Boeing 797/MOM Discussion Thread

kabq737 · Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:14 pm

I think we are beginning to become more and more sure of Boeings next project...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... h-new-jets

What do you guys and girls think?

ElroyJetson · Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:57 pm

It is obviously going to happen, it's just a question of when. I think 225 seats and 4500nm range is the sweet spot, and Boeing would need to guard against overbuilding it.

JetBuddy · Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:21 pm

Interesting article, but not much news. What was new to me is that Airbus is definately looking at an A321neo stretch though. I've not seen confirmation of that before, even though it's something many of us have predicted.

"The European planemaker is looking at expanding the A321neo, which can seat as many as 240 people, Airbus’s chief salesman John Leahy told reporters this week. “It’s not just the threat itself,” he said in reference to Boeing’s new plane. “We listen to our customers.”

william · Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:41 pm

Well we know that 797 will be a twin aisle so we can stop with the "its impossible for a twin aisle to compete with a single one" posts. Boeing has apparently found a way.

And JL has found some new religion, after stating the A321 was the perfect MOM.

Still think this 797 will be strongly related to the 737 replacement in about 10 years time.

Revelation · Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:32 pm

kabq737 wrote:
I think we are beginning to become more and more sure of Boeings next project...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... h-new-jets

What do you guys and girls think?

The part I found most interesting:

The U.S. planemaker was slow to respond earlier this decade when Airbus began marketing the redesigned A321neo as the heir to the out-of-production Boeing 757. The Airbus plane became a surprise bestseller, garnering more than 1,400 orders.

Boeing executives were averse to “moonshots” after the 787’s costly development process and “it wasn’t clear that the A321neo was going to gather strength,” Aboulafia said. “They’ve got to hope this new plane will unlock a new point-to-point strategy.”

Should generate a lot of talk here about point-to-point strategies! :biggrin:

magga1 wrote:
"Boeing revs up robots for 777X in Everett factory and signals that a 797 awaits"

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... 97-awaits/

A fair use quote:

Most intriguingly, he said that the composite wing of this aircraft will look much like a smaller version of the tremendously slender and aerodynamically efficient 787 wing — but it will be built in a new way.

“It’s a radically different set of parts and assembly sequence and technology that is significantly lower cost,” Delaney said, the result of what Boeing has learned from designing the 787, the first all-composite airplane, and then the composite wing of the 777X.

He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

Boeing778X · Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:11 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Interesting article, but not much news. What was new to me is that Airbus is definately looking at an A321neo stretch though. I've not seen confirmation of that before, even though it's something many of us have predicted.

"The European planemaker is looking at expanding the A321neo, which can seat as many as 240 people, Airbus’s chief salesman John Leahy told reporters this week. “It’s not just the threat itself,” he said in reference to Boeing’s new plane. “We listen to our customers.”

Airbus should stretch the A321neo, but they also need to rewing it as well. The wing on the A321 as it is looks undersized already.

william wrote:
Well we know that 797 will be a twin aisle so we can stop with the "its impossible for a twin aisle to compete with a single one" posts. Boeing has apparently found a way.

And JL has found some new religion, after stating the A321 was the perfect MOM.

Still think this 797 will be strongly related to the 737 replacement in about 10 years time.

Not only that, but the NSA could also derive from the MoM. After the MoM is established, the technology and design could then be used to develop the NSA. 10 years seems fair, but it could be done earlier.

kabq737 · Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
I think we are beginning to become more and more sure of Boeings next project...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... h-new-jets

What do you guys and girls think?

The part I found most interesting:

The U.S. planemaker was slow to respond earlier this decade when Airbus began marketing the redesigned A321neo as the heir to the out-of-production Boeing 757. The Airbus plane became a surprise bestseller, garnering more than 1,400 orders.

Boeing executives were averse to “moonshots” after the 787’s costly development process and “it wasn’t clear that the A321neo was going to gather strength,” Aboulafia said. “They’ve got to hope this new plane will unlock a new point-to-point strategy.”

