Newbiepilot wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Boeing has an (come on, honestly!) vintage machine that even their sales people struggle to sell.

And that's the reason why 797 will never exist. The program is postponed for the press and the people to forget about it. I think it is already cancelled by the Boeing Board. They realized that they'll have to stick with the 737 (as well as losses from it) for the foreseeable future. I don't envy Boeing. They ran into a wall they never knew existed. Or could exist. And they don't have experience in jumping over it. Nobody does, actually. There has never been a time in history when airlines didn't need a newer type. But here we are, they don't. They want improvements of the existing types, and Boeing REALLY wringed 737 with MAX. I strongly believe they are now thinking about MAX NG, and what looked like a disaster (re-landing-gearing the 737) may actually be their only option. Very costly, very uncertain, but the only one they have.

Only on A.net is an airplane with 4500 orders and 43% market share vs its prime competitor seen as struggling to sell. Other than you not liking Boeing, how do you explain all the airlines quoted in news articles saying they are interested in the NMA? This is a big thread so I will forgive you for not reading post 1393.

BREECH seems to have a grievance with Boeing. I'm a Boeing fan (not as much as I was) but don't have any grievance for Airbus (neither for the A380, despite being a critic). The 737, for what it is, is selling well despite being outsold by the A320. And the fact that the 797/NMA has so much interest (including from Thomas Cook), shows that Boeing can still have a airplane in the middle of the market segment.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I fully expect technology to be reused across Boeing. They are talking about reusing 787 technology into the 777x, and then NMA. I expect that would find its way towards all future derivatives.

What Keesje is doing recurringly is turning the NMA discussion towards how great the A321 is (which while they are competitors, aren’t direct competitors) and then turning the discussion towards the 737 being insufficient and needing replacement despite the MAX approaching 5,000 orders.

Exactly. Boeing is likely to use the technology across the entire family, reducing the costs of development of the airplane and bringing commonality across the entire aircraft family. Therefore, any 787 technology which is used on a NMA will likely also be used on a future NSA.

And, about Kessje, I've said on another thread (here: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1391201&p=20327321#p20327321) that the fact that the A321neoLR does 90% of the 757 missions does not guarantee a priori that the A321neoLR will do 90% of the missions of the Boeing 797/NMA. They'll be completely different airplanes.

And what technology should that be that is so super special? The CFRP barrel construction is no industrial marvel and might be not the best choice for a 797 or NSA, as it is expensive at high volume, especially if you still need autoclaves. If you move to cold cured composites, you move to a new technology.

Or the more electric architecture, again that is something that you can order from a few tier 1 suppliers as you wish.

ikramerica wrote:

Too add to my point earlier, the reason the decision is “pushed back” until next year is, in my opinion based on the way things tend to work with launches, is that now that Boeing have final engine specs they will be presenting the two engines and two sizes to airlines during the airshow and afterward and working to secure many LOIs throughout the second half of 2018 to bring before the board in January.

AvWeek: UltraFan Concept Frozen As Rolls Throttles Up New Core says:

“The Advance3 is doing really well. The technology is performing as we thought it would, and it has now run at full take-off power,” says Andy Geer, project director for the UltraFan demonstrator program. Although the UltraFan and the new core are scalable to thrust levels from 25,000 lb. up to 100,000 lb. and beyond, the Advance3 and initial UltraFan demonstrators are designed to run at 80,000 lb.-plus to take advantage of the existing Trent 1000 and Trent XWB hardware used to make the hybrid demonstrator powerplants in the test effort. Full power for the Advance3 is therefore set at 84,000 lb. to match the fan system of the Trent XWB-84 donor engine.

Advance is also a stepping stone to the UltraFan, a very high bypass design which marries the same core to a large gear-driven fan to improve fuel burn by at least a further 5%. The UltraFan is targeted at entry-into-service in the mid-2020s and is aimed at Boeing’s new midsize airplane (NMA), as well as next-generation Airbus twin-aisle designs.

On UltraFan, the manufacturer “recently passed through the Stage 1 exit gate,” says Geer. “This essentially means the concept for the engine is frozen and locked, so we can move to the next stage of more detailed design and then component manufacture. So, this is a significant and exciting time for the program.” Initial ground tests of the UltraFan are set to begin in 2021.

We sure do live in interesting times.

Optimistically, we'll see an all-new NMA with two engine choices being announced no later than end-2019. One engine choice will be the CFM LEAP 1.5 which will be a conservative derivative and the other will be the RR UltraFan which is pretty much all-new and whose development we've been tracking via TechOps threads for at least the last five years.

