That's a very well balanced set of comments from UH.All of which make sense.Many have commented on how important the manufacturing /economics side of this project is.Clearly UH agrees this is key.From Airbus' POV there is little point in making a slightly better A321NEO just after they have booked a shed load of orders-all customers will do is move their existing order to the new one.Just as has happened from the MAX 9 to 10.
He clearly doesn't think much of the larger 'plus plus' idea for Airbus as he brackets it with the failed 757-300 as well as pointing out the lack of any engine for it.
If I was Airbus I would be looking to squeeze every extra mile range out of the A321LR if that is possible.

Well the 753 did not get a new wing or more room for fuel than the 752. In an article by the German Flug Revue about the 25th birthday of the A321, there are some open comments about Airbus evaluating the new wing option closely. Apart from that the 753 is a bad example, as it arrived 14 years after the 752, when the 757 itself was already old, and just 3 years before 9/11.

jagraham wrote:

I expect that the 797 wing will look like a swept glider wing. I expect that Boeing will sacrifice takeoff run for fuel efficiency. I expect that the 797 wing will start off with a 787 wing and be made slimmer because neither the lift nor the fuel capacity is needed, but the fuel economy[i] is . [/i]

The short 30 degree wing of the 767 was a known compromise to work in LaGuardia. Both for takeoff length and gate size reasons. Boeing will abandon those limitations. So Boeing can improve significantly upon the 767 wing (as the 787 wing already has) and use lower thrust engines on a 767 size aircraft. Lower thrust improves fuel economy without needing a game changing technology advance.

The question is, how low can Boeing go?

The excessive focus on fuel economy is what has brought about all the problems with the 787 and GTF. Boeing doesn't want to do that again.

parapente wrote:

That's a very well balanced set of comments from UH.All of which make sense.Many have commented on how important the manufacturing /economics side of this project is.Clearly UH agrees this is key.From Airbus' POV there is little point in making a slightly better A321NEO just after they have booked a shed load of orders-all customers will do is move their existing order to the new one.Just as has happened from the MAX 9 to 10.
He clearly doesn't think much of the larger 'plus plus' idea for Airbus as he brackets it with the failed 757-300 as well as pointing out the lack of any engine for it.
If I was Airbus I would be looking to squeeze every extra mile range out of the A321LR if that is possible.

Udvar didn't think much of the A330, A350Mk1/A330NEO and A320NEO and ordered them soon after launch.

Revelation wrote:

UA, DL and QF are all showing great interest in NMA yet all three are Airbus operators and two of the three are A321 operators.

I'd suggest that if A321 was the right tool for the job they wouldn't be interested in the NMA.

I'm sure they are very interested in an alternative to the A321, so Airbus couldn't continue to price gouge them with it.

WIederling wrote:

"1. I think people believe Boeing is far more conservative than it is."

Boeing is "retreative".
They did not fix their upcoming issues with outsourcing.
They retreated from (not mastered) outsourcing.

Vertical integration and "shop floor limberness" is the Boeing of the 50ties, 60ties.

Vertical integration is the way forward.

Outsourcing some stuff makes sense. Engines for example.
But we are at a time where additive manufacturing is about to become big on PSEs, meaning one machine can be used for multiple purposes much more easily, having separate suppliers for so many things is starting to make less and less sense.

Its had its time.

SpaceX have largely proven the path - compare their cost and performance to their legacy competitors.

XAM2175 wrote:

BMWdrvr75 wrote:

reiterate why closing the 757 line was a great business decision.

Because they used the space to build another 737 line, which unlike the 757 line has actually consistently made them them money from the moment it opened?

A bit of an exaggeration:

At first, sales of the little airliner were so slow that Boeing considered the unthinkable - selling the model or even shutting it down altogether. Over three years from 1970 through 1972 only 88 aircraft were delivered – roughly equivalent to seven weeks of production at today’s rate.

Ref: http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... urney-west

As for the space, yes, some was used to make another 737 line and of course that's a big win financially. The rest of the space was sold off to developers and a shopping area was built there. That to me was some very short term thinking typical of the management of that era. They also wanted to send the message to the union that Boeing didn't see a future in the Seattle area.

Revelation wrote:

I'd suggest that if A321 was the right tool for the job they wouldn't be interested in the NMA.

There always is the chance of a better mouse trap.
( Though some of the more flashy traps only show increased affinity to your time, fingers and your money.)

The real question should be: Why launch a real aircraft when you can have almost the same PR gains with just rumours and "leaks" to Jon Ostrower ? Do theses acronyms NSA MOM NMA and so theses past FIVE years ring a bell ?

Olddog wrote:

The real question should be: Why launch a real aircraft when you can have almost the same PR gains with just rumours and "leaks" to Jon Ostrower ? Do theses acronyms NSA MOM NMA and so theses past FIVE years ring a bell ?

It took Airbus 12+ years to go from concept to offer on A380 ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1387765&start=50#p20213221 ).
It had many different acronyms during its concept phase (UHCA, A3XX, etc).
So, nothing to see here, just a bunch of avgeeks being avgeeks.

caverunner17 wrote:

They have replacements for the 757 and 767 already -- The 737 MAX 9 and 10 and the 787-8 and new build 767-300ERs that are available.

First, I'm not sure if the 737 MAX can do intercontinental flights (by that I mean over water to Europe) rather longer domestic flights like the 757 was built for. Also, didn't Boeing say they weren't going to relaunch 763 pax models?

Revelation wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The real question should be: Why launch a real aircraft when you can have almost the same PR gains with just rumours and "leaks" to Jon Ostrower ? Do theses acronyms NSA MOM NMA and so theses past FIVE years ring a bell ?

It took Airbus 12+ years to go from concept to offer on A380 ( ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1387765&start=50#p20213221 ).
It had many different acronyms during its concept phase (UHCA, A3XX, etc).
So, nothing to see here, just a bunch of avgeeks being avgeeks.

Airbus f****d around for a decade trying to justify the A380 VLA market to itself. Eventually they had enough organisational bias to silence the (in retrospect - data driven) doubters and pushed ahead regardless. Using it as evidence for Boeing taking their time to justify a market is not a good example!



In 1986 Boeing unveiled the 767-X concept to fill the gap between 767 and 747. Three years later they were taking orders for the 777 which was formally launched in 1990.

Boeing proposed the Sonic cruiser in 2001, scrapped it in 2002, proposed the 7E7 in 2003 and launched the 787 in 2004.

Whatever way you want to cut it, that is less for the last two big Boeing programs (each of which had a significantly more detailed concept unveiled, then revised within this timeframe) than the powerpoint rangers have been showcasing* the "game changing" MoM/NMA/NSA...


*except they haven't been showcasing anything, its all behind closed doors, wink wink nudge nudge.

Elementalism wrote:

What I find may be a candidate is the proposed 787-3. It was supposed to be around 350,000 pounds like a 767-300. Maybe they offer that with new engines and a narrow body version to replace the 757?

