Egerton wrote:

On the engine situation. The RR UltraFan concept can be available in any chosen thrust within the small, medium or big groupings. Which chosen thrust is the first to market is a commercial issue for RR. To go bald headed for the high volume markets of the narrow bodies is taking a considerable commercial and reputational risk, which is surely obvious now. The lowest risk is to apply the brand new engine to a low volume aeroplane which will be the A380neo.

Yes there is risk with putting it on the most popular platform first, but there is also great potential reward. PW is having their issues with the GTF, but if it proves successful (and I believe it will), it will make them a ton of money and get them back into the game as a major supplier of commercial aircraft engines.

I am personally skeptical that there will be an A380neo, but if for whatever reason launching it on NSA / NRA / NMA is not feasible / practical, then I could see RR launching Ultrafan on the A330neo and 787 as they could use the same general engine for both platforms (as they have with the Trent 7000 and 1000) and then later scale it up for the A350.

Here is my take on the engine situation: Boeing can get an engine that fast using existing technology. They can also engineer the wing to be able to retrofit an advanced engine on it as well as there is enough known about the next generation of engines to know what about what size and weight they will be.

Then, when those new engines are indeed ready.... it's a minor mod to adopt them.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

Here is my take on the engine situation: Boeing can get an engine that fast using existing technology. They can also engineer the wing to be able to retrofit an advanced engine on it as well as there is enough known about the next generation of engines to know what about what size and weight they will be.

Then, when those new engines are indeed ready.... it's a minor mod to adopt them.

Have a great day,

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

A lot of people on here their brains are stuck in 20th century engineering mode. Engine design is no longer done in decade blocks. It is now an evolving process with software simulation and simple scaling engines up and down using software. New prototype engines can now be made in months not years.

These same people are completely unaware that we already have a 787NEO currently in service as of 4 months ago.. A brand new engine developed wiith 75% of its engine parts being totally unique and not shared with any other engine family. It offers a 5% fuel burn improvement over the 787 engines that came out only 7 years ago. The NEO engine took only a year to go from prototype to first flight and another year to be certified. I can see people opening a Google search tab right now.

The universal pylon and engine interface of the 787 has definitely proven valuable.

The same process can be done for an engine of a smaller thrust level and lower weight.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That is a weak goal though. A less capable widebody with lower trip costs is not really groundbreaking, much less if you are looking at derivates of existing engines. To be honest I have problems seeing how that plane would do against a re-engined 787 or a A330 successor by 2035. Because due to the newer engines they will have a healthy fuel burn advantage.

Not sure why "groundbreaking" is the measure.

In the end, the goal is to make money for Boeing (and its customers) and to advance its manufacturing technology to prepare their next all-new narrowbody.

Putting a new engine on a 787 or a A330 successor is going to add range to some very long range planes and add the cost to cover the ROI of the new engines and almost certainly add weight too.

It's not going to optimize their configuration, or optimize their manufacturing technology, or enable all those value-adds that Boeing likes to talk about these days.

And if NMA is launched and it sells well enough, NMA will get a new engine in ~15 years time too.

If it is not ground breaking, the question a Boeing shareholder should ask is: What would airlines buy if we do not offer the 797?

Nobody has something to offer in the segment and Boeing has the most modern twin aisle plane in its portfolio that comes closest in size.

RJMAZ wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Here is my take on the engine situation: Boeing can get an engine that fast using existing technology. They can also engineer the wing to be able to retrofit an advanced engine on it as well as there is enough known about the next generation of engines to know what about what size and weight they will be.

Then, when those new engines are indeed ready.... it's a minor mod to adopt them.

Have a great day,

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

I agree. It seems all players are willing and able.

Regarding GE+CFM, https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... more-26689 has some interesting comments from the CEO of GE Aviation:

“I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

It's consistent with what I wrote yesterday, a LEAP baseline, grown to size, with whatever new tech they feel has matured since they launched LEAP.

Also, again, we are reminded that no gear will be used.

He described GE as being "in lockstep" with Boeing on NMA.