The info above is the most definitive I've seen about UltraFan. Ground tests in 2021 make NMA 2025 EIS plausible. A geared turbofan coupled to state-of-the-art turbo machinery is just what the doctor ordered. Indeed it might be imperative if not mandatory because we read UltraFan is also being targeted to "next-generation Airbus twin-aisle designs".

Pessimistically, well, we'll get a 787 shell coupled to a scaled down wing box, scaled down landing gear and de-rated engines. That would be a DOA program, IMHO, and Boeing would be better off not bothering.

I think the text is not clear enough.

Advance runs at Trent XWB thrust levels and the current test engine Ultrafan will do so too. (initial Ultrafan demonstrators are designed to run at 80.000 lbs) And they achieved to finish the stage 1 design for that demonstrator engine.

Sure the idea (or to be more correct the only realistic option to hang the engine on) is to have the Ultrafan on the 797 but that would still be a 55% version of the demonstrator and as such a very new design based on the Ultrafan technology.

seahawk wrote:

I think the text is not clear enough.

Advance runs at Trent XWB thrust levels and the current test engine Ultrafan will do so too. (initial Ultrafan demonstrators are designed to run at 80.000 lbs) And they achieved to finish the stage 1 design for that demonstrator engine.

Sure the idea (or to be more correct the only realistic option to hang the engine on) is to have the Ultrafan on the 797 but that would still be a 55% version of the demonstrator and as such a very new design based on the Ultrafan technology.

Yes, all of that is pretty dissonant, especially considering the plan for Airbus to design the inlet, nacelle, thrust reverser and the pylon interface used to hang the UltraFan on to RR's Boeing 747 testbed!

Yet the text is there saying that the UltraFan is targeted towards NMA ( as well as an unnamed future Airbus twin aisle design ) and there really is no other opportunity we know of in that time frame.

Frankly the unnamed future Airbus twin aisle design makes more sense, given the now standard Airbus+RR pairing, and Airbus's investment in the components mentioned above.

I guess we'll know more in a year or so.

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

There seems to have been some a.net deep-thread-cleaning(TM) going on here, since I've been Away From Keyboard for a few days and can't find the post quoted below:

bob75013 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

Is this still true of the NG/MAX? Are they really using '60's systems still? How much improved (if at all)?

About the only thing the NG/ MAX share with it's earlier incarnations is the name 737

I think the authorities and all the engineers working to keep everything within the same certification boundaries would strongly, strongly disagree with that statement!

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

Oh yes they have.


Flyglobal

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

Passengers and Airlines both like the 767. It carries a decent amount of cargo.... Just stick a new wing, optimize the fuselage construction add new engines and be done with it...

Newbiepilot wrote:

Only on A.net is an airplane with 4500 orders and 43% market share vs its prime competitor seen as struggling to sell. Other than you not liking Boeing, how do you explain all the airlines quoted in news articles saying they are interested in the NMA? This is a big thread so I will forgive you for not reading post 1393.

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. Boeing 737 is struggling to sell. If you look a couple of decades earlier, Boeing had the WHOLE market and has been losing it. Their prime competitor has 25% more orders for the competing aircraft. And they sell more variants. And they didn't have to develop one variant they didn't want to develop (the -7) and one they REALLY didn't want to develop (the -10).

Airlines are very interested in the new NMA. What else can they say? That they are greasy old-timers who oppose progress? Ask Tim Clark if he wants a supersonic aircraft that takes 500 passengers over 10,000 miles in 2 hours. He will "show interest", I assure you. Right until he finds out the price and cost of ownership. And I'm sorry, Thomas Cook? They fly how many? 12 and 1/2 aircraft? Core customer for sure. And did you notice in your own quote, that Delta's Bastian and Qantas's Joyce are talking about two VERY different airliners. They all have no idea what they are talking about and they are "signalling interest" for one simple reason - the more types there are, the higher the discounts the airlines will get.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think the text is not clear enough.

Advance runs at Trent XWB thrust levels and the current test engine Ultrafan will do so too. (initial Ultrafan demonstrators are designed to run at 80.000 lbs) And they achieved to finish the stage 1 design for that demonstrator engine.

Sure the idea (or to be more correct the only realistic option to hang the engine on) is to have the Ultrafan on the 797 but that would still be a 55% version of the demonstrator and as such a very new design based on the Ultrafan technology.

Yes, all of that is pretty dissonant, especially considering the plan for Airbus to design the inlet, nacelle, thrust reverser and the pylon interface used to hang the UltraFan on to RR's Boeing 747 testbed!