Should generate a lot of talk here about point-to-point strategies!

magga1 wrote:
"Boeing revs up robots for 777X in Everett factory and signals that a 797 awaits"

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... 97-awaits/

A fair use quote:

Most intriguingly, he said that the composite wing of this aircraft will look much like a smaller version of the tremendously slender and aerodynamically efficient 787 wing — but it will be built in a new way.

“It’s a radically different set of parts and assembly sequence and technology that is significantly lower cost,” Delaney said, the result of what Boeing has learned from designing the 787, the first all-composite airplane, and then the composite wing of the 777X.

He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

Wow that's such an informative post! Thanks! I really do hope to see Boeing do well with their next design. I think the reduced turn times with the "797" compared to the "A322" (or whatever you want to call them) could be a major selling point. I think this could be especially true for ULCC airlines who want to move as many people per day as possible. It seems the 797 is now all but official.

kabq737 · Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:17 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
Interesting article, but not much news. What was new to me is that Airbus is definately looking at an A321neo stretch though. I've not seen confirmation of that before, even though it's something many of us have predicted.

"The European planemaker is looking at expanding the A321neo, which can seat as many as 240 people, Airbus’s chief salesman John Leahy told reporters this week. “It’s not just the threat itself,” he said in reference to Boeing’s new plane. “We listen to our customers.”

Airbus should stretch the A321neo, but they also need to rewing it as well. The wing on the A321 as it is looks undersized already.

william wrote:
Well we know that 797 will be a twin aisle so we can stop with the "its impossible for a twin aisle to compete with a single one" posts. Boeing has apparently found a way.

And JL has found some new religion, after stating the A321 was the perfect MOM.

Still think this 797 will be strongly related to the 737 replacement in about 10 years time.

Not only that, but the NSA could also derive from the MoM. After the MoM is established, the technology and design could then be used to develop the NSA. 10 years seems fair, but it could be done earlier.

I'm thinking a common flight deck between the MOM and NSA could be a MASSIVE selling point. It would allow Boeing to easily bundle orders similar to how they did with the 757 and 767.

KarelXWB · Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:49 am

Boeing778X wrote:
Airbus should stretch the A321neo, but they also need to rewing it as well.

Open door.

parapente · Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:55 pm

I recall when the 787 was first mooted on how it was going to be made 'snail together'.Fully stuffed parts,that due to being electronic could be effectively snapped together.The cut in costs would have been staddering.But of course they got it wrong.
Perhaps this time they will get this interesting new way of manufacturing right.
If they can it may overcome any pricing /margin issues.
Gonna be an interesting aircraft.
Airbus?New wine in old bottles.Sometimes it works a treat.Take the 773er as an example.Sometimes it doesn't 340-600
270 pax 4.500 nm? Mmmm that one hell of a looong tube.
250 I can see as a narrow bodied response.Above that -not sure.
Is that why they refer to the 2 pronged attack?

sassiciai · Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:35 pm

Seems some here think that the "MoM" is a well-defined machine, and all that remains is to sell some and build it!

I still have no solid view of what Boeing's current MoM is, and whether it is actually being trundled around the world's airlines as we speak

No-one can address with any confidence how a certain MoM can make it successfully to market when there is a likely "A322" to be made available earlier and cheaper.

MoM and PoP go well together! So if MoM is looking after the, er mom, what exactly is "PoP" doing? Is PoP bigger than Mom? Fatter, heavier, drinks more? Carries more load, further?

So in the interest of a family of aircraft, let's look to the MoM, the PoP. What is the rest of this aeroplane family, existing or future? :bigthumbsup:

Sooner787 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:43 pm

I'm wondering if Boeing might unveil some concept images of a new MOM/797 at Paris in a couple weeks?

DfwRevolution · Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:52 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
It is obviously going to happen, it's just a question of when. I think 225 seats and 4500nm range is the sweet spot, and Boeing would need to guard against overbuilding it.

That airplane exists today and it's called the 787-8.

At 4,500 nm, you're talking flight times of up to 8-10 hours, perhaps longer if you go with a low cruise Mach. That means a long-haul configuration with lie-flat seats and cabin area of a 787-8 to fit 225 people.