Speaking from a travelers point of view, When I go to EDI on a UA 757 from ORD, It's not such a nice ride being on a narrowbody for 7.5 hours. Don't get me wrong, the 757 is a great airplane and I love it, and its adaptability has made it harder to replace. If/when Boeing launches the NMA, they would want to make it double aisle, for passenger comfort and better made to go over the ocean on those shorter routes. A 2-2-2 config would be nice.

Amiga500 wrote:

In 1986 Boeing unveiled the 767-X concept to fill the gap between 767 and 747. Three years later they were taking orders for the 777 which was formally launched in 1990.

Boeing proposed the Sonic cruiser in 2001, scrapped it in 2002, proposed the 7E7 in 2003 and launched the 787 in 2004.

Whatever way you want to cut it, that is less for the last two big Boeing programs (each of which had a significantly more detailed concept unveiled, then revised within this timeframe) than the powerpoint rangers have been showcasing* the "game changing" MoM/NMA/NSA...

Thanks for the timeline info.

Personally I don't see NMA+MoM as an extension of NSA.

NSA was derailed by first NEO then MAX and to me it ends there.

What could have been a NSA in the early/mid/late 2010s will not be what NMA is in the mid/late 2020s.

I think the NMA timeline is an extended one because it needs to hit such stringent criteria for the business case to close (which IMHO still is not a given).

There does not seem to be the same market opportunity that 777 had ( replacing three engine DC-10s/L-1011s ) or 787 either ( upgrading 767s with more size and range, countering A330s which were and are selling well ).

So, maybe they're busy talking themselves into a bad idea, or maybe they're trying to turn a marginal business case into a good one, who knows?

Amiga500 wrote:

*except they haven't been showcasing anything, its all behind closed doors, wink wink nudge nudge.

Not sure why we feel they need to do otherwise.

Even the "Working Together" 777 didn't share much detail publicly till it actually went on to the market.

I also don't remember hearing that much detail about 7E7 / 787 till they were ready for it to go to market.

Yet here we seem to think we're entitled to a full public hearing on '797' before it goes to market?

Boeing obviously believes that they will be able to close the business case in the future. They have assembled a production team to really access what it will cost to build (and possible variations) and am being sure up front they really know what they are getting themselves into once they plop $5 Billion on the table to start (with another $3-$5 Billion more down the line likely).

I think they have really learned from their previous few projects and are doing it right. They will find an answer that will be marketable at a reasonable cost to the Airlines and make a reasonable profit for Boeing. It just takes time to find those answers... It would also not surprise me in the end if they actually announce two substantially different versions; with focus on one as the lead aircraft.

Have a great day,

RickNRoll wrote:

jagraham wrote:

I expect that the 797 wing will look like a swept glider wing. I expect that Boeing will sacrifice takeoff run for fuel efficiency. I expect that the 797 wing will start off with a 787 wing and be made slimmer because neither the lift nor the fuel capacity is needed, but the fuel economy[i] is . [/i]

The short 30 degree wing of the 767 was a known compromise to work in LaGuardia. Both for takeoff length and gate size reasons. Boeing will abandon those limitations. So Boeing can improve significantly upon the 767 wing (as the 787 wing already has) and use lower thrust engines on a 767 size aircraft. Lower thrust improves fuel economy without needing a game changing technology advance.

The question is, how low can Boeing go?

The excessive focus on fuel economy is what has brought about all the problems with the 787 and GTF. Boeing doesn't want to do that again.

The excessive focus on fuel economy is brought on by the customers. Boeing has to do that again. And again. So does Airbus. And Bombardier, Embraer, COMAC, Suhkoi, etc., etc. Anybody who wants to be successful in the airliner manufacturing business must focus excessively on fuel economy.

jagraham wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

jagraham wrote:

I expect that the 797 wing will look like a swept glider wing. I expect that Boeing will sacrifice takeoff run for fuel efficiency. I expect that the 797 wing will start off with a 787 wing and be made slimmer because neither the lift nor the fuel capacity is needed, but the fuel economy[i] is . [/i]

The short 30 degree wing of the 767 was a known compromise to work in LaGuardia. Both for takeoff length and gate size reasons. Boeing will abandon those limitations. So Boeing can improve significantly upon the 767 wing (as the 787 wing already has) and use lower thrust engines on a 767 size aircraft. Lower thrust improves fuel economy without needing a game changing technology advance.

The question is, how low can Boeing go?

The excessive focus on fuel economy is what has brought about all the problems with the 787 and GTF. Boeing doesn't want to do that again.

The excessive focus on fuel economy is brought on by the customers. Boeing has to do that again. And again. So does Airbus. And Bombardier, Embraer, COMAC, Suhkoi, etc., etc. Anybody who wants to be successful in the airliner manufacturing business must focus excessively on fuel economy.

On top of that excessively focused on fuel economy is not what brought all the problems with the 787. Poor program management was the root cause for most of that.

Polot wrote:

jagraham wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

The excessive focus on fuel economy is what has brought about all the problems with the 787 and GTF. Boeing doesn't want to do that again.

The excessive focus on fuel economy is brought on by the customers. Boeing has to do that again. And again. So does Airbus. And Bombardier, Embraer, COMAC, Suhkoi, etc., etc. Anybody who wants to be successful in the airliner manufacturing business must focus excessively on fuel economy.

On top of that excessively focused on fuel economy is not what brought all the problems with the 787. Poor program management was the root cause for most of that.

Boeing was attempting to replicate Airbus' model of aircraft development with various companies at different locations developing different sections and systems. On top of that Boeing wanted to push the state of the art on just about every system on the 787.

When Airbus developed their first product the A300, the main thing that was revolutionary was the fact that it was the first wide bodied twin jet and had the first supercritical wing on a commercial aircraft. The other technologies on the plane were mostly just evolutionary upgrades to existing designs and practices.

WIederling wrote:

What kind of replacement?
A stagnant market would require same size replacement. A vibrant market would require some up sizing.

Well something about the size of a 762 would be upsizing from a 752. A stretch that is 764 sized would be upsizing from a 763.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What kind of replacement?
A stagnant market would require same size replacement. A vibrant market would require some up sizing.

Well something about the size of a 762 would be upsizing from a 752. A stretch that is 764 sized would be upsizing from a 763.

Actually, Wlederling missed the most obvious... A stagnant market needs neither additional flight frequencies, destinations, or larger aircraft.

Many markets have grown by substantially increasing flight frequencies, added additional destinations (thus reducing demand for other flights), without increasing aircraft size... So, more aircraft of a modest size are often needed for a vibrant market... Just look at how many of what size aircraft has changed in the last 20 years for various markets... I see a much larger growth of additional smaller aircraft than I see of just lager aircraft...

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What kind of replacement?
A stagnant market would require same size replacement. A vibrant market would require some up sizing.

Well something about the size of a 762 would be upsizing from a 752. A stretch that is 764 sized would be upsizing from a 763.

Actually, Wlederling missed the most obvious...

You missed the logic then.

Frequency is the short term answer to increasing demand. ( you can change frequency easily but the fleet composition is at least short to middle term fixed. The reason why looking at "pax per flight" to show demand size is moot as it only reflects available bucket size.)

Longterm you would upgauge the available size bucket. A larger plane is much cheaper to operate per pax than "frequency".