Yet the text is there saying that the UltraFan is targeted towards NMA ( as well as an unnamed future Airbus twin aisle design ) and there really is no other opportunity we know of in that time frame.

Frankly the unnamed future Airbus twin aisle design makes more sense, given the now standard Airbus+RR pairing, and Airbus's investment in the components mentioned above.

I guess we'll know more in a year or so.

I´d say RR would surely love to supply the MoM, but I can not see them making 2025 (or to be more correct Boeing risking to sign contract for delivery in 2025) with the Ultrafan. In addition I see no business case for the engine makers that would work for GE with the LEAP 1.5 and RR with the Ultrafan. The RR Ultrafan would need a later EiS and a higher price for the engine but would offer a performance 2 full generations ahead of the original LEAP. GE on the other hand would be able to deliver early and for a reduced price, but would struggle to get a similar performance out of the LEAP 1.5. So if both get a deal, one can not sign it imho.

BREECH wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Only on A.net is an airplane with 4500 orders and 43% market share vs its prime competitor seen as struggling to sell. Other than you not liking Boeing, how do you explain all the airlines quoted in news articles saying they are interested in the NMA? This is a big thread so I will forgive you for not reading post 1393.

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. Boeing 737 is struggling to sell. If you look a couple of decades earlier, Boeing had the WHOLE market and has been losing it. Their prime competitor has 25% more orders for the competing aircraft. And they sell more variants. And they didn't have to develop one variant they didn't want to develop (the -7) and one they REALLY didn't want to develop (the -10).

Airlines are very interested in the new NMA. What else can they say? That they are greasy old-timers who oppose progress? Ask Tim Clark if he wants a supersonic aircraft that takes 500 passengers over 10,000 miles in 2 hours. He will "show interest", I assure you. Right until he finds out the price and cost of ownership. And I'm sorry, Thomas Cook? They fly how many? 12 and 1/2 aircraft? Core customer for sure. And did you notice in your own quote, that Delta's Bastian and Qantas's Joyce are talking about two VERY different airliners. They all have no idea what they are talking about and they are "signalling interest" for one simple reason - the more types there are, the higher the discounts the airlines will get.

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. All I needed to see was “737 is struggling to sell”

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

We just had a discussion of composites vs metallics here, so we scooped the scoop!

The skepticism around the EIS date is not new. Scott is doubling down on it, as if it is some sort of Revelation (tm). It would not surprise me that most everyone inside Boeing knows 2025 is not very realistic. Happens all the time in industry. Managers hang out an aggressive goal, worker bees do their thing knowing full well that eventually management will have to push out the end date.

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

We just had a discussion of composites vs metallics here, so we scooped the scoop!

The skepticism around the EIS date is not new. Scott is doubling down on it, as if it is some sort of Revelation (tm). It would not surprise me that most everyone inside Boeing knows 2025 is not very realistic. Happens all the time in industry. Managers hang out an aggressive goal, worker bees do their thing knowing full well that eventually management will have to push out the end date.

I think the last sentence stating 2026-2027 may even be unrealistic is interesting. I haven’t heard that.

Some supplier is going to be in trouble for going to Scott Hamilton and violating their NDA. If the lawyers find out, I wouldn’t want to be working at that supplier

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

We just had a discussion of composites vs metallics here, so we scooped the scoop!

The skepticism around the EIS date is not new. Scott is doubling down on it, as if it is some sort of Revelation (tm). It would not surprise me that most everyone inside Boeing knows 2025 is not very realistic. Happens all the time in industry. Managers hang out an aggressive goal, worker bees do their thing knowing full well that eventually management will have to push out the end date.

I think the last sentence stating 2026-2027 may even be unrealistic is interesting. I haven’t heard that.

Some supplier is going to be in trouble for going to Scott Hamilton and violating their NDA. If the lawyers find out, I wouldn’t want to be working at that supplier

Already some weeks (2 months ago) we had LH CEO say that the mOM will be rather the end of next decade (meaning 2027+) and as well Udzar with the same opinion. So nothing new. Ist only Boeing (Marketing) that keeps the figure. I say- if they do not lanuch soon and taking a risk down the road Boeing they will calculate forever.
At one time Boeing also has to say: so 'guys' (meaning the airliners) we will have to make it 80m$ instead of 70m$ - are you still interested?

The other reason why we see another year of Business case study: Boeing may have more Information about Airbus's rewing concept and this is probably alarming for the Business case.
Further, when the A330NEO can't be killed 'shortly' the gap MOM gap narrows even more.