GE is also still sorting out the business case, and of course for it a big issue is whether or not it will be the only engine on the plane or not.

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

All this, in the climate of https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/focus ... more-26678 (subscription required) which says:

Summary
• Market sources are tossing about various scenarios about the future GE Aviation and CFM.
• Rolls-Royce won’t have its Trent 1000 problems fixed until 2021 or 2022, at great cost.
• Pratt & Whitney won’t have its Geared Turbo Fan final PIP packages for its problems sorted out until around 2021.
• Resources—both financial and with engineering—are stretched now.
• Sequencing current engine problems, and in the case, GE’s GE9X, are a factor, in the eyes of some.

It goes to the point I made that the financial positions of the players are important to consider.

Revelation wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Here is my take on the engine situation: Boeing can get an engine that fast using existing technology. They can also engineer the wing to be able to retrofit an advanced engine on it as well as there is enough known about the next generation of engines to know what about what size and weight they will be.

Then, when those new engines are indeed ready.... it's a minor mod to adopt them.

Have a great day,

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

I agree. It seems all players are willing and able.

Regarding GE+CFM, https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... more-26689 has some interesting comments from the CEO of GE Aviation:

“I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

It's consistent with what I wrote yesterday, a LEAP baseline, grown to size, with whatever new tech they feel has matured since they launched LEAP.

Also, again, we are reminded that no gear will be used.

He described GE as being "in lockstep" with Boeing on NMA.

GE is also still sorting out the business case, and of course for it a big issue is whether or not it will be the only engine on the plane or not.

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

All this, in the climate of https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/focus ... more-26678 (subscription required) which says:

Summary
• Market sources are tossing about various scenarios about the future GE Aviation and CFM.
• Rolls-Royce won’t have its Trent 1000 problems fixed until 2021 or 2022, at great cost.
• Pratt & Whitney won’t have its Geared Turbo Fan final PIP packages for its problems sorted out until around 2021.
• Resources—both financial and with engineering—are stretched now.
• Sequencing current engine problems, and in the case, GE’s GE9X, are a factor, in the eyes of some.

It goes to the point I made that the financial positions of the players are important to consider.

I do think the financial state of the engine builders is quite relevant.

GE Aviation is doing quite well but the parent company, or more accurately parts of it, are in the toilet. Pratt and RR have more ongoing struggles right now on the surface but the former has a very strong parent company. RR I feel is coming towards the end of its struggles on this generation of engines (hopefully).

GE is in such an odd situation. Some of their divisions are massively profitable (healthcare and aviation) while others are garbage. They want to sell transportation which is in decent shape to raise some money.

The quickest way to get a lot of money for GE and possibly the best way to create value for its shareholders over the next 10-years may be to sell off the pieces including aviation. Didn’t think it was realistic even 60-days ago but now I am not so sure.

Revelation wrote:

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

This is interesting.

Airbus is studying carbon wing for the 320 family. there is a pressrealase from them with picture of a carbon centre wing box on Airbus site
Only question is how big is it going to be, and will they throw in 2H2E systems from the A350.

I guess right now there is political pressure from the French and the Germans to bring home from England the production of this new wing, which eventually will become future wing for the whole A320 family. BREXIT uncertancy is also most likely delaying the decision process.

A322 is a great opportunity to launch next gen wing for the A320 family because it gives Airbus leeway to get the production learning curve going before they integrate the new wing in to the rest of the family.

For engine manufactures exclusive deal on the A322 could be more interesting than being on the 797 because it puts the winner in a pole position as an exclusive engine provider for the rest of the A320 family.

packsonflight wrote:

For engine manufactures exclusive deal on the A322 could be more interesting than being on the 797 because it puts the winner in a pole position as an exclusive engine provider for the rest of the A320 family.

Too many eggs in one basket.

bigjku wrote:

Revelation wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

I agree. It seems all players are willing and able.

Regarding GE+CFM, https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... more-26689 has some interesting comments from the CEO of GE Aviation:

“I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

It's consistent with what I wrote yesterday, a LEAP baseline, grown to size, with whatever new tech they feel has matured since they launched LEAP.