I think there is a huge risk the MOM gets straddled between two local optimums - A320/737 below and 787 above - and fails to justify a unique product line in the long-run.

frmrCapCadet · Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:03 pm

The difference between a failure/so so/ and smash hit for an all new MOM is not so much how far can it go, rather how 'low can it go' competing with 50 year old designs (admittedly much updated). Can it be sold for an incremental amount, and flown with a lot less fuel per seat as far down as 2500 miles. If the CASM competes transcontinental US with a NEO/MAX it will succeed. Do note that the long range 380 is successful, in part, because it is a great JFK-LHR plane. MOM possibilities as well as filling certain range gaps, also fills at lesser ranges certain passenger size gaps.

cosyr · Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:48 pm

I think the problem is that the 787, being smaller than the 777, really risks cannibalization with MoM and NSA. Back in the 90's when the 777 was introduced along with the 737NG, Boeing had a very compelling line up from 73G/738 then 757 then 763 then 772 (and then 744 if you really needed something big). Obviously oil was cheaper then and all these planes were more efficient than the 70's planes they were replacing. Now the 737 has gotten big enough and the 787 smaller than the 777, that there is still a gap, but such a small one, how many planes could you realistically sell? The 757 sold almost exactly 1000, and the 767 a little more, but I'm not sure that there's much more than a market for 1000 of anything for what has become a niche spot. Also, when the 757 was introduced, 737's couldn't reliably fly across the US coast to coast, and when the 767 was introduced, many US airlines were venturing into international markets for the first time since deregulation. Neither of those conditions exist anymore.

Newbiepilot · Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:58 pm

cosyr wrote:
I think the problem is that the 787, being smaller than the 777, really risks cannibalization with MoM and NSA. Back in the 90's when the 777 was introduced along with the 737NG, Boeing had a very compelling line up from 73G/738 then 757 then 763 then 772 (and then 744 if you really needed something big). Obviously oil was cheaper then and all these planes were more efficient than the 70's planes they were replacing. Now the 737 has gotten big enough and the 787 smaller than the 777, that there is still a gap, but such a small one, how many planes could you realistically sell? The 757 sold almost exactly 1000, and the 767 a little more, but I'm not sure that there's much more than a market for 1000 of anything for what has become a niche spot. Also, when the 757 was introduced, 737's couldn't reliably fly across the US coast to coast, and when the 767 was introduced, many US airlines were venturing into international markets for the first time since deregulation. Neither of those conditions exist anymore.

I believe that the market that the 757 filled in the 1990s had shifted to smaller planes. However there is a new market. Higher density short flights in Asia had a lot of opportunity. In the 1990s Beijing's airport only had 16 gates. Now there are over a hundred with many new airport terminals built in China. 737s and A321s aren't big enough for all of those markets and using a new MOM higher density configuration plane will easily beat out the 787 and A330 on 2-5 hour flights. I think aviation has exploded in Asia and the new plane will be great for trunk routes.

Simultaneously it can be used for point to point longer routes transatlantic and throughout the middle East in a lower capacity configuration.

There is a lot of potential for a 300k lbs MTOW plane.

keesje · Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
I think we are beginning to become more and more sure of Boeings next project...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... h-new-jets

What do you guys and girls think?

The part I found most interesting:

The U.S. planemaker was slow to respond earlier this decade when Airbus began marketing the redesigned A321neo as the heir to the out-of-production Boeing 757. The Airbus plane became a surprise bestseller, garnering more than 1,400 orders.

Boeing executives were averse to “moonshots” after the 787’s costly development process and “it wasn’t clear that the A321neo was going to gather strength,” Aboulafia said. “They’ve got to hope this new plane will unlock a new point-to-point strategy.”

Should generate a lot of talk here about point-to-point strategies!

magga1 wrote:
"Boeing revs up robots for 777X in Everett factory and signals that a 797 awaits"

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... 97-awaits/

A fair use quote:

Most intriguingly, he said that the composite wing of this aircraft will look much like a smaller version of the tremendously slender and aerodynamically efficient 787 wing — but it will be built in a new way.