Flyglobal

Flyglobal wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

We just had a discussion of composites vs metallics here, so we scooped the scoop!

The skepticism around the EIS date is not new. Scott is doubling down on it, as if it is some sort of Revelation (tm). It would not surprise me that most everyone inside Boeing knows 2025 is not very realistic. Happens all the time in industry. Managers hang out an aggressive goal, worker bees do their thing knowing full well that eventually management will have to push out the end date.

I think the last sentence stating 2026-2027 may even be unrealistic is interesting. I haven’t heard that.

Some supplier is going to be in trouble for going to Scott Hamilton and violating their NDA. If the lawyers find out, I wouldn’t want to be working at that supplier

Already some weeks (2 months ago) we had LH CEO say that the mOM will be rather the end of next decade (meaning 2027+) and as well Udzar with the same opinion. So nothing new. Ist only Boeing (Marketing) that keeps the figure. I say- if they do not lanuch soon and taking a risk down the road Boeing they will calculate forever.
At one time Boeing also has to say: so 'guys' (meaning the airliners) we will have to make it 80m$ instead of 70m$ - are you still interested?

The other reason why we see another year of Business case study: Boeing may have more Information about Airbus's rewing concept and this is probably alarming for the Business case.
Further, when the A330NEO can't be killed 'shortly' the gap MOM gap narrows even more.


Flyglobal

Thanks, I hadn’t seen the LH comments. This thread is so huge with lots of discussion unrelated to developments like that

Good to see some realism (although it was getting rather obvious imho) on the real EIS timing -if it is launched at all.Clearly the cost issue cannot be resolved at the moment.

Also good to see some realism in how long it takes to create a new engine from scratch - and work properly at EIS.

Potential move to metal fuse?I am no expert but I would have thought that this will highly compromise the heavily ovoid nature of the present speculated design.Much easier to do this in composites as I understand it.
If they go back to circular(ish)/metal perhaps another look at the 767 fuse? It would certainly help their cost conundrum.

It states that Boeing are to discuss the MOM gap further in the next few days.This will be interesting.

I know that much has been made about the size of the market and the business case for the 797. I thought that this article from Bloomberg was interesting perspective on how Boeing is viewing the financials. This quote in particular was interesting.

If this has already been discussed, I apologize - please delete the post. I didn't see any recent reference, but I also didn't do a robust search due to time constraints.

"The initial purchase of a jet represents about 30 percent of the lifetime costs of operating the aircraft, said Stan Deal, who heads Boeing’s new global services division."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... take-shape

BREECH wrote:

Thank you, I appreciate your kindness. Boeing 737 is struggling to sell. If you look a couple of decades earlier, Boeing had the WHOLE market and has been losing it. Their prime competitor has 25% more orders for the competing aircraft. And they sell more variants. And they didn't have to develop one variant they didn't want to develop (the -7) and one they REALLY didn't want to develop (the -10).

What on earth are you talking about? The 737 competed with the DC-9 then the MD-80 and then also with the A320. In the 60's and 70's you could include turboprops as competition also. What is the big deal with variants? Who said that Boeing didn want to develop the MAX 7 and REALLY didn't want to develop the MAX 10? The MAX 7 is just a shrunken fuselage of the MAX 8. The MAX 10 is a slightly streteched MAX 9 with a modified landing gear. The development programs for the varients are not expesnive at all.

Why is market share such a big issue to you (I cut it from the quote to save space)? All Boeing cares about is profit and ROI. If they are going to make 737 MAXs at or above the rate that they've ever produced 737s at for 15 years, why is this an issue? Who cares (unless you are keeping score like it is the World Cup of Airplanes) if they make this profit with 60% market share or 40% market share?

Back to the topic of this thread, why wouldn't a re-winged 767NEO, upgraded to FBW (and 787 style cockpit) work for MOM? Especially if they change the fuselage materials to lighter alloys. Are the other systems that much heavier than if they were designed today? The current 767 has greater range than the MOM has been talked about needing. Couldn't a lot of weight reduction be realized if the range was lowered, especailly when combined with much more efficient engines and better wings?

tlecam wrote:

I know that much has been made about the size of the market and the business case for the 797. I thought that this article from Bloomberg was interesting perspective on how Boeing is viewing the financials. This quote in particular was interesting.

If this has already been discussed, I apologize - please delete the post. I didn't see any recent reference, but I also didn't do a robust search due to time constraints.