Also, again, we are reminded that no gear will be used.

He described GE as being "in lockstep" with Boeing on NMA.

GE is also still sorting out the business case, and of course for it a big issue is whether or not it will be the only engine on the plane or not.

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

All this, in the climate of https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/focus ... more-26678 (subscription required) which says:

Summary
• Market sources are tossing about various scenarios about the future GE Aviation and CFM.
• Rolls-Royce won’t have its Trent 1000 problems fixed until 2021 or 2022, at great cost.
• Pratt & Whitney won’t have its Geared Turbo Fan final PIP packages for its problems sorted out until around 2021.
• Resources—both financial and with engineering—are stretched now.
• Sequencing current engine problems, and in the case, GE’s GE9X, are a factor, in the eyes of some.

It goes to the point I made that the financial positions of the players are important to consider.

I do think the financial state of the engine builders is quite relevant.

GE Aviation is doing quite well but the parent company, or more accurately parts of it, are in the toilet. Pratt and RR have more ongoing struggles right now on the surface but the former has a very strong parent company. RR I feel is coming towards the end of its struggles on this generation of engines (hopefully).

GE is in such an odd situation. Some of their divisions are massively profitable (healthcare and aviation) while others are garbage. They want to sell transportation which is in decent shape to raise some money.

The quickest way to get a lot of money for GE and possibly the best way to create value for its shareholders over the next 10-years may be to sell off the pieces including aviation. Didn’t think it was realistic even 60-days ago but now I am not so sure.

I read the latest plan for GE is to hold onto the profitable aviation and energy business and sell everything else including the locomotive business where they have little competition. The problem with spinning off GE Capital, its the reason GE is dominant in aviation and locomotive markets. The financial bundles GE offered could not be matched by its competitors.

RJMAZ wrote:

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

A lot of people on here their brains are stuck in 20th century engineering mode. Engine design is no longer done in decade blocks. It is now an evolving process with software simulation and simple scaling engines up and down using software. New prototype engines can now be made in months not years.

These same people are completely unaware that we already have a 787NEO currently in service as of 4 months ago.. A brand new engine developed wiith 75% of its engine parts being totally unique and not shared with any other engine family. It offers a 5% fuel burn improvement over the 787 engines that came out only 7 years ago. The NEO engine took only a year to go from prototype to first flight and another year to be certified. I can see people opening a Google search tab right now.

I think your getting a little over enthusiastic about digital design.

That's a redesigned engine, with a very, very, very, well defined baseline (given they'd first run them in 2006) and it still took 1yr (cert) + 1 yr (prototype) + X yrs (design). X being at least 2, probably 4. So somewhere between 4-6 years to iterate on an existing engine.

Now, remove the baseline definition and all the prior work that went into accruing knowledge of loads at those thrust levels and where are you? Add another year? I'd say that's very optimistic. Anyway, say it's a year, that's 5-7 years. 2018 now, that would put you at 2023-2025. That timescale would carry the risk of, to borrow from Donald Rumsfeld; "unknown unknowns" (might have been a corrupt clown, but he was right with the essence of that statement).

Amiga500 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Agreed, Boeing can easily get engines ready for 2024. Engines are not a problem at all.

A lot of people on here their brains are stuck in 20th century engineering mode. Engine design is no longer done in decade blocks. It is now an evolving process with software simulation and simple scaling engines up and down using software. New prototype engines can now be made in months not years.

These same people are completely unaware that we already have a 787NEO currently in service as of 4 months ago.. A brand new engine developed wiith 75% of its engine parts being totally unique and not shared with any other engine family. It offers a 5% fuel burn improvement over the 787 engines that came out only 7 years ago. The NEO engine took only a year to go from prototype to first flight and another year to be certified. I can see people opening a Google search tab right now.

I think your getting a little over enthusiastic about digital design.

That's a redesigned engine, with a very, very, very, well defined baseline (given they'd first run them in 2006) and it still took 1yr (cert) + 1 yr (prototype) + X yrs (design). X being at least 2, probably 4. So somewhere between 4-6 years to iterate on an existing engine.