Increasing frequency is the "no/low investment" solution that comes with constant ( maybe slightly rising due to congestion) cost per pax.

jagraham wrote:

The excessive focus on fuel economy is brought on by the customers. Boeing has to do that again. And again. So does Airbus. And Bombardier, Embraer, COMAC, Suhkoi, etc., etc. Anybody who wants to be successful in the airliner manufacturing business must focus excessively on fuel economy.

Careful now...

Excessive focus on anything creates an unbalanced product that airlines won't want.

The CSeries was conceived in an era where oil was pushing toward $100/barrel. Now when the price is approx half that, all of a sudden, the CSeries is too expensive to build - due to it being overly focussed on fuel economy. An all metal airframe would been a better match for today's market, sold more and more profitably at that.

" .. the CSeries is too expensive to build .. "

Isn't that a bit of black and white fairytail?

it is a bit pricey to do for the smalish revenue available due to Boeing having tried to price the CS abomination out of the market.
( by apparently offering 737 below cost? nobody ever presented the idea that the 787 should not be continued because early frames
cost half a billion, 6..7 times what they were sold for.

WIederling wrote:

2175301 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well something about the size of a 762 would be upsizing from a 752. A stretch that is 764 sized would be upsizing from a 763.

Actually, Wlederling missed the most obvious...

You missed the logic then.

Frequency is the short term answer to increasing demand. ( you can change frequency easily but the fleet composition is at least short to middle term fixed. The reason why looking at "pax per flight" to show demand size is moot as it only reflects available bucket size.)

Longterm you would upgauge the available size bucket. A larger plane is much cheaper to operate per pax than "frequency".

Increasing frequency is the "no/low investment" solution that comes with constant ( maybe slightly rising due to congestion) cost per pax.

No- you have missed it big time, in my opinion. The USA, Canada, and some of the other business centrist areas of the world depend on frequency - and airlines would loose customers in droves by putting in larger planes at less frequencies. The only place there your scenario that large planes on infrequent flights is true is very long international flights (over 12 hours); which is not the target of the NMA at all. The NMA is aimed at shorter flights - where frequency is in fact a major driver...

If your argument was true... the US would have lots of 777W's, 747's, and A380's flying here. We don't and none of the US Airlines are not that interested in them for North American service.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Actually, Wlederling missed the most obvious...

You missed the logic then.

Frequency is the short term answer to increasing demand. ( you can change frequency easily but the fleet composition is at least short to middle term fixed. The reason why looking at "pax per flight" to show demand size is moot as it only reflects available bucket size.)

Longterm you would upgauge the available size bucket. A larger plane is much cheaper to operate per pax than "frequency".

Increasing frequency is the "no/low investment" solution that comes with constant ( maybe slightly rising due to congestion) cost per pax.

No- you have missed it big time, in my opinion. The USA, Canada, and some of the other business centrist areas of the world depend on frequency - and airlines would loose customers in droves by putting in larger planes at less frequencies. The only place there your scenario that large planes on infrequent flights is true is very long international flights (over 12 hours); which is not the target of the NMA at all. The NMA is aimed at shorter flights - where frequency is in fact a major driver...

If your argument was true... the US would have lots of 777W's, 747's, and A380's flying here. We don't and none of the US Airlines are not that interested in them for North American service.

Have a great day,

The USA is a big market, but not anymore the biggest market for airplanes. So what happens in the USA do not decide over the success or failure of a frame. The best example is the 777-300ER, the single best selling wide body model, but not in the USA. US airlines have ordered less than 5 % of all 777-300ER ordered.
You do not need to look at 12 hours + flights, to find a reduced need for frequency. You will find a declining need for frequency and the preference for certain departure and arrival times on flights above 6 hours.
If you want to sleep on the way, it is good if it fits to your sleep or working cycle.
So if the USA has no 777-300ER, 747 or A380 flying around, has not a big impact on the world market. Other areas in the world have wide bodies flying short and medium haul.

2175301 wrote:

If your argument was true... the US would have lots of 777W's, 747's, and A380's flying here. We don't and none of the US Airlines are not that interested in them for North American service.

The US air travel market is caught in dinosaur alley... or formed to the shape of the bottle it lives in.

bigjku wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I believe in the US the biggest impact of the 797 will be on the mainline carriers where it will drive a lower CASM on high density routes and allow them to compete cost wise against LCC who can’t utilize larger airframes. Specifically my expectation is that it opens up a great deal of narrowbody hub slots for further expansion of bigger airlines by consolidating hub to hub and high density routes opening up gates and operations slots for expansion.

There is no engine currently on the market to achieve the goal needed to make any new aircraft in this size range persuasively attractive.

And with recent engine issues, I doubt A or B are feeling especially brave launching a completely new aircraft model, with new engines. The engine OEM's (and their insurers) are probably in that category too.

You have a cautious Boeing board. The 737 contributing a disproportionately large amount to Commercial's bottom line. Airbus with A320 and A330 enhancements and margins banked ready to squeeze a new competitor, which Boeing must know.

Boeing senior management are struggling to find agreement internally, let alone with potential customers, so have nothing to put to the Board, who want cast iron guarantees (or carbon fibre), and then a bit more.

I don’t get the same read on their board that many seem to have. Yes they slowed things down post 787 but Boeing has been aggressively pursuing vertical integration of various things for a while now that mostly make sense if one is going to embark on an aggressive development period. My belief is that three bad assumptions persist on this board regarding Boeing generally and the MOM case.

1. I think people believe Boeing is far more conservative than it is. I think it has been carefully positioning itself to fully apply all the lessons of the 787 through its product line with a much greater degree of in house control. The 777x program to me isn’t a problem if it simply breaks even because of the core competencies it brings. A full new build wasn’t wise or necessary at that size range but certain key technologies will be worked out there for application down the line.

I would expect Boeing to leverage the full barrel construction efficiency, all electrical architecture and folding wing experience it has on the 797 product family. Having the wing production in house makes this simpler. All electrical controls gives you more flexibility in where one folds the wings as well. These three key areas should harmonize well.

I expect the avionics to mostly be done by the in-house unit leveraging the autonomous flight tech they have purchased and worked out themselves to the point where I suspect the 797 will be the first passenger plane that could attempt to be certified for a single pilot. I also expect any 737 replacement will basically use the systems developed for the 797 family. There is not a lot of reason to bring this stuff in house if you don’t plan to do something reasonably new. The purchase of Aurora fits in well with this objective.

2. I think people have overestimated the degree of overlap on the A321LR and what the 797 will really be about. I think the LR will do reasonably well and will open some longer routes for LCC in particular. The 797 in my view will be for large carriers in the US and transatlantic markets and will do very well in Asia.

3. I think there is a stunning degree of complacency regarding the narrowbody market and an attitude that things will just be like this forever and ever. The 737 and A320 are great competitors in this space. NSA wouldn’t work economically because what you really could offer at that point was a CFRP A320/737 and you weren’t sure you could get the price down where it could be competitive. At some point something will displace these things. I believe that what does it will be mostly about the manufacturing technology behind the product. In this regard the two builders have gone different directions and have different options.