"The initial purchase of a jet represents about 30 percent of the lifetime costs of operating the aircraft, said Stan Deal, who heads Boeing’s new global services division."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... take-shape

Very good find! Thanks!

The early comment:

What’s revolutionary about the so-called 797 is the gush of money that Boeing hopes to get not from making and selling the plane, but from keeping it in the air. The mid-market family would be the first Boeing jets designed to make money for the world’s largest planemaker long after the point of sale.

It means on the other side for the Business case: The Business case is so weak for the plane itself (in the traditional way) that Boeing will not be able to make money from just selling it, like they do with the 737/ 777 and the 787 (now). So they have to kind of 'subsidize' it with aftersales/ service future profits they would not need for the current 737 and probably no other of the current lineup. Reminds me a bit of the Ink Printers where you give away the hardware ‘for free’ and pay incredible prices for the ink.

I am of different opinion myself (in a 1 h cycling) if this is good or bad for the future.
Interesting.

Flyglobal

Flyglobal wrote:

It means on the other side for the Business case: The Business case is so weak for the plane itself (in the traditional way) that Boeing will not be able to make money from just selling it, like they do with the 737/ 777 and the 787 (now).

Your inference about the strength of the business case follows only if aftermarket support is a necessary condition of the business case.
Otherwise there's a sufficient reason for the aftermarket grab even if the business case closes on sales alone: profit maximization.

Even if aftermarket support is a necessary condition, I wouldn't infer this means the market for the product is "weak" in any meaningful sense.
Rather, I'd observe that A&B have launched only 3 clean sheet projects over the last generation, that all three of these suffered cost overruns and delays, two of which were basically catastrophic in scale (787 and A380).
The OEM's have, in short, upwardly revised the expected cost/risk profile of clean-sheet programs and are looking for new ways to fund them.

Given that goal, capturing after market profits makes total sense.
Up to now, the OEM's have created profits for others that freeride off of their investments. That's inefficient in the sense that it fails to align incentive for product development with costs. By bringing aftermarket profit in house, Boeing is capturing more of the true value of its investment.

Flyglobal wrote:

I am of different opinion myself (in a 1 h cycling) if this is good or bad for the future.
Interesting.

IMO this is unambiguously good for the future.
As aviation fans, we should hope for more, not less, investment in new designs. This makes new designs more likely.

I would argue that aviation generally, as a capital/infrastructure good, captures far less of the value it creates. Governments should be subsidizing aircraft development. They do, of course, in the form of NASA/EASA, but not on the scale that would be long-term efficient IMO.
This is a point I sometimes make about the A380: Yes I think it was a matter of national, non-corporate goals, but no I don't think that's a bad thing. Had the A380 been designed well, it would have conferred more benefits on the citizens of Europe than they have/will end up paying - by a long shot. It's just that government-subsidized projects have to think, to a large extent, in downstream commercial terms. Conservatives will say that will never happen but that's another argument...

Only in the fever swamp of A.net could a program that will probably finish 2018 with 5,000 firm orders and a backlog of six or so years be described as "things getting pretty ugly."

planecane wrote:

What on earth are you talking about?

seabosdca wrote:

Only in the fever swamp of A.net could a program that will probably finish 2018 with 5,000 firm orders and a backlog of six or so years be described as "things getting pretty ugly."

Please don't feed the troll. As Matt said earlier and I wholly endorse, this is a good case for the 'member ignore' feature.

planecane wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? The 737 competed with the DC-9 then the MD-80 and then also with the A320. In the 60's and 70's you could include turboprops as competition also. What is the big deal with variants? Who said that Boeing didn want to develop the MAX 7 and REALLY didn't want to develop the MAX 10? The MAX 7 is just a shrunken fuselage of the MAX 8. The MAX 10 is a slightly streteched MAX 9 with a modified landing gear. The development programs for the varients are not expesnive at all.

Are they!? Let's see. Boeing wanted to do a quick stretch and re-engine of 747-400 to make the -8. They planned to spend 500 mil. They ended up redoing the wing, the fuselage and most of electronics, and spent 10 times that much. "Modified landing gear" is a HUGE expense, especially on 737 where it's already tucked very tightly. And Boeing spent a lot more than they planned initially. All they wanted was just to re-engine the NG. They didn't want to develop the -7, because nobody wants it, just like nobody wants the A319. But they had to because their largest customer Southwest wanted the variant for (I believe) high and hot airports.

planecane wrote:

Why is market share such a big issue to you (I cut it from the quote to save space)? All Boeing cares about is profit and ROI. If they are going to make 737 MAXs at or above the rate that they've ever produced 737s at for 15 years, why is this an issue? Who cares (unless you are keeping score like it is the World Cup of Airplanes) if they make this profit with 60% market share or 40% market share?