Now, remove the baseline definition and all the prior work that went into accruing knowledge of loads at those thrust levels and where are you? Add another year? I'd say that's very optimistic. Anyway, say it's a year, that's 5-7 years. 2018 now, that would put you at 2023-2025. That timescale would carry the risk of, to borrow from Donald Rumsfeld; "unknown unknowns" (might have been a corrupt clown, but he was right with the essence of that statement).

It was also largely porting over improvements learned from the TXWB, not developing brand new engine tech/design.

packsonflight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

This is interesting.

Airbus is studying carbon wing for the 320 family. there is a pressrealase from them with picture of a carbon centre wing box on Airbus site
Only question is how big is it going to be, and will they throw in 2H2E systems from the A350.

I guess right now there is political pressure from the French and the Germans to bring home from England the production of this new wing, which eventually will become future wing for the whole A320 family. BREXIT uncertancy is also most likely delaying the decision process.

A322 is a great opportunity to launch next gen wing for the A320 family because it gives Airbus leeway to get the production learning curve going before they integrate the new wing in to the rest of the family.

For engine manufactures exclusive deal on the A322 could be more interesting than being on the 797 because it puts the winner in a pole position as an exclusive engine provider for the rest of the A320 family.

On a point of order, Airbus wings are not produced "in England", they are (mostly) produced in Great Britain. To be really pedantic, the Broughton factory is in Wales. Filton (in England) produces wings for the A400, and according to Wiki, wings for A320s assembled in China are made in China

Anyway, why should Brexit lead to this? B787 wings are built in Japan, which as far as I know, is not part of the USA! That model works!

sassiciai wrote:

packsonflight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He also mentioned the need to understand the competitor's response. It must make for an interesting place for GE+CFM to be. Surely they are getting info on what Airbus plans to do next as well since Airbus would need them to be in the loop on whatever new engine or integration of old engine has to happen, not to mention the commercial aspects. That info in turn gets fed back in evaluating how good or how bad a business case there is for working with Boeing on NMA, which then gets fed back into considering the business case to work with Airbus. Of course, conspiracy theorists can give us their take on if one party or the other is favored.

This is interesting.

Airbus is studying carbon wing for the 320 family. there is a pressrealase from them with picture of a carbon centre wing box on Airbus site
Only question is how big is it going to be, and will they throw in 2H2E systems from the A350.

I guess right now there is political pressure from the French and the Germans to bring home from England the production of this new wing, which eventually will become future wing for the whole A320 family. BREXIT uncertancy is also most likely delaying the decision process.

A322 is a great opportunity to launch next gen wing for the A320 family because it gives Airbus leeway to get the production learning curve going before they integrate the new wing in to the rest of the family.

For engine manufactures exclusive deal on the A322 could be more interesting than being on the 797 because it puts the winner in a pole position as an exclusive engine provider for the rest of the A320 family.

On a point of order, Airbus wings are not produced "in England", they are (mostly) produced in Great Britain. To be really pedantic, the Broughton factory is in Wales. Filton (in England) produces wings for the A400, and according to Wiki, wings for A320s assembled in China are made in China

Anyway, why should Brexit lead to this? B787 wings are built in Japan, which as far as I know, is not part of the USA! That model works!

Because Japan isn't going from a situation where they have full and free access to the internal US market to one with restrictions. This is what the UK is doing with the EU. So all those bilateral trade agreements that were put in place for Japan-US trade now need to be created for UK-EU trade. And while Japan and the US had years to build these trade agreements the UK and EU now have months. And the UK government is the weaker party in this negotiation, currently with no agreement on any of this stuff. Or even a seemingly likely agreement.

So Airbus could use a rewinging programme as a chance to start putting the wing making and development facilities within the EU border again.

If you look at the engine OEMs, imho all 3 need to be sole supplier for the business case to work, but neither of them is an a position to shoulder a financial burden for this.

Wouldn't it be a classical move for the first 797 to have less than optimized power? Then growth could come from a newer generation of engine and higher MTOW. 2000 -4000 (or 4500) miles to begin with.

seahawk wrote:

Nobody has something to offer in the segment and Boeing has the most modern twin aisle plane in its portfolio that comes closest in size.

