, Hawaii as typical buyers - by the boatload. And if the trend of small planes get bigger, and big planes get fewer it is in the favorable spot. At this point can Boeing build it for a low enough cost? Remains to be seen.