“It’s a radically different set of parts and assembly sequence and technology that is significantly lower cost,” Delaney said, the result of what Boeing has learned from designing the 787, the first all-composite airplane, and then the composite wing of the 777X.

He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

Boeing knew. I had a big post "Boeing 737-900ER Probably Not Up To Par After 2015" in 2010, August 23rd on exactly the Topic. Including the observation Boeing would have a hard time marketing the -900ER even in a reengined form. This post became untraceable on a.net recently Did Boeing Management read it? Yes, because Randy responded 3 days later, on the record. http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2010/08/sharks_and_jets.html That one is still online.

This was before launch of the NEO and MAX. At some point they were aiming at a new NSA, then steered back to a 737 re-engining and in the middle of that trade-off AA and other airlines forced them into the MAX. They didn't want to wait until 2020.

seahawk · Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:34 pm

That plane will be a revolution for the industry just like the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787.

32andBelow · Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:53 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
It is obviously going to happen, it's just a question of when. I think 225 seats and 4500nm range is the sweet spot, and Boeing would need to guard against overbuilding it.

That airplane exists today and it's called the 787-8.

At 4,500 nm, you're talking flight times of up to 8-10 hours, perhaps longer if you go with a low cruise Mach. That means a long-haul configuration with lie-flat seats and cabin area of a 787-8 to fit 225 people.

I think there is a huge risk the MOM gets straddled between two local optimums - A320/737 below and 787 above - and fails to justify a unique product line in the long-run.

You mean like the whole reason the 757 program was killed?

sassiciai · Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
That plane will be a revolution for the industry just like the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787.

Good to see a balanced view there, from one of the more, er, balanced contributors!

seahawk · Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:11 pm

sassiciai wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That plane will be a revolution for the industry just like the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787.

Good to see a balanced view there, from one of the more, er, balanced contributors!

It will be, if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for. Massively cheaper composite structure construction will be a revolution and if they achieve it the first victim will be the 787...

kabq737 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:39 pm

Can Boeing realistically afford to design a new aircraft right now? Everyone seems to think it's all doom and gloom for Boeing finances. Is this true? If it is how will they get credit to design a whole new aircraft?

WIederling · Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:53 pm

seahawk wrote:
It will be, if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for. Massively cheaper composite structure construction will be a revolution and if they achieve it the first victim will be the 787...

Beyond what they say: will they finally match up to Airbus in working plastics?

The 787 was an beyond the pale expensive excursion into "deep learning".
They've taken lessons on things that don't work as expected after having been told about the (negative) outcome.
vulgo: Boeing is now where some others stood more than a decade ago.

StTim · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
I think we are beginning to become more and more sure of Boeings next project...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... h-new-jets

What do you guys and girls think?

The part I found most interesting:

The U.S. planemaker was slow to respond earlier this decade when Airbus began marketing the redesigned A321neo as the heir to the out-of-production Boeing 757. The Airbus plane became a surprise bestseller, garnering more than 1,400 orders.

Boeing executives were averse to “moonshots” after the 787’s costly development process and “it wasn’t clear that the A321neo was going to gather strength,” Aboulafia said. “They’ve got to hope this new plane will unlock a new point-to-point strategy.”

Should generate a lot of talk here about point-to-point strategies!

magga1 wrote:
"Boeing revs up robots for 777X in Everett factory and signals that a 797 awaits"

I just spent a fun few minutes reading the comments under Randy's blog. It is apparent that a lot are drinking the same kool aid!
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... 97-awaits/

A fair use quote:

Most intriguingly, he said that the composite wing of this aircraft will look much like a smaller version of the tremendously slender and aerodynamically efficient 787 wing — but it will be built in a new way.

“It’s a radically different set of parts and assembly sequence and technology that is significantly lower cost,” Delaney said, the result of what Boeing has learned from designing the 787, the first all-composite airplane, and then the composite wing of the 777X.

He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

Boeing knew. I had a big post "Boeing 737-900ER Probably Not Up To Par After 2015" in 2010, August 23rd on exactly the Topic. Including the observation Boeing would have a hard time marketing the -900ER even in a reengined form. This post became untraceable on a.net recently Did Boeing Management read it? Yes, because Randy responded 3 days later, on the record. http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2010/08/sharks_and_jets.html That one is still online.