...and unfortunately, because it is so expensive to produce they are not pushing its sale, so in essence it is cheaper to build a whole new a/c. I assume we are talking about the 787-8.
So maybe, in hindsight they should have ported some of the 787-9 tech into the 787-8 to make it a more viable product to market...business case is one thing, execution is another.
One cannot believe that when they came up with the 787 their intention was to produce the -9 and -10 and eliminate the -8, and this is after they eliminated the -3.

par13del wrote:

One cannot believe that when they came up with the 787 their intention was to produce the -9 and -10 and eliminate the -8, and this is after they eliminated the -3.

History tells us contemporary stretches usually outsell the baseline model and can become the exclusive member of the family on offer due to that sales strength. I think Boeing is quite pleased they were able to shift over 400 787-8s - that is as many as the 777-200ER sold and four times what the 767-200ER managed. That they have sold twice as many 787-9 and 787-10 (combined) is similar to what the 777-300ER has done, if not as yet impressive as the 767-300ER did (almost five times the sales), but we're still pretty early in the 787's production life-cycle.

So GE says, for NMA, it will offer a CFM solution only...a scaled up LEAP, no gearbox. Basically a 'half" generation upgrade with limited new technology. For a 2024-2025 EIS...this makes sense -- a clean sheet engine would take longer. Actually I wonder if B would take the conservative approach and give CFM the sole engine supplier role in return for very low price to customer. Engine decision in 4th quarter of this year...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/

Pratt would likely offer an upgrade of PW1000 GTF...but who trusts PW right now? RR would have to do a clean sheet...So I wonder if a PW-RR joint engine for NMA might be offered?

Everybody engine's have issues or are busy right now -- NEO and MAX ramp-up, GE9x, PW GTF reliability, Rolls T1000 problems which are a bigger problem than advertised -- apparently it will take years to fix RR 787 fleet...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/focus ... -approval/

The rule of thumb Boeing ignored on the 787 is never to mix too much new airframe technology with new engine technology. I could easily see B offer a single engine based on CFM LEAP as a risk reduction approach. Maybe years later, another engine could be offered.

Whatever happens -- I don't think we will see a NMA EIS until after 2025. Engine makers won't have their decks cleared for a few years is one of the reasons.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Wouldn't it be a classical move for the first 797 to have less than optimized power? Then growth could come from a newer generation of engine and higher MTOW. 2000 -4000 (or 4500) miles to begin with.

Absolutely not.

The tripCost-payload-range box Boeing have to fit the 797 into is much smaller than most programs.

They don't have the scope to carry additional wing to compensate for sub-optimal engines.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Absolutely? If the 797 starts off with max capabilities then it may end up a 787 competitor LOL

To be fair t already kind of is planned to eat ito the 787s lunch’s little bit. It will most likely mean the end of the 787-8.

Absolutely? If the 797 starts off with max capabilities then it may end up a 787 competitor LOL

I do not know if this article has been mentioned her.

No big technology push' required for NMA: Boeing

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-446909/

So nothing new and groundbreaking to be expected regarding the NMA.
Perhaps a rather conventional small wide body with a round fuselage and LD2 containers (that is less freight than the LD3 carrying birds)?

Still no commitment to the project.

I believe that if the suggested fuse is to be ovoid it has to be LD3-45's.To have LD2's it would need to be the 767 cross section.One gets the impression that they have been there and rejected it as it can't compete with A321 economics or potential variants thereof.
I well understand why they did not reengineer the 767 with the 748 engine (1b) as Sfc just is not a critical factor for military planes as they fly far less often (see B52 reengine debate).
But had they done do we might be seeing a very different landscape.Anyway they didn't so that's that.

In a duopoly like we have both manufacturers will always be successful unless one of them has a major flaw or something.

PixelPilot wrote:

In a duopoly like we have both manufacturers will always be successful unless one of them has a major flaw or something.

Overall successful, with some wildly successful models, some big disappointments, and some in between.