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

planecane wrote:

Back to the topic of this thread, why wouldn't a re-winged 767NEO, upgraded to FBW (and 787 style cockpit) work for MOM? Especially if they change the fuselage materials to lighter alloys. Are the other systems that much heavier than if they were designed today? The current 767 has greater range than the MOM has been talked about needing. Couldn't a lot of weight reduction be realized if the range was lowered, especailly when combined with much more efficient engines and better wings?

The changes you are suggesting mean reworking the entire aircraft. FBW is not some plug-and-play box you connect to your existing airframe and fly happily ever after. Entire hydraulic and electric systems would have to be re-engineered. New wing means billions of investments. It'd be MUCH cheaper to develop a new 767, which has already been done in the form of 787. "Realizing a lot of weight reduction"... I don't even know what you're talking about. New materials, new manufacturing techniques? They all mean a whole new design of everything.

BREECH wrote:

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

This is unmitigated nonsense.

BREECH wrote:

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength.

Tell that to Apple and the iPhone. They make up less than 16% of the market in terms of unit sales, yet they capture over 90% of the total revenue.

BREECH wrote:

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

What a boatload of nonsense. I don't think market share per se is a thing which impacts revenues or profits. You can have 40% market share while having sustainable profits or a considerable revenue. Therefore, I don't think that the 737 MAX is in a very dire situation against the A320neo in questions of market share.
In fact, the 737 MAX 8 is close to parity with the A320neo in questions of market share.

Revelation wrote:

planecane wrote:

What on earth are you talking about?

seabosdca wrote:

Only in the fever swamp of A.net could a program that will probably finish 2018 with 5,000 firm orders and a backlog of six or so years be described as "things getting pretty ugly."

Please don't feed the troll. As Matt said earlier and I wholly endorse, this is a good case for the 'member ignore' feature.

Another of those recommendations which I will follow certainly. It seems that BREECH, by the way he trolls every post about Boeing, is really someone with a grievance with the company, as I said in a previous post.

BREECH wrote:

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

I shouldn't even respond, but this is factually false. While Boeing doesn't break down MAX orders, from all indications the 737-8 and A320neo are quite close to parity in the marketplace, with the A320neo getting a head start but the 737-8 having the upper hand in more recent campaigns likely due to availability. The only MAXes that are struggling are the stretches.

BREECH wrote:

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

Well, I guess that means that the A330, which is losing the race, is being pushed out of the segment.

Airbus fanboys -- your turn...

After market support always has a scary sound to me. Remember how well Delta took the new support ideas of GE.

seabosdca wrote:

I shouldn't even respond

Go with your gut.

BREECH wrote:

Are they!? Let's see. Boeing wanted to do a quick stretch and re-engine of 747-400 to make the -8. They planned to spend 500 mil. They ended up redoing the wing, the fuselage and most of electronics, and spent 10 times that much. "Modified landing gear" is a HUGE expense, especially on 737 where it's already tucked very tightly. And Boeing spent a lot more than they planned initially. All they wanted was just to re-engine the NG. They didn't want to develop the -7, because nobody wants it, just like nobody wants the A319. But they had to because their largest customer Southwest wanted the variant for (I believe) high and hot airports.

Market share is a big issue for any commercial enterprise. Market share is the only indicator of a product strength. Absolute numbers change all the time but the market share is a constant. And if you're losing the percentage, you're losing the race and will be pushed out of the market segment. Exactly what happened with 737 and low-cost carriers. Once the only choice, 737 now struggles to compete with A320.

The 747-8 was a stretch and re-engine to try and make the 747 close to par with the A380. The A380 was a MUCH newer design and had the advantage of huge size to bring CASM down. The 737NG was already close to par with the A320CEO family with the exception of takeoff performance of the 737-900 vs. the A321.

Boeing did re-engine the NG (along with some other improvements). The MAX 7 that "nobody" wants turned out to be LESS of a development then planned. It changed to be just a shrink of the MAX 8. Airbus also made the A319NEO. Did they do that against their will? Boeing's largest customer has said that the MAX 7 will likely make up 60% of thier fleet eventually. That will be around 500 planes. If they only profit $1 Million per aircraft, that will be a half a billion dollars. It certainly did not cost anything near that in development to shrink the MAX 8.