If Boeing runs out a 797 concept that is barrel built, all electric with folding wings to have a much greater span than would otherwise be allowed for the gate space I think they signal their intentions for the eventual 737 replacement pretty clearly and I would expect it to follow in relatively short order on almost familial lines to whatever the 797 is. In essence I expect them to package up whatever they have learned on their last three programs, roll that and some other key advances into the 797 where production volumes will be reasonable and that to be almost exactly how they build a 737 replacement on which I expect little risk to be taken given the volume that needs to be achieved.

For Airbus the picture is a bit murkier from where I sit. How exactly would they build a small CFRP plane? I am not saying they can’t do it but what if it turns out that there are real production cost advantages to barrel construction or all electrical architecture or that you need folding wings to match whatever Boeing eventually offers in the A320neo segment? What if all three are important? What if the avionics for the 797 really play a role in the next narrowbody? It isn’t that Airbus can’t do those things. But if there is no in between program and those are changes they need to make wouldn’t it make you a bit nervous to be debuting all those things on something you can’t afford not to hit the ground running with?

To me the business case for the 797 closes if you can make a bit of money and push yourself forward for the next battle that really matters in the narrowbody space. It’s a huge bonus if you can scape off a bit of the narrowbody market into the 797 itself so that your next plane doesn’t have to be centered quite as high in terms of capability because you have a reasonable offering there already. That drives up your efficiency on the core narrowbody business case which is just a few hour segment.

*moved from locked thread as it blocked my reply...

Terrific post & I have re-read it a time or two.

I had developed a lot of the same thoughts but certainly hadn't got to the mental framework of seeing the 777X & 797 as bring essentially technology-developers, such that break-even for each project is OK as long as each effectively pushed various technologies along which would be required for the future 737-replacement.
Which paradoxically would not offer much or any new technology of and by itself!
Neat.
Interesting.

However I must say that I do keep a weather-eye out for any suggested solutions to the conundrum which I recall Jim Albaugh defining on his departure from Boeing.
When speaking about the (failed) NSA push which AA definitively buried, Albaugh said something along the lines of:

"And anyway, I still have no idea how we were supposed to be able to build 60/month.".

And I have yet to note anyone outlining a new CFRP process which would allow such, esp. 60 CFRP fuses/month.

cheers

2175301 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What kind of replacement?
A stagnant market would require same size replacement. A vibrant market would require some up sizing.

Well something about the size of a 762 would be upsizing from a 752. A stretch that is 764 sized would be upsizing from a 763.

Actually, Wlederling missed the most obvious... A stagnant market needs neither additional flight frequencies, destinations, or larger aircraft.

Many markets have grown by substantially increasing flight frequencies, added additional destinations (thus reducing demand for other flights), without increasing aircraft size... So, more aircraft of a modest size are often needed for a vibrant market... Just look at how many of what size aircraft has changed in the last 20 years for various markets... I see a much larger growth of additional smaller aircraft than I see of just lager aircraft...

Have a great day,

Instead of arguing, I think you should work together to advance the "lager aircraft" concept.

So many optimistic Boeing folks in here!
"They're finalizing the details so it will be perfect"
"They're doing so well with their 737 sales that they aren't worried about it"
"They're going to wait around so they can see what people want and decide final details in the near future"

...etc etc etc.

None of the above is true, folks.

IMHO they're waiting so long because they know a clean-sheet design costs an incredible amount of money, and REQUIRES an incredible amount of orders and profits to justify the project. They're waiting because they know there's a good chance they can no longer justify everything mentioned above, and that huge order requirement is starting to become wishful thinking (at least for a clean-sheet high-risk program).

The fact that they've waited so long already IS your answer.

This project needed to be launched 3-5 years earlier to justify a decent ROI. That, combined with the fact that Airbus was SO QUICK to punch out a 321LR / NEO etc etc and get it to market with GTF, etc.. made it just so tantalizingly available to airlines that THE REQUIRED sales for Boeing MoM started vanishing a few years ago. Many operators with 3 year old 321LRs can't be interested in 797 when it becomes available for pre-order.

Now you're at a critical crossroads. Sure Boeing is knee-deep in talks and design considerations, etc.. but Airbus is knee-deep in competing orders, many of which make the MoM prospect less profitable by the day. And NO I'm not saying they're the same aircraft, but I am saying that anyone who needs an aircraft within a GIVEN range/payload/pax capacity will be far more interested in a proven, flying, cheaper aircraft with great commonality which can be ordered today. It's safe, low-risk, beating projected #s, etc - versus a high-risk, future aircraft with low commonality and high acquisition costs. If an airline has needs TODAY, you can't bank on something that doesn't even exist yet, hardly on paper much less.

It's just poor timing. Yes the Boeing MoM will be the perfect aircraft for a number of airlines, but I personally feel that their market research will reveal that they aren't even CLOSE to achieving break-even orders for the plane (in any reasonable timeframe) and it'll never be built. This isn't really just a new project (a better old plane) it's a new aircraft entirely - which requires HUGE market demand that simply can't be fulfilled by any other competitor. I don't think that kind of requirement exists anymore, not to that degree. That's what you need however, to justify a few years of R&D, incredible investment by Boeing and subcontractors, facility mods, new prod lines, etc. The required demand for such an extreme/unique aircraft program will continue to evaporate daily.

Then on the flip side, Boeing simply MUST gauge a potential response by their competitor. If they go forward with a clean-sheet design, the odds are very high that Airbus will be able to offer a re-wing A322 (not AS exotic as Boeing MoM) at a far cheaper cost, far quicker EIS, with far greater fleet commonality. Okay so now whatever marginal orders you had remaining in a few years may be cut even further.

In a couple years with the planes out there already, and a potential quick EIS competitor, this huge "bombshell" MoM requirement seems destined to be nothing more than a niche aircraft by the time it's design is frozen and they look towards pushing sales and establishing production. That could really hurt a company.

I don't think there's any way in hell Boeing can afford to be in that position 3-4 years from now, and their investors know it as well. It was a great concept, and a.net folks (myself included) loved the decade-long debates (justified, at the time, and even now as conversation) but it's evaporating before our very eyes. Strategic (and admittedly, somewhat lucky) product placement and expansion capabilities of the A32x family were a large contributing factor. I do see plenty of foresight on the part of Airbus, I think a few years ago they realized a strong NEO program with LR focus had the potential to roadblock a hypothetical MoM proposal, or at the very least expand their own lineup into new areas - and it's my personal opinion that it'll play out exactly that way in the coming years.

In summary, they are waiting not because they lack the cash, personnel, engineering knowledge, market/statistical data, capital investment capabilities, etc. They're waiting because it isn't adding up.

Who knows - maybe this entire thing will just turn into a HUGE (long-term!) program to completely replace the entire 737 family from the ground up, in a scale-able manner that allows them to offer composite aircraft from CS-size to 757-size. They'd start on the large end and finalize the program down at the smaller end, then keep it into production for the following ~40 years. THAT would be money well spent, and we all know it needs to be done anyways (long-term, at least). Any such program may cut into whatever their MoM is anyways, wasting resources and cutting into their own profits.

estorilm wrote:

So many optimistic Boeing folks in here!
"They're finalizing the details so it will be perfect"
"They're doing so well with their 737 sales that they aren't worried about it"
"They're going to wait around so they can see what people want and decide final details in the near future"

...etc etc etc.