That's what keeps us talking here on a.net...

A good summary of all available info and informed speculation on the 797/NMA at flightglobal:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-446818/

Would basically save you from reading 1775 posts

mzlin wrote:

A good summary of all available info and informed speculation on the 797/NMA at flightglobal:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-446818/

Would basically save you from reading 1775 posts

Imo a new refreshed thread is loooong overdue. 1700 posts, everything untraceable and real news hidden everywhere..



If Mod's agree somebody could summarize, add news, new links, pictures, opinions, questions.

I for one won't do it as a post #1783..

keesje wrote:

mzlin wrote:

A good summary of all available info and informed speculation on the 797/NMA at flightglobal:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-446818/

Would basically save you from reading 1775 posts

Imo a new refreshed thread is loooong overdue. 1700 posts, everything untraceable and real news hidden everywhere..

If Mod's agree somebody could summarize, add news, new links, pictures, opinions, questions.

I for one won't do it as a post #1783..

The down side is going over the same ground every time a new thread is created.

IMO it's a good thing that we have one place to discuss this project instead of a dozen or more.

The thread isn't getting much action because no news has emerged.

Plenty of time/space to discuss other things that are actually generating news.

Everyone should free to reach out to the mods, but it's obvious they've made their decision already.

Honestly until Boeing actually launches a MoM, a single thread discussing what it might be is probably the more appropriate step. I know the old forum software had a limit of how many posts it could handle before the thread imploded, but I believe the current software can handle it.

As much as I like the idea of the MOM, until Boeing release news, it is only free speculation. Imho, this thread works fine as a good sandbox for us enthusiasts.

I only say it will be a twin with wings similar to 787 (no folding due to competition on shorter range missions). Not sure whether 7ab or 8ab.
No way a 6ab could provided enough benefits to provide a useful new aircraft type in a fleet when current NB already can do many similar missions.
Also, to have a proper two class 230-270 cabin, the aircraft should be way too long with subsequent disadvantages to the existing competitors.

The fundamental problem of this plane is that with a single aisle it is too long which creates turnaround time problems, and if it is twin aisle it is too wide creating weight and drag problems. If it was a long range plane only the turnaround times would not be important, and if it was a short range plane the weight and drag issues would be less important. But it is aimed smack in the middle of ALL of these issues, and so it becomes a very knotty problem. It will be very interesting to see what finally emerges. But in order for it to succeed it must beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin, or it is not worth the effort.

SEPilot wrote:

It will be very interesting to see what finally emerges.

I agree. Even if years from now we look back at it as a flop, it'll still be interesting to see what they think the best way to address this market is.

SEPilot wrote:

But in order for it to succeed it must beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin, or it is not worth the effort.

I feel the market window is tight, but I don't agree with this statement. The reality is that they Boeing has nothing to offer customers who want more range and/or capacity than 737-10 and less than 787-9 (the 787-8 is effectively dead to new entrants) and it's clear that is a market they need to address.

I don't think it's possible to beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin if your point of comparison is things that A321/A322 does well. I'm confident MOM will avoid the direct comparison by addressing range/capacity targets that A321/A322 can't do well.

For instance, we see airlines like DL and QF are very interested in NMA despite having A321 data at hand. To me this shows either (a) NMA beats A321 at its own game which I think is unlikely or (b) NMA offers range/capacity values A321 does not offer which I do think is likely.

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

“Will Boeing revive the 747 as a twin engine”

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

Oh I am sure there will be plenty of discussion on how Airbus will respond, followed by plenty of discussion on what they ended up choosing to respond with.

Stitch wrote:

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

Oh I am sure there will be plenty of discussion on how Airbus will respond, followed by plenty of discussion on what they ended up choosing to respond with.

I can see it now: when the final NMA/MOM/797 design offers "narrowbody" economics on a widebody, a.net will come to realize that means it won't have the hot/high performance capability of the 757, and we will come right back around to the 757 re-tooling discussions. Rinse and repeat!

This is said only partially in jest.

So anyone have any idea on trivial things like window size? Seat width? Armrest width? Double bogie landing gear?