How do you know about this crazy cost for the MAX 10 gear modifications? They aren't using some kind of cutting edge design that requires state of the art, specialized manufacturing technology. It's a telescoping strut with the wheel mounted slightly aft that centers itself when off the ground. They aren't designing a new engine.

Market share is only a big issue for fanboys. If it was so important, Boeing could slash the price of the 737 and undercut the A320 by $20 million. The stock would crash and they'd barely make any profit (if any) but they could run around bragging about 90% market share.

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

......and......

"GE still unconvinced about demand for 797"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... d-for-797/

One issue with the 2026 timeline is the market, airlines cannot sit on their hands waiting for an a/c when pax need to fly now. Most purchases today are being leased for 10 to 15 years, so a purchase int the next year or so is one less in 2026, so as they say, time and tide waits for no one.

SelseyBill wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

......and......

"GE still unconvinced about demand for 797"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... d-for-797/

Looks like those engine proposals might not have been as helpful as Boeing had hoped.

SelseyBill wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

......and......

"GE still unconvinced about demand for 797"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... d-for-797/

I view this in the context of GE vs. RR (and maybe PW) approach. GE's optimal outcome would be providing a cheap(er) LEAP 1.5 as the exclusive option or as at least the first-available option. This scenario is low-risk and mostly upside for GE: if the NMA is a mediocre-seller they probably still cover costs; if it pops they hit paydirt.

Worst case for GE is being forced to catch up to Ultrafan to compete and/or just being left out.

So GE has a motive to say NMA doesn't justify a clean-sheet.

I'm encouraged by the Ultrafan article that Revelation kindly excerpted. Despite RR's difficulties lately, they're not pulling back on this ambitious project and whichever program first utilizes it will be in a good spot.

There's reason to hope that program is NMA but Boeing needs to be patient - 2027 is fine for the right engine. My recommendation for Chicago/Seattle soundtrack: https://youtu.be/rGKfrgqWcv0

Part of the business case for the NMA (or MOM or 797) is that Boeing needs a new plane to compete. The NMA will cover and compete with the largest models of the 320/321. It will also allow the 6 abreast new model when it comes along to be optimized as a smaller plane than otherwise. But first to see if it can be built for the targeted price.

We should be careful. We're kind of an echo chamber here and I wonder how much of the conversations we've had here the last couple weeks has manifested itself in other articles that we're now quoting. Wouldn't be the first time.

GE claiming their unconvinced about demand for a 797 could just be them posturing for a better position as well.

We will see what Boeing has to say on the matter at the end of this week

This was in response to a thread quoting an article about Boeing's temporary suspension of the program - seems Flyglobal won out before I got a chance to post this, so I'll leave it here.

Flyglobal wrote:

Moderators please take it to the 797 thread where we discuss it endles anyways, and the topic author should better look around first next time

Flyglobal

Why? It's breaking news - by this logic thousands of threads could be stuffed into a handful of other threads where no one would bother to check for stuff (or just assume it's the same old discussion from months/years earlier).

In any event - this was the logical step that I saw Boeing taking a year or two ago, especially once the A321NEO performance numbers started coming out and airlines began to jump on board. I saw it quickly becoming a game of chicken, and I don't think Boeing had upper hand - as in AB seemed to have some advantages in EIS and aren't developing anything new at the moment. Defining the 797 would pull the trigger on a competition they might lose themselves. Meanwhile the 321 is eating away at the potential market, and many airlines can't wait till the expected EIS for the 797 anyways.

With that in mind, even in a perfect world - I'm wondering if they have begun to question their ROI for the entire project as things currently sit. How many can they sell, and how many would be potentially lost to competition.

In any event - the 737 is BY FAR the most glaringly obvious project Boeing needs to dump money into right now, and will ALWAYS have infinite demand and ROI. If they play their cards right, they could easily match the capabilities of the A320 family for flexibility, and exceed it as it would be a clean-sheet design. In fact, they could even tie in a stretch variant (to the point where it's actually planned from the start, and highly efficient) into the program to cover the MoM issue at the same time.

I mean, if they're actually dropping the 797 development temporarily, what else are they going to be working on? The (current) MAX is MAX(ED) out, the 747 is dead, the their tanker is finishing up, and the 777X is well established and seemingly on-schedule/budget for now. It HAS to be a 737 replacement.

Or am I just losing my mind?

How can they do a 737 replacement now when they are selling the MAX, everyone in the backlog will simply delay delivery and try to switch, they need to deliver the backlog for cash flow funds.
I think the engineers and production folks love the idea of a 797 because they can use it to proof design and concepts for the eventual NSA, unfortunately, they got the sales people involved and rather than looking at this project as a stepping stone or loss leader into the NSA, they want it to stand on its own and make money, so....

