After watching a video explain how the 757 has changed the way airlines think and the Boeing MOM hopefully being its replacement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0Op1VcELw
What do we think this will do for airlines in terms of route development?
Do we think the 757 will be able to hold on before the MOM enters production to fill the gap?
Would could this do for regional airports in europe and America?
Could we see the aircraft deployed more in Asia compared to what the 757 did?
Thanks in advance

Things are very different now from what they were when the 757 entered service. To put things into perspective, Beijing's airport had 12 gates. Now it has almost 100 gates. The Asian market today is nothing like it was in the 1980s. Most airlines were at least partially state owned. Revenue management was barely a consideration when ordering planes, and load factors were in the 60s.

It is almost pointless to look back at what the 757 was when looking towards the future with a new MOM plane. THe 757 was designed in an era when short field performance was important because many airports in major cities had runways under 7500 feet. It has an oversized wing and overpowered engines that waste fuel compared to today's planes. It was designed for US transcon use and regional flying in Europe. That mission is now flown by 737s and A320s, so whatever a MOM will be, it will be very different from what the 757 was envisioned to do.

A quick reality check needed. The 757 is the least successful of all Boeing's commercial jetliner families and is long out of production. It is much loved by pilots and plane spotters. The Boeing MOM is a concept that has yet to get near to formal launch. I think your opening premise is flawed.

I personally think the aircraft won't open up any new routes. It will simply up size existing narrow body routes.

My analysis predicts the MOMs main objective will be to have superior CASM to the 737 and A321 on all flights. Range will be at the very most 20% greater than the 737 and A321 so it's just enough to cross the Atlantic. Optimising for shorter range reduces weight and allows the aircraft to have excellent CASM.

Lots of users think it will have 5000+nm range but they in my opinion have no clue what they are talking about.

When you add range to a design the weight goes up and the CASM gets worse. When you add more seats to a design with a stretch the CASM gets better and the range reduces. So making a MOM with too few seats and too much range will be a CASM failure and will never sell.

Lots of major hubs within 2000nm are currently connected using excessive amounts of narrowbody flights. The widebody aircraft simply cannot match the CASM on shorter flights. More and more airports are becoming slot restricted to the point we are now seeing 747-8 doing short hops in China.

The MOM will be a carbon fibre A310.

It will further "complexify" the fleet management of airlines.

TurnaroudUK wrote:

After watching a video explain how the 757 has changed the way airlines think and the Boeing MOM hopefully being its replacement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0Op1VcELw
What do we think this will do for airlines in terms of route development?
Do we think the 757 will be able to hold on before the MOM enters production to fill the gap?
Would could this do for regional airports in europe and America?
Could we see the aircraft deployed more in Asia compared to what the 757 did?
Thanks in advance

"We," as in airliners.net have not agreed upon our thoughts. If you search for topics on the MoM concepts, you will see a lot of debate about whether or not it will have a market.

MOM will be a brand new concept, nothing like the 757/767. Something needs to be introduced and the A320/737 can't fly/be produced forever.

RJMAZ wrote:

The MOM will be a carbon fibre A310.

TurnaroudUK wrote:

After watching a video explain how the 757 has changed the way airlines think.

So many MOM discussions talk about a plane the size of the A310 or 757-300.

Yet:
757-300 sales 55
A310 sales 255

Even if you include the 200 series planes in the 757 number, you are still describing an Aircraft (the MOM) that fits the same space as both Airbus and Boeing's lowest selling aircraft (717 doesn't count.. that's a renamed MD95). Yeah, let's go ask the board of directors for 15 billion to build this thing.

I keep struggling with this... and I keep going back to 797 is a 4 model family.... 2 single aisle models at the bottom with folding wings and single bogie gear to replace the 73G/739 with 3.25k nm range and 2 single aisle models at the top with a different folding wing, double bogie and more powerful engines to go at 7310 - 762 with 4.25k nm range.. This 2nd part of the equation is your mom... and it's single aisle.. and it's all part of 737 replacement strategy. I think I'm being a bit stubborn about this.. but I just don't see a 762/A310 redoux...

RJMAZ wrote:

So making a MOM with too few seats and too much range will be a CASM failure and will never sell.

That works both ways:
Stifling too much range and performance, for the sake of efficiency, has been the bane of several models... 764ER, 739A, etc etc.

Those aircraft got obliterated (or in the latter's case: updated and discontinued) because low CASM doesn't do you much good when performance limits RASM relative to other options.