This was before launch of the NEO and MAX. At some point they were aiming at a new NSA, then steered back to a 737 re-engining and in the middle of that trade-off AA and other airlines forced them into the MAX. They didn't want to wait until 2020.

Fabrice95 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:30 pm

WIederling wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It will be, if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for. Massively cheaper composite structure construction will be a revolution and if they achieve it the first victim will be the 787...

Beyond what they say: will they finally match up to Airbus in working plastics?

The 787 was an beyond the pale expensive excursion into "deep learning".
They've taken lessons on things that don't work as expected after having been told about the (negative) outcome.
vulgo: Boeing is now where some others stood more than a decade ago.

So who said Airbus loves their A350 fuselage? If B is willing to use CFRP again on the MOM, they must have found something that Airbus hasn't.

WPvsMW · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:51 pm

If the Boeing MOM is dual aisle with NB unit costs, does 767 routes (at those unit costs), it will kill the putative A322 and halt the growth of the A321neo. Analogy: lie-flat in J vs. recliner in J from a pax POV... two routes to the lav, more overhead bin space.

cosyr · Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:55 pm

Possibly, the 767 is a little over built. The 757 is 148" wide for 6 seats and an aisle, yet the 767 is 50" wider @198" for only one extra seat and an aisle. As a customer, this makes it one of the most comfortable planes in the sky, but has also left the door open for 8 across. Also the 767 is much taller at 213", primarily to fit full containers. If Boeing made a fuselage that was about 184-190" in circumference, width and height, completely out of composites, it would seat the same number of seats per row, have a lower MTOW, shorter range, and would weight dramatically less than a 767. With what Boeing has learned about wing design in 40 years, and modern engines, it might over come the inefficient floorplan of 3.5 seats per aisle, worst of any non commuter airliner.

morrisond · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:05 pm

The most interesting thing I got out of the Bloomberg article was that the Fuselage will be OVAL - just like I've been guessing all along. I also saw Boeing quoted in another article that they are looking at a range of 5,500-5,700 Nm which is longer than I recall seeing before opening more City pairs.

Boeing778X · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:29 pm

kabq737 wrote:
Can Boeing realistically afford to design a new aircraft right now? Everyone seems to think it's all doom and gloom for Boeing finances. Is this true? If it is how will they get credit to design a whole new aircraft?

I think Boeing is getting close to freeing up enough resources and capital to allow for a new project. The 787 program is finishing up, the 737 MAX is underway and the 777X is just beginning, so if not in the immediate future, the MoM can be launched in the next year or two, with the NSA a few years away.

iamlucky13 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:35 pm

kabq737 wrote:
Can Boeing realistically afford to design a new aircraft right now? Everyone seems to think it's all doom and gloom for Boeing finances. Is this true? If it is how will they get credit to design a whole new aircraft?

Yet their share price keeps going up, because they've been cutting costs aggressively in recognition of the peaking market cycle.

I'm not sure the stock market is being entirely rational on Boeing's price from a long term perspective so much as getting carried away with excitement about how fast Boeing has ramped up the dividend recently. They might have to pull the dividend back a bit, which investors will get upset about, but that's a reality of investing in the long term viability of your company.

737 MAX engineering demand should be starting to taper off, and 777X should follow, too. Boeing can either keep laying those people off as they finish their tasks, and leave the company with no new product development, or start on the next development. Presumably for a clean sheet, that will involve an overall increase in total engineering employment, but I doubt it will be close to what the 787 and 747-8 in parallel required.

Cash flow should pick up again through 2020 or so with 737MAX and 777X achieving higher margins than the NG's and 777 legacy currently are.

StTim · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:39 pm

I am not sure margins on MAX and 777X are higher than the frames they replace especially with the additional development costs to cover.

iamlucky13 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:49 pm

morrisond wrote:
The most interesting thing I got out of the Bloomberg article was that the Fuselage will be OVAL - just like I've been guessing all along. I also saw Boeing quoted in another article that they are looking at a range of 5,500-5,700 Nm which is longer than I recall seeing before opening more City pairs.