Just make a 757MAX with 10 to 15% fuel efficient than the A321LR. End of the Story.

Revelation wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

It will be very interesting to see what finally emerges.

I agree. Even if years from now we look back at it as a flop, it'll still be interesting to see what they think the best way to address this market is.

SEPilot wrote:

But in order for it to succeed it must beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin, or it is not worth the effort.

I feel the market window is tight, but I don't agree with this statement. The reality is that they Boeing has nothing to offer customers who want more range and/or capacity than 737-10 and less than 787-9 (the 787-8 is effectively dead to new entrants) and it's clear that is a market they need to address.

I don't think it's possible to beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin if your point of comparison is things that A321/A322 does well. I'm confident MOM will avoid the direct comparison by addressing range/capacity targets that A321/A322 can't do well.

For instance, we see airlines like DL and QF are very interested in NMA despite having A321 data at hand. To me this shows either (a) NMA beats A321 at its own game which I think is unlikely or (b) NMA offers range/capacity values A321 does not offer which I do think is likely.

If QF order the 797, it will be used to replace current model 737's flying routes predominantly in the 500-1500nm range.

So, if we assume QF like the 797 because of its economics, than we would have to suppose such an aircraft would to need to be competive with the A320NEO range of aircraft, just as much as it would need to be competitive with an A322.

travelhound wrote:

If QF order the 797, it will be used to replace current model 737's flying routes predominantly in the 500-1500nm range.

So, if we assume QF like the 797 because of its economics, than we would have to suppose such an aircraft would to need to be competive with the A320NEO range of aircraft, just as much as it would need to be competitive with an A322.

The original premise was not just the statement "QF like the 797 because of its economics" it was "But in order for it to succeed it must beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin".

The interviews with AJ suggest QF like the fact that NMA will offer more capacity than narrowbodies and quicker turn-around times than narrowbodies on both short range routes as well as regional routes too, along with state of the art efficiency.

I think narrowing down the discussion to beating the economics of a A320NEO or 737-MAX8 on a 500-1500nm route is asking too much of the NMA since that's not the market it is targeting. I think QF and DL and others realize that, and are still very excited by the NMA's prospects.

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

Inevitable posts about how the 797 is crap; just wait and see what's coming from Airbus; airlines are only buying it because of political pressure from Washington; sold at a loss. You know, business as usual.

It seems to me the 797 could me much more an attack on the 767/A330 replacement market, 250 seats up to 10 hours. That could be a plausible market. A question is the segment below that, won't the situation get out of hand there for Boeing (marketshare<35%).

keesje wrote:

It seems to me the 797 could me much more an attack on the 767/A330 replacement market, 250 seats up to 10 hours. That could be a plausible market. A question is the segment below that, won't the situation get out of hand there for Boeing (marketshare<35%).

It's too bad pdxlite stopped updating his MAX and neo website in 2015, but even then, it showed the market share for the two types moving inexorably closer to the traditional 50/50 split we saw in the NG and ceo eras. And that was without MAX-10, which sits in that "magic segment" of 200+ seats where you have consistently held is the only segment airlines will order in going forward (that during most of that time Airbus was the only offering in that segment I am sure had nothing to do with it ).

Since 2015, the MAX has improved it's position from 60/40 to 58/42. Sure, 2% doesn't seem like a whole lot, but considering in 2011 Airbus held a 88/12 market advantage, it does seem to show that despite it being a "60-year old platform that was outdated when it was originally launched" there still seems to be life - and interest - in the old girl yet.

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

Missed by the above valid likely new topics will be threads about how Boeing is effectively deceiving everyone by using Program Accounting on the 797.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

imthedreamliner wrote:

When this NMA or MOM or 797 saga is finally over, I really wonder what A.netters will discuss for hours. There will suddenly be a long silence...

Missed by the above valid likely new topics will be threads about how Boeing is effectively deceiving everyone by using Program Accounting on the 797.

Have a great day,

Ohhh, that's how Boeing will make the business case for the 797 work. I am kicking myself. It should have been so obvious!