None of the above is true, folks.

IMHO they're waiting so long because they know a clean-sheet design costs an incredible amount of money, and REQUIRES an incredible amount of orders and profits to justify the project. They're waiting because they know there's a good chance they can no longer justify everything mentioned above, and that huge order requirement is starting to become wishful thinking (at least for a clean-sheet high-risk program).

The fact that they've waited so long already IS your answer.

This project needed to be launched 3-5 years earlier to justify a decent ROI. That, combined with the fact that Airbus was SO QUICK to punch out a 321LR / NEO etc etc and get it to market with GTF, etc.. made it just so tantalizingly available to airlines that THE REQUIRED sales for Boeing MoM started vanishing a few years ago. Many operators with 3 year old 321LRs can't be interested in 797 when it becomes available for pre-order.

Now you're at a critical crossroads. Sure Boeing is knee-deep in talks and design considerations, etc.. but Airbus is knee-deep in competing orders, many of which make the MoM prospect less profitable by the day. And NO I'm not saying they're the same aircraft, but I am saying that anyone who needs an aircraft within a GIVEN range/payload/pax capacity will be far more interested in a proven, flying, cheaper aircraft with great commonality which can be ordered today. It's safe, low-risk, beating projected #s, etc - versus a high-risk, future aircraft with low commonality and high acquisition costs. If an airline has needs TODAY, you can't bank on something that doesn't even exist yet, hardly on paper much less.

It's just poor timing. Yes the Boeing MoM will be the perfect aircraft for a number of airlines, but I personally feel that their market research will reveal that they aren't even CLOSE to achieving break-even orders for the plane (in any reasonable timeframe) and it'll never be built. This isn't really just a new project (a better old plane) it's a new aircraft entirely - which requires HUGE market demand that simply can't be fulfilled by any other competitor. I don't think that kind of requirement exists anymore, not to that degree. That's what you need however, to justify a few years of R&D, incredible investment by Boeing and subcontractors, facility mods, new prod lines, etc. The required demand for such an extreme/unique aircraft program will continue to evaporate daily.

Then on the flip side, Boeing simply MUST gauge a potential response by their competitor. If they go forward with a clean-sheet design, the odds are very high that Airbus will be able to offer a re-wing A322 (not AS exotic as Boeing MoM) at a far cheaper cost, far quicker EIS, with far greater fleet commonality. Okay so now whatever marginal orders you had remaining in a few years may be cut even further.

In a couple years with the planes out there already, and a potential quick EIS competitor, this huge "bombshell" MoM requirement seems destined to be nothing more than a niche aircraft by the time it's design is frozen and they look towards pushing sales and establishing production. That could really hurt a company.

I don't think there's any way in hell Boeing can afford to be in that position 3-4 years from now, and their investors know it as well. It was a great concept, and a.net folks (myself included) loved the decade-long debates (justified, at the time, and even now as conversation) but it's evaporating before our very eyes. Strategic (and admittedly, somewhat lucky) product placement and expansion capabilities of the A32x family were a large contributing factor. I do see plenty of foresight on the part of Airbus, I think a few years ago they realized a strong NEO program with LR focus had the potential to roadblock a hypothetical MoM proposal, or at the very least expand their own lineup into new areas - and it's my personal opinion that it'll play out exactly that way in the coming years.

In summary, they are waiting not because they lack the cash, personnel, engineering knowledge, market/statistical data, capital investment capabilities, etc. They're waiting because it isn't adding up.

Who knows - maybe this entire thing will just turn into a HUGE (long-term!) program to completely replace the entire 737 family from the ground up, in a scale-able manner that allows them to offer composite aircraft from CS-size to 757-size. They'd start on the large end and finalize the program down at the smaller end, then keep it into production for the following ~40 years. THAT would be money well spent, and we all know it needs to be done anyways (long-term, at least). Any such program may cut into whatever their MoM is anyways, wasting resources and cutting into their own profits.

Have you been reading the speculation on what the airplane will look like? Your post is all about the A321 and potential A322. The speculation I am reading is that the NMA is sized close to the 767-200 and 767-300. While yes it competes in a way with the A321, it is also going after the A330neo, 767 and 788.

What is better, a stretch of a stretch of a 30 year old design, or a new plane? Time will tell. I think the business case is there if Boeing can build the plane cheaply enough.

To your comment:
The fact that they've waited so long already IS your answer.

I already provided a perfectly viable explanation of why it can be better to wait. What do you think of this logic?

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think there is a misconception that engineering and design work is not happening before an airplane is launched. In reality a singnficant portion of the design starts well before launch. Launch is tied to sales, but a concept must be developed well before offering the plane for sale.

Airplane sales usually come with performance guarantees. Since the detailed design is not complete, airlines commit to an airplane that has certain specifications regarding, capacity, range, payload, etc. Launches come with actual sales commitments. If an airplane is launched very early in the design phase, there is more risk regarding what the final performance numbers and production costs will be. If they wait so the design is more solidified, there is less risk. That usually means that the engineering team has a better idea of what the final specifications will be.

Let’s pretend the goal is the plane can fly 200 passengers 2000nm using 20000lbs of fuel. If they launch the airplane with many assumptions early in the process, there is risk the targets will be missed. They may end up being able to guarantee to Airlines the plane will use 21000lbs of fuel while carrying 200 passengers 2000nm. They may be reasonably comfortable that they can meet that target so they put it in a sales agreement. If they wait 6 months to get to a more solid design configuration and start getting more of the aerodynamic figures, engine performance estimates, thrust rating, wingspan, length, width, OEW, etc they may be able to guarantee 20500lbs of fuel on that mission. The better the figures, the more airlines will want the airplane and also the higher price Boeing can charge. Airlines pay more for capability and efficiency.

Waiting later will also engineers get better information on actual cost to produce the airplane. For example waiting far enough into the design process to know how many spoilers, slats, etc are on the wing will help with cost estimates. Once components are further along in the design process, manufacturing costs and estimates will be more accurate. Boeing has good estimates on prices, but more time to get to a more solidified design helps price the plane.

There are many reasons to wait on a launch. Obviously they are already talking to customers.

Maybe one of the reason why Boeing have been waiting for so long to launch it officially is to reduce the time Airbus have to formulate a response as Airbus could spend fewer effort to launch a derivative from their existing plane to compete against 797 so Airbus could have make their new product available earlier than Boeing's all new design, and by holding back the launching, it could have delayed Airbus's response and thus make it harder for Airbus to sell their variant over 797 with time to market as selling point?

brindabella wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

There is no engine currently on the market to achieve the goal needed to make any new aircraft in this size range persuasively attractive.

And with recent engine issues, I doubt A or B are feeling especially brave launching a completely new aircraft model, with new engines. The engine OEM's (and their insurers) are probably in that category too.

You have a cautious Boeing board. The 737 contributing a disproportionately large amount to Commercial's bottom line. Airbus with A320 and A330 enhancements and margins banked ready to squeeze a new competitor, which Boeing must know.