An exact quote confirming the oval fuselage is not given from Boeing. Non-quoted text ascribed to Boeing about the capabilities of a MoM is prefaced with a reference to an oval shape, but it's not clear if the preface is something Boeing said, or derived from comments by Aboulafia or Udvar-Hazy, both of whom were also referenced in the immediately preceding section. I'm not saying it won't be an oval twin aisle. We just don't have clear confirmation of it.

I also noticed the bump in the range being discussed. I would bet that really expands the number of viable city pairs, and also significantly increases the overlap with 787 capabilities.

However, the 787 will have been in service for almost 15 years by the time a MoM enters service. It might actually be time to follow up the MoM EIS with a 787 mid-life refresh.

iamlucky13 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:51 pm

StTim wrote:
I am not sure margins on MAX and 777X are higher than the frames they replace especially with the additional development costs to cover.

The development costs are affecting cash flow now, not after EIS. After EIS, the development costs are mainly a program accounting concern.

OA940 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:02 pm

Very interesting indeed. A year ago the MoM was a fantasy, but now we are asking when.

Cyow · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:02 pm

Would this be a 2-3-2 / 2-4-2 seat config? If so, would be roomy and might help make embarking/disembarking process more efficient = saving $, time, and better overall customer experience. I agree with his point about sitting at the back of an A321.

Planesmart · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

The rest of the senior management team and board want to know when the 'payback on investment' translating to 'superior' financial payback arrives on the last three major projects. No point being technically superior if profits don't track closely.

After the 748 and 787, the Board was told we will get the next one right, yet 777X launch pricing means the project adds no value until 2030, and that's assuming it meets contracted performance, and before potential cancellations and deferrals.

There is an internal battle taking place within Boeing to secure launch funding and senior management buy-in, every bit as challenging as winning real customer sales.

ODwyerPW · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for.... the first victim will be the 787...

I agree. the first victim will be 787 Gen1. However, perhaps we will see a 789ER as the baseline and a 78710ER if 787 is revisited as a Gen2 model. The 8 space could be taken up by 797. Any 787 revisit would come well after 777/797/7A7 (NSA.. (hey if we go hexidecimal we get 6 more numbers to use ;p)

777X could grow one more time to 777-10 (SIA was interested). So you'd have 7779 and 77710. I guess the 8 could stick around?

Then of course we will have an NSA that burrows heavily from MOM to replace the MAX family.. and may be just a 2 or 3 member family.

We will be back to a 4 frame family, 777/787/797/7A7, all much larger than their counterparts decades ago, all sharing a common 787/777 cockpit..

What will be interesting is to see if 797 is launched as a 2 plane family from the beginning.

WPvsMW · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:21 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
An exact quote confirming the oval fuselage is not given from Boeing.

From the bloomberg article:
"The twin-aisle, oval-shaped jets would link cities that can’t be efficiently served by current aircraft models on medium-length flights, said Mike Delaney, a Boeing vice president and general manager for airplane development."

In that paragraph, the antecedent of "jets" is "797". Bloomberg has high standards of journalism...

ODwyerPW · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:22 pm

delete this.. it was a mistake..

BoeingGuy · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:22 pm

32andBelow wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
It is obviously going to happen, it's just a question of when. I think 225 seats and 4500nm range is the sweet spot, and Boeing would need to guard against overbuilding it.

That airplane exists today and it's called the 787-8.

At 4,500 nm, you're talking flight times of up to 8-10 hours, perhaps longer if you go with a low cruise Mach. That means a long-haul configuration with lie-flat seats and cabin area of a 787-8 to fit 225 people.

I think there is a huge risk the MOM gets straddled between two local optimums - A320/737 below and 787 above - and fails to justify a unique product line in the long-run.

You mean like the whole reason the 757 program was killed?

Not the reason it was killed at all. This comes up all the time on A.net. The 757 was killed because no-one would buy it. That's why it was killed. It was a 20+ year old airplane that was outstanding, but simply reached its end of life - just like the 707 and 727. People still can't get over it.