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

It seems to me the 797 could me much more an attack on the 767/A330 replacement market, 250 seats up to 10 hours. That could be a plausible market. A question is the segment below that, won't the situation get out of hand there for Boeing (marketshare<35%).

It's too bad pdxlite stopped updating his MAX and neo website in 2015, but even then, it showed the market share for the two types moving inexorably closer to the traditional 50/50 split we saw in the NG and ceo eras. And that was without MAX-10, which sits in that "magic segment" of 200+ seats where you have consistently held is the only segment airlines will order in going forward (that during most of that time Airbus was the only offering in that segment I am sure had nothing to do with it ).

Since 2015, the MAX has improved it's position from 60/40 to 58/42. Sure, 2% doesn't seem like a whole lot, but considering in 2011 Airbus held a 88/12 market advantage, it does seem to show that despite it being a "60-year old platform that was outdated when it was originally launched" there still seems to be life - and interest - in the old girl yet.

The NEO vs MAX share hasn't moved for years, and that's makes it remarkable. The MAX is a very successful program, but still the NEO keeps the Markedshare year after year. That means the NEO outsells the MAX year after year (except in 2012).
Stitch .. you know very well that the MAX was launched in late 2011 and that's why the markedshare was the way it was. Using this as a reference point is just false and you know that.

What I miss most with pdxlite (aka use flood in Airliners.net) was the "Average / day (firm)" numbers" which really show the balance IMHO.
Since we haven't had that for three years I can tell you that at the end of 2015 the NEO had 1483 more firm orders.
At the end of February 2018 the NEO has 1718 more firm orders.
So that's that.

Is it not possible to simply (%) shrink the existing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 airframe to whatever size(s) are finalized?

Then, you already have the design, three fuselage options and a new return stream on the $32B, already invested in a CFRP design that now seems almost flawless.

uta999 wrote:

Is it not possible to simply (%) shrink the existing 787-8, 787-9 and 787-10 airframe to whatever size(s) are finalized?

Then, you already have the design, three fuselage options and a new return stream on the $32B, already invested in a CFRP design that now seems almost flawless.

If it were that simple, Airbus could then simply shrink the A350 and push it out of the market, right?

Stitch wrote:

And that was without MAX-10, which sits in that "magic segment" of 200+ seats where you have consistently held is the only segment airlines will order in going forward (that during most of that time Airbus was the only offering in that segment I am sure had nothing to do with it ).

Hi Stitch, is seems you are simply making things up here to prove a point.

Going into the 737-10, as being the bottom of the NMA segment, the sales (excluding 737-9 conversion) are what they are: unimpressive so far.

If we include the 737-7 and A319 in the marketshare overview, we probably have to add CS300 backlog/deliveries there.

And maybe we should remove the many "undisclosed" orders. They seem easy to "cancel", nobody is asking questions, but add up nicely in marketshare reports. Maybe they are more "commitments" or "options" really?

Revelation wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

It will be very interesting to see what finally emerges.

I agree. Even if years from now we look back at it as a flop, it'll still be interesting to see what they think the best way to address this market is.

SEPilot wrote:

But in order for it to succeed it must beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin, or it is not worth the effort.

I feel the market window is tight, but I don't agree with this statement. The reality is that they Boeing has nothing to offer customers who want more range and/or capacity than 737-10 and less than 787-9 (the 787-8 is effectively dead to new entrants) and it's clear that is a market they need to address.

I don't think it's possible to beat the A321/322 in efficiency by a significant margin if your point of comparison is things that A321/A322 does well. I'm confident MOM will avoid the direct comparison by addressing range/capacity targets that A321/A322 can't do well.

For instance, we see airlines like DL and QF are very interested in NMA despite having A321 data at hand. To me this shows either (a) NMA beats A321 at its own game which I think is unlikely or (b) NMA offers range/capacity values A321 does not offer which I do think is likely.

I think the A321/A322 is going to be more efficient at short range and the 797 (if launched) more efficient at long range. The question is, where does the crossover take place? I somewhere around think 2000nm needs to be the goal for Boeing.