RJMAZ wrote:

The MOM will be a carbon fibre A310.

Ah yes, because THAT model (type) did so well in the market, right?

Isn't it unfair to say a similarly sized aircraft to the 762 will have the same fate when in fact the 762 didn't sell as well (mainly?) because it was the shortest of 767 models? And we all know short models don't sell very well (a338, 736, 788, a318, etc.).

As for the a310, I'm unsure about that one. Isn't it just a shrunken a306 with extra range? (or was the range simply a result of the smaller size)?

So long as it doesn't get bigger than the 767-200.

LAX772LR wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

The MOM will be a carbon fibre A310.

Ah yes, because THAT model (type) did so well in the market, right?

No it didn't sell well but it was introduced 35 years ago and effectively ended production 25 years ago (not counting the 9 produced over 5 years to '98). The industry has changed since then, point to point routes are now far more common. I imagine something that's effectively a baby dreamliner with about a 4500-5000nm range that would cover a good range of TATAL routes while hopefully not being too heavy to also cover shorter routes. Planes are also getting bigger, maybe in 10-15 years this new bird will be the replacement for the single aisles we know so well, that have become too small.

Here are my predictions.

The MoM will basically be a replacement for non-ER 767s. 7-abreast economy (6-abreast Premium Economy 2-2-2 layout, 1-1-1 layouts with industry standard first and business class products) twin-aisle fuselage and a slightly slimmer cabin width than the 767 (I'd expect something around 180in, but certainly smaller than the 186in of the 767). Given Boeing's relationship with EnCore (who's research says the "ideal" single-user armrest width is 1.6") and Airbus' use of 1.5" armrests in the A350, they may make 1.6" armrests the standard.

Two models will be made... a 240 seat with around 5300nmi range, and a 270 seater simple stretch with around 4200nmi range. If you need more range at similar sizes, the A330-200/800, 787-8 and 787-9 are available. If you need a larger jet, the A330-300/900, 787-10 and A350 are available.

The impacts?

For one the jet will be very popular on thinner Transatlantic routes (and North-To-South-America routes) and we can expect more TATL flights to be launched. As the jet will likely be substantially cheaper than the Dreamliner and perhaps the A330neo, we can expect LCCs and formerly-domestic-only airlines to want to get in on the action (JetBlue might want to launch TATL services with it, for example). More flights between second tier cities would clearly be feasible and this would take a bit of pressure off connecting traffic at megahubs.

I could also see it being successful in the South Pacific as well as South East Asia, smaller Chinese markets too.

Japan? Perhaps it would allow more flights out of smaller cities.

Obviously the development of cheaper-to-operate, cheaper-to-purchase, smaller jets with longer ranges helps with fragmentation/point to point.

The larger model seems more suited for TATL, the smaller model would work better in Oceania. I can also see the smaller model being densely configured by LCCs.

RJMAZ wrote:

The MOM will be a carbon fibre A310.

More like a carbon fiber 757. It doesn't make sense to introduce a new widebody type.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Things are very different now from what they were when the 757 entered service. To put things into perspective, Beijing's airport had 12 gates. Now it has almost 100 gates. The Asian market today is nothing like it was in the 1980s. Most airlines were at least partially state owned. Revenue management was barely a consideration when ordering planes, and load factors were in the 60s.

It is almost pointless to look back at what the 757 was when looking towards the future with a new MOM plane. THe 757 was designed in an era when short field performance was important because many airports in major cities had runways under 7500 feet. It has an oversized wing and overpowered engines that waste fuel compared to today's planes. It was designed for US transcon use and regional flying in Europe. That mission is now flown by 737s and A320s, so whatever a MOM will be, it will be very different from what the 757 was envisioned to do.

Great bit of writing.


Personally I see the MOM as a 767-300ER replacement. Maybe a bit smaller. Enough to cover TATL but still ok for knocking around Europe.

Why can't the 787-3 be reborn? Wouldn't this be the exact thing they look for? What needs to be updated compared to some 787-3?

Noshow wrote:

Why can't the 787-3 be reborn? Wouldn't this be the exact thing they look for? What needs to be updated compared to some 787-3?

The price. At the right price the model can be economically attractive to serve the thinner routes.

Love the comment section underneath the original YT video. Biased much? As if other manufacturers or options currently on offer do not exist. Kind of comes across like a commercial.

I love how we can get a zilliont topic about a plane that doesnt offically exist, isn't for sale yet, and hasn't been designed to the fullest.