Boeing senior management are struggling to find agreement internally, let alone with potential customers, so have nothing to put to the Board, who want cast iron guarantees (or carbon fibre), and then a bit more.

I don’t get the same read on their board that many seem to have. Yes they slowed things down post 787 but Boeing has been aggressively pursuing vertical integration of various things for a while now that mostly make sense if one is going to embark on an aggressive development period. My belief is that three bad assumptions persist on this board regarding Boeing generally and the MOM case.

1. I think people believe Boeing is far more conservative than it is. I think it has been carefully positioning itself to fully apply all the lessons of the 787 through its product line with a much greater degree of in house control. The 777x program to me isn’t a problem if it simply breaks even because of the core competencies it brings. A full new build wasn’t wise or necessary at that size range but certain key technologies will be worked out there for application down the line.

I would expect Boeing to leverage the full barrel construction efficiency, all electrical architecture and folding wing experience it has on the 797 product family. Having the wing production in house makes this simpler. All electrical controls gives you more flexibility in where one folds the wings as well. These three key areas should harmonize well.

I expect the avionics to mostly be done by the in-house unit leveraging the autonomous flight tech they have purchased and worked out themselves to the point where I suspect the 797 will be the first passenger plane that could attempt to be certified for a single pilot. I also expect any 737 replacement will basically use the systems developed for the 797 family. There is not a lot of reason to bring this stuff in house if you don’t plan to do something reasonably new. The purchase of Aurora fits in well with this objective.

2. I think people have overestimated the degree of overlap on the A321LR and what the 797 will really be about. I think the LR will do reasonably well and will open some longer routes for LCC in particular. The 797 in my view will be for large carriers in the US and transatlantic markets and will do very well in Asia.

3. I think there is a stunning degree of complacency regarding the narrowbody market and an attitude that things will just be like this forever and ever. The 737 and A320 are great competitors in this space. NSA wouldn’t work economically because what you really could offer at that point was a CFRP A320/737 and you weren’t sure you could get the price down where it could be competitive. At some point something will displace these things. I believe that what does it will be mostly about the manufacturing technology behind the product. In this regard the two builders have gone different directions and have different options.

If Boeing runs out a 797 concept that is barrel built, all electric with folding wings to have a much greater span than would otherwise be allowed for the gate space I think they signal their intentions for the eventual 737 replacement pretty clearly and I would expect it to follow in relatively short order on almost familial lines to whatever the 797 is. In essence I expect them to package up whatever they have learned on their last three programs, roll that and some other key advances into the 797 where production volumes will be reasonable and that to be almost exactly how they build a 737 replacement on which I expect little risk to be taken given the volume that needs to be achieved.

For Airbus the picture is a bit murkier from where I sit. How exactly would they build a small CFRP plane? I am not saying they can’t do it but what if it turns out that there are real production cost advantages to barrel construction or all electrical architecture or that you need folding wings to match whatever Boeing eventually offers in the A320neo segment? What if all three are important? What if the avionics for the 797 really play a role in the next narrowbody? It isn’t that Airbus can’t do those things. But if there is no in between program and those are changes they need to make wouldn’t it make you a bit nervous to be debuting all those things on something you can’t afford not to hit the ground running with?

To me the business case for the 797 closes if you can make a bit of money and push yourself forward for the next battle that really matters in the narrowbody space. It’s a huge bonus if you can scape off a bit of the narrowbody market into the 797 itself so that your next plane doesn’t have to be centered quite as high in terms of capability because you have a reasonable offering there already. That drives up your efficiency on the core narrowbody business case which is just a few hour segment.

*moved from locked thread as it blocked my reply...

Terrific post & I have re-read it a time or two.

I had developed a lot of the same thoughts but certainly hadn't got to the mental framework of seeing the 777X & 797 as bring essentially technology-developers, such that break-even for each project is OK as long as each effectively pushed various technologies along which would be required for the future 737-replacement.
Which paradoxically would not offer much or any new technology of and by itself!
Neat.
Interesting.

However I must say that I do keep a weather-eye out for any suggested solutions to the conundrum which I recall Jim Albaugh defining on his departure from Boeing.
When speaking about the (failed) NSA push which AA definitively buried, Albaugh said something along the lines of:

"And anyway, I still have no idea how we were supposed to be able to build 60/month.".

And I have yet to note anyone outlining a new CFRP process which would allow such, esp. 60 CFRP fuses/month.

cheers

With regard to eventual production rates I would keep in mind that the 787 is going to 14 monthly for a significantly larger aircraft. When NSA was passed on the 787 was in production hell and I am not sure anyone knew where things would end up.

There is going to be a lot more clarity on what it might actually cost to build a CFRP airplane now than there was in 2010-11. Also keep in mind that CFRP cost per weight have been coming down and are likely to keep doing so. Production method will continue to be refined by all players to take advantage of new concepts in CFRP construction. Aluminum prices are pretty much steady if not trending a bit up. Some of the additives like lithium are in high demand as well. There isn’t a ton of production method efficiency to be had with the material as its well into its maturite life.

No doubt a CFRP narrow will necessitate tons of investment in fixed assets. But the math on it should be pretty simple after a 787, 777x and 797 program. You should know the material cost, production cost and fixed assets necessary pretty well. The math will either work out and cost will be close enough to an aluminum plane that it will make sense considering the other benefits or it won’t. Either way there will be a ton less guessing on trying to sort this out than there would have been in the mid 2010’s range.

estorilm wrote:

So many optimistic Boeing folks in here!
"They're finalizing the details so it will be perfect"
"They're doing so well with their 737 sales that they aren't worried about it"
"They're going to wait around so they can see what people want and decide final details in the near future"

...etc etc etc.

None of the above is true, folks.

IMHO they're waiting so long because they know a clean-sheet design costs an incredible amount of money, and REQUIRES an incredible amount of orders and profits to justify the project. They're waiting because they know there's a good chance they can no longer justify everything mentioned above, and that huge order requirement is starting to become wishful thinking (at least for a clean-sheet high-risk program).

The fact that they've waited so long already IS your answer.

I don't see why it as to be either/or. All of the above could be true.

brindabella wrote:

I had developed a lot of the same thoughts but certainly hadn't got to the mental framework of seeing the 777X & 797 as bring essentially technology-developers, such that break-even for each project is OK as long as each effectively pushed various technologies along which would be required for the future 737-replacement.
Which paradoxically would not offer much or any new technology of and by itself!
Neat.
Interesting.

Yes, but you could say that about any new aircraft program. Which new aircraft family hasn't pushed the technology envelop and has not developed technology later used in other programs? I don't see why the role of technology developers has to be limited to the 777X and the 797 when in reality, that role is true for every single Boeing and Airbus program.

Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:

BRUSSELS - Boeing keeps Michael O'Leary up to date about the developments of the Boeing 797. This hasn't sparked an interest of the Ryanair CEO in the aircraft. On the contrary, Mr. O'Leay knows that this craft will not be efficient enough for Ryanair.

In an interview with Luchtvaartnieuws.nl at the A4E Aviation Summit in Brussels, O'Leary says that the cost per seat mile are substantially higher than with the 737 MAX 200 he has on order.