Matt6461 wrote:

.........My recommendation for Chicago/Seattle soundtrack: https://youtu.be/rGKfrgqWcv0

Nice, "Matt6461"......

My choice however would be a bit more cautious......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyV22q8PfBA

SelseyBill wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

......and......

"GE still unconvinced about demand for 797"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... d-for-797/

Well considering GE is a failing pile of garbage that will be Chapter 7 bankrupt in the next few years, no surprise there.

Both P&W and RR would be smart to be the contenders here as this will bode well for both of their futures. Best of luck goes out to Boeing.

Matt6461 wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Looks like Boeing still faces some interesting challenges...

https://leehamnews.com/2018/07/16/farnb ... challenge/

......and......

"GE still unconvinced about demand for 797"

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... d-for-797/

I view this in the context of GE vs. RR (and maybe PW) approach. GE's optimal outcome would be providing a cheap(er) LEAP 1.5 as the exclusive option or as at least the first-available option. This scenario is low-risk and mostly upside for GE: if the NMA is a mediocre-seller they probably still cover costs; if it pops they hit paydirt.

Worst case for GE is being forced to catch up to Ultrafan to compete and/or just being left out.

So GE has a motive to say NMA doesn't justify a clean-sheet.

I'm encouraged by the Ultrafan article that Revelation kindly excerpted. Despite RR's difficulties lately, they're not pulling back on this ambitious project and whichever program first utilizes it will be in a good spot.

There's reason to hope that program is NMA but Boeing needs to be patient - 2027 is fine for the right engine. My recommendation for Chicago/Seattle soundtrack: https://youtu.be/rGKfrgqWcv0

RR can be quite relaxed with the Ultrafan, If things work perfectly they can hang it on the 797, if not maybe on the Airbus response and if not that then maybe on an A380NEO and if not that surely on the A350/787 by 2030-35.

The status of the 797 project is up in the air.

All decisions regarding the boards permission to offer the frame and the decision to launch the frame is moved to 2019. So if the 797 project is not shelved for the time being, the decision to move forward is shelved for the time being. It is only Boeing marketing that still talks about a possible EIS in 2025. 6 years for a clean sheet design. At least Boeing marketing has not learned from the 787 disaster. In 2019 we can expect the launch, or further delay of the launch, or simply the cancellation of the project.
Posters who were sure about a launch at Farnborough can now speculate about Paris 2019 for a launch.

I believe it is still up in the air how a possible 797 would look like and what materials would be used and if the all electric can be inexpensive enough for a bird like the 797. The possible sales of 4,000 frames materializes only if the 797 is "convertible", the ideas what that frame should be able to do is that different between the needs of the different customers.

BREECH, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

BREECH, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

seahawk wrote:

RR can be quite relaxed with the Ultrafan, If things work perfectly they can hang it on the 797, if not maybe on the Airbus response and if not that then maybe on an A380NEO and if not that surely on the A350/787 by 2030-35.

It's far from optimal to be doing demonstrators 2015-20, engine in ground test 2021, flying testbed 2022ish etc then not see any ROI till 2030-35.

It'd be really nice if a well defined target application showed up soonish, be it NMA or the Airbus response.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

RR can be quite relaxed with the Ultrafan, If things work perfectly they can hang it on the 797, if not maybe on the Airbus response and if not that then maybe on an A380NEO and if not that surely on the A350/787 by 2030-35.

It's far from optimal to be doing demonstrators 2015-20, engine in ground test 2021, flying testbed 2022ish etc then not see any ROI till 2030-35.

It'd be really nice if a well defined target application showed up soonish, be it NMA or the Airbus response.

Ultrafan is a technology demonstrator, RR never expected to field any production engine before 2025 the earliest. So, I think 2027-30 will work for them. And if it takes longer, there are enough technology programs from the Clean Sky initiative that will see technology move on.

But in the end one has to understand Advance and Ultrafan as technology levels that RR sees as ready for production from a certain year on. It is not as if RR is desperately searching a plane to hang their Ultrafan on.

seahawk wrote:

It is not as if RR is desperately searching a plane to hang their Ultrafan on.

I agree.

Architectural changes have a "gestation period", no doubt.

On the other hand, the commercial side has its influences on R&D.

If an eager customer with a good application shows up, you accelerate the spend and converge on the target application.

If no such thing happens, you probably decelerate the spend and keep the tech as general as possible so you have more possible applications.