CarlosSi wrote:

Isn't it unfair to say a similarly sized aircraft to the 762 will have the same fate when in fact the 762 didn't sell as well (mainly?) because it was the shortest of 767 models? And we all know short models don't sell very well (a338, 736, 788, a318, etc.).

As for the a310, I'm unsure about that one. Isn't it just a shrunken a306 with extra range? (or was the range simply a result of the smaller size)?

The A310 sported a new fully supercritical wing. ( concept continued on A320 and A330/A340 ).
.. and saw some "by wire" elements introduced.

Boeing grew the A310 contemporary 767-200 while Airbus was busy with the A320 and only
later continued with the A330/A340 combo.

Simply % shrink the 787-9 design until you get a 757-300 sized narrowbody that's 35% lighter. Then offer it with three ranges from 3,000 and 6,000nm. Basically, don't design it with just one carrier in mind.

uta999 wrote:

Simply % shrink the 787-9 design until you get a 757-300 sized narrowbody that's 35% lighter. Then offer it with three ranges from 3,000 and 6,000nm. Basically, don't design it with just one carrier in mind.

could you have that large a range disparity with a single wing?

Noshow wrote:

Why can't the 787-3 be reborn? Wouldn't this be the exact thing they look for? What needs to be updated compared to some 787-3?

The 787-3 was going to be less efficient than the 787-8 on all but the very shortest (only a couple hundred miles) flights.

LAX772LR wrote:

That works both ways:
Stifling too much range and performance, for the sake of efficiency, has been the bane of several models... 764ER, 739A, etc etc.

This proves my point.

764 with 7 abreast had worse CASM than the larger 8 abreast A330 and 9 abreast 777. Thats why it didn't sell.

The 739 with full payload requires a 3000m runway. Underpowered with no room for larger engines.

Noshow wrote:

Why can't the 787-3 be reborn? Wouldn't this be the exact thing they look for? What needs to be updated compared to some 787-3?

Very likely option. With the 787-8 orders running out a new very light version could be made. The 787-8 shares very few parts with the larger 787-9 and 787-10, so making a lightweight small wing version isn't out of the question.

People often assume the MOM means an aircraft exactly halfway between the 787 and 737 in terms of passengers and range. This is a big assumption. If an aircraft has a MTO half way inbetween at 150T. At that weight it could be a 250seater with 6000nm range, 300seater at 5000nm or a 350seater at 4000nm.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

Here are my predictions.

The MoM will basically be a replacement for non-ER 767s. 7-abreast economy (6-abreast Premium Economy 2-2-2 layout, 1-1-1 layouts with industry standard first and business class products) twin-aisle fuselage and a slightly slimmer cabin width than the 767

7 abreast will be near impossible to match the CASM of a 6 abreast narrow body. That extra aisle for one more seat is a huge disadvantage. It will have worse CASM than a 787 when flying 4000+nm and will have worse CASM than a A321 when flying less than 4000nm. That won't even get 100 orders.

the B797 will replace the B767, be possibly carbon fiber,, but the main thing is to get rid of all the cables and have the new advances in flight controls, engine controls and advanced information systems where you won't be rigging cables to adjust flight controls but downloading information to gain system troubleshooting information to ascertain what the flight controls or engine controls should be adjusted to. Advanced downloading and uploading of information including flight planning etc.
That's the way commercial aviation is heading and that's why the B737 will be replaced, in the next go around

I agree with those who are critical. The 757-767-A310-A300 replacement market is too small to warrant a dedicated replacement. At the very best, the so called "mom" will be something like an A321 sized plane with similar performance. There will probably be a 737-800 sized shrink too, and probably a stretch as well. For any transatlantic operators an extended range model will be offered, similar to the A321LR.

Lets face it, the 757 didn't sell some 1000 copies because it could do long flights. Almost none of them flew those sort of flights until the 2000s, at a time when the 737NG and A32X families had displaced them from domestic US flights, and the airlines were stuck with large fleets of 757s that they had to find a use for. Even the sales numbers for the A321LR are somewhat underwhelming, and that thing is only a simple and cheap derivative with extra fuel tanks in the belly.

A "mom" as envisaged by so many on this site would have to compete with the A321NEO, A330 Regional, A330NEO, 737MAX, 767 and 787. We could potentially see future A320s such as the A322, or an A321NEO with a new wing. It would also attack the 787 from below, and Boeing could already fill the top of the gap using a "787-8 Light" for a fraction of the development costs.

wouldn't a carbon 757-300 be best from a RASM and CASM standpoint? I realize it has boarding challenges but if you can use 2 doors that's somewhat mitigated.