77west · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:33 pm

I think we may see the 787-8 getting quietly killed off if it is even still available by MoM entry to service. Boeing has already said it does not want to build it. This would leave a decent enough gap between the MoM and the 787-9. Probably see two MoM versions to cover the gap between 737-10 and 787-9.

rikkus67 · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:34 pm

posted in wrong thread

Boeing778X · Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:35 pm

ODwyerPW wrote:
seahawk wrote:
if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for.... the first victim will be the 787...

I agree. the first victim will be 787 Gen1. However, perhaps we will see a 789ER as the baseline and a 78710ER if 787 is revisited as a Gen2 model. The 8 space could be taken up by 797. Any 787 revisit would come well after 777/797/7A7 (NSA.. (hey if we go hexidecimal we get 6 more numbers to use ;p)

777X could grow one more time to 777-10 (SIA was interested). So you'd have 7779 and 77710. I guess the 8 could stick around?

Then of course we will have an NSA that burrows heavily from MOM to replace the MAX family.. and may be just a 2 or 3 member family.

We will be back to a 4 frame family, 777/787/797/7A7, all much larger than their counterparts decades ago..

What will be interesting is to see if 797 is launched as a 2 plane family from the beginning.

I more or less disagree. The only obvious victim in the 787 family to be affected will be the -8, and it's not selling like it did anyways. The -9 and -10, and any subsequent models related will go on just fine.

The 747-8 is on her way out and the MAX is the final iteration of the 737. The 767 is slowing as well. The NSA could possibly be derived from the MoM, so here is what I think the Boeing lineup could look like in 10 years:

NSA8 - replaces 737 MAX 7/8
NSA9 - replaces 737 MAX 8/9
797-8 - replaces 737 MAX 10, 757-200
797-9 - replaces 757-300, 767, 787-8
787-9 - replaces 777-200ER/LR
787-10 - replaces 777-200/-300
777-8 - replaces 777-200LR/-300ER
777-9 - replaces 777-300ER/747

caljn · Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:56 pm

With due respect to the iconic cadence of 7_7 how about they call it 758 and save 797 for the 737 replacement...?

strfyr51 · Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:37 am

Planesmart wrote:
Revelation wrote:
He recalled that Walt Gillette, the lead engineer on the development of the 787, used to say that Boeing’s first carbon-fiber composite airplane would be the most inefficient and heaviest composite jet that the company would ever build.

“How right he was,” said Delaney. “People don’t understand the payback on investment we got on the 787 and how much we harvested on the 777X.”

Should be interesting to see if such "payback" will result in clearly superior products.

Should be more likely to see that on the "797" if the suggestion that it will have a CFRP fuse is true.

The rest of the senior management team and board want to know when the 'payback on investment' translating to 'superior' financial payback arrives on the last three major projects. No point being technically superior if profits don't track closely.

After the 748 and 787, the Board was told we will get the next one right, yet 777X launch pricing means the project adds no value until 2030, and that's assuming it meets contracted performance, and before potential cancellations and deferrals.

There is an internal battle taking place within Boeing to secure launch funding and senior management buy-in, every bit as challenging as winning real customer sales.

Boeing has already committed to Aviation Daily (Aviation Week) the airplane is in a "Go status". They wouldn't have done that on a whim...

Planesmart · Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:57 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Boeing has already committed to Aviation Daily (Aviation Week) the airplane is in a "Go status". They wouldn't have done that on a whim...

Didn't they do the same with the Sonic Cruiser?

We can all be excited. But until Board approval, funding, project team and timetable announcements are made, it's.....

Meanwhile, helps create uncertainty, buying time and stemming the exodus from 737 and 787 to A32NEO and A33NEO.

MoKa777 · Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:58 am

morrisond wrote:
The most interesting thing I got out of the Bloomberg article was that the Fuselage will be OVAL - just like I've been guessing all along. I also saw Boeing quoted in another article that they are looking at a range of 5,500-5,700 Nm which is longer than I recall seeing before opening more City pairs.

This is exactly the range I was hoping Boeing would go for! Excited to hear that it is actually a genuine consideration.