In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

NeBaNi wrote:

estorilm wrote:

So many optimistic Boeing folks in here!
"They're finalizing the details so it will be perfect"
"They're doing so well with their 737 sales that they aren't worried about it"
"They're going to wait around so they can see what people want and decide final details in the near future"

...etc etc etc.

None of the above is true, folks.

IMHO they're waiting so long because they know a clean-sheet design costs an incredible amount of money, and REQUIRES an incredible amount of orders and profits to justify the project. They're waiting because they know there's a good chance they can no longer justify everything mentioned above, and that huge order requirement is starting to become wishful thinking (at least for a clean-sheet high-risk program).

The fact that they've waited so long already IS your answer.

I don't see why it as to be either/or. All of the above could be true.

brindabella wrote:

I had developed a lot of the same thoughts but certainly hadn't got to the mental framework of seeing the 777X & 797 as bring essentially technology-developers, such that break-even for each project is OK as long as each effectively pushed various technologies along which would be required for the future 737-replacement.
Which paradoxically would not offer much or any new technology of and by itself!
Neat.
Interesting.

Yes, but you could say that about any new aircraft program. Which new aircraft family hasn't pushed the technology envelop and has not developed technology later used in other programs? I don't see why the role of technology developers has to be limited to the 777X and the 797 when in reality, that role is true for every single Boeing and Airbus program.

I don’t think it’s a unique role for any program as you say. Rather I think the 737/A320neo replacements will be unique in how conservative they have to be so you have to get where you need to go largely beforehand. The production pressures on those eventual programs will be immense and unique. That is why whatever is next for each builder will be interesting to watch.

Dutchy wrote:

Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:

BRUSSELS - Boeing keeps Michael O'Leary up to date about the developments of the Boeing 797. This hasn't sparked an interest of the Ryanair CEO in the aircraft. On the contrary, Mr. O'Leay knows that this craft will not be efficient enough for Ryanair.

In an interview with Luchtvaartnieuws.nl at the A4E Aviation Summit in Brussels, O'Leary says that the cost per seat mile are substantially higher than with the 737 MAX 200 he has on order.

In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

It’s worse in the LCC configuration for a very short haul role. That is no surprise (it will have weight to support ~5000nm range) and why Boeing will continue to offer the MAX 200 and -10 along side the MOM. But Ryanair’s Max200 is not going to fly 3,500 nm+ routes. The MoM needs to be competitive against the A321LR when that plane is used to it’s full range ability, and be able to fly routes the A321LR can’t with more people. That is it’s market.

When (if) Ryanair is interested in flying TATL their opinion on the 797 vs Max200 would probably be different.

Polot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:

BRUSSELS - Boeing keeps Michael O'Leary up to date about the developments of the Boeing 797. This hasn't sparked an interest of the Ryanair CEO in the aircraft. On the contrary, Mr. O'Leay knows that this craft will not be efficient enough for Ryanair.

In an interview with Luchtvaartnieuws.nl at the A4E Aviation Summit in Brussels, O'Leary says that the cost per seat mile are substantially higher than with the 737 MAX 200 he has on order.

In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

It’s worse in the LCC configuration for a very short haul role. That is no surprise (it will have weight to support ~5000nm range) and why Boeing will continue to offer the MAX 200 and -10 along side the MOM. But Ryanair’s Max200 is not going to fly 3,500 nm+ routes. The MoM needs to be competitive against the A321LR when that plane is used to it’s full range ability, and be able to fly routes the A321LR can’t with more people. That is it’s market.

When (if) Ryanair is interested in flying TATL their opinion on the 797 vs Max200 would probably be different.

Sure, I know the circumstances are different. But still I find it interesting that O'Leary does these kinds of absolute statement, but then again he is who he is. I guess the short haul structure of Ryanair (and other LCC's), does play a part in this. The 737MAX is probably a lot lighter than the proposed 797. It sounds to me more and more that the 797 is going to be a real niche plane, so that begs the question how many are going to be sold, and if it is going to be a success for Boeing.
I still think it is going to be hard, there is a gap between the Boeing 737MAX10 and the 787-8, but it is there for a reason. Seven abreast must hurt it pitched against a 737 at 6. The oval shape will help to solve it a bit, but even then. The 737-10 is probably (overly) maxed out in length (weight structure and rotation angle), so the only way is sideways. But it will be interesting indeed.

Dutchy wrote:

Polot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Some interesting remarks about the potential 797.

Rough translation:


In Dutch: https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/ ... ent-genoeg

Let's take O'Leary's remarks at face value (yes I know). So I guess that the 797 isn't going to be for the Low-Cost Carriers like RyanAir. Backs the question which niche of the marketplace is the 797 going to fill, from an efficient point of view. Apparently, it does worse in the LCC configuration, so how will the legacy carriers make this work? Especially with the A321LR on the market which can do transatlantic point to point.

It’s worse in the LCC configuration for a very short haul role. That is no surprise (it will have weight to support ~5000nm range) and why Boeing will continue to offer the MAX 200 and -10 along side the MOM. But Ryanair’s Max200 is not going to fly 3,500 nm+ routes. The MoM needs to be competitive against the A321LR when that plane is used to it’s full range ability, and be able to fly routes the A321LR can’t with more people. That is it’s market.

When (if) Ryanair is interested in flying TATL their opinion on the 797 vs Max200 would probably be different.

Sure, I know the circumstances are different. But still I find it interesting that O'Leary does these kinds of absolute statement, but then again he is who he is. I guess the short haul structure of Ryanair (and other LCC's), does play a part in this. The 737MAX is probably a lot lighter than the proposed 797. It sounds to me more and more that the 797 is going to be a real niche plane, so that begs the question how many are going to be sold, and if it is going to be a success for Boeing.
I still think it is going to be hard, there is a gap between the Boeing 737MAX10 and the 787-8, but it is there for a reason. Seven abreast must hurt it pitched against a 737 at 6. The oval shape will help to solve it a bit, but even then. The 737-10 is probably (overly) maxed out in length (weight structure and rotation angle), so the only way is sideways. But it will be interesting indeed.

Boeing is being very careful with how they define the 797 (in terms of capability) and working on building the plane as cheap as possible because the MOM is a niche/unproven/limited market. If the 797 was in a huge no brainer market they would have already launched the plane.

Polot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Polot wrote:

It’s worse in the LCC configuration for a very short haul role. That is no surprise (it will have weight to support ~5000nm range) and why Boeing will continue to offer the MAX 200 and -10 along side the MOM. But Ryanair’s Max200 is not going to fly 3,500 nm+ routes. The MoM needs to be competitive against the A321LR when that plane is used to it’s full range ability, and be able to fly routes the A321LR can’t with more people. That is it’s market.

When (if) Ryanair is interested in flying TATL their opinion on the 797 vs Max200 would probably be different.