CarlosSi wrote:

Isn't it unfair to say a similarly sized aircraft to the 762 will have the same fate when in fact the 762 didn't sell as well (mainly?) because it was the shortest of 767 models? And we all know short models don't sell very well (a338, 736, 788, a318, etc.).

The reason the shrinks didn't sell because the CASM was poor. Derated engines abd excess structual weight. The highest selling models usually have the best CASM so any MOM aircraft has to be built with excellent cost per passenger seat.

Pretty much the MOM will have to have all the attributes that make the stretch of an aircraft family sell best.

When an aircraft family shares the same wing the stretch will have the smallest wing area per passenger or cabin area. The stretch also sacrifices some range to carry the extra passengers and fuselage weight. The stretch maxes out the landing gear weights and wing box so it doesnt carry any unnecessary weight.

So this means the MOM needs a relatively small wing with shorter range than expect. The landing gear and structure needs to be fully optimised with no unnecessary weight built in for a further stretch or extended range version. This will then result in an aircraft who's CASM beats a 737-8 and a 787-10. It will sell 1000's.

There isn't a MOM now because no one could define the market. Boeing is shopping this around seeing if it can find a market. Airlines are likely very interested, only too many interests in very different models.

If it wont open new routes it wont be launched. Boeing is looking to offer a plane that makes money for its customers and new routes are a good recipe to do this. And Boeing have a track record of doing just this.

How many posters asserted that the 787 would simply replace 767/330 on existing routes? Sure it did but it also allowed JAL to fly Narita-San Diego. I hardly ever flew JAL before but since I live in San Diego and travel to Asia 4-8 times a year I now do. And this has ripples because I now fly AA much more often that I do DL.

So if MOM opens new markets it will offer airlines and passengers new opportunities. Beyond TATL, think about Europe to India and China.

Planeflyer wrote:

How many posters asserted that the 787 would simply replace 767/330 on existing routes? Sure it did but it also allowed JAL to fly Narita-San Diego. I hardly ever flew JAL before but since I live in San Diego and travel to Asia 4-8 times a year I now do. And this has ripples because I now fly AA much more often that I do DL.

But you are forgetting one point. JAL never operated the A330-200 (which could do the job), and the 767 never had the legs for it. Most of these new routes opened by the 787 (and claimed to be exclusively possible due to that type) were opened by operators who never had the A330-200 in the first place. In the case of those few examples where the operator did operate A330-200s, you will find that the majority were/are in expansion mode, and could simply have been lacking the amount of aircraft to do ULH flights with said A330-200 fleet.

Geoff1947 wrote:

A quick reality check needed. The 757 is the least successful of all Boeing's commercial jetliner families and is long out of production. It is much loved by pilots and plane spotters. The Boeing MOM is a concept that has yet to get near to formal launch. I think your opening premise is flawed.

Boeing produced and sold over 1,000 757s. That being a verifiable fact, I find it hard to believe that the 757 was Boeing's least successful jetliner family.

What will the Boeing MOM do for the industry?

Personally; I think very little. It will just be another plane type/size available and will replace some other models. That happens all the time.

I think the bigger question is: What will the Boeing MOM do for Boeing?

If they hit the sweet spot - it will create market dominance for a segment that is too small for Airbus to effectively enter a competitive aircraft (there is only really room for 1 vendor).

If they miss badly... darn near bankrupt Boeing, and cause the further loss of other market share.

The reality may be somewhere in the middle.

I do believe that most people on this site hope that they actually hit the sweet spot as that would improve service for that market segment.

Have a great day,

MHFCPA wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

A quick reality check needed. The 757 is the least successful of all Boeing's commercial jetliner families and is long out of production. It is much loved by pilots and plane spotters. The Boeing MOM is a concept that has yet to get near to formal launch. I think your opening premise is flawed.

Boeing produced and sold over 1,000 757s. That being a verifiable fact, I find it hard to believe that the 757 was Boeing's least successful jetliner family.

All other Boeing families have sold way more than 1,000 except the 707 which sold about the same. Good luck in justifying the 757 being more successful than the 707 !!

Geoff

Planeflyer wrote:

If it wont open new routes it wont be launched. Boeing is looking to offer a plane that makes money for its customers and new routes are a good recipe to do this. And Boeing have a track record of doing just this.