We tend to forget about the performance hit that aircraft take due to airline specific layouts, airfield restrictions, temperature, airways/air routes vs. great circle routes and headwinds. All of this reduces an aircraft's brochure/advertised range.

Make a 5500nm plane and it will actually and consistently get 4500nm from base.

Rrgarding the oval fuselage, that will be the best way to go to have just enough space for 7-abreast and cargo containers.

I would love to see a 7-abreast, 225 seater (with international grade seats), twin aisle, 5500nm aircraft with good economics. It will be a real hit!

seahawk · Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:44 am

Boeing778X wrote:
ODwyerPW wrote:
seahawk wrote:
if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for.... the first victim will be the 787...

I agree. the first victim will be 787 Gen1. However, perhaps we will see a 789ER as the baseline and a 78710ER if 787 is revisited as a Gen2 model. The 8 space could be taken up by 797. Any 787 revisit would come well after 777/797/7A7 (NSA.. (hey if we go hexidecimal we get 6 more numbers to use ;p)

777X could grow one more time to 777-10 (SIA was interested). So you'd have 7779 and 77710. I guess the 8 could stick around?

Then of course we will have an NSA that burrows heavily from MOM to replace the MAX family.. and may be just a 2 or 3 member family.

We will be back to a 4 frame family, 777/787/797/7A7, all much larger than their counterparts decades ago..

What will be interesting is to see if 797 is launched as a 2 plane family from the beginning.

I more or less disagree. The only obvious victim in the 787 family to be affected will be the -8, and it's not selling like it did anyways. The -9 and -10, and any subsequent models related will go on just fine.

The 747-8 is on her way out and the MAX is the final iteration of the 737. The 767 is slowing as well. The NSA could possibly be derived from the MoM, so here is what I think the Boeing lineup could look like in 10 years:

NSA8 - replaces 737 MAX 7/8
NSA9 - replaces 737 MAX 8/9
797-8 - replaces 737 MAX 10, 757-200
797-9 - replaces 757-300, 767, 787-8
787-9 - replaces 777-200ER/LR
787-10 - replaces 777-200/-300
777-8 - replaces 777-200LR/-300ER
777-9 - replaces 777-300ER/747

I agree and this will be a immensely efficient, modern and competitive family that at the moment has practically no competition from Airbus except the A350.

MoKa777 · Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:04 am

ODwyerPW wrote:
seahawk wrote:
if Boeing achieves what they said they are aiming for.... the first victim will be the 787...

I agree. the first victim will be 787 Gen1. However, perhaps we will see a 789ER as the baseline and a 78710ER if 787 is revisited as a Gen2 model. The 8 space could be taken up by 797. Any 787 revisit would come well after 777/797/7A7 (NSA.. (hey if we go hexidecimal we get 6 more numbers to use ;p)

777X could grow one more time to 777-10 (SIA was interested). So you'd have 7779 and 77710. I guess the 8 could stick around?

Then of course we will have an NSA that burrows heavily from MOM to replace the MAX family.. and may be just a 2 or 3 member family.

We will be back to a 4 frame family, 777/787/797/7A7, all much larger than their counterparts decades ago, all sharing a common 787/777 cockpit..

What will be interesting is to see if 797 is launched as a 2 plane family from the beginning.

I don't see a 787-9/10ER Gen 2 as very easy to accomplish.

The 787 is already quite close to the ground compared to the A350. Kind of like the 737 vs. A320. As we know, Boeing was a little limited by the ground clearance of the 737 everytime they updated it. Airbus was more free to upgrade. Engines tend to grow larger even if required thrust decreases (think 777X with the GE9X). I believe it is something to do with a larger fan being more efficient if I am not mistaken.

Then there is the landing gear MTOW limit on the 787.

So, for Boeing to do an ER Gen 2 version of the 787, they would need to redo the landing gear so they can increase weight and fit larger engines. Also, in my opinion, a larger wing may be needed for a true 787-10ER in addition to the heavily upgraded landing gear.

StTim · Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:09 am

I am looking forward to the oval fuselage design to see how Boeing overcome the compressive loads on the floor structure without significant weight.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net