Sure, I know the circumstances are different. But still I find it interesting that O'Leary does these kinds of absolute statement, but then again he is who he is. I guess the short haul structure of Ryanair (and other LCC's), does play a part in this. The 737MAX is probably a lot lighter than the proposed 797. It sounds to me more and more that the 797 is going to be a real niche plane, so that begs the question how many are going to be sold, and if it is going to be a success for Boeing.
I still think it is going to be hard, there is a gap between the Boeing 737MAX10 and the 787-8, but it is there for a reason. Seven abreast must hurt it pitched against a 737 at 6. The oval shape will help to solve it a bit, but even then. The 737-10 is probably (overly) maxed out in length (weight structure and rotation angle), so the only way is sideways. But it will be interesting indeed.

Boeing is being very careful with how they define the 797 (in terms of capability) and working on building the plane as cheap as possible because the MOM is a niche/unproven/limited market. If the 797 was in a huge no brainer market they would have already launched the plane.

I subscribe to that point of view. That's why I find it strange that some US airline already said it wants to be a launch customer, ah well marketing talk probably.

Dutchy wrote:

Polot wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure, I know the circumstances are different. But still I find it interesting that O'Leary does these kinds of absolute statement, but then again he is who he is. I guess the short haul structure of Ryanair (and other LCC's), does play a part in this. The 737MAX is probably a lot lighter than the proposed 797. It sounds to me more and more that the 797 is going to be a real niche plane, so that begs the question how many are going to be sold, and if it is going to be a success for Boeing.
I still think it is going to be hard, there is a gap between the Boeing 737MAX10 and the 787-8, but it is there for a reason. Seven abreast must hurt it pitched against a 737 at 6. The oval shape will help to solve it a bit, but even then. The 737-10 is probably (overly) maxed out in length (weight structure and rotation angle), so the only way is sideways. But it will be interesting indeed.

Boeing is being very careful with how they define the 797 (in terms of capability) and working on building the plane as cheap as possible because the MOM is a niche/unproven/limited market. If the 797 was in a huge no brainer market they would have already launched the plane.

I subscribe to that point of view. That's why I find it strange that some US airline already said it wants to be a launch customer, ah well marketing talk probably.

The US3 are some of the most likely customers for the MoM/797. They all have large 767 fleets (that they have been happy with for decades) with no clear direct replacements. The issue for Boeing is if the market outside the US3 is large enough to build a profitable program around. Boeing is not going to just launch a plane around them.

That was interesting:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet

seahawk wrote:

That was interesting:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet

So I will admit that I was wrong when I thought cargo and cross section wasn’t a critical factor behind the airplane not being launched yet:

“The U.S. majors have an appetite for less cargo in the belly than the Asians,” he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. “Typically in the States, it’s bags plus five tons of cargo. The Asians want bags plus 10 tons for this aircraft. So, who do you build it for?”

Cargo volume and weight is a factor where airlines don’t agree. I have not heard that difference between American and Asian operators before


Plueger agreed that air freight is of increasing importance to Asian passenger carriers, especially as the "Amazon Prime effect" spurs inbound and outbound parcel deliveries to the region. However, the 797’s features like twin-aisles to ease boarding -- and spur on-board snack and drink sales -- may ultimately prove more valuable for low-cost carriers, he said in an interview.

Boeing also doesn’t want to risk adding costs that could price its new plane out of the market. “If they build a lot more capability into that plane and weight to carry more freight, then the cost goes up. And cost is going to be what makes or breaks this airplane,” Plueger said.

The cross section challenges seems to be more centered on how big to make the cargo hold. It appears they were planning on sacrificing cargo volume to improve a twin aisle operating economics, but not all operators agree on how much below deck space is needed.

seahawk wrote:

That was interesting:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet

Sometimes people are a little US focussed where bulk load is usually "fine". But maybe Boeing wants to sell outside the US too.

Last year I proposed a bigger extendable LD3-45, to improve cargo capacity for 2-3-2 aircraft.
The usual "not from here" members immediately jumped in to dismiss.

It seems reality is slowly kicking in. Also, a longer Narrow body can carry more standard LD3-45 (in line) than a same seat capacity, shorter 2-3-2 design. Benefiting a 3-3 (e.g. Airbus NEO).

keesje wrote:

Last year I proposed a bigger extendable LD3-45, to improve cargo capacity for 2-3-2 aircraft.
The usual "not from here" members immediately jumped in to dismiss.

Show us the checks from the patent revenue then you have some grounds to brag.

Till then, I'll go with "why would anyone want to add more weight and new failure modes to containers?".

Personally, I'm glad I'm not from your version of "here", but thanks for taking your best shot.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That was interesting:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-797-jet

Sometimes people are a little US focussed where bulk load is usually "fine". But maybe Boeing wants to sell outside the US too.

Last year I proposed a bigger extendable LD3-45, to improve cargo capacity for 2-3-2 aircraft.
The usual "not from here" members immediately jumped in to dismiss.

It seems reality is slowly kicking in. Also, a longer Narrow body can carry more standard LD3-45 (in line) than a same seat capacity, shorter 2-3-2 design. Benefiting a 3-3 (e.g. Airbus NEO).

Given how critical cargo volume is and the unoque fuselage, I would expect them to use an all new container. I dont see boeing trying to make an expandable LD3-45 work.

Lessor Avolon points out another business decision Boeing will have to make:

Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.

The planemaker faces a "cargo conundrum," for the jetliner dubbed the 797 by industry observers, said Domhnal Slattery, founder and chief executive officer of Avolon Holdings Ltd., the world's third-largest aircraft leasing firm.

...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"

As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large US network carriers indicated belly cargo isn't a high priority.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."

http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.

Be nice to know why the holds are considered "small". Is it because the frame is short and/or dimensioned for LD-45 ULDs? Could this push Boeing to use the LD-2 from the 767?

KarelXWB wrote:

Lessor Avolon points out another business decision Boeing will have to make:

Boeing may need to rethink one of the most distinctive features of its proposed new mid-range jet — a small freight hold — to win over customers in Asia, potentially the plane's largest market.

The planemaker faces a "cargo conundrum," for the jetliner dubbed the 797 by industry observers, said Domhnal Slattery, founder and chief executive officer of Avolon Holdings Ltd., the world's third-largest aircraft leasing firm.

...

"Typically in the states, it's bags plus five tons of cargo," he said on the sidelines of the Americas conference for the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. "The Asians want bags plus 10 tonnes for this aircraft. So who do you build it for?"

As Chicago-based Boeing worked with about 50 customers around the world to hone its design, the large US network carriers indicated belly cargo isn't a high priority.

Asian buyers may have a different view of the plane's ideal cross-section — the combination of cabin and cargo hold, said Slattery, whose leasing company is controlled by China's Bohai Capital Holding. "This is the big issue," he said. "I coined it today as the cargo conundrum."

http://www.traveller.com.au/boeing-face ... jet-h0x4fb

Article also points out that Asia may become the biggest market for the airplane.

My prediction, Boeing sticks to its original concept. If cargo hold space is so precious to the "customer" Airbus will make an awesome deal on some A330NEOs. Then again, the 797 will have better per seat costs than the A330NEO. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

I say leave the cargo alone, the a/c cannot be all things to all persons especially when the target market at present is being served by a/c above or below.
In my opinion, this a/c claim to fame has to be efficiency as a people mover.