Reducing CASM is also a recipe to make airlines money. Boeing has a track record at predicted the market. Boeing got it right with point to point flights using the 787 versus airbus hub and spoke system using the A380.

Boeing can see that there will be increasing need for upguaging at slot restricted airports. Currently it is hard to upgauge from a A321 as the next largest aircraft is built with excessive range and weight. They simply aren't cost effective for a 1000nm trip. This still hasn't stopped Air China operating a 747-8 from Beijing to Shanghai which is less than 1000nm. Gate restrictions are so bad in Asia they have no choice.

Old A330's and 767's are continually being moved to short thick routes once their new replacements arrive. This is a trend. Jetstar Australia has a dozen daily flights from Melbourne to Sydney. A MOM aircraft with 10% better CASM and more passengers they would just drop it to 8 or so daily flights. Less pilot, staff and gate fees. Its win win.

The MOM won't be a 767 replacement with long range. It would have similar range and payload of a 757-300, but widebody and 767 in cabin size.

jd210 wrote:

No it didn't sell well but it was introduced 35 years ago

...orrrr, because because it addressed a niche section of the market, WORSE than models both below and above it could do, while still maintaining their optimal roles.

The market's changed-- but that hasn't.

Noshow wrote:

Why can't the 787-3 be reborn?

Because the 788's increased span actually made it more efficient than the 783 on all but the shortest routes. Airlines decided that they'd rather "abuse" a 788/789 by flying it on shorter routes, than buy an aircraft that specialized in them, but couldn't do anything else all that well.

RJMAZ wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

That works both ways:
Stifling too much range and performance, for the sake of efficiency, has been the bane of several models... 764ER, 739A, etc etc.

This proves my point.

764 with 7 abreast had worse CASM than the larger 8 abreast A330 and 9 abreast 777. Thats why it didn't sell.

The 739 with full payload requires a 3000m runway. Underpowered with no room for larger engines.

Weren't you the one who was just lambasting others for posting without having a clue what they were talking about?
That's somewhat ironic, as you just managed to display similar behavior twice, in a single post.

The 764ER was VERY competitive with the A332 in CASM, and in many applications exceeded it. That was Boeing's primary selling point.

Yet the 764ER's weakness is that such CASM only came in applications shorter than typical route mission, and with essentially zilch cargo. The aircraft's payload capability fell off a cliff at longer distances compared to the A332, and unlike the A332, it couldn't carry LD3s in tandem. THAT'S why the A330 flew circles around it, not a CASM deficiency.

That, and the 739 frame just got a larger engine... so there goes that theory.
It has nothing to do with being "underpowered" and little to do with the wing. The 739's runway issues mostly revolve around its limited rotation angle.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

There isn't a MOM now because no one could define the market.

Isn't MoM defined as 4000-5000nmi/200-270pax?

I think that's a reasonably well defined market, but the issue with the definition is that it covers both narrowbody and widebody spaces.

From what I've heard, narrowbodies start having overly long turnaround times if they're above 230 pax... and widebodies can't really be any smaller than 240pax without being extremely inefficient. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

But if this is true... MoM will require more than one model. The A321neoLR only touches the bare minimum MoM requirements. There would still be space for something bigger... a proper 757-200 replacement. And that would be around 225 people in a single class configuration, so you've got enough space for a small widebody (with range that's at the top of the MoM space), and a simple stretch thereof with more moderate range.

But who will put the bell on the cat? No one can afford to make an all new NB which is only a bit better than a 321. Nor can they make a wide body which can be undersold by the 330NEO. $15 billion is a lot to spend for any niche plane selling less than a couple thousand planes.

RJMAZ wrote:

Reducing CASM is also a recipe to make airlines money. Boeing has a track record at predicted the market. Boeing got it right with point to point flights using the 787 versus airbus hub and spoke system using the A380..

Frame with lowest trip cost in its class wins the race. Sure it is more difficult to design, but adding more seats is not the solution. CASM is good on brochure not in real world.

Half empty A380 is no good if your competitor is flying full B787.

StudiodeKadent wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

There isn't a MOM now because no one could define the market.

Isn't MoM defined as 4000-5000nmi/200-270pax?

Nobody knows. Presently the MOM is a Rorschach test. It's whatever you want it to be.

MoM is a very difficult decision, as the market is full of contradictions. You need a plane that can be an alternative to the A321, that appeals to the 757 and 767 users while not eating too much into 787 sales.But it needs to be attractive enough for airlines to add an extra type between the largest single aisle and the smallest existing widebody. Airlines need to find routes with too much demand or too big range requirements for the single aisle but not enough demand for the existing widebodies. And they need to do it without reducing the utilisation of existing and necessary fleets while keeping the MoM fleet busy.

This 2nd part of the equation is your mom...

chuckling

seahawk wrote:

MoM is a very difficult decision, as the market is full of contradictions. You need a plane that can be an alternative to the A321, that appeals to the 757 and 767 users while not eating too much into 787 sales.But it needs to be attractive enough for airlines to add an extra type between the largest single aisle and the smallest existing widebody. Airlines need to find routes with too much demand or too big range requirements for the single aisle but not enough demand for the existing widebodies. And they need to do it without reducing the utilisation of existing and necessary fleets while keeping the MoM fleet busy.

More precisely, it needs to not eat into 787-9/-10 sales.

It's free to stomp all over the 787-8.

It's free to become the plane the 787-3 should have been right from the start.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Nobody knows. Presently the MOM is a Rorschach test. It's whatever you want it to be.

It is the size of the 757, it is meant to replace the 757, but it's nothing like it. However the market is there, considering the interest airlines have already shown.

It won't do a thing since we are unlikely to ever see it.

Boeing did say that it would be a twin aisle, a few months ago.

Did they?

Revelation wrote:

More precisely, it needs to not eat into 787-9/-10 sales.

It's free to stomp all over the 787-8.

It's free to become the plane the 787-3 should have been right from the start.

Airbus won't let ATR develop a 100 seater out of fear that it will cannibalize A318 (and A319?) sales. Those two models sold how many planes exactly?

Boeing wouldn't let the 717 cannibalize 737-600 sales. The 737-600 sold how many planes? They even fear that the C-series is going to harm the non-selling 737-7.

If recent history is anything to go by, then Boeing isn't going to let another program cannibalize 787-8 sales.

MHFCPA wrote:

Boeing produced and sold over 1,000 757s. That being a verifiable fact, I find it hard to believe that the 757 was Boeing's least successful jetliner family.

707: 1019 civilian aircraft, but also 800+ military variants.
717: 156, but arguably a McD product. 2400 of the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 family were built.
727: 1831
737: Almost 14000, including aircraft on order.
747: 1551, including orders.
757: 1049
767: 1204, with at least 1100 delivered.
777: 1939, including orders.
787: 578 delivered, with 1278 ordered.

So yes, the 757 is the least successful jetliner family in Boeing's history. Only the 787 hasn't surpassed it in number of aircraft manufactured yet.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Frame with lowest trip cost in its class wins the race. Sure it is more difficult to design, but adding more seats is not the solution. CASM is good on brochure not in real world.

Half empty A380 is no good if your competitor is flying full B787.

So all the 737/A320 flights should be replaced with small 20 seat corporate jets? The frame with the lowest trip costs wins the race.

According to your backwards logic a half empty 737 will be no good if your 20 seat corporate jet has all seats full.

Airlines DON'T go with the lowest trip cost option if the CASM is significantly worse.

Airlines will always go with the lowest trip cost option if both options have near equal CASM.

This is why the MOM can't just match the CASM of the narrow bodies but must beat it by at least 10%. Only then will the airlines pick the higher trip cost option. The CASM advantage must be great enough to be worth the risk of a larger aircraft. When a route has 10 narrowbody flights a day there is no risk to replace those with 7 MOM flights.

This rules out a long range MOM, its CASM could never match the A321. So it would be dead of arrival.

RJMAZ wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Frame with lowest trip cost in its class wins the race. Sure it is more difficult to design, but adding more seats is not the solution. CASM is good on brochure not in real world.

Half empty A380 is no good if your competitor is flying full B787.

So all the 737/A320 flights should be replaced with small 20 seat corporate jets? The frame with the lowest trip costs wins the race..

You missed the qualifier "in its class". Rest of your explanation is irrelevant.

If the latest estimates are correct, long range sweet spot moved down to 250-300 from 350-400.

Building an 800 seat MoM just to claim lowest CASM or cheapest per seat cost is not the best approach.

An engineering issue converted into a sales pitch turns into a nightmare for operators.

A 737MAX/A320NEO with more range (or) a small, derated, dumbed down(few electronics, low MX) 787 are perfect.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 739 with full payload requires a 3000m runway. Underpowered with no room for larger engines.

The primary "gobbler of runway feature" seems to be the lack of sufficient rotation to generate lift.